SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES

When Profit Trumps Protection, Children Pay the Price—A Nation’s Regulatory Amnesia Lets Toxic Cough Syrups Flow Freely While Innocent Lives Are Lost

In 2025, the deaths of at least sixteen children in central and western India after consuming contaminated cough syrup tore open an old wound in the nation’s public health conscience. What should have been a simple remedy for a common cough transformed into a silent execution—bottled in bright labels and sold over the counter. Laboratory tests revealed diethylene glycol, a chemical used in brake fluid and antifreeze, toxic enough to kill even in minuscule doses. These children, unlucky in illness alone, became victims of a system that prioritizes profit over life and opacity over accountability.

This tragedy is not an aberration—it is repetition. Decades ago, dozens of children died after consuming cough syrup laced with the same lethal chemical. Commissions and expert committees issued detailed recommendations for drug safety reforms, urging stricter inspections and transparent oversight. Yet, four decades later, the same poison continues to flow freely through the veins of the most vulnerable. “It is the same toxin, the same neglect, the same institutional amnesia,” an expert in drug policy notes.

India’s pharmaceutical regulation remains fractured. The central authorities approve new drugs, but state governments are responsible for enforcing manufacturing standards. This split creates a labyrinth of loopholes, where enforcement varies wildly. Of roughly 10,500 pharmaceutical units in the country, experts estimate only about 20 percent are fully compliant with good manufacturing practices, nearly half operate in violation, and the rest exist in grey zones of lax supervision, paper compliance, and convenient ignorance.

At the root lies cost-cutting disguised as efficiency. Cough syrups require pharmaceutical-grade glycerine—a safe but costly solvent. Many manufacturers substitute cheaper industrial-grade alternatives containing diethylene glycol (DEG) or ethylene glycol (EG) to save a few rupees per litre. The results are catastrophic. Once ingested, these chemicals attack the kidneys, leading to acute renal failure. For adults, the dose is deadly; for children, it is annihilating.

Even after repeated tragedies, regulatory vigilance remains a mirage. Recommendations decades ago called for one drug inspector for every 55 manufacturing units and one for every 200 pharmacies. Today, most states have a fraction of that oversight. Underpaid and overburdened, inspectors are often complicit or coerced into silence. Informal arrangements replace formal accountability, leaving the system dependent on luck rather than enforcement.

The irony is brutal. India, celebrated as the “pharmacy of the world,” exports medicines to over 200 countries, including those with stringent quality standards in North America and Europe. Yet domestic production lines often operate under lower safety protocols. One can manufacture for the world with world-class quality while supplying the domestic market with inferior products, where oversight fades and standards drop.

When disaster strikes, blame rarely travels upward. Authorities often target the prescriber or frontline healthcare workers, deflecting attention from systemic rot. A physician cannot test every medicine for purity and relies on the regulatory framework to ensure safety. Scapegoating the prescriber ignores the broader failure: manufacturers and regulators who failed to protect the public.

Beyond regulatory lapses lies a deeper absurdity: most children do not need cough syrup at all. Paediatric experts long argue that the majority of childhood coughs are viral and self-limiting. Syrups offer no real cure; they merely suppress symptoms, often at the cost of side effects. Yet parents expect medicine, pharmacies comply, and pharmaceutical companies exploit this psychology through aggressive marketing. The cycle of ignorance, profit, and tragedy continues unabated.

Breaking this cycle demands courage, not cosmetics. India must implement a “test-to-release” system for high-risk medicines, especially paediatric syrups. Regulatory staffing must match the scale of the industry, with criminal prosecution for violators, including culpable homicide for proven negligence. Every bottle should be digitally traceable through QR-coded supply chains, allowing consumers to verify authenticity instantly. Doctors must educate parents about unnecessary drug use and the risks of overmedicating children.

These measures are not futuristic dreams; they are global norms. Countries with advanced regulatory frameworks enforce non-negotiable safety standards for high-risk medicines, ensuring no child is exposed to preventable harm. India has the technology, scientists, and manufacturing might to implement similar safeguards. What it lacks is moral urgency—the conviction that a child’s life is worth more than a company’s profit margin.

Until that conviction takes root, “Made in India” remains a paradox: exported pride, domestic peril. For grieving parents, words and inquiries are cold comfort. Their children’s coughs have fallen silent forever, smothered by a syrup that promised relief and delivered death. The sweetest poison, it seems, still flows unchecked through India’s veins, a reminder that innovation without accountability can be lethal.

India’s global reputation as the “pharmacy of the world” can only be sustained if it first ensures the safety of its own children. Until systemic reforms are enacted, every cough syrup bottle carries not just medicine but a potential menace—a lesson in tragedy repeating itself through indifference, greed, and bureaucratic failure. The bitter truth is unavoidable: children continue to pay the price for a system that values profit over life.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

Crime, drugs, and immigration chaos fused into a syndemic tearing the nation apart—and why the cure lies in compassion, prevention, and global lessons. 

 The United States, long hailed as the land of opportunity, now finds itself trapped in a vortex of its own making—a nation at war with itself, staggering under the combined weight of violent crime, a raging drug epidemic, and a broken immigration system. These three crises are not separate fires to be extinguished but interlocking infernos that feed each other, burning through communities and corroding faith in the American promise. What makes this spiral dangerous is not only its scale but the stubborn refusal to abandon strategies that have already failed: punishment-first policies, political theatrics, and half-measures that treat symptoms but ignore causes.

