Dhurandhar Puts Bollywood on Public Trial

Dhurandhar Puts Bollywood on Public Trial

(By S.N. VERMA)

For years, Bollywood put everything else on trial—faith, society, tradition, even the nation.

With Dhurandhar, the roles have reversed.

Now Bollywood stands in the witness box.

And this time—

 the public is asking the questions.

For decades, Bollywood operated as judge, jury, and storyteller.

 It framed narratives. Filtered truths. Selected heroes.

No accountability. No cross-examination.

I submit that for decades, Bollywood, as an institution, stands guilty of narrative manipulation through pattern, not accident.

Exhibit A: The Caricaturing of Hindu Identity

Let us begin with the evidence.

In PK, there is a now-famous sequence where the protagonist, played by Aamir Khan, walks through temples exposing “wrong numbers”—a metaphor for fraudulent religious intermediaries. The camera lingers on saffron-clad figures, idol worship, and ritual practices, reducing a complex civilizational philosophy to a marketplace of superstition.

The question is not whether malpractice exists in religion—it does in every faith.

The question is: why is the critique so selectively visualized?

In Oh My God!, a Hindu godman’s commercial empire is dismantled in a courtroom climax. Yet, again, the critique is unidirectional—faith is interrogated only within one framework, never across.

Even lighter films are not innocent. In 2 States, the Tamil Brahmin household is portrayed through exaggerated rigidity—rituals become comic obstacles, not cultural practices. Repetition of such portrayals is not satire; it is conditioning.

Exhibit B: Humanization of the “Other” — Without Reciprocity

Now contrast this with how “the other” is treated.

In My Name Is Khan, the protagonist’s journey is one of dignity, victimhood, and moral clarity. The film goes to extraordinary lengths to humanize and contextualize identity in a post-9/11 world.

Similarly, Raazi presents a protagonist who marries into a Pakistani military family. There are entire dinner-table scenes where the so-called adversary is shown as warm, cultured, humane. The Indian mission is important—but the emotional weight is carefully balanced to ensure the enemy never appears as an enemy.

The Court of people must ask:

Why does empathy flow so generously in one direction, and so cautiously in another?

Exhibit C: Blurring the Line Between Victim and Aggressor

Now we move to perhaps the most serious charge—distortion in matters of national security.

In Haider, directed by Vishal Bhardwaj, there are scenes of enforced disappearances and state excesses in Kashmir. These are legitimate subjects. But the narrative framing places disproportionate moral scrutiny on the Indian state while relegating terrorism to the background. The result is not balance—it is tilt disguised as nuance.

In Fanaa, the character played by Aamir Khan is revealed to be a terrorist. Yet the film spends the majority of its runtime building him as a romantic hero. The audience is emotionally invested in him before his actions are judged. This is not storytelling—it is emotional manipulation of moral perception.

Exhibit D: Romanticizing the Adversary

Time and again, Bollywood has indulged in what can only be described as cross-border romantic idealism detached from geopolitical reality.

Films and songs have repeatedly portrayed Pakistan not as a strategic adversary but as an emotional extension of shared culture—often ignoring the lived reality of conflict, terrorism, and hostility.

Artistic liberty cannot become strategic amnesia.

Exhibit E: The Shadow Influence of underworld

No prosecution is complete without addressing motive and means.

Bollywood’s murky past with underworld financing—an open secret that was whispered for decades before being acknowledged in fragments. The era when certain producers and actors allegedly operated under the shadow of figures like Dawood Ibrahim is not just gossip—it is part of the industry’s institutional memory. When money comes with strings, storytelling inevitably follows suit.

Bollywood’s long-suspected nexus with the underworld is not fiction. The name of Dawood Ibrahim has surfaced repeatedly in investigative accounts, linking financing channels to coercive influence over casting and production.

When capital is compromised, content cannot remain neutral.

Exhibit F: The Disruption of the Narrative Monopoly

And now, the turning point.

When Uri: The Surgical Strike released, it did something Bollywood had avoided—it presented a clear, unapologetic national perspective. The enemy was not humanized into moral ambiguity; the Indian response was not diluted into hesitation.

Then came The Kashmir Files, which forced into public discourse a chapter long confined to footnotes. Whether one agrees with its treatment or not is secondary—the fact is, it broke a silence that mainstream cinema had maintained for decades.

