Author: Manan Tandon

We are in 2024 and the Middle East is in complete disorder, and at the center of it all Israel which was formerly a dominant regional power now faces an existential dilemma.

With attacks from Hezbollah, missiles from Iran, and a political climate turning increasingly hostile, one can’t help but ask, how bad will it get for Israel? And more pressingly, can Israel survive as it’s gradually becoming a pariah state?

Recent events have brought Israel’s prolonged tension with Iran to a boiling point.

Following Iran’s latest missile attack, Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant vowed a “lethal” response. Gallant is serious, and so is Netanyahu, who is fresh off a conversation with Joe Biden discussing retaliation.

The rhetoric has grown sharper, this is no longer a cold war of covert operations and proxy conflicts, it’s gradually becoming a direct confrontation. But how many times can Israel go tit-for-tat with Tehran without triggering a regional inferno?

Israel’s strikes in Beirut and Tehran have thrown both nations into an even more dangerous cycle of escalation. And the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has eliminated one of the last key figures in Hezbollah’s leadership. While Israel’s military may celebrate that, it’s a hollow victory.

The former U.S. Army General and Director of the CIA, David Petraeus, attributed, “Hezbollah like all militant movements, thrives on martyrdom, killing Nasrallah doesn’t end Hezbollah, it galvanizes it”. He made this remark while discussing the complexities of combating Hezbollah and other militant groups, while highlighting that targeting leaders like him could lead to further radicalization rather than ending the group’s activities.

The situation gets even more complicated within Israel itself. A group of 130 Israeli soldiers has penned an ultimatum to their government, threatening to abandon their service unless a deal is made to secure the release of hostages.

These are soldiers willing to put their own military careers on risk, because they believe the current course not only endangers the hostages but fuels the conflict.

Netanyahu is struggling to hold together his coalition government and it stings when the backbone of Israel’s power, “military” turns around and says, “Reach an agreement or we’re stepping back”

The hostage situation isn’t just a humanitarian crisis, it’s more of a political time bomb.

If Netanyahu doesn’t shift gears, this internal rebellion could rip through the Israeli’s defense forces(IDF)and destabilize an already fragile system. Is Israel really in a position to lose soldiers at a time when it’s facing existential threats on every front? Can it afford to keep fighting without addressing the plight of these hostages?

Israel’s problems, of course, don’t end with its enemies. Increasingly, the international community views Israel with disdain. Western nations, long Israel’s supporters, are becoming weary of its policies.

The continuous military operations, settlements and disregard for international law all of these adds to a narrative that Israel is becoming more or a rogue state rather than a democracy under threat.

For all its military might, Israel can’t survive in isolation. The U.S. still backs Israel for now. But for how long? With mounting pressures from global organizations, human rights groups, and even internal dissent, Israel’s pariah status is quickly becoming a reality. And a nation cut off from its allies, no matter how powerful, eventually finds itself vulnerable.

Israel has survived countless wars, terrorism, and waves of international criticism, but what we’re witnessing now is completely different.

The combination of escalating conflicts with Iran, the assassination of key figures like Nasrallah, internal dissent among soldiers, and growing international isolation puts Israel in a precarious position.

The question is not just whether Israel can win its battles but whether it can survive the costs of winning.

With each missile strike, each political misstep, and each alienated ally, Israel is digging itself deeper into a hole that may soon be impossible to climb out of.

And as the situation worsens, one often wonders, how much longer can this last?

As I sit here today on British soil, I can’t help but contemplate the two extremes of 20th-century ideology: communism and fascism. It’s a topic that intrigues me the most.

I’m struck by the fact that many have long held strong opinions on the matter. Back in 1939, a staggering 74% of the British public sided with communism over fascism in an opinion poll. Fast forward to today, and the ideological needle hasn’t stopped moving.

In a recent YouGov poll, 80% of Brits, when forced to choose, said they would back communism over fascism, once the neutral parties were excluded.

That’s a striking figure, especially in a nation with a long history of scepticism toward radicalism.

Here we are, with Labour voters overwhelmingly in favour of communism by 93%, and even Tories, the guardians of free markets and liberties, siding with communism by a 59 to 41 margin.

The question arises: why are the British so comfortable backing a system that, in many other parts of the world, evokes memories of failed five-year plans? To understand why so many Brits are siding with communism, it’s important to look back at history.

In 1939, when that first poll was conducted, the world was on the brink of war. Fascism, embodied by the likes of Hitler and Mussolini, was wreaking havoc across Europe. Communism, on the other hand, was seen by many as the only real opposition to fascism’s genocidal state.

But in today’s Britain, the situation is ambiguous. Fascism is a relic of history books, while communism has worn many faces over the years, from the dictatorships of Stalin and Mao to the more democratic socialism of modern Europe. The image of communism as the people’s champion still dominates a wide electorate, particularly those disillusioned with capitalism’s recent failures, such as the housing crisis, wealth inequality, and austerity measures.

Now, it’s fascinating that 93% of Labour voters chose communism. While Labour has long positioned itself as a centre-left party, its base clearly has a growing appetite for something more radical. Perhaps it’s a reaction to years of Conservative rule, where centrist promises often felt like patchwork solutions to systemic issues. Or maybe it’s the younger generation, raised on ideals of equality and fairness, who see capitalism as inherently exploitative and believe communism could deliver a fairer world. It’s hard to ignore that younger voters, particularly those who supported remaining in the European Union, are twice as likely to back communism over fascism.

