Irony in Motion: Bernie the Capitalist Guardian, Trump the Oligarchic Wrecking Ball:

History has identified six dominant forms of oligarchic rule that have shaped societies across different eras:

1. Plutocracy – rule by the wealthy elite or billionaires

2. Technocracy – rule by experts and technocrats

3. Stratocracy – rule by military officials

4. Theocracy – rule by religious authorities

5. Corporate Oligarchy – rule by CEOs and business cartels

6. Criminal Oligarchy – rule by underworld networks or mafia-like syndicates

With the exception of criminal oligarchies, most of these forms have, over the last century, been assimilated—either openly or subtly—into various socio-political and economic systems. Today, nearly every nation exhibits traits of one or more of these oligarchic structures embedded within their governance and societal frameworks.

However, in post-Marxist Russia, a significant departure has occurred: criminal oligarchs have risen to dominate over all other types. This rise can be traced to the collapse of communism, the economic chaos of the 1990s, and the authoritarian consolidation under Vladimir Putin. Within this model, criminal oligarchy became not just influential but foundational. There is widespread belief—especially within Western political discourse—that even American presidential elections have been influenced by these criminal oligarchs, operating under the guise of "Russian influence."

Since the outbreak of the Ukraine war, anxiety among Western neoliberal societies, especially in Europe, has intensified. Many now openly worry about the infiltration of Russian criminal oligarchs into Western economies and business networks. Media and political commentators in these countries have even speculated about a covert alliance between Putin and Trump, with some going so far as to frame Trump as a Putin proxy. While no conclusive evidence has emerged to prove such a direct link, the narrative persists and continues to gain traction in Western policy and media circles.

At the root of this concern lies a deeper fear: that Western democratic capitalism could gradually mutate into a Russian-style criminal oligarchy. This fear isn’t unfounded. Under Trump, and through the influence of a narrow circle of techno-billionaires, America has shown signs of sliding toward a blend of technocracy, plutocracy, and corporate oligarchy. These trends point to a disturbing realignment of American political and economic structures—away from open-market capitalism and toward an increasingly centralised oligarchic power structure.

To evaluate whether a society is becoming oligarchic, five critical questions are often posed:

1. Does a small group of individuals control wealth, politics, and media?

2. Are elections free, fair, and competitive?

3. Can ordinary citizens influence major policy decisions?

4. Is dissent tolerated without retaliation or punishment?

5. Is economic mobility realistically achievable for most people?

By the second term of his presidency, Donald Trump and his inner circle had answered 'yes' to the first question and 'no' to the remaining four—a clear indicator of oligarchic drift. In response, Senator Bernie Sanders launched a public campaign centred on “fighting oligarchs in America,” a message that has increasingly resonated with disillusioned citizens across the political spectrum.

The deeper irony of oligarchy lies in its superficial resemblance to capitalism, while in reality, it undermines the foundational values of a capitalist economy. It:

Transfers ownership from competitive markets to entrenched family

or cartel networks

Replaces the profit motive with power consolidation among elites

Turns open markets into regulated enclaves shaped by backroom deals

Elevates corporate dominance into the unchecked supremacy of a few

oligarchs

Subverts regulation through tariff manipulation and state favoritism

Transforms meritocracy into identity-based preferences (race, class,

gender)

Restricts global free trade in favour of nationalism and protectionism

Among the core principles of American capitalism, the only two that Trump and his circle have not yet targeted directly for dismantlement are consumerism and commodification. These remain intact, largely because they serve as the economic lifeblood of elite capital accumulation.

As a result, Trump’s tenure has hollowed out key structures of American capitalism, replacing them with an increasingly oligarchic model dominated by a small, unaccountable elite. His actions represent a direct betrayal of the philosophical and structural foundations laid by the original architects of American capitalism.

This trend is starkly illustrated by figures like Elon Musk, who—under Trump’s administration—was empowered to act in ways that flout democratic oversight, labor regulations, and public accountability. Musk’s disregard for checks and balances exemplifies the rise of the corporate-criminal hybrid oligarch: one who merges technological dominance with political impunity.

Thus, the historical irony could not be greater: Trump’s far-right business cartel is systematically dismantling American capitalism, while Bernie Sanders—a democratic socialist—is one of its most visible defenders, fighting to protect it from collapse into oligarchic authoritarianism.

Bernie Sanders, acrylic and charcoal on paper.

A Nation Destroyed for the Mullahs, by the Mullahs

After the Pahalgam attack, a writer and artist friend of mine remarked:

"India did what Pakistan once only dreamed of—bombing terrorists who pose as Mullahs."

I asked him, "Which Pakistan?"

He replied without pause, "The Pakistan that Lahore once was…"

Back in 1929, Lahore was the cradle of a dream. It was there that the historic call for Poorna Swaraj—complete independence—was made, a defining moment in India's freedom struggle. Lahore, then, was a city of poets, intellectuals, revolutionaries, and cultural icons. It breathed ambition and art. The dream of a free nation took shape in its libraries, cafés, and student circles.

