The Unsaturated Reader

Category: Uncategorized

  • On excessive self-awareness

    ‘Know thyself’, the ancient greek adage propounded by none other than Socrates adorn many walls and frames. But knowledge of the self is a double-edged sword. As with everything, there’s a fine line between having too much knowledge and too little. Aristotle’s concept of Middle Path is resonant here. Too much self-awareness can lead one into a spiral of doom-thinking and depression. As we unpack more and more of ourselves, we are likely to imbue our deeper thoughts, unresolved feelings and unhealed wounds with negativity and create a grand narrative that may seem to explain everything that’s wrong in our life. I’m reminded of a very pertinent Shakespearan line, “there’s nothing good nor bad, but thinking makes it so.” And that is the larger truth here. 

    The part of the brain that makes us self-aware or self-conscious is the default mode network. In people with depression, this network is overly active. One constantly finds themselves ruminating their problems  and thinking the worst of themselves. C.S. Lewis is his classic ‘The Problem of Pain’ says “the doors of hell are locked on the inside.” How we perceive life shapes our experience of it. If one chooses a doomsday version of everything, they shall reap the same. Self-enslavement is one dangerous offshoot of development in modern society. We live in an age where egoistic fulfilments reign supreme. They are celebrated and are seen as markers of success. Simon Weil foresaw a future riddled with narcissism and emphasised the need to contemplate the world. 

    Philosophers of various stripes have for centuries beseeched the common folk to turn inwards. But we have reached an uglier form of inward speculation, where self-introspection has been replaced by self-obsession. Not everyone is guilty of indulging in it. But when a majority sets spark to a way of doing things, “culture” the unfortunate few who are unable co-opt or actively resist initially fall out after a while. The societal narrative pushes out those that don’t fit it. Now we can see one of the reasons why Darwin’s theory of natural selection is much misinterpreted, twisted by natives and fools, embraced by liberals and fascists alike. The strong-weak dichotomy prevails, giving the supposed stronger majority a handy tool to eliminate the “less capable”, and worse, justify their position. 

    “Hell is other people” is one of those frequently misinterpreted quotes. It appears as the final line in the play ‘No Exit’. The author of the play, the famous French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre was himself an avid socialite, with many friends and lovers. It would be more appropriate if misanthropes quoted Schopenhauer who haughtily averred, “a high degree of intellect tends to make a man unsocial.” He embraced quietism and had a resignationist attitude to life. It is hard to testify this blunt aphorism. You know it’s bad philosophy when even Nietzsche (another known aphorism-machine) gives it a second thought. 

    A study published by Nature Medicine, a journal has some unsurprisingly interesting results. Broadly, people with some form of social contact with regular physical exercise tend to live longer, the study concluded. While we can’t establish a causative relationship between the two because of the nature of the survey that rely on people’s experiences, the evidence in favour is telling. In fact, social contact, such as living with a partner, seems to have a more positive impact on positive well-being than exercising. Social isolation breeds loneliness. Lonely people also tend to eat poorly and move less, thus setting up a vicious cycle where the bad lifestyle aspects reinforce each other. 

    We live in a world where hard-core egocentrism has peaked (or has it?). An egomaniacal president reigns supreme over the most powerful country in the world. Autocrats in other countries have dutifully imitated. Nativism is alive and flourishing. Asylum-seekers, especially those from  ethnicities that don’t match the natives’, can be left to perish, the thinking goes. As with all social and cultural phenomenon, we may see the disorienting impact of ego-centrism, at the level of the personal and world, ebb soon. The fear is whether technology has made that reverse course (and hope) impossible. 

  • Unravelling the Madness of Trump 2.0

    This morning I woke up to the news of Donald Trump, America’s (and as he prefers, the world’s) would-be King changing the 145-year old President’s desk of the Oval Office. Tabloids from across the world, as keen as they are to tart up their news items no matter how sleazy or untrue, purport the reason to have been Elon Musk’s son wiping down his booger on the edge of the table as his father was addressing the press beside him. Mr. Trump is a known germaphobe, but would he trouble provoking the ire of his closest mate? I’m circumspect about the conclusion many twitterati have reached at. Surely, the antics of a little unsuspecting boy cannot have been the only reason. 

    That said, with the American news-world in a quagmire and so too the rest of the world, I’m compelled to admit that Trump 1.0 was a mere apparition. Trump 2.0 is the real game. From calling Ukraine’s elected president a “dictator” to expressing thoughts of taking over the Panamas, and soon inducting Canada as the 51st state, to backstabbing India with tariffs despite his bonhomie with India’s Prime Minister, there’s much to relish (sadistically) and lament (realistically) about the Trump administration. I am reminded of a great turn of phrase a writer in the FT used to describe the madness surrounding Trump’s second presidency. He remarked, we have moved from viewing the madness as “boringly shocking to shockingly boring.” The madness has become par for the course in 2025. Normalcy has never felt so perturbing in the recent past. The progressives and liberals have become mute spectators, and to an extent innured, to this unravelling madness. 

    Why on earth is Europe, who has been doing its fair bit in the war against Russia, on the table for peace settlement? Why is the aggressor’s victim not a party to the talks? Two chums dishing it out in Riyadh — is that how it’s been planned? These are fairly commonsensical questions, but none of them matter to Trump, his whims and ego, and those who partake in it, including Marco Rubio. As a recent FT editorial put it, “if you’re not on the table, you’re on the menu.” If slicing up Ukraine to transfer bits and bobs to Russia (or maybe Kyiv too?) constitutes “art of the deal” for Mr. Trump, I’m afraid it’s a very poor deal. The aggressor isn’t being punished or shown its place. 

