Are NALSAR Students Too Ignorant, Gullible or Politically Motivated Under the Influence of the Left?

By S.N. VERMA

The controversy surrounding the decision of a section of students of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad, to oppose the invitation of the Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, to their convocation raises a question much larger than the controversy itself.

Are these students genuinely protesting on the basis of a principled disagreement with the Chief Justice, or has a perfectly understandable concern about certain judicial observations been converted into a political campaign.

And, more importantly, have the students themselves been adequately informed about the precise context of the much-publicised “cockroach” remark before taking such an extreme position?

Reports indicate that several hundred NALSAR students objected to the CJI being invited as chief guest at their convocation. The controversy subsequently escalated when the Bar Council of India initially sought to restrict enrolment of the graduating batch, a decision which was later withdrawn. The Supreme Court itself intervened and questioned the BCI's action, making clear that students cannot be penalised merely for expressing dissent.

The BCI's initial response, though disproportionate, however it does not mean that the students' interpretation of the CJI's remarks should escape scrutiny.

What exactly did the CJI say?

This is where the controversy requires some factual discipline.

On May 15, 2026, during a Supreme Court hearing, Justice Surya Kant made observations concerning persons entering the legal profession and other public-facing professions through questionable or fake degrees. Some media reports presented his observations as referring broadly to unemployed youngsters and reported his use of the expression “cockroaches” in that context.

The CJI subsequently issued a clarification.

He specifically stated that his criticism was directed at persons entering professions through “fake and bogus degrees” and not at the youth of India as a whole. He also stated that he had great respect for Indian youth and regarded them as an important resource for the country's future.

More recently, while explaining the controversy, the CJI again stated that the discussion before the Court concerned persons who had allegedly entered the legal profession through fake or unrecognised law degrees and that the “cockroach” analogy was used in that context.

That clarification cannot simply be wished away.

The crucial question: was the entire youth of India called “cockroaches”?

The answer, on the CJI's own clarification, is plainly no.

The controversy appears to have acquired a life of its own because a particular portion of an oral judicial observation was detached from the factual setting in which it was made.

There is an enormous difference between saying:

“All Indian youth are cockroaches”

and saying, in substance:

persons who enter a profession through fraudulent or bogus qualifications and then misuse that profession are like parasites or cockroaches.

The first would be an extraordinary and sweeping condemnation of an entire generation.

The second is a criticism of a particular category of persons.

Those two propositions cannot reasonably be treated as identical.

Fake law degrees are not an imaginary problem

The concern regarding fraudulent entry into the legal profession is not frivolous.

The legal profession occupies a position of exceptional public trust. An advocate is expected to possess not merely a formal qualification but professional integrity, competence and fidelity to the administration of justice.

If a person enters the profession on the basis of a fake or fraudulent law degree, the problem is not merely academic. Such a person potentially compromises the administration of justice itself.

The Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils have, from time to time, undertaken verification exercises concerning the credentials of advocates. The fact that questions concerning fake law degrees have repeatedly arisen demonstrates why the issue deserves serious attention.

Indeed, the controversy surrounding the 2015 case of Delhi's then Law Minister Jitender Singh Tomar, whose law degree was alleged to be fabricated and who was subsequently arrested and resigned from office, illustrates how serious fraudulent educational credentials can become when they reach public institutions.

The CJI's concern, therefore, cannot fairly be characterised as an attack upon the entire youth merely because the word “cockroach” was used in a particular judicial context.

Should NALSAR students not have understood the distinction?

This is where legitimate criticism of the protest begins.

NALSAR is among India's premier institutions for legal education. Its students are not ordinary observers of legal controversies. They are future members of the Bar.

A law student is expected to appreciate the most elementary principle of legal interpretation: context matters.

Judicial observations cannot responsibly be understood by extracting one sentence or one expression and disregarding the facts, submissions and discussion surrounding it.