That dream now chokes under the weight of fanaticism.

Post-partition, Lahore became the site of brutal communal riots. The spirit of the city—once elegant and inclusive—was suffocated by waves of xenophobic, Islamic fundamentalism. The dreamers, the reformers, and the liberals vanished, silenced by theocratic ideologues and power-hungry military men masquerading as saviours of Islam.

In the course of history, Pakistan failed three times.

First, it failed when Jinnah couldn't convince the Muslim League to adopt his vision of a liberal Muslim-majority state. His death left a vacuum quickly filled by hardliners who wanted theocracy, not democracy.

Second, it failed when it alienated its own people—treating refugees from Partition as Mohajirs, repressing Baloch aspirations, and neglecting or ruling over the Pashtuns with suspicion and violence. It fractured from within.

The third and perhaps most fatal blow came under General Zia. Backed by Western powers, he institutionalised religious extremism, turning Pakistan into a theocratic state where terror and gun culture became tools of governance. The Pakistan of culture, civility, and romance died then. The Lahore of Ghalib, Bhagat Singh, and Iqbal were finally buried.

What remains today is a state swinging between failed democracy and authoritarian religious (Military) rule. It is no longer governed by the people. It is ruled by the Mullahs, for the Mullahs, and in service of the Mullahs—a primitive, failed Islamic dungeon. On its streets, you'll find more bigoted xenophobes than empowered citizens. Freedom breathes only in the compounds of the military elite or the homes of corrupt politicians. The rest live under fear, dependency, or silence.

My friend, a liberal soul married to a non-Muslim, once dreamed of moving to India, if only to breathe the air of freedom. Now, he says that dream is fading. He sees in today's India the same shadows he once saw creep over Pakistan in the late 1970s—the rise of majoritarianism, cultural policing, and the slow corrosion of pluralism.

"They haven't yet killed the Lahore in me," he says. "But, with the passing of people like me, a nation will breath its last liberal breath and freedom".

Tragic!

ഭാരതമാത

 ഭാരതമാതയെക്കുറിച്ചു എല്ലാവരും പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നത് കൊണ്ട് വേണോ വേണ്ടയോ എന്ന് പലപ്രാവശ്യം ആലോചിച്ചു. ഓറോവില്ലയിലെ മരങ്ങൾക്കിടയിലൊളിച്ചോരു ഗസ്റ്റ്ഹൗസിന്റെ ബാൽക്കണിയിലിരുന്നു രാത്രിയുടെ നിശബ്ദതയിലേക്ക് നോക്കിയിരുന്നപ്പോൾ ഒറോബിന്ദോയുടെ സാവിത്രിയാണ് മനസ്സിലേക്ക് കടന്നുവന്നത്. തന്റെ പ്രിയതമനെ മരണത്തിൽ നിന്നും രക്ഷിക്കാൻ മരണത്തിന്റെ യജമാനനായ യമനോടൊപ്പം നടന്നു തോൽപ്പിച്ച പുരാണകഥയിലെ അനിതര സാധാരണയായ ഒരു സ്ത്രീയുടെ കഥയാണ് ഒറോബിന്ദോ തന്റെ തത്വശാസ്ത്രത്തിന്റെ സാരാംശമായി അവതരിപ്പിക്കാനായി തിരഞ്ഞെടുത്തത്. സ്ത്രീ ശക്തിയുടെയും (കാളി) സമ്പത്തിന്റെയും (ദുർഗ്ഗ/ലക്ഷ്മി ) വിദ്യയുടെയും (സരസ്വതി) പ്രതീകങ്ങളായി ആരാധിക്കുന്ന ഒരു ശരാശരി ബംഗാളി കുടുംബത്തിൽ നിന്നും വന്ന ഒറോബിന്ദോ സാവിത്രിയുടെ കഥ തന്റെ തത്വശാസ്ത്രത്തിന്റെ പ്രതീകമായി തിരഞ്ഞെടുത്തതിൽ അതിശയോക്തികളൊന്നുമില്ല. സാവിത്രി ആദ്യം കൈയിലെടുക്കുന്നത് ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് അത്ര വശമില്ലാത്തൊരു കാലത്താണ്. എങ്കിലും കൈയ്യിലൊതുങ്ങാത്ത പുസ്തകം എന്നും എന്റെകൂടെ എന്നുമുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. പിന്നീട് കുറെ കാലങ്ങൾക്കുശേഷം പലവുരു വായിച്ചതിനുശേഷമാണ് കുറച്ചെങ്കിലും മനസ്സിലാക്കാനായത്. അതിലെ ഓരോ വരികളും അർത്ഥവത്തായിരിക്കുന്നതിനോടൊപ്പം അനുവാചകന് ഭാവനാത്മകമായി വ്യഖ്യാനിക്കാനുള്ള അവസരവുമായിരിക്കണം എന്ന ഓറോബിന്ദോയുടെ നിർകർഷതയാണ് സാവിത്രിയെ വളരെ ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടുള്ളൊരു കവിതയാക്കി മാറ്റുന്നത്. സാവിത്രിയെ പിന്നീടൊരിക്കലേക്കു മാറ്റിവെച്ചു മനസ്സ് വീണ്ടും ഭാരതമാതവിലേക്കെത്തി.