    The costs on Ukraine are mounting. Russia has been militarily advanced on the battlefield. Ukraine’s economy isn’t in great shape. In addition to a potential handover of territories to Russia, it has to exchange its mineral wealth with the US for its supposedly sumptuous military support. And good luck unearthing all those critical minerals, let alone export, because the contractor-local elite cobweb that controls the rare earth underground empire in Ukraine is one that will decades to untangle. By then, Trump will loafing at Mar-a-Lago. Baron Trump might take off from where his father left it, but would he? — a question for another day. 

    Liberal democracy is Europe’s biggest threat, yapped J. D. Vance at the Munich Conference. He has a bone or two to pick with the Europeans. It seems like a pet peeve of the members of this administration to speculate on Europe’s present and future. The extreme right in the continent is cosying up to Musk after his divisive comments. The latest in the pack is the Vice President of the US. The sparring with Rory Stewart about the basic tenets of Bible was entertaining indeed. He seems to be spending more time online pushing the anti-woke agenda than taking real, sensible action. Or perhaps, Musk and his teenaged DOGE boys are at it. 

    If anyone needed any convincing that intelligence is not a marker for common sense, and lesser still, for moral principles, Elon Musk is the case exemplar. It is astonishing how a man can seem so unhinged online and spearhead Tesla, Space X and now X itself to success. Four years ago he was tweeting in support of Ukraine. Power can transform people, more for the bad than good. I’ve long believed that history is linear, with every phase being an advancement over the previous, technologically, politically, intellectually, and socially. It appears that political moods are like fashion trends, cycling through bouts of despotism, fascism, statism, liberalism, and back again. The 60s baddies were reckless — remember Marianne Faithfull? — the much-derided boomers of this day. Now they’ve become the harbingers of extreme right-wing movements. Take Reform UK’s supporters, or simply those who attend anti-immigrant rallies. It will not be hard to find an 80-something gaffer stomping with the ferocity of again, might I say, a 60s baddie. War-devastated asylum seekers are at the receiving end of these diatribes. The 1990s economic order is in for a churn with Trump imposing tariffs on every country he dislikes, like a kid throwing confetti on everybody’s plate at a party. Will the madness be temporary – for four years – or could this set the world on a different course for the foreseeable future? The era of the modern-era king has only begun. 

  • On coffee shops

    It wouldn’t be uncommon to find someone writing about coffee shops. A trite subject even, for those who find it unexciting or the resort of people who have the luxury of spending hours at a corner by a book in a cafe. 

    I’ll address the latter part first. Many coffee shops have sprung up that caters to the class of people who want to be seen as indulging in a high-society activity. To this category belongs many youngsters, especially of the Gen-Z and downwards (alpha?). Posting a snap of your cup of coffee amid the ambient background with the cafe tagged online has become a status symbol. Alas, the young are in their blooming years, when paradoxically they feel insecure and act naive in an attempt to carve an identity. Let’s be a little forgiving and set aside these new-age epicureans in the guise of stoics. In some years they may look back at these antics in embarrassment.  

    Yet in this part of the world at least, frequenting coffee shops is indeed associated with the rich and upper middle classes. One can find quite some writers, journalists, businessmen brushing through the doors of several cafes in the city throughout the day. Conversations, long and brief, take over several cups of coffee. Some can be seen storming away at their keyboards, perhaps finishing up a story for the news cycle. 

    Coffee shops are for me a place where one can be left alone to do one’s work yet feel that they’re part of a larger community. Desks with laptops and books atop with someone nosily poring over their screen. The extra-hot coffee might be sitting undisturbed for several minutes before you as you slog away, but the world keeps moving. There’s motion around you, the clicks of keyboards, the ahs of exasperation,  the whirring of the coffee machine and the small murmur talks between lovebirds over, as always, a mocha. As you look up from time to time, it’s a chance to observe people of different hues. I’m bemused at the variety of people that populate this world — the anxious one who looks at the menu several times before placing an order, the safe-goer who prefers the latte — an additional syrup would be a travesty for them — and the easy going ones always willing to experiment with something new. 

    This illustration by Ruby Wright inspired me to write about coffee shops. Like me, she frequents them and can’t stop sketching them.

    The world of work may have moved indoors with WFH mechanisms, more food-delivery apps that will bring you the best food to your doorstep from anywhere in the city, and perhaps even more affordable coffee machines on the market. Yet the classic coffee shop has been a mainstay of the quiet social life, in the past as well as in the present. The existentialist philosophers, Sartre, Beauvoir, Camus and the like, discussed ideas over several cups of coffee in quaint French cafés. Even now you’ll find people discussing everything from politics to business to anything personal in the same spaces. Times may have changed, but the essence of conversations have remained the same. I can’t however help but wonder if the substance of the words exchanged have dimmed over the years. Chatter or otherwise, the good old coffee, and my favourite Cortado is here to stay. 

  • A New India in the eyes of the world

    (Originally published on December 16th 2024)

    Last Sunday afternoon, I had the good fortune to attend the launch of a magazine that broaches India’s outlook on world affairs, appropriately titled, “India’s World.” Listening to the always insightful and upbeat Honourable Minister of External Affairs S. Jaishankar speak was a pleasant experience. The pearls of wisdom he shared on the nuances of (new) India’s foreign policy was illuminating. I will not deny the sense of pride and thrill I felt to be a part of the 1.4 billion people driving the new narrative about India.  