Violent crime in America has a particular ferocity unknown to other developed nations, fuelled by an obsession with firearms. Gun homicides remain dramatically higher than in peer countries, carving their toll most visibly into disadvantaged neighbourhoods long scarred by poverty, racism, and disinvestment. Recidivism festers because rehabilitation remains a slogan rather than a reality, and the cycle of crime spins on. Add to this the opioid crisis, now weaponized by fentanyl, claiming over 100,000 lives annually and devastating both urban centers and rural heartlands. Addiction is still criminalized rather than treated as a chronic illness, ensuring that jails and morgues are filled while treatment centers remain scarce. Layered on top of these two catastrophes is an immigration system collapsing under its own weight—years-long asylum backlogs, insufficient legal pathways for labour, and humanitarian crises at the border. Each challenge amplifies the other: gangs and cartels exploit desperate migrants, drugs flood communities, and strained law enforcement diverts resources in all the wrong directions.

The result is a syndemic—a perfect storm where guns, drugs, and immigration chaos intertwine. America’s answer has long been to punish harder, incarcerate more, and build bigger walls. But the War on Drugs became a war on people, disproportionately harming minorities without reducing supply or demand. Prisons turned into human warehouses rather than places of transformation. Immigration policy, paralyzed by partisanship, oscillates between cruelty and chaos without delivering order or fairness. The cost of these approaches is staggering, not just in dollars but in shattered families, lost lives, and broken trust.

Yet the way forward does not have to be guesswork. Other nations have faced similar crises and found smarter, humane solutions. Portugal shows that drug use, when treated as a health issue, can be controlled: drug deaths and infections plummeted after decriminalization and investment in treatment. Scotland, once plagued by lethal violence, reframed crime as a public health problem, targeting those most at risk with support and opportunity rather than just threats. Iceland, by focusing on youth prevention through extracurriculars and parental engagement, turned a generation away from substance abuse. Canada and Australia demonstrate that orderly, points-based immigration systems can balance humanitarian needs with labour market demands, while efficient asylum systems prevent chaos at borders. Norway proves that prisons can rehabilitate instead of destroy, with recidivism rates far below America’s.

For the U.S., the lesson is blunt: punishment alone is poison. The country must build a new architecture of safety and compassion that rests on four pillars. First, treat addiction with evidence-based healthcare, expanding access to medication-assisted treatment, harm reduction centres, and naloxone. Second, reimagine crime control as prevention, investing in schools, jobs, and mentorship instead of pouring billions into failed enforcement. Third, reform prisons into genuine rehabilitation centres, ending solitary confinement, providing education and training, and smoothing re-entry with policies that unlock jobs and housing for the formerly incarcerated. Fourth, overhaul immigration by creating legal pathways for needed workers, fixing asylum backlogs with resources and efficiency, and addressing root causes in source countries through international cooperation.

This is not softness. It is strength—because real safety is not achieved by swelling prison populations or militarizing borders but by dismantling the despair that breeds violence, addiction, and desperation. It is cheaper, smarter, and more humane to prevent than to punish, to heal than to cage, to integrate than to exclude. The obstacles are political, not practical; the evidence already exists.

Every overdose victim, every shooting casualty, every family torn apart at the border is a reminder of what delay costs. America’s triple trouble—guns, needles, and borders gone mad—need not define its destiny. With courage, creativity, and compassion, the nation can turn catastrophe into renewal. It requires daring to learn from the world, daring to break with failed dogmas, and daring to admit that justice without mercy is no justice at all. America has the wealth, the ingenuity, and the capacity to lead the world not in incarceration, but in innovation—if only it finds the will to change.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more information

From Gandhi’s salt to Ambani’s molecules and Adani’s megawatts, the Rann of Kutch is no longer just India’s salt bowl—it’s the battlefield where survival, sustainability, and supremacy collide. 

The Rann of Kutch is a place that most Indians will never set foot in, but whose gifts touch almost every kitchen, factory, and highway in the country. For centuries this has been a desert of extremes—a blinding salt plain that floods like an inland sea in the monsoon and hardens into a shimmering crust in summer. Nearly three-fourths of India’s salt still comes from here, a legacy born of the 1819 earthquake that cut the land off from the Arabian Sea. Salt was Kutch’s first great offering to the nation, sustained by generations of Agariyas who wrestled survival out of evaporation and endurance. But deserts, like old magicians, always have a second trick hidden up their sleeve. Today, those white salt flats are being reimagined as the launchpad of India’s green energy revolution.

This is no quiet story of incremental development. It is spectacle—salt becoming sun, scarcity mutating into abundance, and India’s two most powerful billionaires, Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani, turning Kutch into their grand chessboard. Between them, they have locked claims over nearly a million acres of land—close to a tenth of the district itself. Their projects are so vast that they cannot be measured in megawatts alone; they must be imagined as empires. Ambani has staked out the future of molecules, promising a ₹75,000 crore “new energy ecosystem” by 2032: 20 GW of solar modules, 40 GW of battery storage, and three million tonnes of green hydrogen every year. He is betting on chemistry, not electricity, trying to master the molecules that will power global industry. Adani, by contrast, is building monuments of scale: 30 GW of solar and wind farms at Khavda, stitched together with his own private transmission lines, forming the largest cluster of its kind anywhere on Earth. Ambani is alchemy, Adani is architecture; one dreams of hydrogen exports, the other of flooding India’s grid with electrons.

At first glance they seem to run in parallel, but in reality their battlefields overlap everywhere—factories, incentives, grid corridors, supply chains. Analysts murmur about duopoly: that India’s green future might be carved not by the public will, but by the private strategies of two families. Yet paradoxically, for India, this clash may prove a blessing. If Ambani builds the molecules and Adani lays down the Solar parks, India could leapfrog into renewable dominance at breath-taking speed.