ലോകത്തെല്ലാസംസ്കാരത്തിലെയും പോലെ സ്ത്രീയെ ആരാധിക്കുന്ന ഗോത്രങ്ങളും, മതങ്ങളും, ജാതികളും ഉൾപ്പെട്ടൊരു സംസ്കാരമാണ് ഇന്ത്യയുടേയും. ഈ രാജ്യത്തിന്റെ ചരിത്രത്തിലാദ്യമായി കഴിഞ്ഞ മുപ്പതുവര്ഷമായി സ്ത്രീകൾ പൊതുസ്ഥലങ്ങളും പൊതുബോധവും നിറഞ്ഞു നിൽക്കുന്ന നിയോ ലിബറൽ ലോകത്തിൽ പൊതു സ്ഥലങ്ങളിലെ സ്ത്രീ സ്വാധീനവും സാന്നിധ്യവും എങ്ങിനെ നേരിടണം അല്ലെങ്കിൽ അംഗീകരിക്കണം എന്നറിയാത്തതിന്റെ പുരുഷസമൂഹത്തിന്റെയും, പുരുഷാധിപത്യത്തിന്റെയും പെരുമാറ്റ ദൂഷ്യങ്ങളും കുറ്റകൃത്യങ്ങളും ഒരു മാറ്റം വന്നുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന സമൂഹത്തിന്റെ താൽക്കാലിക പരിണാമ ചെയ്തികളും അവയുടെ നിയമവശങ്ങളുമായി മാറ്റിവെച്ചാൽ, പല പേരിൽ, അമ്മയായും, മാരിയായും, പ്രേതമായും, യക്ഷിയായും, സീതയായും, പാഞ്ചാലിയായും, ഗംഗയായും, യമുനയായും, ദുർഗ്ഗയായും ലക്ഷ്മിയായും, സരസ്വതിയായും, പദ്മാവതിയായും, അംബികയായും, താരയായും, മാരിച്ചിയായും, പ്രജ്ഞാപരമിതയായും, ഗാർഗ്ഗിയായും, റാണിമാരായും അങ്ങിനെ എണ്ണിയാലൊടുങ്ങാത്ത ദൈവങ്ങളായും, ദേവതകളായും, കഥാപാത്രങ്ങളായും, പ്രേമികകളായും, തത്വചിന്തകരായും, മാതാവായും , പത്നിയായും, ധീര ശൂരരായും സ്ത്രീകൾക്ക് അപ്രമാദിത്യമുള്ളൊരു സംസ്കാരമാണ് ഇന്ത്യയിലിൽ എല്ലാമത സംസ്കാരങ്ങളിലും ഉള്ളത്. ഹിന്ദു മതത്തിൽ പുരുഷകേന്ദ്രികൃത ദൈവശാഖകളായ ശൈവർക്കറും വൈഷ്‌ണവർക്കും പോലെ തന്നെ ഔന്നിദ്യമുള്ളതാണ് സ്ത്രീ കേന്ദ്രികൃതമായ ശാക്തേയ ശാഖ.

അതുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെയാകണം ഈസ്റ്റ് ഇന്ത്യ കമ്പനി നടത്തിയ അതി ഭീകരമായ ബംഗാൾ ക്ഷാമകാലത്തെ അടിസ്ഥാനമാക്കി ബങ്കിം ചന്ദ്ര ചതോപാധ്യായ എഴുതിയ വിപ്ലവകഥയിൽ രാജ്യം മാതാവായി അവതരിപ്പിക്കപ്പെടുന്നത്. ആദ്യമായി ശക്തിയുടെയും (കാളി) സമ്പത്തിന്റെയും (ദുർഗ്ഗ/ലക്ഷ്മി ) വിദ്യയുടെയും (സരസ്വതി) പ്രതീകമായി ഭാരതത്തെ അമ്മയായി അവതരിപ്പിക്കപ്പെടുന്നത് ആനന്ദമഠം എന്ന ഈ നോവലിൽ ആണ്. പിന്നീട് അതെന്നെന്നേക്കുമായി ഇന്ത്യ ചരിത്രത്തിൽ രാജ്യത്തെ അമ്മയായി കാണുന്നതിലേക്ക് നയിക്കുകയുമാണ് ചെയ്യുന്നത്. വന്ദേ മാതരം ഒരു യുദ്ധ കാഹളത്തിനപ്പുറത്തു ഒരു രാജ്യത്തിന്റെ അഭിമാന ഗർജ്ജനമാകുന്നതും അതോടെയാണ്.