These films did not distort reality. They disrupted who gets to define it.

The issue is not that Bollywood told certain stories.

The issue is that it chose not to tell others—and systematically marginalized those who tried. The elimination of Gulshan Kumar is case in point. World knows, who eliminated Gulshan Kumar and why he was eliminated?

This is not a call for censorship.

This is a call for intellectual honesty.

The Disruption Bollywood Never Anticipated

The above said selective bias had continued until Dhurandhar happened.

Dhurandhar is not just a story.

 It is a challenge to narrative monopoly.

No moral hedging.

 No apologetic tone.

 No ideological balancing act to appease critics.

Just a blunt proposition:

There is a national interest—and it will not be diluted for comfort.

Exhibit A: Characters That Refuse to Apologize

Take Hamza.

For years, Bollywood conditioned audiences to expect internal conflict—

 the “good man trapped in bad circumstances,” the “victim of larger forces.”

But Hamza doesn’t play that game.

He is strategic. Calculated. Clear.

His loyalties are not confused.

 His actions are not softened for audience sympathy.

This is not the conflicted anti-hero of Fanaa.

 This is a man who understands the stakes—and acts accordingly.

Exhibit B: Rehman—Not Romanticized, Not Sanitized

Then comes Rehman.

In traditional Bollywood grammar, a character like him would be humanized first—given backstory, emotional cushioning, moral ambiguity.

Not here.

Rehman is what the plot demands him to be—a threat shaped by ideology and intent, not by convenient victimhood.

There is no forced dinner-table warmth like in Raazi.

 No emotional cushioning.

Just consequence.

Exhibit C: The Refusal to Blur Moral Lines

This is where Dhurandhar hits hardest.

For years, films like Haider blurred lines—

 state vs suspect, victim vs aggressor.

Nuance became a shield for imbalance.

Dhurandhar rejects that template.

Its scenes—interrogations, covert operations, strategic deception—

 are built on one principle:

Clarity over confusion.

You are not asked to second-guess the nation’s position.

 You are asked to understand it.

Exhibit D: Breaking Shadow influence of underworld as in past 

The shadow influence of underworld figures like Dawood ibrahim on content, creation, casting and production of Bollywood movies had continued until Dhurandhar happened. Unlike portraying  underworld figures like Haji Mastan, Abu Salem, Dawood ibrahim etc. as victim of circumstances, treating their character with empathy and eulogizing their characters in Bollywood films earlier, Dhurandhar exposes their characters and portrays them as they were/are: as devils, villains  and not as heroes like earlier.

Exhibit E: Narrative Without Apology

In older Bollywood, even patriotism came with disclaimers.

In PK, faith was questioned relentlessly.

 In Oh My God!, belief was put on trial.

But when it came to national narratives—

 the tone softened, hesitated, negotiated.

Dhurandhar does none of that.

It does not seek validation.

 It does not fear criticism.

It simply tells the story as it sees it—

 without ideological permission slips.

The Public Reaction: The Real Verdict

And here lies the turning point.

The success and mass acclaim of Dhurandhar is not accidental.

 It is corrective.

It signals that audiences are no longer satisfied with:

-Selective satire

-Curated empathy

-Manufactured moral confusion

They want clarity, authenticity, and courage.

And they rewarded it.

Bollywood, For the First Time, on the Defensive

For decades, dissenting narratives were dismissed as fringe.

 Now they are mainstream.

For decades, audiences were passive.

 Now they are interrogators.

Dhurandhar didn’t just entertain.

 It cross-examined Bollywood itself.

And Bollywood had no ready defence.

Final Submission

The defence may argue: “This is artistic freedom.”

I submit: freedom without balance becomes bias; bias repeated becomes narrative control.

The issue is not that Bollywood told certain stories.

The issue is that it chose not to tell others—and systematically marginalized those who tried.

This is not a call for censorship.

This is a call for intellectual honesty.

Judgment Reserved—But the Audience Has Already Decided

The most significant development is this:

The audience is no longer persuaded by selective storytelling.

The era of passive consumption is over. The viewer now questions, compares, and challenges. The monopoly over narratives is collapsing—not because of censorship, but because of exposure.

Bollywood today stands at a crossroads:

Reform, introspect, and diversify its storytelling—or continue defending an eroding credibility.