    Prof. Happymon Jacob, one of the founders of the magazine, remarked in his welcome note, “arguments and narratives matter in world politics.” Perhaps Britain’s Keir Starmer needs reminding of this fact whose government has been accused of lacking idealism and crucially a plan. The prim man is averse to media-swashbuckling but a little touch with reality (and politics) wouldn’t hurt. Often more than the work on the ground, it is how you shape the narrative around it that influences public perception and determines the measure of your success. Going back to Prof. Jacob’s remark, the simple adage struck me for its forthrightness. It’s a truth that is sometimes overlooked, and sometimes for its own sake misinterpreted and taken too literally, to the satisfaction of any shrewd world leader who perhaps intended to provoke such a reaction — take Trump’s statement on Ukraine for instance. He proclaimed he will end the war in a day; geopolitics analysts have proven too naive in reading too much into it and basing their (which will soon turn out to be baseless) theories of probable outcomes for Ukraine. 

    That said, returning to the plot line, and the bottomline, of Jaishankar’s speech, which was that India’s current undeniably proactive foreign policy is rooted in pragmatism and historical context. Times have changed, actors in the international arena have ebbed and flowed, the tools for conducting geopolitics have upgraded making space for new unlikely but welcome entrants in the field.  Keeping pace with this rapidly changing kshana-kshana world, the way India leads its foreign policy must also change. The present model is neither a break from the past nor an attack on it. It underlines how foreign policies are shaped by contexts, and why a strict adherence to age-old principles that may be outdated for the present, is misguided. It is perhaps time, a section of thinkers, commentators, academicians changed their mindsets. 

    India boasts of a 4-trillion dollar economy and its growth looks unstoppable. To take a tiny statistic, there are around 13 million Indians working abroad and several more, if we add the Indian-origin workers to it — a sign of India’s growing global cultural footprint. She’s a strong, assertive power with significant clout— even a sought-after player in conflict mediation— and the much vaunted (and equally challenged) ‘strategic autonomy’, the shining light. But this is no new-found success. It is buttressed by decades of careful policy-making, calibrating and timely decisions, that set it up for the success it is known for today. 

    Ideally, this burgeoning economy that burst into the global scene in 1991 needs an equally ambitious foreign policy, along the lines of a Viksit Bharat we envision for 2047. That demands proactivity in a world slowly manifesting multi-polarity. We are far from the days of a revamped version of an old-school bipolar world —the place of the diminished Soviet Union being occupied by People’s Republic of China — and may never see it materialise either, at least in our lifetimes. 

    The push into the whirlwind of geopolitics known for its brute realism, is not without its risks and anxieties. As Jaishankar aptly put it, it requires a multifaceted approach which involves striking the right balance between elements of hedging, prudence, collaboration, accelerating multipolarity, juggling between the West and the non-Western world and so on. India is now at a place where it can lead a dialogue on the Global South, find a seat in a G7 meeting, while maintaining its principled-distance and play the role of a peacemaker in the wars and conflicts that ravage the world. 

    On the other end of the spectrum, there are thorny issues or “hangovers” from the past that still ruffle us once in a while, notably the issue of border security. It is imprudent to expect of a country to peacefully pursue its developmental goals insularly while forming well-meaning alliances across the world like your standard homogenous European country, when 38,000 square kilometres of its area has been encroached upon by, if I may drive up the emotional overtone here, an over-bearing neighbour that is on a mission make its mark in every sphere, for good and bad, across the world. 

    Alas, as with any pragmatic relationship, much of the quandary is also about money. China is our biggest trading partner and with whom we run a widening trade deficit. It is definitely a cause for concern but it’s also a fact that cannot be overwritten by ‘hawkish’ narratives, as much as narratives matter. This is why economic diplomacy is just as important. Supply chain remodulation, digital era, enhancing mobility and connectivity for an intermingling world et al are some of the new kids on the block, governments need to be alert and cater to. 

    In the beginning of the lecture Jaishankar noted how Track 1 diplomacy had outpaced Track 2 in the last decade and that too for the good. Think tanks are after all an outlet for ideas of several people that closely tune in to this field. As with any individual therefore, their aggregates too suffer from biases and vestiges of conservatism.

    We should think for the long term and plan for the generations ahead because much is at stake. Importantly, far removed from the elite foreign policy discussion circles and (sometimes) aloof spaces of think tanks and academia, it wouldn’t go amiss to lend a ear to the voice on the Indian street, what the plain old common sense of ordinary folk reveals about India’s role in the world. 

    These are neither trivial nor easy objectives. The truth often lies in the plain and simple, and requires an approach that is direct and discerns the truth and enlivens it. It has only been less than a century since this little nation home to more than a billion, became independent. To have soared so high and outlived the colonial baggage is an indelible achievement. As befits her legacy, a regional hegemon status will add to her laurels. 

  • On why we must pay to read (good content)

    …and read what we pay for

    There’s an abundance of information on the internet. Much of it is free to consume. Yet quality outlets (rightfully) charge a fee. I have paid for a couple of such subscriptions–most recently (and embarrassingly a little late), The Guardian. Sometimes I feel guilty when I am not able to make the most of the money I’ve spent on acquiring the subscriptions. Of course, there is indeed a lot information on the internet that is freely accessible but most of it is riddled with adverts and arguably, less authentic content, barring perhaps Wikipedia and other encyclopaedia websites. 

