My Learnings

As we watch films about Partition, I think we owe the people who lived through 1947 something more than a convenient version of history. We owe them remembrance. Perhaps the most humane way to remember Partition is to acknowledge that there was not one set of victims. There were Hindu families who were massacred in the areas that became Pakistan. There were Sikh families who suffered the same fate. There were also Muslims who were killed, driven from their homes and subjected to terrible violence in East Punjab and elsewhere. Millions survived—but lost their homes, their communities and often members of their families. Women were abducted and subjected to unimaginable violence. Children were separated from their parents. Entire villages and neighbourhoods disappeared. This was not an ordinary episode of communal tension. It was a human catastrophe. What Does the Historical Evidence Tell Us? With Main Wapas Aaunga bringing the trauma of Partition back into public discussion, perhaps it ...

I recently came across a video of a former Muslim arguing that Islam isn't really a religion but a political system of conquest — that Muslims preach tolerance as minorities and abandon it once they hold power. My first reaction was to reject this as a sweeping, unfair generalisation. I still do. Nearly two billion Muslims are not one political project, and I've seen no convincing evidence of some coordinated strategy to feign tolerance until the numbers turn. But dismissing the criticism outright isn't enough. There's an uncomfortable question buried inside it, and I think we owe ourselves an honest answer. The asymmetry As minorities in the West, Muslims rightly demand full religious freedom: to build mosques, preach, dress as they choose, raise their children in the faith, and invite others to it. That demand is legitimate and shouldn't be diluted. But in a number of Muslim-majority states, the reverse freedoms are constrained. Apostasy carries the death penalty ...

Many people today feel that democracy is failing. But perhaps democracy itself is not the problem. The real problem is that the environment in which democracy operates has changed dramatically, while its institutions have not. For most of modern history, influencing public opinion was difficult and expensive. A political leader had to persuade newspapers to publish their views, speak at public meetings, or appear on television. Information spread relatively slowly, giving journalists, experts, and opponents time to question claims, expose falsehoods, and offer alternative viewpoints. No single person or group could instantly influence millions of people. Today, that has changed. A message—true or false—can reach millions within minutes. AI can generate convincing fake videos and images. Social media algorithms reward outrage over accuracy because outrage keeps people engaged. Political campaigns can target different messages to different groups without public scrutiny. Wealth, data, an...

Human beings are remarkably complex, yet much of our behavior can be understood through a few fundamental needs. We seek the freedom to govern ourselves, the comfort of belonging, the security of well-being, the pursuit of truth, and the experience of happiness or fulfillment. In many ways, the story of civilization is the story of humanity's attempt to satisfy these five needs. Over thousands of years, we have built institutions to meet them. Yet a troubling pattern emerges: the very institutions created to serve human beings often drift away from their original purpose. The Need for Self-Rule: Democracy Human beings desire agency over their lives. We do not wish to be treated as mere subjects of kings, emperors, or dictators. To fulfill this need, societies developed democracy, constitutional government, and human rights. Democracy was meant to give ordinary people a voice in shaping their collective future. It represented a victory over arbitrary power. Yet many citizens today f...

The First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system — used in countries like India, the UK, and the US — is simple: the candidate with the most votes wins. But there’s a problem. A candidate can win even if most people voted against them. For example: - Candidate A: 34% - Candidate B: 33% - Candidate C: 33% Candidate A wins the entire seat despite 66% of voters preferring someone else. This is why critics argue that FPTP often fails to represent the true will of the people. The Biggest Criticism: Minority Rule Under FPTP, political parties frequently win large parliamentary majorities with only 35–40% of the national vote. That means: - Most voters did not support them - Yet they gain near-total governing power Critics say this distorts democracy by turning plurality support into absolute power. Millions of Votes Become Meaningless In FPTP: - Votes for losing candidates have no representation - Even excess votes for winning candidates are effectively wasted As a result, millions vote but see little ...

Most people don’t think about fairness every day. You go to work, stand in line, deal with officials, make calls—and things, mostly, work. Maybe not perfectly, but well enough. So it’s easy to believe the system is fine. But here’s the part most people miss: A system doesn’t fail when it stops working for a few. It fails when those few stop believing it ever will. What You Don’t See For someone on the other side of disadvantage, unfairness isn’t one big event. It’s a pattern. - Being heard less seriously - Being trusted a little less - Being given fewer chances to prove themselves At first, they push back. Then they adjust. They stop complaining. They stop expecting fairness. They stop relying on the system. This is what it looks like when trust in the Rule of Law quietly breaks—not in headlines, but in everyday choices. And Then the System Changes — For You Too You might not notice it immediately. But once people stop trusting the system, the system itself starts shifting: - More work...