Category: Opinion

Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “The will to power is the very essence of life.”

The power race is perhaps the most defining yet destructive force plaguing our world today.

At it’s core, the very desire for power is inherently wrong. Power drives human ambition, innovation, and progress. But when the pursuit of power becomes unrestrained, it morphs into a zero-sum game. The race for dominance among superpowers like the United States, China, and Russia drives this point home. Henry Kissinger warned of this cycle when he said, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” This intoxicating pursuit leads nations to justify proxy wars, military build-ups, and economic manipulations.

Certainly, it’s becoming a hotbed of power plays. At the heart of this chaos is the US-China rivalry, a no-holds barred competition that is spilling over into every corner of the globe. While China’s Belt and Road initiative is busy redrawing the influence map. Add in the Quad and AUKUS alliances flexing in the Indo-pacific, and it’s a tug-of war with no end in sight. How can we forget the Israel-Palestine conflict? Once, a regional issue is now a pawn in the broader game of this power politics. With the US standing staunchly behind Israel, whereas Iran and Turkey championing Palestine, the war is a tragic stage for competing agendas. Add ‘ America first policy’ into the mix where alliances are transactional, and this will make the plot even thicker.

Well, this race even has it’s fingerprints all over the corporate world, where multinationals pull more strings that governments ever could. Arendt was right when she said that, “Power is actualised only where word and deed have not parted company,” yet corporations today seem to have parted ways with accountability. So, can we blame them? After all, capitalism itself is a power game, one designed to favour competition.

Social media has made this literal when we say Power is everywhere, because it comes from everywhere. Turning every interaction into a ground for status and validation. The quest for followers isn’t just a harmless pastime, it’s the epitome of society’s obsession with dominance. “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” But on such platforms, we are practically handing over the consent, aren’t we? The paradox of power is relational. It’s value depends on someone else having less. Kofi Annan captured this tension perfectly, “You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course, you can do a lot more with power.” The irony is that cooperation, not domination is what we desperately need, from climate change to inequality, you name it.

Ultimately, the pursuit of power isn’t the issue but instead how we pursue it. In Gandhi’s words, “Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent than the one derived from fear of punishment.” If the power race could shift from domination to collaboration, perhaps it wouldn’t be the world’s greatest issue but its greatest solution.

Until then, we’ll continue running this exhausting race, only to find that no one truly wins.

North Korea, once known as the ‘Hermit Kingdom’ for it’s isolationism, is stepping out of the shadows in a way that is sending shockwaves across the global stage.

Pyongyang and Moscow have signed a ‘Mutual military aid’ pact alarming nations worldwide. The treaty, marks a significant collaboration between the two nations since the Cold War and strengthens ties between Kim Jong Un’s regime and Putin’s embattled Russia.

Intelligence reports indicate that 12,000 North Korean troops have already been deployed to bolster Russian forces in Ukraine, with another 50,000 troops from both nations reportedly preparing for a joint offensive from Russia’s Kursk region. This has been ratified by Russian authorities last week, the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership treaty is set to come into force once documents are exchanged, as confirmed by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

This alliance isn’t just a footnote in global politics, it is a radical shift that has drawn significant reactions from the United States, China and South Korea. It is a story of power play, opportunism, unintended consequences, exposing the international order’s fragility and unpredictable ambitions of such repressive regimes.

For Russia, whose caught up in a protracted and costly war with it’s neighbour, this alliance with North Korea seems like a lifeline. It is indeed desperate for ammunitions, manpower and international backing. Moscow has found a willing partner in Kim, whose regime is equally isolated but eager to assert on a global stage.

However, the question that arises is, whether this is a genuine partnership or just Russia’s drive of desperation? Well, unsurprisingly and clearly, Moscow is exploiting Pyongyang’s vulnerabilities to sustain it’s war efforts, while Kim seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that he’s being used as yet another pawn in a broader game of chess. The danger that lies for North Korea, is that this transactional bond could leave him even more isolated in the long run.

