Politics, Economics, Development, Terrorism

Choices in Conflict: Navigating Asymmetric Wars with Historical Wisdom Conflicts are a part and parcel of human existence. This becomes a problem when power asymmetry upsets the delicate balance. In chess, the pivotal move isn’t just strategy, but what you assume about your opponent’s next moves. History reveals that wars and peace-talks hinge on deliberate choices by leaders and people, shaped by two core assumptions about the other side’s motives. These choices determine whether we spiral into bloodshed or find peace, especially in asymmetric conflicts where power imbalances loom large. By weaving through historical tales, we’ll uncover which assumption offers the best shot at peace, order, and justice with the least human cost—particularly so, in today’s divided world. The first assumption is rigid: our side stands for peace, order, and justice, while the other seeks violence, anarchy, and injustice. This mindset slams the door on talks, viewing any offer of negotiation as a ruse. T...

  The Revolution’s Gentle Dawn—And the Lessons We Lost Introduction In the winter of 1917, Russia did the impossible: it toppled a 300-year autocracy without firing a shot . Crowds melted imperial insignia into souvenir medallions; soldiers and students debated socialism in tram cars. John Reed, the American journalist who wandered Petrograd in those days, wrote: "It was less a revolution than a festival of hope." The tragedy is not that violence came later—but that it didn’t have to. The revolution’s bloodless birth proves change can be gentle. Its collapse proves how easily we forget that. 1. The Peaceful Revolution The February Revolution (March 1917 by our calendar) was a marvel of restraint: The Czar’s Quiet Exit : Nicholas II abdicated after his own generals refused to crush protests. The crowds didn’t storm the Winter Palace—they ignored it. A clerk’s diary noted: "The Tsar left like a guest who overstayed." The...

  What is Game Theory? Game Theory is a branch of applied mathematics that analyses strategic interactions between rational decision-makers, or "players," in situations called "games." These games model conflicts or cooperative scenarios where each player's outcome depends not only on their own choices but also on the choices of others. A "game" refers to any structured interaction where players make decisions to achieve specific objectives, often repeatedly, such as in negotiations, economic competition, or military conflicts. The goal of each player is to maximize their payoff (gains) while minimizing costs, considering the strategies available across multiple iterations of the game. Key Characteristics of Game Theory Game Theory evaluates strategies based on their mathematical effectiveness, focusing on outcomes like payoff matrices rather than moral, emotional, or ideological considerations. It assumes players are rational agents who aim to...

Race, Caste and Breed Most people agree that all humans belong to the same species -- but some insist that we belong to different "races". This is often done in a flippant manner, without defining what is "race" in a biological sense. There are many "average" differences between Tamil Brahmins as group and a Kashmiri Brahmins as a group. Can these average differences be used to categorize them as belonging to different races (in a biological sense)? If not so, then what is the threshold of "biological difference" that would place a person in one "race" rather than in another? Biology has NOT found such a definable threshold.  What about dog "breeds"? Why are these breeds NOT called dog "races"? Different breeds of dogs have huge differences in external appearance, size, intelligence etc (much more so than between African humans and Caucasian humans). Yet, all dog breeds are biologically grouped in the same biological...

Compared to the many other parts of India, rationalist movement took roots much earlier in Kerala. This development also intersected with leftist ideologies that emphasized social justice, equality, and scientific temper. This collaboration helped in gaining wider popular support for rationalist principles in the early 20th century. However, the movement has undergone sharp ideological cleavage in last decade (as indeed, many nuclear families have!) The group identified mainly with Dr C Viswanathan views irrational beliefs as something that afflicts all religions, as also some atheistic political ideologies. In contrast, the other group that idolizes Prof C Ravichandran seeks to target Islam in particular -- often supporting aspects of the Muslim-baiting agenda of the RSS -- such the UCC, opposition to Reservations, support for the criminalizing of "Triple Talaq", CAA and so on. A Left Vs Right split! Mulling on the above scenario, I have had some insights that I wish to shar...

Most people agree that all humans belong to the same species -- but some insist that we belong to different "races". This is often done in a flippant manner, without defining what is a "race", in a biological sense. There are many "average" differences between Tamil Brahmins as group and a Kashmiri Brahmins as a group. Can these average differences be used to categorize them as belonging to different races (in a biological sense)? What can be the threshold of "biological difference" that would place a person in one "race" rather than in another? Biology has NOT found such a definable threshold. What about dog "breeds"? Why are these breeds NOT called dog "races"? Different breeds of dogs have huge differences in external appearance, size, intelligence etc. (much more so than between African humans and Caucacian humans). Yet, all dog breeds are biologically grouped in the same biological category. Whereas different gr...