പിന്നീട് കാളിയിൽ നിന്നും ദുർഗ്ഗയിലേക്ക് പരിണാമം നേടിയപോലെ, ആനന്ദമഠത്തിലെ പ്രചണ്ഡ മാതാവ് അബനീന്ദ്രനാഥ ടാഗോറിന്റെ സാത്വീകതയുടെ പ്രമാണമായ വിദ്യയുടെയും, ധനത്തിന്റെയും, ധാർമീകതയുടെയും, ഉത്തരവാദിത്വ ബോധത്തിന്റെയും പ്രതീകമായ ഹിന്ദു ദൈവീകതയുള്ള ഭാരതമാതാവാവുകയാണ് ചെയ്യുന്നത്. പിന്നീടുള്ള എല്ലാ സ്വാതന്ത്രസമര വേദികളിലും ഭാരത് മാതാ കി ജയ് എന്ന ജയാ കാഹള വിളി അനിവാര്യതയാവുകയായിരുന്നു. കൂടാതെ ഭാരതമാതാവ് എന്ന ചിഹ്നവും ചിന്തയും സാവിത്രി പോലുള്ള തത്വചിന്തയാധിഷ്ഠിതമായ പുസ്തകങ്ങൾക്ക് പ്രേരണതയായതു കൂടാതെ, കച്ചവട സാധ്യതകൾ എന്ന് വേണ്ട സമൂഹത്തിന്റെ എല്ലാ തട്ടുകളിലേക്കും എത്തിച്ചേർന്നൊരു ആശയമായി മാറുകയാണുണ്ടായത്.

1936ൽ വാരണാസിയിൽ ഗാന്ധിജി ഉദ്ഘാടനം ചെയ്ത ഒരമ്പലം പോലുമുണ്ട് ഭാരതമാതാവിന്. അന്ന് ക്രാന്തദർശിയായ ഗാന്ധിജി "ഭാരതമാതാവ് ഒരു വംശീയ വെറിയുടെ ആമുഖമാകരുത്" എന്ന് ചൂണ്ടി കാണിച്ചത് പോലെ, പിന്നീട് സ്വാതന്ത്രാനന്തര ഇന്ത്യയിൽ ഭാരതമാതാവിനെ തീവ്ര വലതുപക്ഷ രാഷ്ട്രീയ കക്ഷികളായ ഹിന്ദുത്വ കൈയേറി സ്വന്തമാക്കുന്ന കാഴ്ചയാണ് നാം കാണുന്നത്. നിയോ ലിബറലായ നെഹ്രുവിയൻ കോൺഗ്രെസ്സുകാർ അത് വിട്ടുകൊടുക്കുകയും, ലോകസാർവത്രീകതയിൽ വിശ്വസിച്ച കമ്മ്യൂണിസ്റ്റ്കാർ അതിനെ തിരസ്കരിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തതോടെ, ആനന്ദമഠത്തിനൽ തുടങ്ങിയ ഭാരതമാതാവ് ഹിന്ദുത്വയുടെ പ്രതീകമായി ഒടുങ്ങി.

എങ്കിലും ഭാരതമാതാവ് ജനങ്ങളുടെ മനസ്സിൽ ഒരു രാഷ്ട്രീയ പാർട്ടിയുടെയോ ആശയങ്ങളുടെയോ കുത്തകകളായി ഒരിക്കലും മാറിയില്ല. 'അമ്മ, അവർക്കു അത്തരം സങ്കുചിത ചിന്തകളിലൊതുക്കാവുന്ന ഒരു സങ്കൽപ്പമാകാൻ പറ്റുന്നൊരു കാര്യമല്ല. അതിനാൽ തന്നെ ഗവർണർ വച്ച കാവികൊടിയേന്തിയ ആർഎസ്എസിന്റെ ഭാരതമാതാവും, ഭാരതമാതാവ് ഹിന്ദുത്വയുടെ പ്രതീകമാണെന്നു എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ മന്ത്രിയും, അവർക്കു സ്വീകാര്യമാകാനിടയില്ല. ഒരു ശരാശരി ഇന്ത്യക്കാരന് ഭാരതമാതാവ് തങ്ങളുടെ മാതാവിനോടൊപ്പം മനസ്സിൽ കരുതുന്ന മാതൃ രാജ്യത്തിന്റെ പ്രതീകം മാത്രമാണ്. അതിൽ യുക്തിക്കൊന്നും യാതൊരു പ്രസക്തിയുമില്ല. അമ്മയെന്ന വൈകാരികത മാത്രമാണ് അവിടെ പ്രധാനം . ഓറോബിന്ദോ തന്റെ തത്വശാസ്ത്ര ചിന്തകളുടെ സ്വാംശീകരണത്തിനായി സാവിത്രിയെ തിരഞ്ഞെടുത്തപോലെ

Anti west posturing of Indian right wing politics

Despite a succession of policy missteps, administrative blunders, and recurring social unrest, the Modi government retained a decisive political edge over the opposition, anchored by three pillars: social welfare, infrastructure, and foreign policy.