Because in the ultimate court—the court of public trust—

selective truth is indistinguishable from falsehood.

End of Khamenei, Does It Mean End of the Fundamentalist Regime in Iran?

End of Khamnei, does it mean end of Fundamentalist regime in Iran?

By S.N. VERMA

"The end of Khamenei may not mark the immediate end of Iran’s fundamentalist regime, but it could well be the first crack in a wall that has stood too long."

"The liberation and empowerment of Iranian women should be the defining objective of the ongoing conflict between the U.S.-Israel axis and Iran’s fundamentalist regime”

“Women of Iran are entitled to  live life on their own terms. They are  entitled to breathe freely and enjoy the liberal lifestyle they once knew and cherished before 1979”

The end of Ayatollah Khamenei inevitably raises a profound and unsettling question: does his exit signify the end of the fundamentalist or radical regime in Iran—one against which the United States and Israel have been locked in long-standing confrontation? More importantly, does it open the door for the replacement of a rigid, theocratic order with a liberal and modern regime?

The honest answer is nuanced. The end of Ayatollah Khamenei offers hope, but not an immediate transformation. It marks, at best, the beginning of a long and arduous process rather than the instant collapse of Iran’s fundamentalist structure. While a towering symbol of ideological control may have fallen, the ideology itself remains deeply entrenched.

Iran today continues to have a substantial number of followers who were shaped, inspired, and mobilized by the worldview Khamenei championed throughout his lifetime. His influence does not vanish with his death. In many rural areas—and even within sections of urban society—he was, and continues to be, perceived as a hero, a defender of religious identity, and a symbol of resistance. These segments are likely to continue pledging allegiance to the fundamentalist ideology he espoused.

At the same time, a sharply contrasting reality exists. For large sections of urban Iran—particularly among younger men and women—Khamenei came to represent repression, control, and suffocation of personal freedoms. To them, the regime symbolized an oppressive order that denied choice, dignity, and self-expression. For this generation, the demand is clear: Iran must move toward a liberal, modern, and inclusive system of governance for the larger good of the nation.

This ideological divide makes any transition extraordinarily complex. Consequently, the struggle for regime change is likely to be long-drawn. From the perspective of the United States and Israel, the elimination of a single leader amounts only to a partial achievement. Unless there is sustained pressure—and potentially direct ground-level engagement aimed at dismantling the fundamentalist power structure—the likelihood is that Iran will continue to be ruled by a regime rooted in religious orthodoxy.

From an Indian perspective, the issue demands both empathy and clarity. India has enjoyed long-standing civilizational, cultural, and diplomatic ties with Iran. As an Indian, I stand firmly with the people of Iran. Yet standing with the people also means hoping—and advocating—that Iran sheds the weight of fundamentalism and embraces liberalism for the greater good of its citizens.

At the heart of this debate lies the most critical and morally compelling question: the status of Iranian women.

Emancipation of women from the current fundamentalist regime and their empowerment must be the central objective of any meaningful transformation in Iran.

 A return to the freedoms and dignity of the pre-1979 era is not a luxury—it is a necessity.

Before 1979, Iranian women experienced significantly greater personal freedom. They participated openly in public life, pursued education and careers, dressed by choice, and embraced modern lifestyles without fear or coercion. That era stands as living proof that Iranian society is not inherently incompatible with modernity or women’s empowerment.

Are women in Iran not entitled to breathe freely and live life on their own terms? Are they not entitled to the modern lifestyle they once knew and cherished before 1979? These are not rhetorical questions—they are moral imperatives.

The liberation and empowerment of Iranian women should be the defining objective of the ongoing conflict between the U.S.-Israel axis and Iran’s fundamentalist regime. Yet realism demands acknowledgment that this goal will take time. Deeply embedded ideologies do not dissolve overnight. But history shows that societies do evolve—often painfully, often slowly, but inevitably—when the aspiration for freedom becomes stronger than the fear imposed by power.

The end of Khamenei may not mark the immediate end of Iran’s fundamentalist regime, but it could well be the first crack in a wall that has stood too long. Whether that crack widens into lasting change will depend on perseverance, internal awakening, and an unwavering commitment to freedom—especially the freedom of Iran’s women.

Are our corporates Innovators or Scammers?

 

Are our corporates Innovators or Scammers?