But deserts always demand their toll. Reliance’s hydrogen ambitions are crippled for now by missing pipelines and punishing transport costs. Grid access is capped at just 3 GW until 2030, a drop compared to its targets. Adani carries reputational baggage heavier than any turbine—his identity as India’s coal king, the bruises of the Carmichael mine in Australia, the accusations of greenwashing soot with solar gloss. Global capital, wary of contradictions, watches nervously. Beyond both men, the fundamentals remain harsh: coal still anchors 74% of India’s grid, batteries are cripplingly expensive, hydrogen costs run two to three times higher than fossil fuels, and without adequate evacuation lines, mega-projects risk turning into stranded assets.

The ecological costs cut deeper. Kutch is no empty wasteland—it is one of the last habitats of the Great Indian Bustard, a bird so rare it verges on myth. Transmission lines slice through its skies like guillotines, while the Supreme Court’s order for underground cabling remains half-fulfilled. The Banni grasslands, home to Maldhari pastoralists for centuries, are being whittled away by corridors and panels, threatening to erase an entire way of life unless community leases and revenue-sharing anchor them to the land. Then comes the cruel irony of water: cleaning solar panels at this scale could consume billions of liters in one of India’s driest regions. The desert that once epitomized survival through scarcity may now risk dying of abundance.

Globally, the irony grows sharper. Much of the power from these sun farms may not light up Indian villages at all, but instead fuel Silicon Valley’s hunger for green data centres. For Google and Meta, carbon footprints shrink neatly on balance sheets; for Kutch, the ecological ledger bleeds red. Critics fear this dissonance most—that India’s desert will be sacrificed as collateral for global optics.

Yet retreat is not an option. India has pledged 500 GW of renewables by 2030, and without Kutch the math falls apart. The challenge is not whether India can build green energy, but whether it can build it fairly. That means mapping corridors to avoid fragile habitats, conducting cumulative impact assessments instead of piecemeal clearances, deploying robotic dry-cleaning to save water, and enforcing transparent policies that don’t bend geography for corporate might.

Kutch has always been a parable of survival against impossible odds—first with salt, now with sun. For Ambani and Adani, it is a battleground. For India, it is a proving ground. Recklessly built, it could become a graveyard of stranded assets, broken habitats, and thirsty lands. Wisely shaped, it could become the desert of tomorrow—where salt and sun combine not just for survival but for prosperity.

Because when the salt gods face off with the sun kings, the outcome cannot simply be another billionaire duel. It must be the revolution that proves India can lead the world into a green future—without abandoning the people and land that made it possible.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

A crop once mocked as surplus has turned into a ₹1,800-crore export empire, proving that revolutions can be salty, crunchy, and golden.

Not so long ago, the idea of India competing with Europe or the United States in the French fry business would have seemed laughable. Potatoes were not even native to India—they hailed from South America and arrived here only in the late 16th or early 17th century with Portuguese traders, before the British spread them widely across Bengal and beyond. For centuries, the humble aloo was a simple relief crop for households and never a money-spinner. In fact, as recently as the mid-2000s, India was a net importer, bringing in 5,000 to 7,000 tonnes of potatoes a year. Farmers in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal often dumped excess harvests back into the soil because selling them wouldn’t even cover transport costs. Yet today, the story is startlingly different. India produces nearly 60 million tonnes of potatoes annually, second only to China, and has emerged as a frozen fry powerhouse with exports soaring to nearly ₹1,817 crores ($217 million) in FY25—nine times the figure from just five years ago.

This meteoric rise was neither accidental nor overnight. It began in the late 1990s when McCain Foods, the world’s largest producer of frozen potato products, set up shop in India. But the real spark came in 2017 when Lamb Weston, another American giant, opened a processing plant in Gujarat and struck gold by becoming the exclusive supplier for McDonald’s outlets across India. Once big restaurants realized the demand for fries was exploding, Indian processors like HyFun Foods, Iscon Balaji, Farmway, and Chill Foods piled in, determined not to leave the golden opportunity to multinationals alone. Together with global heavyweights such as Cavendish and Lamb Weston, they built empires out of fries, and Gujarat quickly emerged as the epicenter of India’s potato revolution.

The strategy was simple yet transformative: contract farming. Instead of relying on ordinary Indian table potatoes, which carried too much sugar and water to fry evenly, companies introduced European processing varieties like Santana and Innovator. These yellow-fleshed tubers produced fries that were crisp, golden, and uniform—the kind global buyers demanded. Farmers received certified seeds, modern irrigation techniques, and guaranteed prices of ₹25–30 per kilogram, often with access to credit and agronomic guidance. In return, processors got a steady supply of high-quality potatoes. For farmers, the change was life-altering; average incomes jumped 75% since 2017, and instead of despairing over crop gluts, they now enjoyed assured demand and stable returns.

At the same time, scientists at ICAR and the Central Potato Research Institute developed indigenous varieties like Kufri Frysona with low sugar and high dry matter to complement imported strains. Coupled with investments in cold storage and refrigerated logistics, India suddenly had the ecosystem to compete globally. Gujarat’s mild winters and long days turned out to be perfect for processing potatoes, and today the state accounts for 80% of the country’s output. Madhya Pradesh and Punjab are catching up fast, adding scale to what has become a quiet agri-industrial revolution.

The results speak volumes. India’s frozen fry exports crossed the 20,000-tonne mark for the first time in February 2025, with annual shipments touching 181,773 tonnes—a 45% year-on-year increase. Markets once dominated by Belgium, the Netherlands, and the U.S. now look to India as a reliable alternative. From the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia in Southeast Asia to Saudi Arabia and the UAE in the Middle East, Indian fries are replacing imports that used to travel from Europe’s faraway ports. The domestic quick-service restaurant market—from McDonald’s to Burger King to countless homegrown brands—has also provided steady demand, making India one of the fastest-growing fry markets globally.

