Taking Back PoK — Rhetoric or Reality?

Recent remarks by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, coupled with reports of unrest in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), have reignited a long-standing debate: Should India reclaim PoK?

It’s a subject charged with emotion and nationalism, yet sentiment alone cannot guide national strategy. A closer look reveals that reclaiming PoK today is far more complex — and potentially perilous — than many would like to believe.

A Brief Historical Context

Legally, the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir acceded to India on 27 October 1947, when Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession. However, the turbulence of Partition — tribal invasions from the west, political indecision in Srinagar, and strategic manipulations by British-era actors — resulted in parts of the region falling under Pakistan’s control.

In the 78 years since, those territories have evolved under Pakistani administration. They have built their own institutions, cultural identities, and political narratives. Generations have grown up with a different version of history — often distorted or selectively told — shaping mindsets that differ drastically from those across the border in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Why the Desire for Reunification, Though Understandable, Is Misguided

It’s only natural that Indians feel nostalgic about the pre-Partition map of 1947. That longing is rooted in historical legitimacy and national pride. However, policymaking must be driven by strategic rationality, not emotion.

Integrating PoK now would not be a simple administrative act — it would represent a massive, high-risk geopolitical move with unpredictable consequences for India’s internal and external stability.

Practical realities and Strategic risks

1. Changed Realities on the ground

PoK, especially Gilgit-Baltistan, has been under Pakistan’s rule for over seven decades. Its institutions, local leadership, and social structures are deeply entrenched. Attempting to reverse this status quo through force would trigger social unrest and political chaos. What may seem like short-term patriotic fervour could easily devolve into long-term instability.

2. Security and Insurgency threats

Indian-administered Kashmir is only beginning to experience a fragile peace after decades of militancy. Absorbing PoK could reopen old wounds — reigniting terrorism, enabling cross-border infiltration, and creating fresh breeding grounds for extremist groups. Instead of resolving the Kashmir question, it might widen it.

3. Nuclear and Regional implications

Pakistan remains a nuclear-armed nation, and any attempt to alter territorial boundaries could escalate into a full-blown confrontation. In the event of political collapse within Pakistan, the risks of nuclear weapons falling into extremist hands would be catastrophic, not just for South Asia but for the entire world.

4. Diplomatic and Legal repercussions

India’s stance since the Shimla Agreement (1972) and the Parliamentary Resolution of 1994 has consistently emphasised peaceful, negotiated solutions. Any unilateral attempt to redraw borders would likely invite international criticism, strain strategic partnerships, and weaken India’s global image as a responsible democracy.

5. Administrative and Humanitarian challenges

Even if militarily feasible, the political and administrative cost of integrating PoK would be staggering. Rebuilding infrastructure, establishing governance, integrating populations, and managing social reconciliation would require massive resources and decades of effort. Mishandling such a transition could lead to civil unrest and humanitarian crises.

Lessons History Teaches Us

There were two junctures — 1948 and 1971 — when India had the military upper hand and could potentially have altered the map. However, political hesitation and a preference for diplomatic solutions took precedence. Those choices, right or wrong, shaped today’s geopolitical reality.

Yet, history’s missed opportunities should not dictate reckless actions in the present. The region’s dynamics have evolved dramatically, and any attempt to rewrite history militarily could undo decades of progress and stability.

A Sober Strategic View

Unless Pakistan itself undergoes fundamental political or structural collapse, forcibly reclaiming PoK remains neither practical nor wise. India’s priority should be to strengthen its existing borders, enhance internal stability, counter cross-border terrorism, and focus on socio-economic development in Jammu & Kashmir.

PoK, in this sense, is like a fragile and infected limb — forcibly reattaching it could endanger the entire body. Patience, not aggression, must guide India’s long-term approach.

If reunification ever becomes possible, it should arise not from force or political grandstanding, but from a durable, peaceful settlement — one that ensures minimal human suffering and lasting regional stability.

Final Reflection

The call to “take back PoK” makes for strong rhetoric and fiery headlines, but nation-building requires realism over romanticism. The true strength of a great power lies not in expanding its borders, but in securing peace, prosperity, and stability within them.