By S. N. Verma

India today stands at a critical crossroads. On one hand, we proclaim—loudly and repeatedly—our ambition to become a global leader in innovation and research, particularly in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). On the other hand, our conduct, unfortunately, often resembles that of opportunistic service providers and, worse, imitators masquerading as innovators. This contradiction raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: Are we truly innovators, or are we merely projecting an illusion of innovation?

The recent Global AI Summit in Delhi was organised with great fanfare to showcase India’s capabilities in Artificial Intelligence and to project the country as an emerging global AI hub. The objective, on paper, is laudable. India does have genuine reasons to aspire for global leadership in AI. Across the world, a significant proportion of cutting-edge AI research and innovation is being driven by Indian engineers and scientists working in global technology companies. Their intellectual labour has helped these companies create path-breaking technologies and reap enormous commercial benefits—rightfully so, since those companies invested heavily in research, development, and long-term innovation.

The uncomfortable question, however, is this: what have Indian IT companies done with decades of dominance in the technology services sector?

Despite enjoying a massive talent pool, policy support, and sustained profitability, most Indian IT giants have chosen the easier route—remaining service providers focused on quick returns, rather than investing seriously in original technology development. Innovation demands patience, risk, and long-term vision. Unfortunately, that spirit has been conspicuously absent.

What makes this situation deeply troubling is a shocking episode now circulating widely in the media. A Chinese robot was reportedly showcased by Galgotias University as its own innovation, and the same robot was also represented by Wipro at the Global AI Summit as an example of indigenous AI capability.

This is not merely embarrassing—it is damaging.

India is in the process of forging a global technological identity. In such a context, presenting foreign (Chinese) technology on a prestigious platform under the banner of “Indian innovation” is an insult to the countless indigenous startups that are genuinely building technology from zero. There is nothing wrong with sourcing technology or collaborating globally; innovation today is rarely insular. But there is a fundamental ethical difference between sourcing and creating, and deliberately blurring that line amounts to deception.

Such acts do not just undermine credibility; they cast aspersions on the very capability of Indian technologists and researchers. They cheapen the struggle of real innovators and reduce national ambition to a hollow marketing exercise.

It is well known that the Government of India is seriously committed to making India a global leader in Artificial Intelligence. However, that goal cannot be achieved through superficial showcases, borrowed hardware, and rebranded imports. Leadership in AI will come only through sustained research, original innovation, and the courage to invest in uncertain futures—not by remaining comfortable service vendors.

It may be time for PM Narendra Modi to directly engage with the CEOs of major Indian IT companies and convey a simple but firm message: if India genuinely wants to lead the world in AI, its corporations must start building technology, not merely servicing it. Copying or misrepresenting others’ innovations and presenting them as one’s own—as appears to have happened at the ongoing AI summit—is not just unethical, it is a national embarrassment.

Entities such as Wipro and Galgotias University must be asked to explain their conduct. Accountability is essential—not to punish innovation, but to protect it. If such actions go unchecked, they risk eroding trust in India’s technological aspirations at a moment when the world is finally beginning to take them seriously.

India does not lack talent. What it risks lacking is honesty and ambition in execution. If we truly wish to be innovators, we must first stop behaving like impostors.

After Mother of All Deals, now comes Father of All Deals

After Mother of All Deals, now comes Father of All Deals

 By S.N. Verma

After concluding what was widely described as the “mother of all trade deals” with the European Union, India has now entered into what can legitimately be called the father of all deals—this time with the United States of America.

In a move that has surprised markets, analysts, and even critics, the United States officially announced a sharp reduction in tariffs on Indian goods—from an existing high of 50% down to 18%. This decision has come as a huge and unexpected gift to the Indian economy, carrying both immediate economic impact and long-term strategic significance.

Until this announcement, India and Brazil were jointly placed at the top of the list of nations facing the highest U.S. tariffs, both at 50%. With this trade deal, India not only sheds that disadvantage but emerges as the lowest-tariff country in Asia, just below Japan. It is worth recalling that Japan’s trade deal with the U.S. came at a heavy domestic political cost—the Japanese Prime Minister was compelled to resign for the compromises involved in reaching that agreement. India, by contrast, has managed to secure a remarkably favourable outcome without any visible political upheaval.

India now also stands as the lowest-tariff nation among the BRICS countries, a development that significantly strengthens its competitive position in global trade.