Yet, the road ahead is not entirely smooth. Infrastructure remains a pressing constraint. Only about 10–15% of India’s cold storage capacity is suitable for frozen foods, and the shortage of refrigerated trucks poses spoilage risks. Frequent power outages add another layer of uncertainty to a supply chain that thrives on temperature precision. There are also deeper ecological concerns: potato farming demands 500–700 millimetres of water per cycle, and erratic monsoons combined with groundwater depletion threaten long-term sustainability. Companies are therefore investing in climate-resilient seed varieties, drip irrigation, and renewable-powered cold chains to mitigate risks.

Still, the optimism is palpable. With major investments lined up from McCain, HyFun, and others, India is aiming to become Asia’s second-largest frozen fry exporter after China by 2027. The global French fry market, worth around $24 billion, is hungry for reliable suppliers, and India has proven it can deliver quality at competitive prices—sometimes even undercutting China. Farmers have moved from despair to confidence, processors from trial-and-error to global scale, and policymakers from worrying about imports to celebrating exports.

It’s an unlikely love story, this Indian affair with the French fry. From arriving on the Malabar Coast centuries ago as a foreign curiosity to being reimagined in modern Gujarat as a global commodity, the potato has carved out a new destiny here. India once buried unsold crops back into the earth; now it ships golden fries to half the world. And as the industry scales new heights, one can’t help but wonder if the day is not far when India will proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with Belgium and the Netherlands as one of the planet’s largest fry exporters—proof that sometimes the crispiest revolutions are also the most delicious.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

It’s not infidelity or adventure that drives her out—it’s the slow death of respect, intimacy, and being truly seen.

When a woman looks beyond her marriage or family for emotional support, it is rarely a reckless leap into betrayal or thrill-seeking. It is more often a slow, painful exodus born out of emotional starvation. At the core of her being, a woman values intimacy as the foundation of her relationship, and when that foundation is cracked by neglect, disrespect, or indifference, she begins to feel as though she is living in a house with no roof—technically a shelter, but offering no safety. For her, sex is not the fuel that runs the engine of connection but the fire that glows once warmth already exists. When that warmth dies, physical intimacy feels hollow, mechanical, even alienating. What keeps her heart tethered is not his paycheck or his presence at the dinner table but the assurance that she is seen, heard, and valued. Without it, the tether frays until it inevitably seeks a new anchor elsewhere.

The unraveling begins with deficits that pile up like neglected debts. The most obvious culprit is the husband who is emotionally absent. He may not even realize his neglect, but to her, every unreturned conversation, every eye roll at her vulnerability, every dismissive “you’re too emotional” becomes a brick in the wall separating them. Some men reduce marriage to a logistical partnership—bills paid, kids managed, household sustained—but the romance and soulful bond vanish into background noise. Others weaponize their power through criticism, belittling, or outright abuse, shredding her self-worth while expecting loyalty. And then there are the irresponsible ones—financially reckless, unreliable, unwilling to shoulder the invisible labor of running a home. Each of these patterns chips away at respect and affection, leaving behind only duty and resentment.

The problem doesn’t end with the husband. Often, it is magnified by toxic family dynamics. In-laws who intrude, criticize, or manipulate without consequence create a hostile domestic environment. The husband who refuses to defend his wife becomes complicit in her isolation. She is left feeling like a permanent outsider in her own home, invalidated in disputes and deprived of a united partner. Cultural expectations add another layer, demanding perfection from her while offering no empathy. The message becomes clear: her role is to serve, not to be nurtured. In such a barren emotional landscape, her soul begins to thirst for connection.

And here lies the dangerous pull: the allure of external validation. Contrary to myth, the “other man” is rarely a glamorous seducer. More often, he is simply a good listener—someone who offers the compassion and curiosity that should have existed in her marriage all along. In his presence, she is not reduced to “nagging wife” or “tired mother,” but rediscovered as a full human being—interesting, intelligent, and worthy of admiration. This feeling of being seen is intoxicating. What begins as harmless venting with a colleague or friend can slip into an emotional affair, a secret refuge where she feels alive in ways she no longer does at home. It is not physical intimacy that lures her; it is emotional survival.

For men, the reality check is brutal. Providing financial stability and avoiding infidelity do not make one a complete husband. Emotional security is not optional; it is central. A man who prides himself on being a provider while remaining emotionally unavailable is like a chef serving a feast without salt—technically nourishing, but flavorless and uninspired. To fortify the bond, he must go beyond duty. He must engage in conversations that matter, practice empathy without defensiveness, and consistently show respect. Above all, he must prioritize the marital bond above external pressures so that his wife feels she is not alone in battle but standing shoulder-to-shoulder with her partner.

The stark truth is this: when women say sex is only a small part of their lives, they are not dismissing intimacy but redefining it. For them, physical closeness is meaningful only when rooted in emotional depth. Without that foundation, even frequent sex feels transactional and hollow. Husbands who neglect the emotional realm unwittingly push their wives into deprivation so severe that seeking connection elsewhere begins to feel like survival, not betrayal. Emotional affairs don’t erupt overnight; they grow in the cracks of neglect, in silences that scream louder than words, and in spaces where love once thrived.

In the end, a woman’s choice to look outward is rarely about novelty; it is about hunger for safety, respect, and genuine intimacy. It is a cry not for escape but for recognition. The irony is devastating: the husband often believes he is fulfilling his duty while ignoring the essence of what sustains marriage. Until men learn that true partnership is built on emotional depth rather than mere provision, they will continue to lose their wives—not first to another man’s bed, but to another man’s heart.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

A reform born to bring transparency and fairness instead exposed new cracks of secrecy, subjectivity, and suspicion—yet remains one of India’s most daring experiments in governance. 