The Boy Who Stole Bread — and the Judge Who Taught the World a Lesson - A reflection

 

The Boy Who Stole Bread — and the Judge Who Taught the World a Lesson 

(A Story and a Reflection on Justice, Compassion, and Reality)

I came across a social media post with the following story. My reflections on this story has resulted in this blog. The story is reworded and rewritten here. 

In a crowded courtroom, a 15-year-old boy stood trembling, his head bowed. He had been caught stealing — not money, not gold — but a packet of bread and some cheese. When the store guard tried to stop him, a scuffle broke out, and a shelf was broken.

The judge looked at him kindly and asked, “Did you really steal these things?”

“Yes, sir,” the boy murmured.

“Why?”

“Because I needed to.”

“You could have bought them.”

“I had no money.”

“Then ask your family.”

“I only have my mother, sir. She’s sick and unemployed. The bread and cheese were for her.”

The courtroom fell silent.

“Don’t you work?” the judge asked.

“I wash cars, sir… but I took the day off to look after my mother.”

“Did you ask anyone for help?”

“I begged since morning… no one helped.”

The judge leaned back, eyes heavy with compassion. After a long pause, he spoke: “Theft — even of bread — is a crime. But today, everyone in this courtroom shares the guilt — including me. Because if a child must steal to feed his sick mother, then we, as a society, have failed him.”

He continued, “I fine every person here, including myself, $10 each, for allowing hunger to exist in our city. No one leaves until they pay.”

He placed a $10 bill from his own pocket on the table. “And I impose a $1,000 fine on the store owner for handing a hungry child to the police instead of feeding him. If unpaid within 24 hours, the store will be sealed.”

When the session ended, the courtroom was filled with tears. The boy stood still — his trembling gone — staring at the judge with disbelief and gratitude.

That day, justice wasn’t just served — it was felt. Because true justice isn’t about punishing the weak; it’s about correcting the wrongs of society.

This is the story - not mine. My reflections on this story starts now:

A Reflection: When Compassion Meets Reality

The story stirs deep emotions — hunger, helplessness, justice, and empathy — all in one powerful moment. However, beyond the sentiment, it raises uncomfortable questions about the balance between morality and practicality.

Yes, indeed, hunger is the worst crime — not of the hungry, but of the world that allows it to exist. Thats why Bharati, the great Tamil poet, wrote to erase the world if a man could not find food... and he was the one who also penned the line - Bless our enemies...Hunger is such a crime. Yet, acts born out of desperation can’t be encouraged either. Stealing bread may seem harmless, but if left unchecked, it chips away at the very foundation of law and order.

The judge’s compassion was extraordinary — symbolic, poetic, and morally up-lifting. However, when viewed through the lens of reality, was it fair to fine innocent people in the courtroom? Should responsibility for a child’s act of theft be shared by all?

Perhaps a wiser approach would have been to blend justice with reform. The boy didn’t deserve prison, but he could have been asked to work for his penalty — in the same shop, at a social welfare home, or under community service. That would have taught accountability without crushing his spirit.

In a perfect world, compassion and justice walk hand in hand. Alas, we are living in an imperfect world striving to make it perfect. In our imperfect one, disparity is the norm — and hunger, sadly, remains one of humanity’s oldest injustices.

Stories like this move us because they show us what justice could be — if empathy ever outweighed indifference. They remind us that laws make us civilised, but compassion makes us human.

Moral:

Justice must protect the law — but never at the cost of losing humanity.

GST 2.0: From Festive Boom to Sustained Growth — Can India Maintain the Momentum?

 

GST 2.0: From Festive Boom to Sustained Growth — Can India Maintain the Momentum?

In a recent press briefing, several Union Ministers announced that GST 2.0 has been a major success. Introduced just ahead of the festive season, this revamped tax structure—featuring only two simplified slabs—was positioned as a “bonus for the people,” designed to spur spending and accelerate economic growth.

And it worked.

The electronics sector recorded a 25% surge in sales during Navratri, while Maruti Suzuki sold 51,000 cars on Dhanteras alone—that’s roughly 35 cars a minute! Hyundai too reported a 25% rise in festive sales. With increased car sales came a ripple effect—boosting demand for accessories, furniture, and sweets—driving a broader surge across the economy.

So far, so good. But is that enough?