China, North Kore’s traditional ally is closely watching this alliance with great unease. Beijing’s ambitions to dominate East and South Asia by 2049 hinges on maintaining stability in it’s neighbourhood. Yet, Kim’s growing alignment with Putin disrupts this strategy.

Pyongyang’s newfound assertiveness towards Russia threatens to upset this balance of power on the Korean peninsula. To be fair, Beijing is power-hungry but at the same time Pragmatic. While it openly supports North Korea’s survival as a buffer state, it does not want Kim to overshadow its ambitions in the region.

As far as the United States is concerned, this North Korea-Russia axis poses a challenge. Trump’s campaign promise to end the Ukraine war within 24 hours now seems increasingly implausible, as North Korean arms shipments provide Russia with the means to prolong the conflict. The U.S must definitely tread carefully. Any misstep could escalate tensions with both Russia and China, complicating Washington’s efforts to manage crisis in multiple theatres. The former Biden administration’s focus has been on sanctions and diplomacy, but these tools may prove insufficient against the growing alignment of authoritarian regimes.

South Korea, has expressed it’s frustration with Russia’s actions, calling it ‘bellicose and irresponsible’. Seoul has called on Moscow to halt its military cooperation with North Korea, criticizing the “cannon fodder” policy that sees North Korean soldiers being used to shore up Russian forces. A stronger, more militarised North Korea not only threatens the peninsula’s fragile peace but also undermines Seoul’s security and regional aspirations.

The international community has long sought to pressure North Korea into abandoning its isolationism through sanctions. However, the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership treaty demonstrates Pyongyang’s ability to sidestep these measures by forging opportunistic alliances. Yet, this strategy carries risks. If North Korea overplays its hand, it could face even harsher sanctions and deeper isolation, potentially forcing it to seek assistance from the very global powers it now defies.

Whether this marks a new era of power for North Korea or its descent into further isolation remains to be seen. For now, the world can only prepare for the repercussions of this dangerous game.

Recently, I was looking at a contemporary development of Chagos Archipelago, a group of seven atolls in the Indian ocean. It’s a story of a forgotten paradise, filled with betrayal, exploitation and heartbreak.

If we tred our steps back to the 1960’s, the inhabitants, ‘Chagossians’ were torn from their homeland and have been fighting for decades to reclaim their identity and dignity. Their struggles echoes the pain of other such communities around the world who have been victims of forced deportation and unjust colonial policies.

Recent calls for reparations stir up the age-old questions of accountability and justice.

But the question is, Can any amount of compensation right the egregious wrongs committed here? Or is this “treaty” that has been recently signed on October 3, 2024 is just another cleverly disguised diplomatic sleight of hand?

Let’s not mince words: the UK forcibly removed thousands of Chagossians from their homeland between 1968 and 1973, not for the Chagossians’ benefit, but to accommodate a U.S. military base on Diego Garcia, which is the largest and the southernmost island of the Archipelago. This was done in exchange of $14 m discount on the Polaris nuclear missile.

Well, the agreement was clear, “Keep Chagos “clean and sanitised” of indigenous life” . More than 1,500 Chagossians were displaced to Mauritius, the Seychelles, and the UK, left to discover nothing but a hostile world with no resources and no support, while their homeland became an exclusive military zone, a place they would only dream of returning to.

In there own Creole language, Chagossians categorised themselves as “Sagren”, which means torn from their homeland.

These words hang heavy with betrayal, telling us how an entire community was robbed of its identity, family, and heritage. The islanders’ enforced exile and the military occupation of their homeland reflect the kind of callous imperialism most nations pretend to have outgrown.

But why now, after decades of denial and neglect, can UK make for all this lose time?

Now, as Mauritius and the UK sit down to negotiate the fate of the Chagos Archipelago, we must ask ourselves if this is really a genuine attempt at justice. What real guarantees does the UK offer that it will adhere to these commitments, let alone apologies to the Chagossians for their unimaginable suffering?