1. Social Welfare Initiatives:

The Modi administration expanded welfare delivery with notable intensity and scale. From enhancing direct benefit transfers and increasing allocations for MGNREGA, to promoting Ayush medicine outlets, large-scale toilet construction, and mass housing programs, its performance in the social sector—while not revolutionary—marked a significant improvement over previous regimes.

Rather than dilute expectations, the government consistently raised the baseline for delivery. Unlike UPA-2, which lost ground politically by shifting too visibly against industrial interests, the Modi government chose to underplay its welfare achievements despite its overt pro-business stance. This may have been a deliberate strategy to avoid ideological scrutiny while efficiently expanding basic service delivery across the population.

2. Infrastructure Strategy:

Infrastructure became another terrain of strategic manoeuvring. The Modi regime systematically outsourced infrastructure development and maintenance to the private sector. This move unburdened the state exchequer from one of the most capital-intensive and corruption-prone governance domains. While such privatisation raises valid concerns about regulation, equitable access, and long-term public accountability, it freed the state from recurring liabilities and is projected to open up significant fiscal space for future administrations.

3. Foreign Policy and Strategic Realignment:

Foreign policy emerged as an early strength for the Modi government. To appreciate the strategic realignment, one must trace the historic relationship between India and the West—particularly the United States.

During the Cold War, the capitalist West viewed non-aligned, socialist-leaning India with suspicion. In response, it deployed two instruments to contain India's ideological orientation: Pakistan and the Indian Right. The U.S. nurtured Pakistan as a regional counterweight and simultaneously invested in the RSS-led Hindu right as a domestic ideological alternative to Nehruvian socialism. This dual strategy dates back to the Janata Party umbrella coalition, including Indian communist parties that briefly unseated Indira Gandhi.

While Pakistan kept the Kashmir issue alive, the Indian right cultivated Hindu majoritarianism—together destabilising Indian politics through the 1980s and '90s. Movements like Ram Janmabhoomi, paired with Pakistan-sponsored militancy in Kashmir and Punjab, created a perpetual crisis environment—one that was only partially resolved through the economic liberalisation of the early 1990s, initiated under the West-aligned leadership of Manmohan Singh during Narasimha Rao's tenure.

Congress's Transformation and BJP's Rise:

Narasimha Rao understood that the old Nehruvian Congress was incompatible with globalisation and its economy. Like Rahul Gandhi in 2012, he effectively dismantled his party's ideological legacy to make way for political change—paving the way for the BJP's ascendancy. Ironically, when the West's long-groomed right wing finally assumed power, it was led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee—a moderate Nehruvian who tempered the BJP's more radical neoliberal impulses.

This ideological moderation prompted the West to revert to its trusted technocrat, Manmohan Singh. His second stint as Prime Minister saw aggressive liberalisation and controversial policies—such as mercenary SEZ policies to enable corporate rural land acquisitions. At one point, his home minister, Chidambaram, contemplated even bombing adivasis to oppress their resistance. Singh, while a consistent ally of the Western liberal order, was never fully embraced by the Indian Right, which had by then become the principal political vehicle of U.S.-backed capitalism.

Two Competing Capitalisms: U.S. vs EU Models

A critical distinction exists between U.S.-driven capitalism and its European counterpart. The U.S. model views welfare as a charity, while the European model insists on codified social rights. Sonia Gandhi's National Advisory Council (NAC) leaned toward the latter, legislating entitlements like the Right to Food, Education, and Land—directly challenging U.S. economic orthodoxy.

By 2011, as the NAC deepened its commitment to the European model, similar movements globally were challenging U.S. hegemony. In response, U.S. strategy evolved. Recognising the growing power of digital ecosystems, it pivoted toward narrative control through social media, moving beyond structural reforms to embrace psychological and communicative warfare.

They invested in platforms that simulated decentralised, community-like interactions—infused with parochialism but packaged as universal. Long-form, rational discourse (once dominant on Facebook) was systematically eroded by fragmenting the communicative landscape into superficial formats: image-sharing (Instagram) and punchy, emotion-driven statements (Twitter). The shift was not accidental—it mirrored the symbolic economy of U.S. capitalism, which prefers chaos and individualism to structured, rights-based communication (as in the EU model).

Social Media and Global Political Realignments:

Between 2012 and 2014, this recalibrated media strategy paid global dividends. Twitter's short-form narrative warfare destabilised many nations. The new "gossip without substance" format undermined legitimacy, displaced deliberative discourse, and elevated populist strongmen.