The Need to Move Beyond a Festive Surge

While India is projected to clock the highest growth rate globally at 6%, this still falls short of its own 8% target. Realistically, even 8% won’t be enough to keep India in the world’s top economic league. To truly thrive, India needs sustained double-digit growth for at least the next five years.

Let’s hope this momentum doesn’t fade after the festive season. For now, the government’s bold step to simplify GST appears to be paying off. But what happens if consumer demand slows? With many short-term policy levers already exhausted, the next phase must be transformative, not incremental.

India needs radical reforms that can propel the economy forward—not small, reactive steps.

Beyond GST 2.0: The Reforms India Now Needs

1. Factor Market Reforms: Land & Labour

• Labour Law Harmonization:
  Though Parliament passed four new labour codes in 2020, their implementation remains stalled. Simplified, uniform rules are crucial to give businesses flexibility while extending social security to the unorganised sector.

• Land Acquisition & Monetisation:
  Streamlining land laws and fast-tracking government land monetisation can cut project delays, attract investment, and unlock much-needed public revenue.

2. Financial & Banking Sector Reforms

• Public Sector Bank Consolidation:
  Further merging state-owned banks and aligning their incentives with commercial performance can make them more competitive and efficient.

• Access to Capital for MSMEs:
  Despite initiatives like MUDRA, MSMEs still struggle to access credit. India needs a stronger digital credit framework that links small enterprises to formal finance and global supply chains.

• Reviving Private Investment:
  Targeted credit guarantees and tax incentives must boost private investment in electronics, renewable energy, and pharmaceuticals—the sectors that will define India’s growth story.

3. Human Capital & Innovation

• Skill Development for Industry 4.0:
  Bridging the skill gap is vital. Education and vocational training must pivot toward AI, robotics, and digital technologies. Urban job programs should include rental housing and mobility incentives to enhance labour flexibility.

• R&D and Innovation Funding:
  The Deep Tech Fund of Funds is a positive start, but India must further strengthen the R&D ecosystem. Collaboration between industry and startups—as envisioned under Startup India—will drive innovation and job creation.

4. Infrastructure & Sustainability

• Accelerating Infrastructure Investment:
  Despite higher capex spending, India’s infrastructure gap remains wide. The National Monetisation Pipeline (NMP) must be executed more aggressively to finance new projects.

• Green Economy Transition:
  Expanding green bonds and circular economy initiatives can generate sustainable jobs and attract global ESG investments. Green technology adoption should be incentivized at scale.

• Integrated Supply Chains:
  Strengthening logistics through initiatives like BharatTradeNet and improved transport networks will boost India’s trade competitiveness and integrate MSMEs into global markets.

From Consumption to Sustained Investment-Led Growth

The tax cuts under GST 2.0 have successfully boosted consumption. The next step is to convert this short-term consumption surge into long-term investment growth—creating a virtuous cycle where higher demand drives productivity and innovation.

Achieving this requires:

• Building institutional capacity and political consensus for tough reforms.

• Empowering states to lead on land, labour, and investment reforms.

• Transparent communication to help citizens see the long-term benefits of structural change.

Key Takeaways

• India’s Real GDP is estimated to grow 7.8% in Q1 FY 2025–26, up from 6.5% a year ago.

• By 2030, India is projected to become the world’s third-largest economy, with a GDP of $7.3 trillion.

• 17 crore jobs have been created in the past decade, reflecting a strong employment push.

• Next-generation reforms, including the new GST framework and PM Viksit Bharat Rozgar Yojana, are driving India’s march toward Viksit Bharat 2047.

Conclusion: From Short Spurts to Long Strides

The success of GST 2.0 shows India’s capacity for bold, people-centric reform. But to secure its place among the world’s top economies, the next chapter must focus on deep, structural transformation—in policy, production, and people.

India’s growth story can’t rest on festive highs. It must be built on institutional strength, innovation, and inclusive prosperity—a growth model that endures well beyond the celebration season.

Your comments please....

Trump’s Trade Gamble: America First or America Alone?

 

Trump’s Trade Gamble: America First or America Alone?

Donald Trump’s unilateral trade policies have stirred one of the most heated global economic debates in recent years. Supporters hail them as a bold defence of American interests, while critics dismiss them as “economic bullying” — and both sides have a point.