But what really stands out is that even among Tory voters, 59% would opt for communism. Have we reached a point where the traditional right is being pulled toward collectivism out of sheer disappointment? When even the defenders of Thatcherism (often characterised by free-market policies, tax cuts, and opposition to trade unions) are leaning toward communism, something in the British psyche has clearly shifted.

Unsurprisingly, Reform UK voters, the flag-bearers of Brexit, are the only group who plump for fascism. A narrow margin of 55%, but still, they seem to feel fascism’s authoritarian order has more to offer than communism’s promise of equality. This might reflect their anti-establishment stance, where the appeal of a strong hand leading the nation through chaotic periods maintains control.

So, it’s not as if Britain is on the verge of becoming the new Cuba or North Korea. The reality is that most people probably aren’t deeply committed to either ideology.

It’s about rejecting the horrors of authoritarian nationalism rather than fully adopting Marxist policies or a centrally planned economy.

If I had to pick, I suppose I’d fall in line with the majority of Brits and choose communism, albeit miserably.

Not because I possess a secret desire to see us all living in state-assigned flats under the watchful eye of the Party, but because fascism, with its emphasis on supremacy, control, and violent oppression, is simply a dead end.

At least communism, in its purest form, promises equality, though we know from history that such promises often come at a heavy price.

Ultimately, these results highlight a broader truth about modern Britain. We are a people disillusioned with the status quo and caught in the uncomfortable space between nostalgia for a simpler world and fear of what might come next.

So, when asked to choose between two of history’s darkest alternatives, we side with the one that, despite its flaws, still offers hope no matter which part of the world we inhabit.

While reading one of the columns today, a line sharply caught my eye: “Social justice is not about giving equal opportunities; it’s about equality in opportunities be it political, economic or administrative”

This statement churns up one of the most contentious issues at hand: “reservation”. A word that symbolises democratisation in itself, both democracy and reservation form the dynamic duo of social progress.

Democracy is a system where everyone is treated equally and freely, while reservation serves as a little trick that reminds us some are more equal than others.

Democracy is a right, often the pride of nations that grant it.

The concept of reservation similarly upholds the idea of equality, though it quietly whispers, “We will surely give you a head start, just don’t expect to win”. And here we stand,  in a democracy that proudly proclaims equality, while reservation quietly admits the system’s flaws.

The ethos of ‘Antyodaya’, or commonly known as ‘the doctrine of the last person first’ is deeply rooted in the morals of governance. But what happens when an advertisement is published saying, “Lateral entry into civil services without any provision for reservation”?

Today, this ad has been withdrawn, following MoS Jitendra Singh’s request to the UPSC for a U-turn. Eyebrows have been raiser, questioning whether this or the earlier one was the right move.

This ad clearly stated that UPSC is looking for talented and motivated applicants who can contribute to the nation- building process. Often, these banners are cloaked with judgments of ‘Merit’. Though all castes are free to apply, unfortunately, many are eventually fated to be swept away.

We stand at a critical juncture where we aspire to honouring cultural narratives, fold our hands, and walk in unison to paint a new canvas of history. Ironically, advertisements  like these erode the very spirited morale of the caste community.

In my opinion, lateral entry into the UPSC is indeed a great move to encourage individuals from diverse backgrounds and to welcome fresh perspectives in tackling pressing issues.  But who will these individuals be? Do we truly know if justice is being granted? It is conventionally expected that the interviewers must be completely unbiased in their approach to selecting candidates, regardless of creed, caste and social position.

The promise of lateral entry into civil services may be bold new strokes in governance, but it risks smudging the details that ensure every voice is heard.

Well, in this ongoing game, it’s not just about who earns a position at the table but who eventually designs the future.

While treading down the path to history, we see an assortment of alliances and betrayals between different countries. Each providing lessons of the shaky nature of political backing.

The commencement of disastrous division and instability rose post cold war, where nations were pressured to pick sides between the United States and Soviet Union, vis-à-vis either capitalism or communism.

Economic sanctions, geopolitical tension and proxy wars left permanent prints on the headlines.

Whilst some nations attempted to stay non-aligned such as India, others were caught in the web of influence between competing superpowers.

Fast forward today, it’s the same circus with new clowns. The rise of China as an ascending global power has created more room for rivalries to enter and alliances to settle.

Well, these are instances when countries are divided by their power struggles, forcing nations to take sides or face the brunt of blocking the shadow. The Russia-Ukraine war serves as a dramatic reminder of this tightrope.

But what happens when such a situation occurs internally ? dragging neighbouring countries into the fray.. Where they drown in dilemma, support the government or the people ?

Shedding light upon the recent crisis in Bangladesh has sent shockwaves and generated a sense of euphoria all over the nation. Yet, there’s India standing by with an air of silence, as if it Is waiting to see if this new polity comes with a user manual.

Should they become Pro-Hasina with, Pakistan and China vying for this statement or otherwise stand with the people, advocating for democratic ideals risking further chaos and instability?

Supporting a government can mean endorsing stability in the nation but at a hefty cost of suppressing the will of the people.

In a world where the lines of domestic and international issues blur like a painting in a rainstorm, the question of whom to support to ensure safety and stability holds a lot of water.

As nations get caught up in this web, they must weigh their choices carefully, considering both immediate and long-term implications.

Ultimately, the path to a sensible settlement in a divided world is nuanced. It often requires balance of pragmatism and principle.

To put it more accurately, the world of geopolitics required a readiness to face the uncertain outcomes of each speech, action and decision.

So mastering the act of supporting and being saved demands vigilance, like a watchful scene, because in this game, the only certainty is well, uncertainty.