If students of a premier national law university interpret an observation concerning fake-degree holders as an allegation against the entire youth of India, one is entitled to ask whether the controversy is the result of genuine misunderstanding—or whether the remark has been deliberately transformed into a political narrative.

I would prefer to believe that students of NALSAR are neither ignorant nor gullible.

That leaves another possibility: political activism may have overtaken legal analysis.

That possibility deserves open discussion.

What about Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and similar cases?

There is certainly a legitimate democratic debate over bail, preventive detention, prosecution and the treatment of dissent.

Some sections of civil society, students of educational institutes particularly  JNU etc under influence of leftist student organisations often have expressed their anger against conviction and hanging of certain terrorists like Afzal Guru and now they often express their anger against Judiciary  for denying bails to Umar khalid and Sharjeel Imam  and have demanded their release or bail.

Question is,  are these NALSAR students too under influence of leftist student organisations  upset with CJI headed Judiciary refusing bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel imam and hence they are refusing to accept degrees from CJI?

Would these students too one day approach the Supreme Court at midnight?

The provocative question may nevertheless be useful.

If tomorrow one of these students becomes a practising lawyer and represents a person convicted or accused of terrorism, will he or she too approach the Supreme Court urgently to protect that person's constitutional and legal rights?

The answer may be yes or no, but it is also true that one may  expect from somebody under influence of leftist ideology to come to rescue of even convicted terrorists because for them, human rights of even convicted terrorists may  take precedence over anything else.

The danger of the “spin”

The most troubling aspect of the controversy is the possibility that an isolated expression has been converted into an entirely different political proposition.

If the CJI had actually called the entire youth of India “cockroaches”, criticism would have been entirely understandable.

But if the observation was directed at a particular category of persons entering professions through fake or bogus qualifications, and if the CJI subsequently clarified precisely that point, then continuing to represent the remark as an attack upon India's entire youth becomes difficult to justify.

A law student should be particularly cautious about such a transformation.

Law is about interpretation.

Context is law's oxygen.

A sentence cannot always be interpreted without reference to the proceeding in which it was uttered.

Conclusion

I do not believe that NALSAR students should be condemned merely for protesting against the CJI.

Nor do I believe that the BCI was justified in threatening the professional future of an entire graduating batch because of a student protest.

But I do believe that the “cockroach” controversy deserves a more intellectually honest examination.

The CJI has expressly clarified that his remarks were directed at persons entering professions through fake or bogus degrees and were not a condemnation of India's youth.

If that is the context, then portraying the observation as an insult to the entire youth of India is, at the very least, a highly incomplete representation of what was said.

For students of a premier law university, the question is not whether they should support the CJI.

The question is whether they should read before they react, understand before they condemn, and analyse before they politicise.

If they do that, they will become excellent lawyers—irrespective of whether they are politically Left, Right or somewhere in between.

But if ideology begins to determine the interpretation of facts, law and judicial proceedings, then the legal profession—not merely NALSAR—has reason to be concerned.

The future of the Bar should belong neither to the Left nor to the Right.

It should belong to the Constitution, the rule of law and professional integrity.

 

Real Credit for the Success of the Cockroach protests Should Go to Arvind Kejriwal and Not Abhijit Dipke

By S.N. Verma

The recent success of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) agitation has triggered widespread political debate. While many have projected Abhijit Dipke as the face of the movement, I believe the real credit—if one considers the agitation to have been politically successful—belongs not to Abhijit Dipke but to Arvind Kejriwal.

I have remained one of the strongest critics of Arvind Kejriwal over the years. Yet, political analysis demands objectivity. Whether one likes him or not, one cannot ignore what appears to be a well-planned political strategy. In my assessment, the CJP agitation succeeded far beyond the expectations of most observers, including myself, and according to me the principal strategist behind that success was Arvind Kejriwal.

According to my interpretation, the idea of projecting the Cockroach Janata Party did not arise out of preference but out of political necessity. Kejriwal, it may be argued, realised that both he and the Aam Aadmi Party had suffered a significant erosion of public credibility. Any nationwide agitation launched directly under the AAP banner or his own leadership would have struggled to generate broad public support. Consequently, the movement was allegedly presented through a different platform and different public faces.