“When power replaces partnership, the global order begins to crumble.

In his second term, Trump’s administration has pursued an aggressive and confrontational trade strategy aimed at reshaping global commerce to favour the United States. However, by alienating allies and bypassing multilateral frameworks, this approach risks isolating America and potentially triggering a global recession.

To be fair, there is logic behind Trump’s hardline stance. The U.S. has long grappled with a steady decline in its manufacturing base — a challenge with far-reaching economic and geopolitical implications. Reviving domestic industry is not merely about jobs; it’s about national power and strategic resilience. Yet, with only 9% of global exports and barely half of China’s manufacturing output, America’s ability to dictate global trade terms singlehandedly is limited — even as it tries to do so.

At its core, this is not just about tariffs — it’s about reclaiming industrial power and global leverage.

The Case For Trump’s Approach

From an “America First” perspective, Trump’s policies are a necessary correction to years of perceived unfairness. Advocates argue that U.S. industries have suffered under lopsided trade rules, with other countries imposing much higher tariffs. Tariffs and unilateral pressure, they say, are tools to force fairer negotiations, protect American jobs, and ensure that no nation “takes advantage” of the U.S.

“Why play by rules that disadvantage you?” — That’s the essence of Trump’s argument.

Supporters see this as a show of strength — a way to leverage America’s market power and prioritise national interests in a global system they view as stacked against it.

What makes Trump’s approach distinctive is its populist appeal. It resonates with a growing number of Americans disillusioned by stagnant wages, precarious jobs, and the erosion of the middle class. Over decades, outsourcing and globalization have hollowed out U.S. manufacturing — once the pride of the nation — creating a fertile ground for populist movements across the political spectrum, from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump.

This industrial decline also poses a national security concern: the U.S. has become increasingly reliant on foreign suppliers for high-tech goods, raising fears of strategic vulnerability if domestic production continues to shrink.

The Case Against Trump’s Approach

Critics — including economists, world leaders, and trade experts — warn that unilateralism undermines the multilateral trading system that has underpinned global prosperity since World War II. They argue that tariffs raise consumer prices, disrupt supply chains, and inject volatility into global markets. Retaliatory measures from other nations can easily escalate into a trade war — a “race to the bottom” that hurts everyone.

“In the global economy, isolation is not independence — it’s inefficiency.”

Many countries, including key allies, have condemned U.S. tariffs as “unwarranted” and “unjustified,” calling them a major blow to global economic stability.

The WTO’s Dilemma

The World Trade Organization (WTO) serves as the primary forum for addressing such disputes. Nations affected by U.S. tariffs have filed complaints, arguing that these actions violate international trade rules. While the WTO can authorize countermeasures, its authority has weakened — partly because the U.S. has blocked appointments to its Appellate Body, paralyzing the dispute settlement process.

Still, global bodies continue urging the U.S. to return to dialogue and diplomacy within established international frameworks.

Is It Really Economic Bullying?

To many nations, yes. Countries like China — and even allies such as Australia and India — have accused the U.S. of using its economic might to coerce others into compliance. Critics argue that this marks a regression to a “law of the jungle,” where power overrides partnership, undermining decades of progress toward a rules-based global order.

The Numbers Tell the Story

The U.S. manufacturing sector’s share of GDP has fallen from a peak of 27% five decades ago to barely 10% today. Despite being the world’s largest economy, accounting for a quarter of global GDP, America’s share of exports remains in single digits. The U.S. has become primarily a consumption-driven economy, with consumer spending making up 68% of GDP — more than 50% higher than China’s 39%.

America produces less, consumes more, and imports heavily — a risky mix for a global leader.

The Strategic Misstep

In trying to make “America Great Again,” Trump may be making it “America Alone.”

So far, Trump’s administration has failed to persuade any major economy — in Asia, Europe, or North America — to accept its trade terms. The greater challenge lies in Washington’s reluctance to build coalitions. By alienating allies through maximalist demands, the U.S. risks driving countries like India and even long-standing European partners closer to Beijing or into parallel trade blocs that exclude America altogether.

Strength through solidarity, not solitude — that may be the real path to American renewal.