In April 2015, the Indian government decided to toss a live wire into its bureaucratic system by experimenting with how it chose its top mandarins. For decades, promotions and empanelment’s had leaned almost entirely on the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR)—a dull ritual that made nearly every officer look like a glowing superstar. In the world of APARs, no one was ever mediocre, no one ever carried a blemish, and questionable integrity was politely airbrushed out. It was a comfortable fiction that made separating the exceptional from the average nearly impossible. Then came the 360-degree appraisal, also called Multi-Source Feedback (MSF), pitched as the radical cure to this credibility crisis.

On paper, it sounded revolutionary. Instead of the usual top-down evaluation, MSF brought in voices from all sides—peers, juniors, and even outsiders who had dealt with the officer. A retired secretary-led panel would weigh inputs across multiple dimensions: integrity, domain expertise, delivery, behavioural skills, and leadership potential. It promised the holy grail—a holistic view of who deserved to move into the elite Joint Secretary club and above. Corporate firms had used it for decades as a tool of growth and coaching. But in the government’s hands, the 360 was repurposed as a gatekeeper: less about self-improvement, more about deciding who got the keys to the power corridors.

And that twist birthed its own storm. Officers suddenly found themselves being judged by invisible hands. Feedback could be coloured by grudges—a subordinate disciplined for misconduct, a peer jealous of reputation, or an external stakeholder carrying bias. Unlike APAR, there was no mechanism to appeal, no way to view adverse remarks, no chance to repair a dented image. For some, one mysterious whisper in the shadows was enough to block an empanelment. A parliamentary committee minced no words, branding the process opaque and arbitrary. What was intended as a spotlight of transparency ended up looking like a black box with moving levers.

The irony deepened when compared with corporate practice. In companies, 360-degree feedback is given directly to the individual, with space for dialogue and development plans. In the Indian bureaucracy, secrecy wrapped the process. Instead of an officer learning what to improve, careers could stall without explanation. A system that should have been about sharpening leadership skills became a sword dangling on invisible threads. Transparency, the very promise of MSF, morphed into its fatal flaw.

Yet, to trash the reform outright would be unfair. The intent was sound: India desperately needed to inject objectivity into its selection of leaders. The APAR system was incapable of distinguishing genuine talent from paper tigers. Seeking multiple perspectives was a bold step in principle. But intent without execution is like building an engine without oil—it sputters before it can drive change. The absence of clear guidelines, the refusal to disclose reasons for rejection, and the lack of integration with leadership development programs ensured the system was seen as arbitrary rather than transformative.

So what could rescue this spinning wheel from collapse? Lessons from global best practices hold clues. First, there must be limited disclosure. Officers denied empanelment deserve to know why, at least in broad terms, and be given an opportunity to represent their case. Second, guidelines must be transparent: how raters are chosen, how inputs are gathered, and how scores are aggregated. Third, competencies assessed should mirror the values of public service—citizen-first leadership, ethical decision-making, and resilience under pressure. Words like “integrity” or “behavioural competence” must be tied to observable behaviours, not subjective perceptions.

But reforms can’t stop at mechanics; they must touch culture. Multi-source feedback works only in environments of trust. Raters must believe their inputs will not be misused, and officers must believe the system exists to foster leadership, not settle vendettas. Building this culture means senior officers modelling openness, accepting their own feedback visibly, and integrating MSF into broader talent practices—training, succession planning, and performance reviews. A 360 must not be an annual guillotine; it must be part of a continuous loop of learning.

The truth is, the 360-degree experiment remains unfinished business. Subjectivity, opacity, and lack of recourse still plague it. But ignoring the effort entirely would be a mistake. The very fact that government attempted such a disruptive shake-up signals recognition that governance today demands more than file-pushing and hierarchy. It demands finesse, collaboration, ethical steel, and the ability to deliver results in complex, citizen-facing arenas. APARs alone could never measure that. A reimagined 360 just might.

The story of India’s 360-degree appraisal is, therefore, not a cautionary tale of failure nor a triumph of reform, but an unfinished circle. It is both risky and promising, dizzying and necessary. Dismissing it would mean clinging to mediocrity; refining it could mean sculpting a more accountable and citizen-centric bureaucracy. The circle may not yet be complete, but with transparency, fairness, and a developmental spirit, this spinning wheel could transform into a true compass—guiding India’s civil service toward integrity, performance, and trust in the decades to come.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

From silver spoons to sweat equity, India’s young political scions are rewriting the rules, proving that legacy alone cannot win votes—it takes grit, strategy, and the courage to step out of the shadows.

Indian politics has never been a quiet chessboard—it has always been a loud carnival of dynasties, ideologies, rebellion, and raw ambition. But today, a different show is on the stage: the rush of young heirs, celebrity leaders, and scions of political giants who dream not just of surviving in the shadow of their legendary parents but of claiming the most coveted seat of power in their state—the Chief Minister’s chair. From Patna’s dust-choked rallies to Chennai’s fan-charged streets, from Amaravati’s corridors of strategy to Hyderabad’s stormy stages, the generational churn is unmistakable. The young princes and princesses of politics are stepping forward, no longer content with ornamental roles or token ministerships. They are hungry for power, desperate for legitimacy, and willing to gamble everything for recognition as leaders in their own right.