The next step, in this view, was the careful selection of an issue capable of generating nationwide emotional resonance. Repeated allegations of examination paper leaks, particularly concerning NEET, had already created widespread frustration among students and their families. The issue naturally attracted public sympathy and media attention.

It may be noted that other examination-related issues also existed, yet NEET was strategically chosen because it affected lakhs of students across India and had the potential to inflict maximum political damage on the Union Government. Combined with dissatisfaction among certain sections of society  over recent UGC amendments 2026, the controversy offered an opportunity to target education minister Dharmendra Pradhan in order to inflict maximum damage to Modi Govt.

Thereafter, according to my interpretation, individuals such as Abhijit Dipke emerged as the visible faces of the agitation, while the actual political direction remained elsewhere. Public leadership and strategic leadership, it is argued, were deliberately separated.

Supporters of my view further contend that resources, organisational backing, and campaign management were mobilised from various groups opposed to the Modi Government. Simultaneously, efforts were allegedly made to associate respected public personalities with the movement in order to enhance its credibility.

In this context, Sonam Wangchuk is viewed by some observers as someone who provided moral legitimacy to the movement in a manner somewhat comparable to the role Anna Hazare played during the anti-corruption movement. Whether this comparison is justified is open to debate, but there is little doubt that his presence attracted considerable public attention.

The movement also appeared to receive support from sections of Left-leaning organisations, several civil society groups, several social media influencers and several public personalities. Incidentally most of them happen to be big Modi haters for their own different reasons. As the protests expanded, other opposition parties also began expressing solidarity.

Interestingly, the Congress initially maintained visible distance from the agitation. One possible explanation is that its leadership perceived the movement as being politically advantageous to Arvind Kejriwal. However, once the protests gathered nationwide momentum, attempts were reportedly made to associate with the agitation indirectly, though by then the movement had already acquired its own independent identity.

As events unfolded and the agitation appeared to achieve significant political traction, Kejriwal and senior AAP leaders became increasingly visible. To many political observers, this reinforced the impression that the movement had been strategically guided from behind the scenes.

Ultimately, when the Union Government accepted what was seen as one of the principal demands of the protesters by seeking the resignation of the Education Minister, the agitation was widely viewed as a political success. Whether that governmental decision was influenced by the protests or by other considerations is a matter of political interpretation. Nevertheless, the perception of victory has significantly strengthened the movement.

If this assessment is correct, then among contemporary Indian politicians, Arvind Kejriwal demonstrated once again his ability to identify politically sensitive issues, mobilise public sentiment, and convert public dissatisfaction into organised political campaigns.

From the Government's perspective, however, this may not be the end of the story. If the underlying political strategy is indeed to keep identifying issues that evoke strong public emotions and continuously mobilise protests around them, then similar agitations may emerge on other subjects in the future.

It is therefore possible that new issues affecting large sections of the public may become the next focus of political mobilisation. In my opinion, next item in agenda of these cockroaches/Kejriwal could be Ethanol and next minister under attack could be Nitin Gadkari. As I understand, policies relating to ethanol could become future flashpoints, potentially placing ministers such as Nitin Gadkari under increased political attack by Cockroaches. Whether such predictions prove accurate remains to be seen.

Political movements often have visible leaders and invisible strategists. In the case of the Cockroach Janata Party agitation, Abhijit Dipke may have become the public face of the protests, but if the above political reading is accepted, the principal architect behind its strategy, planning and execution was Arvind Kejriwal.

    

Protests Shall Continue: What You Can't Achieve Directly, You Try to Achieve Indirectly

By S.N. Verma

The controversy surrounding the alleged NEET paper leak has triggered nationwide protests and political mobilisation. A pertinent question, however, is whether these protests will end once the immediate grievances are addressed.