In trying to make “America Great Again,” Trump’s unilateralism could ironically lead to “America Alone.” Without allies or collaboration, the U.S. may struggle to rebuild its industrial base — and its global influence.

Karmanye vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana,

 कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।

मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि॥

Karmanye vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana,

Ma Karmaphalaheturbhurma Te Sangostvakarmani

I would like to respectfully differ from the general interpretation given to this verse. Often, people quote only the first line of this verse, overlooking the second line that completes its meaning.

Let us first observe the phrase (कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते) Karmanyevadhikaraste—sometimes written as “Karmanye Vadhikaraste,” which is also acceptable. When split further, we get Karmanya, Eva, Adhikara, Aste.

A rough translation of this verse is:

“You have the right only to work, but never to its fruits. Let not the fruits of action be your motive, nor let your attachment be to inaction.”

While many scholars have offered spiritual interpretations, I prefer to view this through a management lens.

Every journey begins with a destination in mind. When we want to go nowhere, every road is our road. Similarly, every task is initiated with a clear outcome in view. Otherwise, we wouldn’t know whether we are progressing in the right direction. One might be fully committed yet still go astray. Christopher Columbus serves as a prime example—his goal was to reach India, but due to a lack of course correction, he discovered America instead. He was fortunate to make such an error at his Queen’s expense—but we may not have that luxury.

Hence, I cannot subscribe to the notion of performing a task without keeping the outcome in sight. Let us examine why I hold this view.

Word-by-word meaning of the verse:

कर्मण्य/Karmanya = In the work

एव/Eva = Only

अधिकार/Adhikar = Right (often misunderstood here)

ते/Te = Your

मा/Ma = No / Not

फलेषु/Phaleshu = In the result (root: “फल”/“Phal,” meaning fruit or result)

कदाचन/Kadachana = Never ever

Most scholars interpret Adhikar as “right,” which can lead to misinterpretation. In this context, I see Adhikar as accountability.

I am accountable for the work assigned to me, not for the results it produces. Outcomes are not within our control—not due to fate, but because they are determined by the processes that precede them. Hence, rather than focusing on results, we must focus on processes—for the right processes yield the right outcomes.

As a corporate trainer, I explain it this way:

Suppose I have a large belly and wish to reduce it. Every morning I measure my waistline, wondering, “Has it reduced?” Naturally, it won’t—because I’m chasing the result. Instead, if I track how long I walk or jog, monitor my exercise routine, and control my carb intake, results will follow.

The message is clear: Chase the process, not the result. When processes are right, results are inevitable.

Now, let’s turn to the second line of the verse:

मा/Ma = No/Not

कर्मफल/Karmaphala = Karma (work) + Phala (result or fruit of work)

हेतु/Hetu = Motive or reason

भू/Bhu = Be

मा/Ma = No/Not

ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि/Te Sangostvakarmani

ते/Te = Your

संग/Sang = Attachment (also “companionship,” as in “Satsang”)

अस्तु/Astu = Let there be

अकर्मणि/Akarmani = In inaction

Literal translation:

“Let not the fruits of action be your motive, nor let your attachment be to inaction.”

Here again, translating Hetu merely as “motive” risks misunderstanding. It is more appropriate to interpret it as reason.

When inspiration translates into action, it becomes motivation. However, motivation cannot exist without a motive. A motive, when acted upon, gives rise to motivation. Thus, the motive is what keeps the universe in motion. Without it, we would remain inert. This is precisely what the second line advises—inaction is not the answer.

As Thiruvalluvar wisely said:

"இலம் என்று அசைஇ இருப்பாரைக் காணின் நிலம் என்னும் நல்லாள் நகும்"

Stay committed to the process. Do not fall into inaction. Pursue excellence. Strive continuously—and the results will naturally follow.

I believe this is the true essence of what Bhagwan Shri Krishna conveyed to Arjuna. As a Kshatriya, you are bound by duty to fight. Victory or defeat is secondary. What truly matters is your adherence to the right processes, which alone can yield the right outcomes. Periodically refine your processes to meet evolving demands, and success will follow.

Countless interpretations exist for this verse, but as a corporate professional, this is my understanding. The two lines are inseparable and must always be read together to grasp the complete wisdom of this timeless message.