The names are already well known, though their journeys differ. Bihar’s Tejaswi Yadav, son of Lalu Prasad Yadav, has cleverly positioned himself as the voice of jobs and youth aspirations, rebranding the RJD around a single thunderous promise: ten lakh government jobs. Uttar Pradesh’s Akhilesh Yadav, the once-young Chief Minister who bore both the curse and blessing of Mulayam Singh Yadav’s shadow, now stands hardened by both success and defeat, still the most potent challenger to the BJP in the Hindi heartland. Tamil Nadu’s stage is crowded with two interesting characters—Udhayanidhi Stalin, son of M.K. Stalin, now finding his rhythm as a minister, and Vijay, the cinema superstar whose political entry threatens to upend traditional equations with the raw power of celebrity fandom.

Andhra Pradesh is a theatre of intrigue on its own. Nara Lokesh, groomed carefully by his father Chandrababu Naidu, carries the burden of being seen as the inheritor of a technocratic legacy. Across the aisle stands Pawan Kalyan, the film hero turned politician, who fuels his Jana Sena Party with star charisma and dreams of making real-life governance as dramatic as his on-screen fights. Chirag Paswan in Bihar has battled his family’s internal fractures to retain the mantle of his late father Ram Vilas Paswan, often called the “weather vane” of Indian politics. And then there is Telangana’s outlier, Revanth Reddy, who proves that in a dynastic world, grit, alliances, and clever strategy can still catapult a non-heir to the CM’s office.

Yet, this road from “someone’s son” to “the people’s leader” is far from easy. The silver spoon stigma is the first mountain they must climb. Voters ask the uncomfortable question—how can a politician who has never queued for a ration card or faced police lathis truly represent the poor? Then comes the suffocating shadow of legacy. Competing against the memory of a Lalu, a Mulayam, or a Karunanidhi is like sprinting while carrying iron chains. Add to this the mutinies within parties, where veteran loyalists bristle at the coronation of a princeling who never earned his stripes. Even when they win over the masses, critics dismiss them as style without substance—masters of Instagram reels but rookies in real politics. And the ultimate test is the first crisis, be it a riot, a flood, or a corruption scandal. One stumble, and the “inexperienced” tag becomes permanent.

But a few have found the formula for survival and growth. Akhilesh Yadav, during his CM tenure, understood that legacy could be expanded with development projects—expressways, metro lines, and laptops for students. Tejashwi Yadav zeroed in on a single relatable issue—jobs—and turned it into a movement. Pawan Kalyan and Lokesh displayed rare pragmatism by allying with the BJP rather than fragmenting the opposition. Revanth Reddy cracked the toughest nut: building a rainbow coalition, hammering away at KCR’s arrogance, and uniting a disillusioned electorate under a single opposition face.

The emerging playbook is simple but ruthless. Embrace your legacy, but do not let it consume your identity. Build alliances relentlessly, because politics is arithmetic before it becomes chemistry. Balance social media polish with “sweat equity”—long yatras, overnight village stays, impromptu roadside speeches. Own one powerful issue that people can remember you for, whether it’s jobs, corruption, or farmer welfare. And when given a chance in government, deliver one visible project that sticks to your name like glue.

For India’s young CM aspirants, the path ahead is both daunting and exhilarating. They must cultivate a brand distinct from their parents, endure years of grassroots tours, and prepare not just to campaign but to govern from day one. The Indian voter has become unforgiving—impatient with rhetoric, quick to punish non-performance, and eager to reward visible delivery. A famous surname may open the first door, but only grit, strategy, and authentic connect can lead to the throne room.

The story of Indian politics in the next decade will be a battle between inheritance and sweat equity. A surname can light the torch, but it cannot keep it burning. Akhilesh Yadav and Tejashwi Yadav show the promise of dynastic adaptation, while Revanth Reddy proves that the system still rewards perseverance and clever strategy outside the walls of family privilege. The young dreamers of today must remember: in this democracy, lineage is merely the ticket to the starting line. The race itself is won only by those willing to run through dust, sweat, and sleepless nights, until the people themselves believe—not in their surname, but in their story.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

From Mumbai’s buzzing phones to billion-rupee portfolio wars, India’s new  millionaires aren’t just multiplying—they’re rewriting the rules of money, loyalty, and survival in a $2 trillion wealth scramble.

India’s millionaire map is being redrawn at breakneck speed. In just four years, the number of millionaire households has nearly doubled—from about four lakh in 2021 to almost nine lakh in 2025. Each of these households now holds a net worth of at least ₹8.5 crore, signaling not just a statistical milestone but a social shift. Wealth is no longer a tiny island guarded by a few dynasties—it’s an expanding archipelago of affluence reshaping the financial landscape.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Mumbai, the country’s millionaire capital with nearly 1.5 lakh wealthy households. The frenzy is palpable. One family recently found themselves dodging a barrage of calls from relationship managers pitching the same deal: an IPO of a real estate investment trust. Some bankers were so desperate to close that one deal that they even waived their commissions outright. What looked like opportunity for clients felt like siege warfare, with phones buzzing nonstop.

This race reflects the new reality—money creation in India is not only real, it’s roaring. But as wealth swells, so does the competition to manage it. Every IPO, private equity fund, and alternative investment product triggers a frenzy. Relationship managers are expected to secure crores from multiple clients every year. With every firm chasing the same targets, the game is no longer about nurturing trust over decades; it’s about who can shout loudest, move fastest, and charge the least.

Clients, however, are catching on. India’s richest one percent already control over 60% of the nation’s wealth, and they are savvier than ever. Gone are the days when wealth was locked in gold or fixed deposits. Family offices—bespoke or multi-family collaborations—are now steering decisions, often opting for fixed-fee or advisory-led models that cut commission-heavy distributors out of the pie. Annual fees that once hovered around 3–4% have now collapsed to as low as 0.5–1%. A brutal price war has ensued, fuelled by new-age private equity and venture capital firms undercutting legacy wealth houses.