In my opinion, the answer is no.

The reason is that the movement, in its present form, has evolved beyond the original issue. Even if every demand relating to the alleged paper leak were accepted, another issue would soon emerge as the next rallying point. If not NEET, it could be another policy decision, another administrative controversy, or another public issue capable of generating widespread public sentiment. The objective, in my view, is no longer confined to resolving a particular grievance but to sustaining continuous political pressure on the Government.

This reflects an old political strategy: when an objective cannot be achieved directly, attempts are made to achieve it indirectly.

If a government cannot be removed through the electoral process because it continues to enjoy public support, the alternative strategy may be to create an atmosphere of persistent unrest, dissatisfaction and political instability. Continuous protests, frequent agitations and sustained public campaigns can weaken public confidence in the Government even where the original issue has been addressed.

From this perspective, NEET is merely one episode in a larger political contest.

Tomorrow, the issue may shift elsewhere. It could be a fuel policy, ethanol blending, agricultural reforms, infrastructure projects or any other matter capable of influencing public opinion. Complex policy issues are often difficult for the general public to examine in detail. Consequently, they may become effective political tools for mobilising public sentiment. The focus may then shift from one minister to another, accompanied by fresh demands for resignations or policy reversals.

The pattern, therefore, is likely to continue.

This does not imply that every protest is illegitimate. In a democracy, peaceful protest is a constitutional right and often serves an important public purpose. Genuine grievances deserve to be heard and remedied. However, it is equally important to distinguish between issue-based protests intended to secure specific reforms and political campaigns that, in the my opinion, seek to maintain perpetual confrontation regardless of whether the original grievance has been resolved.

In my assessment, several political actors and ideological groups that oppose Prime Minister Narendra Modi—including opposition parties, regional political formations, Left groups and other critics of the Government—share a common political objective of defeating the present Government. Their methods and priorities may differ, but they may find common cause on issues that generate public mobilisation. In my opinion,  external interests too  prefer a less assertive Indian leadership and hence they too are  sponsoring, aiding and abetting such protests so that Modi is thrown out.

The larger political calculation, in my opinion, is straightforward. If electoral arithmetic does not favour a change in government, continuous public agitation may be viewed as a means of creating an environment of instability and weakening the Government's political standing before the electorate.

Whether this assessment ultimately proves correct will be judged by events over time. However, if one observes a recurring pattern of successive agitations where the issue changes but the mobilisation continues, it may indicate that the objective extends beyond the immediate grievance.

The central question, therefore, is not whether one supports or opposes a particular protest. Rather, it is whether the protest is genuinely directed at resolving a public issue or whether the issue has become a vehicle for pursuing a broader political objective.

In my opinion, that distinction is crucial. The future will reveal whether protests conclude when their stated demands are met, or whether they simply move from one issue to another in pursuit of a larger political goal.

As the saying goes, what cannot be achieved directly is often attempted indirectly.

Cockroach Janata Party” an outfit of urban Naxals and A New Avatar of the Aam Aadmi Party?

 

“Cockroach Janata Party” ;An outfit of Urban naxals;A New Avatar of the Aam Aadmi Party?"

(BY S.N. VERMA)

"Can GEN Z identify with Cockroach Janata party? "

"Can Cockroach Janata party stir the youth of india, create unrest among them and overthrow Modi Govt, the purpose for which it has been launched by anti India forces abroad having full support of opposition parties in India?" 

"Notably, 80% of online supporters of this party are from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Turkey"

In recent months, social media has seen the sudden rise of a political outfit calling itself the “Cockroach Janata Party” (CJP), led by Abhijeet Dipke. The party appears to target India’s Gen Z audience by speaking aggressively on contentious national issues and presenting itself as an anti-establishment platform. But an important question arises: can India’s educated and aspirational youth genuinely identify with such politics?