Imagine generations growing up in exile, watching their elders talk about a home they’ve never seen but still fiercely call their own.

The Chagossians who live in Crawley, Sussex in the UK still face severe socio-economic challenges, racism and are often treated as second-class citizens. Many Chagossian families in Crawley, where there is a significant population, live in poverty, struggling to access healthcare and education, still dreaming of the life they could have had in their paradise.

The irony is almost poetic, the UK, which prides itself as a promoter of democracy and human rights, has held on to its last colony in Africa, refusing to let go of its imperial past.

Well, the latest UK-Mauritius treaty negotiations over the Chagos Archipelago represent a significant development in the decades-long dispute.

These talks could lead to a historic transfer, and the UK has reportedly included provisions for reparations, which would cover compensation for the harm inflicted upon the Chagossians during their forced displacement. However, despite these promising steps, Chagossians feel deeply sidelined, voiceless and powerless in the negotiations.

Chagossian leaders and activists argue that they remain largely excluded from direct involvement in these talks, which are predominantly between British and Mauritian officials. For Chagossians, whose forced displacement and exile have left them scattered, the sense of being ignored persists.

As Olivier Bancoult, a prominent Chagossian leader, stated, “We are the ones who were displaced. Why are we not the ones negotiating our future?”

There are two main reasons Chagossians feel neglected. First, the discussions primarily focus on state-to-state interests and the logistics of transferring sovereignty from the UK to Mauritius, rather than on the Chagossian community’s right to return or reparations.

The potential return of the islands to Mauritius does not necessarily guarantee that Chagossians will be allowed to resettle, nor does it outline a specific framework for addressing their long-term social and economic needs, both of which are crucial for any meaningful reparations.

Second, while Mauritius has repeatedly expressed support for Chagossians’ rights to return, Chagossian leaders fear their community’s interests may become secondary to broader geopolitical goals.

Although Mauritius has pledged to protect their rights, Chagossians question whether the government would prioritise their needs once the islands are under its control.

For many, the ultimate hope is not just to reclaim land but to rebuild a self-sustaining community on their ancestral homeland, something that current negotiations still fall short of ensuring.

In essence, the UK-Mauritius treaty may seem like progress on paper, but for the Chagossian community, it remains a symbolic gesture unless their rightful place at the table is respected.

The treaty does mark a step forward but the road to real justice remains a long one.

India and Canada have long been seen as friendly nations, knitted with democratic values and strong cultural ties. However, the recent diplomatic blow-up between Canada’s PM Trudeau and India threatens to affect this partnership. The tensions are not just political but are permeated in historical grievances, ethnic politics and conflicting national interests.

Firstly, the core of this tension is Canada’s downright reluctance to crack down on Khalistani separatism, a movement that ‘s so relevant in India today as a dial-up internet. But in Canada? Well, it’s alive and kicking as always.

Canada’s dismissiveness towards India’s concerns over pro-khalistani activities is not just a diplomatic snub, it’s a slap in the face. The Sikh community, though dominating just 2% of Canada’s population, wields significant political weight. As Trudeau himself puts it, “Canada is one of the most diverse countries in the world, and Sikh community is an integral part of that diversity”, while some translate it as their potential vote banks and a mere political strategy, rather than some high-minded dedication to diversity. Because in this cold, calculated world of electoral politics, Khalistan is a card Trudeau won’t give up easily.

Secondly, India’s response to Trudeau’s wild accusation has been unforgiving. Describing the claims as politically motivated, India has shown that it’s not about letting it’s reputation be dragged through the mud without a fight. Cancelling visas, expelling diplomats, India’s message is clear, ‘Don’t bite the hand that holds your diplomatic goodwill’.

With both nations being influential players in the global arena, India in G20 and Quad while the latter being in G7 and the Five eyes alliance, this squabble could soon begin to force other nations to pick sides as well.