The fallout is clear. Families worth thousands of crores think nothing of shifting portfolios overnight if a rival promises better returns, exclusive access, or slashed charges. One family recently moved a ₹2,000 crore portfolio because another firm dangled a sweeter deal. Loyalty has become fragile; the only constant is the chase.

To survive, wealth managers are diversifying. Many now cross-sell services, tying wealth management to investment banking, brokerage, and corporate advisory. Others lean on technology—deploying AI to analyze client behavior, churn risk reports, and monitor portfolios in real time. This allows managers to juggle more clients without collapsing under the weight of expectations. Yet, the human factor remains the bottleneck.

India has fewer than 500 truly competent ultra-high-net-worth advisers. The scramble to hire them has unleashed an arms race of packages and perks. But poaching talent at any cost risks creating a bubble of unsustainable salaries, even as firms struggle with thinning margins. It’s a paradox: wealth is exploding, but skilled managers are vanishingly rare.

Meanwhile, client demands have grown sharper and more complex. Today’s millionaires don’t just want stock picks. They want entire wealth blueprints—succession planning, tax structuring, global diversification, governance for family firms, liquidity planning for entrepreneurs, and compliance navigation for offshore assets. Cookie-cutter advice is dead; every plan must be as bespoke as the clients commissioning them.

Layered over this is regulation. With new rules enforcing separation between advisory and distribution, the old double-dipping model is gone. Compliance costs are rising, especially for boutique firms trying to compete with giants that can spread costs across diversified businesses. Smaller outfits are bleeding to stay relevant, while bigger players tighten their grip on metros.

Still, the opportunity is colossal. Analysts expect India’s wealth management industry to double its assets under management within five years, crossing $2 trillion. The landscape will likely polarize—giant firms using scale and AI to dominate cities like Mumbai, Delhi, and Bengaluru, while boutique firms carve niches in emerging cities or specialist domains. The winners will be those who blend technology with trust, talent with transparency, and product with personalization.

For now, the image of that Mumbai family dodging incessant calls from relationship managers says it all. In India’s wealth rush, the boundary between service and siege has blurred. Millionaires may be multiplying at lightning speed, but so are the headaches of managing them. The gold rush is real, but so is the grind—and only those firms that can outlast the noise will still be standing when the dust settles.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

From Ireland to Iraq, Sri Lanka to Syria, every terror dream has ended the same way—broken societies, shattered lives, and footnotes of failure written in blood and rubble.

Terrorism has always pretended to be a torchbearer of liberation, justice, or identity, yet its handwriting is forever in blood, smoke, and despair. Across eras and continents, violent movements have promised revolutions but delivered only graveyards. No terrorist group in history has truly achieved its long-term political goals. They may shock, they may hold the spotlight, they may even seize land for a time—but history’s verdict is merciless: terrorism is a doomed strategy, built for destruction, not creation.

The failure is not in execution but in purpose. Terror groups can bomb cities with surgical precision, paralyze governments, or terrorize millions. Yet the power to horrify is not the power to govern. They cannot negotiate lasting settlements, nor build sustainable systems. Terrorism alienates the very people it claims to represent, while provoking overwhelming retaliation that eventually erases its existence.

History is littered with proof. The Irish Republican Army’s decades of bombings and assassinations etched Northern Ireland into headlines but never united Ireland through force. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998—painstaking diplomacy, not explosives—brought peace. In Sri Lanka, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) rose as one of the most militarized insurgencies in the world, complete with a naval wing and an air arm. But their cruelty—suicide bombings, assassinations, child soldiers—isolated them globally. By 2009, the Sri Lankan state crushed them completely, leaving 100,000 dead and an entire society scarred.

Al-Qaeda’s September 11 attacks were designed to ignite a worldwide Islamic uprising. Instead, they triggered the largest global counterterrorism campaign in history, shattering their leadership and scattering their networks. ISIS went further, building the illusion of permanence by declaring a caliphate across Iraq and Syria, collecting taxes, running courts, and even minting currency. But its extreme brutality guaranteed its doom. An international coalition tore down its proto-state, leaving only rubble and millions displaced. Peru’s Shining Path, once hailed by its leaders as the vanguard of a peasant revolution, instead butchered villagers, collapsed after its leader’s capture, and is remembered as a nightmare, not a movement.

The story is the same everywhere: terror groups rise fast, overreach, and fall harder. They dominate headlines but collapse in history’s margins. Their violence annihilates schools, hospitals, and homes, but it builds nothing lasting. They trade in shock, not strategy; in chaos, not vision.

The human cost is unbearable. Generations grow up traumatized. Families disintegrate. Children become soldiers or victims. In Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and beyond, terrorism has left towns in ruin, marketplaces in ashes, and cultural treasures reduced to dust. It doesn’t empower communities; it hollows them out. Economies shrink, tourism dies, and trust evaporates. What is sold as liberation becomes life inside a cage of fear.

Why this inevitable failure? Because terrorism delegitimizes itself. By killing civilians, it alienates even potential sympathizers. States—weak or strong—cannot ignore terror; they respond with overwhelming force, often backed by global alliances. Inside the groups, divisions fester—leadership battles, corruption, criminal rackets. Most damning of all, terrorists cannot govern. They can control through fear and extortion, but they cannot provide stability, education, or prosperity. Their rule is chaos dressed as authority. No society can survive under such weight.

And the damage doesn’t end when they do. Even after terrorists are defeated, they leave scars: hardened divisions between communities, poisoned dialogue, authoritarian states empowered by fear, and societies too fractured to heal quickly. The militants may die, but their shadow lingers.