Another question being widely discussed online is the communication style and public speaking ability of the party’s founder. Critics have compared Abhijeet Dipke’s English-speaking skills with that of Pakistan cricket captain Mohammad Rizwan. Many social media users have circulated videos juxtaposing the two, arguing that Rizwan — for whom English is genuinely a foreign language — appears more confident and coherent in media interactions than Dipke, who has reportedly spent years in Boston, one of the world’s major educational hubs.

Boston is home to globally respected institutions such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University. Critics therefore find it surprising that Dipke often appears to struggle while expressing his thoughts in interviews. According to them, he frequently pauses, searches for words, and fails to articulate a clear political vision.

This naturally leads to a larger political question: is the “Cockroach Janata Party” genuinely a new movement, or merely a rebranded extension of the Aam Aadmi Party ecosystem?

Social media posts and old photographs shared online suggest that Abhijeet Dipke was associated with AAP between 2020 and 2023. Several posts allegedly show him praising Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, while actively promoting AAP’s political narrative. For many observers, this raises doubts about the originality of the so-called “new” movement.

Critics argue that the political style of CJP resembles the same confrontational and agitation-centric model popularized by AAP during its early years — focusing on outrage, emotional mobilization, and viral activism rather than constructive policy engagement.

At the same time, some commentators have expressed concern that highly emotional campaigns on sensitive issues could contribute to social unrest among sections of Indian youth. However, it would be unfair and irresponsible to label individuals or organizations as “anti-national” without concrete evidence. Political disagreement, criticism of governments, and activism are all legitimate parts of democratic discourse.

What is more relevant is whether India’s Gen Z — arguably the most educated, digitally aware, and globally exposed generation in Indian history — will embrace rhetoric-driven politics or demand substance, clarity, and credible leadership. 

India’s youth today are ambitious, informed, and deeply conscious of national interest. They may protest policies, question governments, or mobilize on social causes, but they are equally aware of the importance of stability, growth, and India’s global standing.

The real test for any new political platform, including the “Cockroach Janata Party,” will therefore not be social media virality or provocative slogans. It will be credibility, intellectual seriousness, and the ability to offer practical solutions for India’s future.

As Indian democracy evolves, the electorate — especially young voters — is increasingly capable of distinguishing between genuine political reform and recycled political branding wrapped in a new avatar.

Peace talks have failed in islamabad, but should it surprise us?

 Peace talks between United States and Iran have failed—but should that really surprise us?

 Probably not.

In many ways, this outcome was almost inevitable. On the ground, Iran has suffered significant setbacks. Much of its top-tier and second-line leadership has reportedly been neutralized, and a substantial portion of its civilian and economic infrastructure has been damaged—arguably setting it back by years, if not decades. From a purely military standpoint as well, Iran appears to have taken heavy losses.

Yet, despite these setbacks, Iran has neither capitulated nor withdrawn. It continues to engage militarily, inflicting costs on the United States, Israel, and their Middle Eastern allies. The mere fact that it remains operational and capable of resistance seems to have reinforced a perception within Iran that it has not been defeated—and perhaps even that it holds leverage.

This perception is critical. It shapes Iran’s negotiating posture. Entering talks from a standpoint of perceived resilience, Iran appears to be demanding sweeping concessions: influence over the Strait of Hormuz, security assurances for allies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi movement, complete lifting of sanctions, acceptance of its nuclear ambitions, and even war reparations.

From the perspective of the United States, while there may be a desire to de-escalate and eventually exit the conflict, there are clear red lines. It is highly unlikely that Washington would agree to terms such as permitting Iran’s nuclear advancement, conceding strategic control over the Strait of Hormuz, or formalizing protections for groups it designates as hostile actors such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Huti etc.

Given these fundamentally incompatible positions, there was always limited reason to believe that an informal ceasefire or exploratory talks would translate into a durable peace agreement.

The collapse of these talks, therefore, is less a surprise and more a reflection of entrenched strategic realities. Unfortunately, the consequence is clear: the conflict is likely to persist—prolonging human suffering and exerting continued strain on the global economy.

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.