The immediate economic response to this announcement speaks volumes. The stock market, which had been witnessing a prolonged decline over the past several months, surged by 2,072 points soon after the deal was made public. The rupee, which had been under sustained pressure, registered a strong recovery, appreciating by 119 paise against the U.S. dollar. These indicators reflect renewed investor confidence and optimism about India’s economic trajectory. In the coming months, this deal is expected to aid recovery across multiple sectors of the economy.

The textile sector offers a clear illustration. With tariffs at 18%, India now enjoys a distinct advantage over key competitors such as Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Indonesia, all of whom face tariffs of around 20%. This marginal but crucial difference is likely to substantially boost India’s textile exports and reinforce its position in global supply chains.

One of the criticisms being raised is that the trade deal was announced by the United States and not by India. This criticism, however, misses a basic point. The higher tariffs were imposed and announced by the U.S. in the first place, and therefore only the U.S. could formally announce their reduction. There is nothing unusual or improper about this sequence.

Opposition parties have also alleged that India has bent backwards by compromising the interests of the agriculture, fishery, and dairy sectors. Factually, this allegation does not hold water. The Government of India has categorically stated that it has not diluted its stand in relation to these sensitive sectors. In the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary, the criticism appears to be unfounded and politically motivated.

It is true that India may have had to show some flexibility regarding the purchase of petroleum products from Russia. The reality seems to be that India will likely reduce—though not entirely stop—its imports of Russian petroleum products. However, this decision too has been guided purely by national self-interest. India was purchasing petroleum from Russia because it was economically beneficial. Yet, without this trade deal with the U.S., India stood to lose nearly 40 billion dollars annually, as against gaining about 10 billion dollars by continuing such purchases from Russia. From that perspective, recalibrating energy imports is a rational economic choice, not a strategic surrender.

Even those who are critics of Prime Minister Narendra Modi would do well to acknowledge his role in securing this deal. Over the last seven months, he remained calm, quiet, and unprovoked despite intense pressure from both domestic and international quarters. He refused to compromise on core Indian interests—and in the end, that steadfast approach has paid dividends.

India has now been rewarded with what can rightly be described as the father of all trade deals with the United States—one that strengthens its economy, enhances its global standing, and underscores the value of patience, resolve, and strategic clarity in international negotiations.

Should Judiciary or Government Be Blamed for Bail Given to Sengar?

Should  Judiciary or Government Be Blamed for Bail Given to Sengar?

(By S.N. VERMA)

The recent public outrage and protests over the grant of bail to Kuldeep Singh Sengar once again reveal a deep and recurring misunderstanding of criminal jurisprudence in India. The narrative being pushed—largely through headlines, social media posts and political rhetoric—suggests that a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred, and that either the judiciary or the government must be held responsible. A calm examination of law, however, shows that this outrage is misdirected, legally unfounded, and driven more by emotion and perception than by principle.

Suspension of Sentence and  not Acquittal

At the outset, it must be clearly understood that Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s conviction has not been set aside or diluted. What has been granted is suspension of sentence pending appeal, a power expressly conferred on appellate courts under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Suspension of sentence merely means that the execution of punishment is kept in abeyance during pendency of the appeal. The finding of guilt remains fully intact. In law, Sengar continues to be a convicted person, and the stigma and legal consequences of conviction persist. This distinction—between suspension of sentence and suspension of conviction—is crucial, yet is often conveniently ignored in public discourse.

Bail Is a Consequence of Suspension of Sentence

Once a sentence is suspended, continued incarceration has no legal basis, and therefore release on bail is a natural and routine consequence. This is not a concession reserved for the powerful; it is a settled principle applied daily across the country—even in cases involving heinous offences such as murder, rape, and terrorism, provided judicial parameters are satisfied.

Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently held that:

Appeals take years to be finally decided,

It would be unjust to keep a person incarcerated for the entire period if the appeal has been admitted,

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be sacrificed merely to appease public sentiment.

Thus, grant of bail following suspension of sentence is not an exception—it is the rule.

Presumption of Innocence Till Finality

Another foundational principle of criminal law is that a conviction does not attain finality until all statutory appeals are exhausted. This is not a loophole; it is the very essence of due process.

Sengar, like any other convict, is entitled to:

Challenge his conviction before higher courts,

Seek suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal,

Be treated in accordance with established jurisprudence, not public anger.