Across the globe, U.S. - Right-wing aligned leaders emerged—many drawn from corporate or right-wing ranks: Trump (USA), Macron (France), Bolsonaro (Brazil), Shinzo Abe (Japan), Enrique Peña Nieto (Mexico), Tony Abbott (Australia), Matteo Renzi (Italy), Erdoğan (Turkey), Park Geun-hye (South Korea), Netanyahu (Israel), and Modi (India), among others.

In India, the installation of Narendra Modi marked the culmination of decades of U.S. investment in Hindutva. Foreign policy was entrusted to Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, a U.S.-friendly diplomat, even as Sushma Swaraj retained the nominal title of Foreign Minister. The real decision-making apparatus operated out of the Prime Minister's Office, coordinated by Ajit Doval—who had earlier founded the pro-West Vivekananda International Foundation with support from ex-military personnel.

Second Term: Geopolitical Balancing Act:

By Modi's second term, India faced complex challenges. While maintaining alignment with the West, the government navigated:

-Energy security amid sanctions on Russia,

-Escalating border tensions and trade imbalances with China,

-Delicate diplomacy with the Islamic world and OIC, especially given Pakistan's influence.

India diversified energy partnerships—turning to former Soviet states like Armenia—and made significant headway in alternative energy development. In foreign policy terms, these were notable successes achieved without compromising the pro-Western core of the regime.

Global Shifts and Cracks in the Model:

The model began to falter when many of these U.S.-backed strongmen lost power. Trump was voted out. Bolsonaro was imprisoned. Shinzo Abe was assassinated. Others, like Park Geun-hye, were impeached. The only figures who retained their grip were those who had fused nationalism with religious or racial politics—like Netanyahu and Modi.

Despite the turbulence, Doval and Jaishankar's foreign affairs team delivered one key achievement: decoupling Indian foreign policy from its Pakistan-centric trap—a legacy of Cold War containment strategies. However, this success was undermined by a strategic blind spot: the alienation of India's immediate neighbours.

Strategic Failures and Isolation :

India's pro-West posture led to estrangement from neighbours—who in turn deepened ties with China. The consequences became stark after the Pehalgam attack: none of India's neighbours nor its Western ally stood firmly by its side. Despite years of diplomatic investments and huge trade orders to the Western power, India found itself isolated now—scrambling to dispatch parliamentary delegations worldwide in search of support.

This was a diplomatic catastrophe. Indian foreign policy, shaped by right-wing ideological loyalty to the West, particularly to the U.S. right wing, had led the country into geopolitical isolation. India had regressed to a pre-2014 status quo—trapped once again in Pakistan-centric diplomacy, albeit now without reliable allies.

Lessons Un/learned:

Instead of introspection, the Indian Right doubled down. Today, when the government planted media narratives tried to project a course correction (the news clipping given above), a senior RSS functionary who is also the go-between the government and the RSS proudly announced his participation at a Western right-wing conference—boasting that he was the only non-Western (read: racist non white) organisation represented in the conference. This marked the continuation of ideological submission—what might be described as India's "yes-master" voice within the Western right-wing political sphere. What was promised as an independent, strategic India had become little more than a loyal outpost in the larger architecture of Western ideological warfare or orthodoxy.

While the long-term outcome of the U.S.'s five-decade investment in India's right wing remains uncertain, the entrenched subservience of the Indian right to American right-wing interests appears far from waning. The Biden administration made a brief attempt to recalibrate this alignment, but the resurgence of Trump-era politics has cast renewed doubt on any enduring shift. Moreover, with the ongoing threat of China in the region, India's current trajectory toward global isolation must be critically assessed for its long-term implications—particularly for the future of right-wing politics and its leadership in the country. So, this anti-West posturing looks more like a pretension than a real one.

 

Why Does Capitalism Invest in Racism, Fundamentalism, and Protectionism? (part-1)

Historically, capitalism has thrived on the principle of minimal state interference. Its proponents argue that the market, guided by capitalists and their understanding of economic dynamics, is more efficient than the state in organising economic life. Under this ideology, the state's role is narrowed to tax collection, political administration, and the regulation of citizens, without interfering in market operations.

In such a system, public welfare—employment, healthcare, income distribution, cultural life, and overall living standards—is not considered a right or social duty, but merely a by-product of successful economic performance. Their productivity and profit-generating capacity measure an individual's worth. Citizenship is defined not by civic rights or ethical values, but by one's role as an economic contributor. The state's laws are shaped to ensure the smooth profit flow, making profitability the highest public good. Individuals become expendable components in a vast economic machine.

Religion as a Counter to Capitalist Values:

In stark contrast, religion evaluates human worth through an ethical lens. Across cultures, religious traditions recognise honesty, compassion, justice, and integrity as the true markers of a person's value, not their wealth or productivity. Religion does not demand economic performance in order to grant dignity; rather, it offers moral belonging and intrinsic value, irrespective of one's material status. In doing so, it provides a framework of emotional security and ethical meaning that capitalism fundamentally lacks.