    During the olden days, one had to pay to access a periodical or go to the library to read one, but without the right to own one of course. Now, with information at our fingertips, there’s so much content on the internet vying for our attention. For the curious, there’s plentiful and the mental to-be-read list prolongs, leaving one with guilt when one is not able to read them. Practically, we can’t expect to read anything and everything that comes our way. We live in an age where we can choose to read what we like. And there’s a variety of options to choose from even within the subject that interests us. In such a situation, a question bears on us: what do we choose to read? 

    An old-fashioned approach to this is (howsoever radical or dogmatic it may seem) to give preference to — when online — reading only what you pay for, so that you place on yourself reasonable constraints. This can temper your sometimes impractical zeal to read everything that’s accessible. This is not to restrict oneself to a set of resources. You wouldn’t be reading this blog if you were following this principle. To make myself clear, and be lenient to the completionist in me, I am only calling for prioritising the books you own and articles you rightfully have access to if they contain information on the topic that interests you. Unless you can afford it, it is not feasible to have a repository of knowledge pertaining to every subject in the world, in your bookshelf. In such cases it is desirable that you look up on the internet.  This method accords value to the money you had spent on them. And moreover, one of the reasons you had chosen to pay in the first place is because you appreciate the quality content published on the website. This is the product of labour of many writers who put twice the effort for every penny they receive and make their ideas accessible to you. Why do you think intellectual property violation is such a contentious issue? Why do authors and publishing houses protest against duplication of copyrighted material without their consent? The work they produce is work of the human mind. Ideas are invaluable. Knowledge is invaluable. Accordingly, it has a price. A price every reasonably well-off person in a society ought to be willing to pay. 

    Wikipedia is an open-resource project maintained out of good will. It was voluntarily decided to keep its information open to all. Yet even wikipedia articles thrive on the back of veritable references to books and journal articles, accessing most of which which requires some kind of payment. The community of editors and contributors who collaborate on this one-of-a-kind great volunteering service to share knowledge themselves access these resources to make it available in a summarised way within the article where appropriate for you. 

    One mustn’t shirk from their responsibility to pay for knowledge if they are well-positioned to do so. Not everybody can afford, which is why news websites succumb to lending space to advertisements to raise additional revenue. As rational creatures with an undying curiosity, it is only befitting of us to value and recognise the intellectual work of others monetarily, if the case may be so. At a time when billionaires are gobbling news organisations and other sources of information for serving their interests and promoting a slanted version of events as they happen, it is upon us to support the remaining few to keep objective, independent sources alive. Small acts amount to big changes, if we all think alike. In this case, if we all recognise the value of truth. And not give in to ill-informed, manipulated theories of post-truth. It’s not too late to make a change. Do it while you can, don’t give cause for future regrets. And while you can, keep the beacon of hope alive. 

  • Ditch the Nostradamus!

    Predictions may be a mug’s game, as one British newspaper put this evening. But that doesn’t stop people from invoking one grand man’s predictions at the end of every year. Like a ritual from a long-forgotten time which we cling onto for failure of our reason, Nostradamus’ majestic predictions makes the rounds. Human beings have a habit of imbuing cryptic aphorisms with non-existent meanings. A natural disaster here, a conflict there. The predictions seem nothing, but amount to many things for the keen-eyed. It does sound like a paradox: shouldn’t closer analysis reveal its fragile foundations? Deep introspection works in mysterious ways, in the fashion of how people imbue modern artworks with meanings resonant with their personal lives which may be far removed from the meaning intended by the artist. Nostradamus’ pithy aphorisms, though a historical work, are a victim of the same. 

    It’s easy to dismiss the obsession with the subject of predictions as a symptom of gullibility of the human mind. There’s more to it than meets the eye. I believe that a brief acquaintance with theoretical tools or models — that do not require high-level knowledge to understand — can help us be careful of what we repose our beliefs (or, as the case may be, bets) on. Seems like an odd thing to bet on, but as posts on social media flash, the gullible instinct may be inclined to accept it as true for a moment, as rare as it may be. Critical thinking 101 classes are in vogue in universities across the world, acquainting students with types of logical fallacies and biases. It is not guaranteed that the theoretical rules learnt in these classes will translate into real-world achievements in public discourses. But it’s like a soft weapon in your armour; if deftly deployed, it can be incredibly rewarding. It is simply about seeing through the thick to arrive at the kernel of truth. As for seemingly all-encompassing predictive hypotheses like that of Nostradamus’, the theoretical model that comes to my mind is that of an early 20th century philosopher who decried the logical positivists and wore liberalism proudly on his sleeve—one of the doyens of philosophy of science, Karl Popper. 

    if False, then yes

    Karl Popper once remarked, ‘a theory that explains everything explains nothing.’ At first sight this feels counterintuitive, stupid even, for shouldn’t a theory that explains everything be seen as credible? Popper says such theories are suspect and he cites Marxism and Freudian Psychoanalysis as examples. 

    The aforesaid quote is the idea that underlies Popper’s theory of falsificationism, which is quite sensible. Our experiences are finite. When testing out a hypothesis, we may make several observations that prove it right. But there’s always the possibility of a disconfirming observation. That is, the theory can be falsified. And that, according to Popper, is the mark of a true scientific theory. No amount of confirming observations can prove a theory, but a single contradictory piece of information can disprove it. 

    A theory can’t be too perfect to account for all phenomena and problems put to it. It’s similar to how we ordinarily become suspicious of people who have an overly pleasing demeanour. It looks unnatural and squeaky clean for this chaotic universe where inconsistencies rule. 