This does not trivialize the crime or diminish its seriousness. It only reflects the civilised legal principle that no one should be made to suffer irreversible punishment until the judicial process reaches its lawful conclusion.

Judiciary Is Independent; Government Has No Role

Blaming the Government for Sengar’s release on bail reflects either ignorance of constitutional structure or deliberate political distortion. 

In India:

Judiciary is independent,

Decisions on suspension of sentence and bail are taken solely by courts,

The Executive has no authority to interfere, influence, or overrule judicial orders.

To expect the Government to “stop bail” is to demand an unconstitutional act. Ironically, such demands, if accepted, would amount to erosion of judicial independence—the very danger that protesters otherwise claim to resist.

Emotion, Politics, and Public Perception

The outrage surrounding this case appears to stem from three sources:

Moral revulsion against the crime, which is understandable;

Media simplification, where “bail” is equated with “freedom” or “exoneration”;

Political opportunism, where legal processes are projected as administrative failures.

However, courts do not—and cannot—function on outrage. Law must remain principled, even when the accused is unpopular or the offence is horrific.

The Final Outcome Is Yet to Come

It bears emphasis that if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds Sengar’s conviction, the suspension of sentence will automatically come to an end, and he will return to prison to serve the remainder of his life sentence. The present relief does not erase that possibility; it merely postpones incarceration until the appellate process is complete.

Conclusion:

In sum, the bail granted to Kuldeep Singh Sengar:

Is firmly rooted in statutory law and constitutional principles,

Reflects normal appellate jurisprudence, not preferential treatment,

Cannot be attributed to executive action or governmental indulgence.

The protests blaming the Government or questioning the judiciary are therefore legally misplaced. They are driven either by political motives, heightened emotion, or misunderstanding of criminal procedure. A mature democracy must distinguish between condemning a crime and undermining the rule of law.

Justice must not only be done, but it must also be done according to law—not according to the loudness of public outcry.

‘Ungrateful’ Bangladesh! Why did we create Bangladesh?

 “‘Ungrateful’ Bangladesh”! Why did we create Bangladesh?

By S.N. VERMA

More than five decades after the birth of Bangladesh, an uncomfortable question is increasingly being asked in India: has the nation we helped create forgotten the circumstances of its own liberation?

In 1971, India did not merely support Bangladesh diplomatically. It opened its borders to nearly ten million refugees, bore enormous economic and social costs, and ultimately went to war to end one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 20th century. Indian soldiers fought and died to liberate a people subjected to mass atrocities by the Pakistani Army. The surrender of over 90,000 Pakistani troops in Dhaka remains one of the most decisive moments in modern military history.

What is often forgotten—particularly by those who did not live through that era—is the extraordinary public contribution made by ordinary Indians. During the 1970s, citizens willingly paid additional amounts on daily necessities to support Bangladesh. Bus commuters paid extra fares; cinema-goers paid a surcharge on tickets; collections were organised across towns and villages under the Bangladesh Relief Fund. This was not state coercion—it was popular empathy. An entire generation contributed, modestly but consistently, to help a neighbour survive and rebuild.

Against this historical backdrop, recent developments in Bangladesh are deeply troubling.

There has been a visible rise in hostility towards India in public discourse, street protests, and symbolic acts that target India’s role in the Liberation War. Even more disturbing are reports of violence against minorities, particularly Hindus, and the apparent indifference—or worse, inadequacy—of state institutions in preventing such incidents. The killing of individuals like Dipu Chandra Das, widely reported in the media, has raised serious concerns about law enforcement, rule of law, and minority protection.

No democracy can claim moral legitimacy while failing to protect its vulnerable citizens.

Equally concerning is the attempt to rewrite or dilute the history of 1971, portraying India not as a liberator but as an adversary. This is not merely a diplomatic irritant; it is a profound betrayal of historical truth. Nations are free to chart independent foreign policies, but independence does not require amnesia.

India did not intervene in 1971 for territorial gain or political domination. It intervened because mass killings, sexual violence, and ethnic cleansing were unfolding on its doorstep—and because global powers chose silence. To now see sections of Bangladeshi society treat India as an enemy raises a legitimate question: what happened to gratitude, memory, and moral continuity?