This contrast places capitalism and religion on opposing sides of human valuation. Capitalism upholds competition, individualism, and measurable success. Religion elevates community, morality, and shared values. While capitalism breeds anxiety and insecurity, compelling individuals to constantly "perform" economically, religion provides stability, recognising human dignity regardless of output.

For this reason, religion historically attracted far more adherents than capitalism. Most people, especially those unable to succeed within capitalist systems, found solace in religion's moral inclusivity. Religion appealed to collective identity; capitalism demanded relentless individual performance. Yet the contest between them was never simply about popularity—it was a deeper struggle for power, fought not by ordinary people, but by the elites who controlled institutions.

But religion, too, was not immune to corruption. As Shakespeare wrote, "To err is human." Despite their spiritual teachings, religious institutions were often swayed by power and ambition. Recognising the deep emotional and cultural grip that religion held over the masses, particularly among peasants, artisans, and labourers, capitalists did not confront religion directly. Instead, they found it helpful.

This gave rise to a historical compromise. Capitalists acknowledged that most producers were more motivated by faith than profit. At the same time, religious authorities accepted the rising dominance of capital. This mutual accommodation allowed both systems to survive: capitalism monopolised material wealth, and religion claimed moral authority. Together, they upheld existing hierarchies—both economic and social.

In this alliance, the boundaries between capitalism and religion began to blur. Both tolerated—and at times justified—discrimination: religion through caste, class, and gender hierarchies; capitalism through wealth-based inequality. The moral authority of religion was compromised by its proximity to capital. The spiritual became transactional.

Marxism and the Collapse of this Nexus :

Marxism arose as a direct challenge to this alliance. Marx saw that capitalism and religion, though ideologically distinct, operated together within the same oppressive structures, each reinforcing elite power. He recognised the communal ethics within religion, but denounced its complicity in exploitation. He aimed to reclaim religion's moral values—its commitment to justice, equality, and dignity—without the institutional corruption that had allowed it to serve power.

He envisioned a new form of social faith, rooted in collective ownership and economic justice. Marx argued that actual communal values could only emerge in an egalitarian society, free from the tyranny of the market. He believed that the moral ideals upheld by religion could only be fully realised through socialism, by dismantling profit-based individualism and constructing a society founded on shared human dignity.

Living through the Industrial Revolution, Marx witnessed the brutal contradiction between religious ethics and capitalist reality. While religion preached dignity, industrial workers, who produced society's wealth, were treated as disposable machines. His critique was also shaped by the ideals of the American and French revolutions, with their promises of liberty, equality, and fraternity. For Marx, these ideals could only be fulfilled through shared governance within an industrial system free from exploitation.

The Betrayal of Marx's Vision and the confluence of the Capitalist-Religious structures:

However, when his followers implemented Marxist revolutions, they became trapped in a literal reading of industrialisation. Rather than liberating individuals, socialist states sought to transform everyone into productive units, replicating the very capitalist logic Marx had opposed. The state became the new capitalist: monopolising power, controlling labour, and enforcing compliance.

In this transformation, Marxism abandoned its ethical vision of dignity. Communist regimes guaranteed basic needs but denied individual freedom. Economic insecurity was replaced by political subjugation. The citizen became a dependent of the state, reduced to a functional cog in an authoritarian machine. Ironically, the only distinction from capitalist societies was that, under capitalism, citizens had limited freedoms and could compete, while under communism, they received basic provisions at the cost of personal liberty.

The Collapse of Marxist ideals was not immediate. Initially, many parts of the world—especially those with industrial experience or emerging from caste- and class-bound artisanal cultures—embraced Marxism for its promise of dignity and shared ownership. These movements displaced existing capitalist and religious dominance structures that had long perpetuated inequality.

As Marxist revolutions dismantled capitalist and religious authorities, these two previously antagonistic institutions found common cause. Faced with an existential threat, they set aside their contradictions and began collaborating. Capitalists and spiritual leaders, once adversaries, now reinforced one another.

The line between moral and material power collapsed. Religious institutions became tools of capital, and capitalists found in religion a powerful mechanism for social control. Together, they invented new enemies to preserve their dominance. The capitalist denounced the godlessness of communism; the religious condemned its moral nihilism. In both cases, fear was the chosen tool of authority.

This convergence completed the corruption of religion. No longer a moral bulwark against capitalist greed, it became capitalism's ally, blessing exploitation, justifying hierarchy, and pacifying the oppressed. Spiritual obedience was retooled into economic submission. On the other side, communism—both in structure and as a reaction to developments within capitalist societies—grew increasingly authoritarian.

The Forgotten Third World

Beyond the stark binary of capitalism and communism in industrially focused societies lies a third world, comprising the non-industrialised nations of Asia and Africa. These regions, mainly agrarian and rich in resources, faced deliberate exclusion from industrial development. This exclusion resulted from historical factors such as colonial underdevelopment and the racial hierarchies imposed by the developed world. Their non-white populations were denied access to the global systems of power and wealth that defined both capitalist and communist blocs.