While the diplomatic punches keep flying, the economic impact has been mere simmer instead of a full-explosion. For instance, Canadian pension funds have pumped around $75 billion into India’s economy, and both countries stand to lose if they let this ruckus spill over into trade and investment.

However, let’s not pretend that money is immune to political pressure. Already, trade talks have grounded to a halt, and it won’t be long before the private sector starts feeling the pinch as well.

Another considerable point is the education exchange between the two countries. Indian students flock to Canada in droves, with one in every seven Indian students studying abroad choosing the Great White North. These aren’t just warm bodies filing the seats they are rather soft power conduits. But if this feud drags on, we might witness fewer students heading towards the west, cutting off an invaluable link in diplomatic relations.

Well, this diplomatic mess can only be cleaned up with one thing and that’s ‘Dialogue’. But not the kind where both nations talk past each other.

India and Canada need to sit down, face the hard truths and get real about the cost of letting this standoff get out of control.

Political polarization has always been the hottest trend in pattern, and the chambers are the places to be. Forget about engaging in meaningful conversations with differing viewpoints, these days- it’s all about retreating into your bubble, cancelling anyone who dares to disagree and building ideological walls higher than ever before.

Political leaders worldwide are mastering the art of ignoring valid opinions, preferring instead to dismiss arguments that don’t fit their narratives.

The governance challenges accompanied by contentious campaigns as the backdrop, the stage is set for a drama of epic proportions where no one listens, and everyone yells.

Social media is becoming the fairy godmother to this havoc, turning platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram into tailor-made chambers.

We are all becoming experts in ignoring anything that doesn’t fit into our pre-existing beliefs.

It is the very own “us” vs “them” mentality.

Let’s look at the Partisan circus across countries:

If you’re looking for a prime example of political polarization, look no further than the United States.

The current spectacle involves former president Donald trump and president Joe Biden, whose lives are now akin to a soap opera.

Trump, currently juggling multiple indictments ranging from mishandling classified documents to allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election results, remains as polarizing as ever.

His legal woes have done nothing to diminish his star power within the Republican party. If anything, they’ve only amplified his status as the victim of a supposed “deep state conspiracy”.

On the flip side, Biden’s administration is stumbling through it’s own set of crises. Recent footage of Biden’s “malfunctions” and his infamous gibberish speeches have given critics endless fodder.

Let’s not forget the media’s role in all this, Conservatives love to highlight Trump’s legal battles and recent shooting incident as proof of a biased justice system. Meanwhile, liberal networks like CNN can’t get enough of calling for accountability and denouncing political violence.

The Indian way

In one corner, we have the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who’s been accused of turning the dial up on Hindu nationalism to eleven.

The BJP’s policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act(CAA) and the revocation of Article 370 are being slammed by critics as delightfully exclusionary.

Apparently, making laws that favor one religious over another is the latest fashion statement in Indian politics. On the other hand, we have the INC and other opposition parties who have donned their capes to save secularism and minority rights.

This discourse, however has become vitriolic, with little room for nuanced debate or middle ground.

The European Context

Europe is not immune to these trends either.

The 2024 elections for the European parliament have highlighted deep divisions between pro- European Union(EU) parties and Eurosceptic factions (being opposed to increasing powers of EU).

In countries, like Italy and Hungary, populist leaders such as Giorgia Meloni and Viktor Orban have rallied against EU regulations and immigration policies, tapping into nationalist sentiments.

Conversely, pro-EU leaders like Macron of France and Olaf Scholz of Germany advocate for greater European integration and possess liberal democratic values.

Well, the consequences of political polarization are troubling. Governance becomes increasingly difficult due to the erosion of bipartisan cooperation.

The 2024 elections around the world highlight the deepening effect of polarization that poses significant challenges to democratic governance.

So in thought, political polarization is not a result of differing opinions, but rather failing to respect and engage with those differences.

And this too reminds me of a leader’s words that how “we must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools”

Well, the choice is ultimately ours!

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.