This is not an indictment of every Bangladeshi citizen. It is a critique of prevailing political narratives, selective outrage, and a growing intolerance that threatens Bangladesh’s own founding ideals—secularism, pluralism, and respect for human dignity.

Bangladesh was once cited as a model of economic resilience and social progress in South Asia. That promise is now under strain. Political instability, suppression of dissent, attacks on minorities, and excessive external influence risk pushing the country down a path that its founders never intended.

History is unforgiving to nations that erase their own origins.

India will remain a responsible neighbour. But friendship cannot be sustained on denial and hostility. If Bangladesh continues to distance itself from the values and sacrifices that gave it birth, the question will only grow louder—not in anger, but in sorrow:

Why did we create Bangladesh, if its own conscience refuses to remember?

Epstein Files: Despite Co-ordinated Disinformation Campaign, Modi’s public Image Remains unaffected/Unscathed

Epstein Files: Despite Co-ordinated Disinformation Campaign, Modi’s public Image Remains unaffected/Unscathed

(By S. N. Verma)

In recent weeks, Indian social media platforms witnessed the rapid circulation of a claim alleging that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s name appeared in the so-called “Epstein Files.” The assertion was presented as a serious insinuation, framed to suggest impropriety by association. However, when the relevant material became publicly accessible and subject to verification, no such reference to the Prime Minister was found in any incriminating or questionable context.

The episode merits attention not because the claim was true—it was not—but because of the manner in which the narrative was constructed, amplified, and defended even after its factual foundation collapsed.

Manufacturing a Narrative

A noticeable aspect of the campaign was the striking uniformity of content across multiple platforms. Similar phrasing, identical talking points, and synchronized timing appeared in videos, posts, and commentaries circulated by a set of commentators and journalists. Some of the content went beyond reporting and ventured into speculative reasoning.

One particularly troubling argument suggested that the absence of the Prime Minister’s name itself demonstrated that it had allegedly been “removed,” thereby converting lack of evidence into supposed proof. Such logic is inherently circular and falls short of the standards of evidence-based journalism. In effect, it renders the claim immune to falsification—presence would be guilt, and absence would also be guilt.

Political Echo Chambers

Following the initial dissemination of the claim, political actors and party-affiliated digital platforms began circulating substantially similar narratives. The overlap between journalistic commentary and political amplification led to public debate over whether this convergence was organic or coordinated.

It is important to state with precision that coordination is alleged, not established as fact. Nonetheless, the speed and uniformity with which the narrative moved from commentary to political echo chambers raised legitimate questions about editorial independence and narrative alignment.

The Role of Advocacy Networks

Public discussion also turned toward international seminars and advocacy platforms that host journalists and opinion-makers for discussions on media and democracy. Such exchanges are neither unusual nor inherently improper. Journalists frequently participate in global forums, workshops, and fellowships.

However, critics have pointed out that when participants from such events subsequently advance near-identical political narratives within a domestic context, the distinction between independent journalism and ideological advocacy becomes blurred. These observations, it must be emphasized, represent opinions and public debate—not judicial findings or proven conclusions.

Disinformation Without Proof

The “Epstein Files” episode illustrates a broader phenomenon: disinformation does not require verification to achieve impact. Its effectiveness lies in repetition, emotional framing, and the strategic use of insinuation. Once the original claim failed scrutiny, the narrative subtly shifted toward vague suggestions of “professional meetings” or unnamed references—again without documentary support.

By then, however, the insinuation had already travelled far.

The End Result

Modi's public image remains unaffected.

Despite the intensity of the campaign, the outcome remains clear. Verifiable material does not support any allegation of wrongdoing or improper association involving Prime Minister Modi. His public image, built over decades of political life and scrutiny, remains unaffected by claims that could not withstand basic verification.

More importantly, the episode underscores a critical lesson for a democratic society: disagreement with political leadership is legitimate, even essential. But replacing evidence with conjecture, and journalism with insinuation, ultimately undermines public trust in institutions far beyond politics.

Conclusion

The collapse of the “Epstein Files” narrative serves as a reminder that repetition does not create truth, and speculation cannot substitute evidence. In an age of viral information and polarized discourse, the responsibility to distinguish fact from inference rests with journalists, political actors, and citizens alike.

Vigilance against disinformation—irrespective of the individual it targets—is not a partisan obligation. It is a civic necessity.