These nations were neither fully capitalist nor authentically Marxist. They were trapped in a liminal space—colonised, exploited, and often used as ideological battlegrounds in conflicts not of their own making. Yet their histories, social structures, and traditions offered alternative frameworks—not based on profit or ideology, but on community, subsistence, and ethical continuity.

continued...

The Political Narrative of Vishnava Rama, the Kshatriya, Defeating the Brahmin Ravana, a Shivite, in Dasavatara stories of Hinduism

In the avatara stories of Vishnu, the first significant appearance of a Brahmin is in his Vamana avatara, the fifth incarnation, where Vishnu cleverly defeats the Kshatriya king Mahabali by deceit. This episode marks the beginning of a complex chronological arc of conflict between the Brahmin and Kshatriya classes, culminating in the killing of the Brahmin king Ravana by the Kshatriya prince Rama. This sequence offers a compelling lens to understand the power dynamics between these two dominant ruling classes that have shaped Hindu socio-cultural history.

In Hinduism, both Brahmins and Kshatriyas claim the right to govern within the Hindu varna system—though in distinct spheres. Brahmins traditionally hold authority over intellectual, cultural, and philosophical domains; their control over knowledge shapes societal norms and power structures. On the other hand, Kshatriyas command physical and material power as warriors and rulers. While their dharmas share foundational ideals, their practical enactments and perspectives on duty differ. Significantly, Brahmins and Kshatriyas each cultivated divergent interpretations of their own and each other's dharma, and the entire avatar narrative can be viewed as a mythic struggle for these competing worldview.

Returning to the story: despite being a devout follower of Vishnu and outside the classical varnashrama order, the Asura king Mahabali's growing power threatened the Brahminical (Deva) dharma. Vishnu, in the guise of Vamana, thus strategically deceived and removed Mahabali from the scene, reaffirming Varna system's supremacy. However, this victory triggered a degeneration in Kshatriya dharma. The aftermath witnessed the resurgence of a symbolic "cow politics" represented by Kamadhenu during the Battle of Ten Kings among Vedic tribes.

The Kshatriya king Kartavirya Arjuna, demanding Kamadhenu, violated dharma by killing Sage Jamadagni, a Brahmin and father of Parashurama—the next Brahmin avatara of Vishnu. This act intensified the struggle for supremacy between Brahmins and Kshatriyas, with Parashurama, a Brahmin by birth who assumed and fulfilled Kshatriya duties, annihilating the Kshatriyas to restore order. His avatar embodies the profound blurring and contestation of dharma between these two classes.

As confusion and conflict over dharma escalated, the next Vishnu avatara appeared explicitly as a Kshatriya—Rama—to re-establish dharmic order by slaying the Brahmin king Ravana. This story adds another dimension to the narrative: the conflict between Vishnu's devotees and the Shiva-worshipping Brahmin Ravana, shifting from a simple Deva-Asura dichotomy (seen in Vamana and Mahabali) to a more nuanced Brahmin-Kshatriya and Vishnavite-Shivaite dynamic.

Together, the three avatars—Vamana, Parashurama, and Rama—mythically chronicle the socio-cultural evolution of Brahminical ascendancy, its challenge by Kshatriya power, and the eventual complex interplay of battle of perspectives on varna system and its role reversals in Hindu society. The story of Brahmins that begins with Vamana finally ends with Ravana's death in Vishnu avatara stories.

In contemporary times, as Hindutva groups—particularly those led by Chitpavan Brahmin Peshwa descendants such as the RSS—seek to reinstate a Brahminical varnashrama social order, this mythological narrative serves both as a warning to Hindutva and a strategic resource for their critics. It reveals the complex and contested history of Brahmin-Kshatriya power dynamics, challenging the simplistic and hierarchical casteist accounts of social roles. The caste-conscious RSS's current appropriation of Kshatriya Rama must be seen as a reenactment of the Vamana avatar narrative. At the same time, their resistance to the Constitution's commitments to secularism and caste-based affirmative action echoes the Parasurama avatar story. Implicit is a latent fear—or at least an expectation—of another Rama: a force that could expose their contradictions and strip them of their ideological sheen. After all, alternate socio-political frameworks persist—be it the mythical Deva-Asura tensions or Vaishnavite-Shivite-Shakteya traditions, regional diversities across North, South, East, and West, linguistic pluralities, or the secular Constitution itself—all capable of resisting and dismantling the Brahminical varnashrama order, that the Hindutva breed RSS envisages.

That is the underlying political construct conveyed through the chronology of the Avatars and their corresponding battle narratives. That is the story, the politics of Vishnava Rama, the Kshatriya, Defeating the Brahmin Ravana, a Shivite, trying to tell us.