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.