    In a way, Popper was describing how science works and ‘progresses’. Science, for him, was an imaginative and creative pursuit. The received belief was that scientists start with a conjecture and that a bunch of observations that prove it is enough to believe it. This is called induction. Consider driving, for instance. In a road that is not very crowded allowing you to speed moderately, what compels you to think that the car ahead of you will not pull the brakes resulting in a collision? It is entirely possible but, from all your previous experiences you know that if you drive in a certain pace moderately, leaving enough space between your vehicle and the car ahead, the possibility of a collision can be avoided. But there is always a chance, even if its probability is next to nil, that the car can pull the breaks suddenly and worse, reverse fast giving you little time to change course. David Hume formulated this uncertainty, the lack of conclusiveness of truths so established, as the problem of induction. 

    Popper’s theory may have been built on the back of Hume’s formulation. Yet, Popper had other ideas too. We can’t escape induction, for our daily life itself is based on the little inductive decisions we make every moment. The opposite of induction, called deduction, which requires something to be proven conclusively (accounting for all circumstances — past, present, and future), is impossible to establish in real life, remaining a mere theoretical possibility. Instead, Popper focuses on what he calls ‘testability’. If the theory is testable and capable of being refuted, then it’s scientific. A theory that can survive multiple attempts to refute it is a ‘good’ scientific theory. In cliched terms, it has stood the test of time (so far). Scientists thought Popper was spot on.  

    Culprits, Freud y Marx

    Looking through the prism of this principle will allow us to see why Popper calls Freudian Psychoanalysis a “psuedoscience.” It vows to explain all kinds of human behaviour. Broadly, everything is premised on our unconscious thoughts and desires, which remain inaccessible to us since they are outside our consciousness. Any action or behaviour far from the usual can be boiled down to an unconscious substratum. We can’t empirically verify them, so it accepted as a fact of life. The theory, as you can see, is clearly not testable. 

    Or consider Marxian analysis of history. According to Popper, any historical phenomena, such as a revolution, or a set of events that culminated in a change of status quo can be interpreted as a class struggle. But every historical incident is riddled with nuances and requires contextual awareness. Far from the simplistic binaries of class dynamics. 

    Nostradamus’ sin — or burden? 

    For all we know, Nostradamus might have well been aware of the limitations of his prophesying powers, or he may have liked a good joke. But as with modern day social-media wars — and obsessions — where taking quotes out of context, for fulfilment of ego or vindicating agendas seems to be the mood of the age, the lore of Nostradamus fell for the trap. In a world where fatalism (with a tinge of sadism) prevail in different quarters, the aphorisms offered fresh fodder where people trying to make a living out of spouting nothing. 

    It may seem trivial that a philosophical theory is required to demolish such seemingly unbelievable claims. But as the famous Frenchman Voltaire once said (who seems to have produced, fortunately or unfortunately, many quotable quotes much to the glee of netizens), ‘common sense is not so common.’ Critical thinking forms the holy grail of philosophy. It’s about thinking of what we often take for granted. 

    The subject we are discussing about reminds me of a particular football usage called the “eye test.” A player may appear to play well and but on closer look, may not necessarily be so. In theoretical parlance, we just deployed critical thinking. Were we to be a little kinder to philosophy (and Popper’s obsession), life would be a little easier. For then, much of what we scroll by wouldn’t pass the eye test. 

  • A no-nonsense 2025

    Saying out loud ‘2024’ has a certain ring to it. 2024 set out with the grand claim of being the year nearly half the world’s population would go to the polling booths. As we close in on the year, the events of the past eleven months have surely satiated the prophesiers. On July 13th, at a rally in Pennsylvania, we were witness to an attempt to assassinate Trump, a worn-out character then. Now here we are. Kopites at the Anfield (yes we are diverting) wept when Jurgen Klopp during that emotional (fawn-y) afternoon on May 20th bid farewell to Liverpool Football Club. The sentimental ones thought he was irreplaceable,  whose fist bumps thundered down the four stands of the Anfield. But here we are. It looks like the bald Dutch-nobody who was slotted into his place (pun intended) isn’t having a bad time after all. Nor is Mr. Trump. 

    To call 2024 eventful in an abstract sense would be trite, for every year is a treasury of events. The four numerals on paper are defined and remembered by the events that make it; it would be a non-existential semantic nonsense without it. Asymmetry of information from different parts of the world and a fundamental distrust are the themes that stood out to me this year. A “mad-man” at the helm of the most powerful country on earth to top it all. And perhaps his tech-genius square-faced acolyte (also known as X-lord). That the electorate has moved to the right is what political observers would say — from the perspective of centrist political parties, there’s some “catching up” to do (Macron comes to mind). Hardcore leftists will say centrists are radical right-wingers disguised in the garb of neo-progressive-conservatism. Maybe they’re right. Maybe not. It is not productive to dwell on such political (nonsense-) semantics again. Practically, it hasn’t reaped much. In the academia, perhaps some fodder for closed-door theoretical debates in unreadable, unaccessible, lofty journals. 

    The big predictions for 2025 have arrived. Did the predictions for 2024 age well? One thing is clear, while at the start of December last year Trump seemed like a remote possibility, the repercussions of such an incident being discussed in a jiffy as a non-negotiable ritual, now it’s become an indigestible reality. The entertainer has catapulted the masses to clinch a soaring victory. No more “didn’t win the popular vote” nonsense, he may have thought; he showed up at the heavy blue states, like his beloved New York for instance, to tilt the popular vote in his favour. Everything that has happened in 2024 appears hazy in comparison to the results on November 4th, for that has and will change the course of everything that is set to happen and gives everything that came before it a bittersweet flavour — on a lighter note, it is the feeling when kids who don’t quite know each other are thrust into the same room as a burly old man. They do not quite belong, yet history will sew them in the grand narrative of the events that preceded (and shaped) the biggest comeback in political history. 

    We all agree on this: Trump is the mad-man in the room. The theory was hypothesised during the time of Richard Nixon to play up his supposed irrationality and volatility in making decisions so that the communist bloc would scamper to avoid a negative reaction from him by cobbling a mutually non-adversarial settlement. This could happen well again, albeit with his NATO or even Chinese counterparts. But make no mistake, because his close aides (who are now off his books) claim that he is pragmatic despite the occasional crankiness and volatility. He’s a supreme entertainer who speaks ‘truth’ the way masses want to hear it. There’s more to Trump than there is, and 2025 will be a testament to that, be it for the good or the bad. 

    A politically suave deal-maker with an incorrigible belief in transactional alliances. Mr. Trump’s economic principles are clear: he wants to make America great again — harkening back to a non-existent mythical past — he’ll not let the trade partners who are apparently ‘cheating’ on America go scot-free, and his answer to any country that may pose a threat to the American economy? Tariffs. How about meeting America’s skyrocketing debt levels? Tariffs; making up for proposed tax cuts in revenue? Tariffs. As Tom Standage, the Economist’s deputy editor put it, Trump thinks Tariffs are some kind of magic money tree. The less exciting aspect of it is that it’s going to drive up prices for ordinary Americans. Legend has it that many of his supporters figured out what tariffs meant after the election. 

    All in all, the US has become an overstretched power. The gap between what the US is capable of, and the demands placed on it — which is usually expected of it — will grow in 2025. A snarky White House establishment will have much reckoning to do with a non-quite-in-its-control world order. 

    A big player, if not the big player, in that hitherto novel world order is China. To be fair, for all its autocracy and anti-western ideals, China does boast of some good ideas and achievements. That it may have gorged on coal is one thing, but it is at the forefront in the adoption of renewable energy technologies. It is host to the world’s biggest reserves of rare earth. Just how the US closed its doors to exports of semiconductor technology to Beijing, the latter is pepped up for a tit-for-tat. The imposition of tariffs next year could mark the intensification of an already fierce trading rivalry. Companies in the US can still boast of an edge in chip-making — they’re designed in America and manufactured in China’s estranged sibling, Taiwan — but this has only emboldened China to produce better (even less pricier) alternatives. Some of the best semiconductor models in the industry are Chinese. The US may no longer have a monopoly over, simply, chips. 

    It has become trendy for world leaders to proclaim that they must decouple their economies. Often the villain is China. But Europe has also been quietly insisting on becoming independent from the big guy across the Atlantic too. The idealistic centrist Macron has been the most vociferous advocate of it. Alas, only if the efforts to realise it could compare to the grand pronouncements. Decoupling is hard; factories and industries are not lego blocks to be removed and propped up anywhere we please. We are talking about cars and electronics. There are costs, contracts, relations, and even livelihoods at stake. Companies can’t jet off to any country as soon as it shows prospects of a burgeoning, cheap labour force. 

    Therefore, whether we like it or not, it is an interconnected world, with a few destructible walls erected here and there. Europe this year has been strikingly averse to tourism; Catalans with heads in their hands are storming the streets every month or so with anti-tourist protests. The main argument is that tourists are driving up local rental prices; more like rentiers want to lease rooms and apartments to once-in-a-lifetime visitors who are willing to pay more than local inhabitants. In this writer’s opinion, it should be a matter of regulative policies and incentives. The angst is misdirected. But this emotional disequilibrium has cleared the way for new entrants: enter the oil-giants of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has been promoting tourism in a bid to diversify its oil-dependent economy. Along with hosting football world cup, Usyk vs Fury, a 38-something Cristiano Ronaldo… choke, choke, did I mention LIV Golf? 

    Global debts have swelled, in large part fuelled by pandemic-era spending. Many advanced economies have unsustainable deficits (honourable mention: USA) — could this entice a move to austerity? America under Trump will like to remain aloof, oblivious to the wars of the world — some of which it has had a tiny hand in — and as solipsists would have it, focus inwards. This will prompt many countries to jack up their spending on defence. Space is becoming militarised (and cluttered). This turn of events will not dent the US economy or the image of its strong economy however. Expect a capital influx into Uncle Sam’s economy; the dopamine shot of a MAGA homecoming has been irresistible for investors. 

    The fate of Crypto is a little shaky. Artificial intelligence has not (yet) lived up to its hype. More than $1 trillion have been poured into AI infrastructure. The investors are becoming wary . But it could be precisely when the latter becomes disillusioned that the technology might pick up — the same was said of crypto, but again, here we are. It could make or break the future. The bottomline, as with domestic and geo-politics, is to expect the unbelievable. For one, who thought the sponge-bob-faced Elon Musk who starred in a sensible guest role in the mighty Big Bang Theory years ago would head a government department titled ‘DOGE’ with another square-faced (slightly smaller) pretentious eccentric (you-know-who)? 

    Hardcore realism is the fad — why would the plebeian not fancy a bit of combative politics? — with its attendant unnerving social phenomena — hear ‘racismo’? A transactional world than an ideological world; differences in ideology does not necessarily beget a reset in trade ties unlike alignments in the cold war era. Putin doesn’t think the rules apply to him, much to the delight of his autocrat-admirers around the world. The BRICS truly are a motley of strange bedfellows; the only principle that holds them together is their shared suspicion of the West regardless of their internal skirmishes — China was sitting in India’s backyard until very recently a deescalation-agreement of sorts was cobbled up. 

    And lastly, but certainly the irritant Democrats had at the top of their heads during the middle of the year— Biden’s age and his fragility and as with age, his adamance to step down from candidature. In a survey reported by The Economist, more rich/democratic/both countries around the world seem to favour younger leaders. A breath of fresh air, youth, dynamism is being preferred to the same-old-stock of politicians. The notable exception of course is America. Well, if Trump thinks he is as young as JD Vance, and his supporters chime in, who’s stopping him? Coming to the practical aspect of the issue, much of the rich world is ageing and China seeks to work around it by encouraging a silver economy — a market economy that caters to the old. The point is to shift the perception about them being a ‘burden’ on the economy by accommodating them in economically productive ways. Japan’s baby boomers, who’ll cross an average age of 75 next year, can look forward to something similar if the plan materialises as intended. 

    There it is, fresh perspectives for an unrevealed, neatly packed 2025. Change, turbulence, technological optimism (and doomsaying) are expected to prevail, but what unites humans from across the political spectrum is hope. The hope for change. What may be progress for one lot, could be destruction for the other. But it’s hope in its positive connotation that dones different hats that’s the shared emotion. Every person has an ideology, for indifference is also an ideology. And for all that 2024 has given us, we can be certain (and if you’re into that sort of thing,’hope’) that 2025 will be no less interesting, if not more. We are humans and it doesn’t hurt to be incorrigible optimists—at least until you reach the last word of this muse— so here’s to a no-nonsense 2025! 

  • A Trump 2.0 shouldn’t be a surprise

    With just over four days to go for the election, much is at stake for the United States and the world. The numbers are confounding, and the race painfully close. If it’s abortion for Harris, for Trump it’s immigration. Two subjects the Pope is displeased with (as the Pope expressed last month . the former more so than the latter. He exhorted the Catholic faithful to choose the “lesser of two evils.” 

    While it may seem inarguable that many would want someone prudent helming the White House, voter choices go beyond mere testimonies of competency and sound policies. Donald Trump may be all wack and rubbish to the dispassionate observer sitting afar on the other side of the globe. But to his domestic conservative-leaning audience, he’s a messiah. Somehow he has mastered the art of discerning people’s fears and putting them in sensible*, digestible terms even if it may sound stupid. GDP, growth, figures, indices etc are important in governance but they matter less when it comes to the behavioural influences that make up a voter’s mind. It’s easy to blame the economy’s woes on the people who don’t look like you, even if it is neither rational nor ideal — concepts that matter little to those running the Republican campaign. A quick-fix solution by throwing sand on people’s eyes. These are the classic tricks and manoeuvres every demagogue has up their sleeve. 

    Trump has the uncanny ability to translate the banal to one that pricks the collective conscience, like in the case of Haitians allegedly eating pets. His simplistic rhetorical style, that could only vie with that of a middle-schooler, void of any turn of phrase, something similar to rambling, IS for all its shortcomings, appealing to voters. It appeals to the average red-neck American who looks at the glitzy Democratic National Conventions with a feeling of derision and envy. He may be a tycoon, but his assurances speak to countless working-class Americans, home-makers, unemployed youth and reflect their deepest concerns. 

     It would be hard to deny there’s also a tinge of sexism at play here albeit in indiscernible ways since Harris took over. An increasing number of African-Americans, Latinos, even Indian-Americans too have been flocking to the Republican camp.

    As much as one may haver on about the economy, what voters irrespective of their education or financial status immediately understand without any subject-specific prerequisites and might have an opinion about are social issues. The age of wokeism has begun receding and people are becoming more conservative in their social outlook. Had this been only a phenomenon observed in boomers it would have been less a cause for concern. But data suggests that young men are moving to the right (while young women are among the most progressive cohorts). A polarisation in worldviews across genders and age-groups await us. 

    All of which points to why a second Trump presidency is not unthinkable. Harris is also seen as being light on policies and harping on the abortion narrative excessively despite its growing irrelevance for a fair share of the women population. Contrary to conventional thinking, abortion rates have declined since Roe v. Wade in 1971. Nor are all women hinged on the liberal women’s rights outlook. The sneer at ‘childless cat ladies’ has found favour among many middle-aged women in the US, Swifties’ lamentations regardless.

    A second Trump homecoming was touted to be dark and dangerous for the future of the country during the start of Harris’ campaign, and given how she had catapulted into fame after the gigantic convention at Chicago, Trump 2.0 seemed like an impossibility. Now the world is looking at the face of the very same darkness and danger that Americans seem to have unabashedly embraced. MAGA may not have seen its time yet. 

  • World Ahead 2024

    The Economist comes out with its ‘World Ahead’ at the end of every year showcasing its predictions and things to look out for the next year. I have been a regular reader (and viewer) of this annual ritual and the insights have been particularly illuminating. To be fair, they’re not ‘predictions’ in the strict sense of the word but the newspaper’s thoughts on prospective changes for the next three sixty five days have mostly been on point. Or so they make it seem. But in reality, how well have they fared? Does it live up to its hype? 

    The answer is in the affirmative. For instance, the year 2024 was one that was expected to be eventful. And the newspaper did a great job at throwing light on the different issues in different quarters of the world that would the forthcoming twelve months and indirectly weaving them into a narrative that will seem coherent to the eye that sees the big picture. 

    Almost half of the world’s population have gone on (or are going) to vote this year. An incredible statistic but elections are not necessarily a marker of democracy. Sham elections held to gain false legitimacy nationally and internationally have increasingly become the norm under illiberal regimes. The results of US elections are going to be consequential. Europe and Ukraine by extension must prepare for a potential homecoming-of-sorts of a Trump Presidency. China, Trump’s favourite bugbear, is growing albeit slowly. But that doesn’t stop the threat to American unipolarity which has sharply been dwindling. We are witnessing the rise of a multipolar world; America has become an ‘overstretched power’ in the words of Tom Standage, The Economist’s editor. Decoupling with China isn’t easy; manufacturing houses can shift their bases to neighbouring countries like Vietnam and India (China + 1 strategy) but the components are still being sourced from China. And that dependency may not end any time soon. The need to mitigate climate change have driven the West to mineral-rich countries such as Chile, Argentina, Brazil, New Caledonia etc. Middle powers are gaining leverage. As for the global economy—which had been ailing for a while courtesy the pandemic and picked up pace in the wake of the post-pandemic spending boom encouraged by lavish doles and generous spending programmes— it hasn’t cured of the by-large-pandemic-induced inflation curse yet. But long-term high interest rates could affect people and businesses. Artificial intelligence is the latest fad in the town, the new kid in the block about whom some are raving and some are complaining. It can aid the efficient and make a loser of the lazy. It enables faster coding but dishes out faster plagiarism-proof essays too. Powers to orchestrate disinformation campaigns and torpedo job markets can make it less desirable in the immediate future. But Silicon Valley is pumped up; it ain’t waiting for anybody. Zuckerberg is brooding in his idealistic metaverse. The elephant in the room the US keeps trying to ignore, the war in Gaza, may not abate anytime soon despite the killing of several Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists. Much of the world outside the US-AIPAC nexus is becoming sympathetic to the cause of Palestine. Their plight are not going unheard. In such a fractured world, with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and the like moving to one end and the allies of the West split somewhere in the middle, becoming increasingly skeptical of the US’ agendas, the prospects for a united world are dim. When a squabble comes calling on the shores of Taiwan, will the US come to the latter’s aid? To Asia it has indeed pivoted, but to anchor itself amid China’s string of pearls is the challenge. Sink may it not, wishes the Washington tsars. 

  • It’s Kamala Harris time, at least for now

    The glistening white smile of the woman born to an African father and an Indian mother who was annointed the vice president of the United States just four years ago is surely something everybody will have noticed. It fuelled a spate of online memes, gifs, and clips. “Kamala is brat” bawled the famous singer charli xcx the day after she was nominated by President Biden after the latter took the (late) decision to step down. A jubilant Kamala Harris grooving with some pretty intricate steps to the beats of a catchy music with kids playing around is something that’ll delight the eye. If officially nominated by the Democratic Party (which warrants the Obamas’ endorsement who unusually have been holding out) she’ll be the first Black, Afro-American, Indian-American woman to be nominated. And if the results are kind to her on November 4th, she may well make history.

    Critics describe her as being ‘dangerously liberal’. One of ultra-conservatives’ biggest obsessions, abortion laws, will ratchet up straight to the top of her agenda by virtue of her being a woman alone. Harsher voices in the liberal mainstream allege that she lacks the charisma to take on Trump. And crucially that she lacks time to consolidate the voter base of the Democratic party. While there’s a partial truth to these claims, it is not unresolvable. She may lack the charisma of a political personality but she has the intelligence and vigour to demolish the lies of the 80-edging demagogue. Her qualities as a litigator and a prosecutor will come in handy in the fiery debates we can expect between the two candidates in the months to come. 

    Another shortcoming perceived by the skeptical few within the democratic party is that since she hails from a state, California, that is a democratic stronghold, that she does not bring a swing state with her. This will have to be remedied by being cautious about the vice-presidential pick. John Shapiro, the popular governor of Pennsylvania, is best placed to take up the candidature. 

    “You think you fell out of a coconut tree?” is one of her popular phrases that became viral after a speech she gave in 2023 in which she talks about how her mother “gave them [the kids] a hard time”. At one point, on a philosophical note, she said, “I don’t know what’s wrong with you young people, you think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you,” — which on the face of it is accurate, despite netizens bleating about her speech being ‘crazy’. At a broader level, we’re also shaped by the socio-political-cultural context we were born into. Like light shining through the chink of a curtain, it gives us a peak into her identity and the struggles she has had to deal with to make it to where she is today. 

    Critics like the British Etonian public-school-boy Rory Stewart will make a fuss about her candidacy being ‘coronated’ of sorts. That argument is a tad underwhelming primarily due to the paucity of time. Holding an open contest in search of a nominee would in fact throw the party into a disarray, scrambling for funds with no time being devolved to the actual presidential campaign, while Donald Trump gets all the time in the world to consolidate his base. 

    Had Biden stepped down in March, the circumstances would’ve looked different, paving the way for the new candidate to fully establish themselves in the scene, like Lyndon Johnson did several decades ago. A reluctant Joe Biden for well over two weeks had been defying calls from prominent members of the party and donors to step down from the race who had been (rightly) concerned about his fitness to run for the office. Four months is not a lot of time, but can reap results if utilised to counter the threat posed by Trump and the ultra-conservative Republicans through effective information-based campaigning. For Trump, lies galore, and truth is the only formidable weapon, at least in this writer’s perspective, that can trump lies. While we sink to our couches to see what becomes of the Democratic party’s official candidature, it’s Kamala Harris’ time, at least for now. There’s much to take pride in, and much to be relieved about, again, at least for now.