Raquel

The word ‘dalal’ shocked some here in India and some Birkin babes in that country, but it really was too sophisticated a word for that excuse of a country

“At least we died with honour” It’s extraordinary how few people in British politics, who cheered on this nutty war, understand this mindset. They still think everyone in the Middle East really wants to live in Dubai and post luxury cars on Instagram.

This romanticisation of “public spaces under flyovers”, needs to STOP, as it’s the biggest health exposure risk. Children and youth sitting metres away from traffic are inhaling concentrated NOx and PM₂.₅ levels far higher than what city AQI monitors record. If you want such public spaces, push for ZEV mandates and eliminate tailpipes.

Iranian Media: U.S. Pilot In Iranian Custody

Nirupama Rao: Have given Pakistan 3 new dossiers

I am no stranger to criticism and have learnt, over time, to absorb it without losing focus. That is part of public life. What is harder to accept is the steady erosion of civility in our discourse. Disagreement is essential; derision and vituperative, personal slander is not. A confident society does not fear dialogue—it conducts it with balance, clarity, and respect. As for me, I follow the teaching of Sri Ramakrishna and his advice: “forbear, forbear, forbear.” That has guided me through my life’s journey.

The world is being reordered by those who act and those who define. If India wishes to be counted among the latter, it must ensure that its silence does not speak louder than its convictions. We are living through a moment when the rules of the international system are being rewritten in real time. Assassinations of leaders, the killing of civilians, open assertions of force—these are no longer aberrations but instruments. In such a world, silence is not neutrality. It is read, interpreted, and often misread as consent. India has long claimed a distinctive space in global affairs—not as an appendage to power, but as a voice shaped by its own civilisational experience and its history of speaking for sovereignty, restraint, and balance. That voice mattered because it was consistent, even when inconvenient. Strategic autonomy cannot mean adjusting our language to the hierarchy of power. Restraint has its place. Calibration is necessary. But when fundamental questions arise—about sovereignty, about the limits of force, about the protection of civilians—India cannot afford to be silent. A moral compass is not an ornament of foreign policy. It is its direction. Without it, realism drifts into accommodation, and autonomy into ambiguity. This war has damaged India’s interests in almost every practical sense. It has raised costs, narrowed diplomatic room, stressed shipping, complicated Chabahar, and injected fresh instability into a region vital to India’s economy and external strategy. Even if New Delhi can cushion the blow, it cannot plausibly claim that the blow itself serves India. The deeper question is whether India is willing to say so with sufficient clarity.