The lesson is universal. Terrorism is not a path to political victory. Where bombs have failed, ballots have succeeded. Where violence left ashes, negotiation and inclusion brought fragile but real reconciliation. Dialogue, diplomacy, and democracy may be slow and messy, but they are the only tools that build. Terror groups fantasize about rewriting history, but history reduces them to failed footnotes, remembered only for the devastation they unleashed.

In the end, terrorism is not revolution but a self-consuming fire. It promises paradise and delivers wastelands. It fights in the name of the future but erases the present. Its only true legacy is suffering—the ashes on which no future can ever be built.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

In the ashes of Gaza’s war, diplomacy flickers again—offering Israelis and Palestinians not just a map of borders, but a fragile path to dignity, legitimacy, and lasting peace. 

The world’s gaze once again locks on the fragile strip of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, a place where heartbreak and hope seem destined to collide in endless cycles. The war in Gaza has not only reduced neighbourhoods to rubble and lives to statistics, but it has also reignited one of the most urgent debates of our time: the two-state solution. What began as yet another military campaign spiralled into a humanitarian catastrophe, forcing nearly a million civilians to make an impossible choice—remain in homes pounded by airstrikes or flee south into overcrowded shelters where safety is little more than an illusion. And yet, within this chaos, the two-state formula has resurfaced—not as an academic exercise, not as a diplomatic soundbite, but as the only roadmap with real international traction.

The tragedy is human at its core. For Palestinians, every day without a political horizon is a day of displacement, despair, and futures stolen before they can even begin. For Israelis, the trauma of October 7 lingers like a wound that refuses to heal, raw with the anguish of families who still await the release of hostages held by Hamas. Some plead for restraint, terrified their loved ones might be obliterated in retaliatory strikes; others demand unrelenting force to end the nightmare once and for all. These diverging voices embody the impossible contradictions of a society torn between justice and mercy, vengeance and reconciliation.

Even in this turbulence, diplomacy stirs faintly, like an ember in the ashes. Western capitals increasingly admit what reality screams: military might, however decisive it may appear, cannot substitute for political solutions. U.S. President, speaking at the United Nations, emphasized negotiations and hostage release as twin pillars of any peace worth having. Donald Trump, suddenly re-emerging into the global conversation, inherits a peculiar responsibility. In his earlier term, he brokered a deal that secured partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in exchange for hostage releases. Phase one was implemented, offering a rare glimpse of possibility. But the second phase—full withdrawals and comprehensive releases—never materialized. The fragile bridge to peace was abandoned mid-construction, leaving both sides stranded in familiar hostility.

The cost of these delays is staggering. Israel has lost over sixty soldiers in recent fighting, while its diplomatic standing grows increasingly precarious. Allies warn that continued conflict risks not only entrenching Hamas but also eroding Israel’s long-term legitimacy. Many analysts insist that the January agreement, though imperfect, was the most viable path forward—and that reviving its spirit may be the only realistic escape from the cycle of destruction.

Meanwhile, the political map is being redrawn in quiet but significant ways. France, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Portugal have joined the growing ranks of nations recognizing Palestine as a state. These symbolic gestures may not yet shift realities on the ground, but they reshape the imagination of global politics. For Palestinians, such recognition affirms dignity and sovereignty long denied. For Israelis, it sends an unambiguous signal: annexationist policies and permanent occupation carry a steep diplomatic cost.

Symbolism, often dismissed as hollow, matters deeply in conflicts like these. Every recognition vote, every flag raised in solidarity, whispers to Palestinians that they are not forgotten casualties but a people with rightful claims. For Israel, these acts are warning flares, highlighting the danger of prioritizing short-term territorial control over long-term legitimacy. Annexationist moves, debated openly within Israeli politics, threaten to unravel delicate accords with Arab states such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The normalization promised by the Abraham Accords, painstakingly cultivated, risks collapse if Palestinians continue to see no future of their own.

The United States remains the indispensable pivot. For decades, both Democratic and Republican administrations have paid homage to the two-state vision, but rarely with the relentless pursuit needed to make it real. The Abraham Accords showcased diplomacy’s ability to realign the Middle East, yet their survival hinges on whether the Palestinian question is meaningfully addressed. Without progress there, normalization becomes brittle, easily shattered by the rage of grassroots protests and the tremors of regional instability.

Of course, the road ahead is steep and littered with obstacles: contested borders, the fate of Jerusalem, the right of return, and security guarantees that satisfy both sides. But the two-state solution endures as the only framework with near-universal international endorsement. Alternatives like indefinite occupation or unilateral annexation are not only unsustainable but morally indefensible. Each new recognition of Palestine raises the cost of delay, amplifying the urgency for decisive action.

At its essence, the two-state vision is not about maps drawn in conference rooms; it is about dignity. It is about Palestinians building lives without the weight of checkpoints and exile, and Israelis raising children without rockets in the sky or the trauma of hostages in the shadows. For families still waiting for closure, it is a fragile but vital hope. For the region, it is a chance to replace decades of bloodshed with the possibility of cooperation and stability.

The future hangs in the balance of choices made today. Leaders must revive diplomacy, honor past agreements, and merge humanitarian urgency with political will. The two-state solution can no longer be a dusty slogan retrieved only in times of crisis—it must become the bedrock of peace. Without it, the Middle East risks eternal cycles of war and displacement. With it, however fragile, lies the prospect of coexistence.

Two flags fluttering side by side may look like a dream deferred. But in a world exhausted by conflict, even that faint horizon is worth pursuing. Because within that dream lies not only the end of war but the beginning of peace—not as a pause between battles, but as the enduring rhythm of life.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights