Why we have so much confusion about Mahatma Gandhi? What are your views about Mahatma Gandhi?

I do not know why all of a sudden evaluation of Gandhi Ji who had died 74 years ago has become important? And how come all of a sudden so many people have become qualified to evaluate or criticize Gandhi Ji? Whether people are in favor or against Gandhi Ji, we need to understand how complete are their knowledge and how capable is their intellect to evaluate someone of Gandhi Ji’s stature. I can still understand if someone making a study on him in academic interest. However, most opinions about Gandhi Ji are preconceived and are formed on the basis of evaluations made by third persons. Now these third-person evaluations themselves could be biased or incorrect. It could be possible that they have depicted Gandhi the way they have understood, however, it is not necessary that their viewpoints are correct or from a neutral angle.

And this could be true for both kinds of opinions who want to describe Gandhi as a saint and the others who think that Gandhi deserved to be assassinated. There is a section that believes that Gandhi Ji should have gone for armed struggle instead of Ahimsa or nonviolence to fight for freedom. Putting up arms in the hands of people may be easy, but taking back arms from people is not easy. We have seen how the nations have gone into anarchy where people have taken up guns.

Many of us give expert opinion sitting in front of the TV, that Tendulkar has played a wrong shot, he should have played it this way or that way. We all become kind of experts who are capable of finding mistakes in Tendulkar's batting. This included people who have never even played cricket. Most critiques of Gandhi Ji are also like that.

Even though Tendulkar is rated amongst the all-time greatest batsmen in the world, he also has made errors in judgment while choosing his shot or leaving a certain ball, or in making strategy against bowlers. But that is part of the game and his stature doesn’t diminish because of those errors. there are no full-proof measures. Just think if a batsman of Tendulkar’s stature couldn’t negotiate a certain ball, is it possible for an ordinary batsman to do better than him?

In a similar line, it is absolutely possible that Gandhi Ji also might have made certain errors in judgment. However, those errors make him more human. And his stature and contribution don’t diminish because of a few mistakes. the evaluation has to be made in totality. You wouldn’t evaluate Tendulkar only on the basis few of his failures. The problem is that the impact of both the achievement and errors in judgments of people of Gandhi Ji’s stature is quite big. So if we count only his errors in judgment, possibly he could look to be a big villain. But that is not the complete picture. Secondly, the failure on account of error in judgment should be counted as errors only not as intention. Tendulkar doesn't get out at zero or 99 intentionally. His failures were in spite of his best effort, or on someday, he was simply not at his best form.

I have read an article very recently, where the author has questioned why Godse didn’t kill Jinnah instead of Gandhi? My question is that If one of them had to be eliminated why it was Gandhi, why not Jinnah? Did Godse have a special love for Jinnah and hatred for Gandhi for the same mistake? Do we have an explanation for that? Gandhi didn’t ask for a separate nation, it was Jinnah who asked for a separate nation. And Jinnah’s demand for a separate nation was there for quite some time and everybody knew it. Till then Godse and his team decided to eliminate Gandhi only, that too after the partition not before that.

With my limited knowledge, I have not been a great fan of Gandhi Ji. However, I feel I am not competent enough to make a proper evaluation even though I am critical of many of his actions. Every time I take a critical view against his action, I feel an internal urge to go back and check why he took such a call, what were his compulsion, did he have an alternate option available?

Possibly five years back my judgments on Gandhi were more raw, rude, and crude like many of us find our parents wrong in our youth. Unfortunately, nowadays we see a increasing trend to hold Gandhi & Nehru responsible for every wrong happening in India today.

Why did Sonia Gandhi and the INC didn't support Abdul Kalam's reelection as President of India in 2007?

If we see history, other than our first president Dr. Rajendra Parasad no other president got elected for 2nd term, even though many of them were well deserving. It is very sad that Dr. Kalam was not given a well-deserving 2nd term. And the replacement we got possibly was the worst till then.

I believe everyone in the nation inclusive of all the hardcore supporters of Congress would agree with me that Dr. Kalam should have been given a 2nd term. However, unfortunately, it didn’t happen. And I would hold Congress primarily responsible for that. I do not know the reason behind it, but the nation was definitely never happy with this decision of Congress and particularly discontent with the selection of the next incumbent.

However, if Congress deserves criticism for its choice of the presidential nomination, the current dispensation also doesn’t deserve any acclamation in that respect. Possibly both at par.

There could be multiple reasons for not electing Dr. Kalam for 2nd term…

1. He was the President elected by the BJP government, and UPA didn’t want to re-elect Him because of the typical rival party way of thinking.
2. Possibly there was a need to appease the Maharastra voters for the political equation. Most of our Presidential elect has been on political consideration rather than purely on merit. I think this could have been the actual reason for not electing Dr. Kalam for 2nd term.
3. Last but not the least Congress didn’t want a strong president to be in charge, particularly when it had a politically not-so-strong PM in power. There could have been a risk of MMS being influenced by the strong personality of Dr. Kalam. MMS being through gentlemen wouldn’t have been able to say no to Dr. Kalam or influence him the other way if need be. It would have been difficult, also for Sonia to manage Dr. Kalam. Dr. Kalam wouldn’t have compromised on ethics. This is exactly the reason a strong PM like Modi also didn’t take the risk of having a strong presidential nomination. He has also gone for someone who wouldn’t summon the resolve to send back any bill/ordinance for reconsideration.

Ultimately political interest is of paramount importance. I am very much sure Modi Ji also would have done the same thing with Dr. Kalam, it is evident from his selection of presidential nomination. It was only Vajpayee Ji who could rise beyond narrow politics.

Vajpayee Ji had a towering personality, stature, and goodwill to command respect from friends and foes alike. He was a befitting PM for a befitting President or vice versa. The mutual respect was the key element in the entire equation. Too often you don’t see two such towering personalities holding each other in such high esteem.

Otherwise also the nomination of Dr. Kalam was a masterstroke in the interest of the whole nation. After the Godhra incident and the resulting Gujarat riot, India was under the spotlight of international attention. India couldn’t have afforded to flare up communal tension. There was a strong need to set the tone right and send a strong message nationally as well as internationally. Vajpayee Ji had the golden opportunity in his hand and there couldn’t have been anyone better than Dr. Kalam to be appointed as President from every aspect.

Image source - Google

No one doubts that Dr. Manmohan Singh was honest, then whose responsibility was it to stop the scams of that time?

BJP has been able to build a massive false narration and wrong perception that the UPA government was hugely corrupt. However, this is far from the truth. Let me put up some facts and the readers can themselves arrive at the right conclusion.

Did you know that after doing an auction of so many spectrums 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G Spectrum together on 1st August 2022 Modi government could manage only Rs 1.5 lakh crores? This is the highest ever amount the government could raise from the spectrum auction. However, this is the total bid amount not the annual earnings of the government. Payments for spectrum can be made in 20 equal annual installments, to be paid in advance at the beginning of each year. The bidders would be given the option to surrender the spectrum after 10 years, with no future liabilities with respect to balance installments. The expected total first annual installment that the government will garner from the bidders has been pegged at Rs 13,365 crore. Whereas the government was expecting Rs 4.3 lakh crore at reserve prices from the auction of 72 GHz of airwaves for 20 years across 10 5G bands.

Actually, I feel that a much bigger scam has happened this time in the spectrum auction. First of all, for this sale, the rate was cut by 40% on the reserved price since all the bands had gone unsold in the last two auctions due to what carriers said was its high price. This could be because of a cartel between the 3–4 players. Ideally, all the bids should be rejected if it is below the reserved price. Who justified this 40% cut? Secondly, the Modi government has changed the payment terms. Earlier the entire bid amount had to be paid in one shot. Why this concession and in whose interest? Thirdly and most importantly why the bid period is for 20 years when the bidders have not made outright payment of the bid amount. This is like a price freeze offer for 20 years without any benefit to the nation. Just think Ambani will get the spectrum at the same price in 2042 that they have bid today. What will be the value of the annual payment of Rs 13,365 crore in 2042? They will practically get the spectrum free of cost.

In the alleged 2G Spectrum scam in 2010 CAG Vinod Rai estimated a loss of 1.76 lakh crores. The mobile phone penetration and the population were much-much smaller then. Plus there was no smartphone in 2010. Now you tell me - is it possible by any means to do a scam of 1.76 lakh crore in those days? When the Modi government would be earning only Rs 13,365 crore from the auction of 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G Spectrum together, what kind of money would you have expected the Manmohan Singh government to earn back in 2010 to do a scam of 1.76 lakh crores by selling only 2G spectrum?

The special court appointed by the SC in its verdict categorically rejected that any scam took place. The court ruled that this case was baseless. As per the judgment, "Some people created a scam by artfully arranging a few selected facts and exaggerating things beyond recognition to astronomical levels."

The above table gives the comparative outcome of the various auctions. The viewers are free to make their own assessment of whether they find any scope of doing a scam of 1.76 lakh crores. The data has been collected from the auction value analysis done by the Department of Telecom. I am amazed where that genius Vinod Rai found the scam. People would have some idea of what kind of mobile penetration India had in 2010. In 2010 the smartphone penetration rate in India was only 2.75% and in 2022 it is 66.21%. Mobile phone internet user penetration in India in 2010 was only 0.05% and in 2022 it is 66.16%. See the huge jump in mobile phone penetration, have you seen a compatible increase in revenue in the Modi government tenure commensurate with the growth of smartphone penetration?

Image source - Staatista 2022

Former CAG - Vinod Rai, the man in total black. The white shirt doesn’t suit him.

Here I have presented just one case. If I share the cases of other alleged scams the picture will be the same. So I am not going into the details of other cases of scams detected by the so-called genius Vinod Rai to whom the Modi government has been extraordinarily generous by giving him two Padma awards and many lucrative positions.

My question is that if there was no scam what would have Manmohan Singh stopped?

Edit:

I believe that I have fairly covered the subject in the original answer section and people wouldn’t have much of a question or scope to contradict. However, I am constrained to add this edit section to address a few comments.

• I would like to point out that in two rounds of action in 2010, the total bid amount was around 76 K Crores with about one twenty-fifth of the subscriber base in comparison to that of 2022. And this is without considering the revenue from BSNL & MTNL. So I think we can safely say the revenue collection was not at all low if we consider the subsequent years’ auction amount.
• Secondly, somebody pointed out that even though the subscriber base was small, the mobile bill amount was higher to the tune of Rs.1200–1800 per month. Let’s say that the mobile bill amount is 8-10 times higher than today. But we have 25 times higher subscriber base today. Let me give you the mathematics. Say in 2010, 100 subscribers paid a total bill; in the amount of Rs.180000/-.( Rs.1800 X 100) Now in 2022 with 25 times higher subscriber base 100 X 25 =2500 X Rs.200/- =Rs.500000/-. That means that even though the bill amount has gone down drastically, the revenue collection is more than double, almost two and half times. And this is considering the average mobile bill value at Rs.1800. However I am sure in 2010 average bill value wouldn’t be more than Rs.1000/- Considering that the auction value should be five times higher in 2022, which is not the case.
• Somebody pointed out that the entire 5G spectrum for all the cities was not sold in the current auction. Possible. But then the total bid amount has to be five times of 2010 auction amount considering the above calculation. Secondly this year so many spectrums 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G were put up for sale, not 5G alone.
• Also, I would like to point out that in 2010, the major part earnings of the telecom operators were consumed by infrastructure and network expansion costs. With a small subscriber base, the per-customer infrastructure cost was much higher. With the increase in subscriber base, the infrastructure & network expansion cost doesn’t go up proportionately. For example, in a city, you have 1 lakh subscriber base, if tomorrow it increases to 5 lakh subscribers. the infrastructure cost remains almost the same because the infrastructure is created in one go considering the future scale-up provision.

• Somebody pointed out that the bidding process was not correct or transparent. This is possible. Over the last twenty years, government procedures and processes have gone through massive changes. Even today most of the government works happen through physical file movement. In 2010 the entire process inclusive of tendering was through a manual route on paper. Today you can say it was wrong, but then it was the correct process. I would say that the spectrum auction process followed in 2010 was wrong or was with malafide intention only if the revenue generation has increased substantially after changing the process. But that is not the case. The new auction mechanism has been followed since 2012 as per the Supreme Court-provided guidelines. As regards corruption it was possible in 2010 and it is possible even today. Rather I would say the scope of corruption is much higher today. With a lesser number of players, the scope and chances of a cartel are much higher. I have added two new tables to drive my point against the allegations of scams. Hope the matter is suitably addressed.

Ref:

https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/5g-how-much-money-did-the-govt-collect-in-previous-auction-rounds-122080200810_1.html#:~:text=The%20auction%20for%20the%205G,half%20the%20total%20budding%20amount.

5G spectrum auction: Bids worth ₹1.45 lakh crore on Day 1

https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/auction_analysis.pdf

India: smartphone penetration rate 2040 | Statista

India: mobile phone internet user penetration 2040 | Statista

https://icrier.org/pdf/Evaluating_Spectrum_Auctions_in_India.pdf

Govt mops up Rs 1,49,855 crore at end of day 4 of 5G spectrum auctions

Is the Chinese economy broke and desperate for investment. Are they truing to charm to get the West to invest in China again so they can steal their money as they have done in the past?

I wanted to take a dig at this question as it is a subject matter of economics. I do not know what is the basis of this perception and why a section of people feels that China is broke and desperate for investment. I believe the perception is misplaced, and misconstrued. Before we go into fundamentals let me refer to some statistics to have a glimpse of the picture.

The net FDI of India declined from USD 44 billion in 2020-21 to USD 38.6 billion in 2021-22, registering a decline of 12%. During 2022-23, it further declined by 27%, settling at USD 28 billion. The net FDI figure is arrived at after deducting repatriation of FDI or FDI outflow or withdrawn from the FDI inflow. The net FDI inflow to India has further deteriorated in the 2023–24 FY. As per RBI data, the cumulatively net FDI in April-October 2023 nosedived by half to $10.43 billion from $20.76 billion in April-October 2022.

Foreign capital inflows into China have decelerated in 2023 after reaching a record USD189 billion in 2022. The decline in total foreign direct investment (FDI) widened to 9.8% yoy in 7M23 from 8.5% yoy in 1H23. Four out of the top six FDI-receiving provinces in China posted a yoy decline in FDI in 1H23, although inflows remained close to their historical highs. Inflows into Beijing contracted by 18.5% yoy from a growth of 12.7% in 2022; and FDI in Jiangsu, China’s manufacturing FDI hub, dropped by 11.5% yoy.

According to data published in China's balance of international payments (BOP), quarterly foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows to China amounted to approximately $-11.8 billion in the third quarter of 2023.

However, what we need to read is that the Chinese economy is growing 5.2 percent year-on-year. In the third quarter alone, the year-on-year GDP growth rate reached 4.9 percent. And China has done this dispelling the median forecast of around 4.6 percent. China's GDP in the first three quarters of 2023 has reached a total of RMB 91.3 trillion (approx. US$12.48 trillion). As against this the size of the Indian economy, as per the current estimates, is slated to be at Rs 296.58 lakh crore or USD 3.57 trillion (@ Rs 83/USD) during 2023-24.

As I said I would go into the fundamentals of economics, particularly in China's context And my opinion could largely differ from some economists. The negative growth of FDI or the contraction of FDI could come from multiple reasons and need not be a cause of worry for China. Let me explain why

Let us understand why we need FDI. The FDI is required for heavy industrialisation and infrastructure creation which is important dependent. And for imports, you need a healthy foreign exchange reserve to spend on the procurement of sophisticated equipment, machinery, technology, etc. We assume the developing nations would be trade deficit nations or with very limited foreign exchange. They may not be in a position to borrow from external sources. Plus that would involve interest cost. So the easier way is to seek FDI by forming joint ventures or stake-selling. Quite often FDI doesn’t come in terms of direct supply of foreign exchange. They may come in the form of supply of machinery, equipment, technology, etc which otherwise would have to be bought. And against this, the external investors are provided a stake in the organization.

The FDI route is also used by foreign investors in case the receiving country doesn’t allow 100% foreign equity or stake. They are required to have a local partner. In some cases, the external partners need a known local face for domestic market acceptability. FDI starts pouring into a nation when the industrial policy is made FDI-friendly and the external investors see an opportunity to generate good returns. US economy being a saturated one, the return on investment (ROI) is very low there. So investors look for developing economies and emerging markets where growth potentials are high.

China became a member of the World Trade Organization in 2001. Over the next twenty years, the Chinese economy has grown by leaps and bounds. And in the first decade of the new millennium, China offered a lucrative prospect for external investment in infrastructure building and was drawing a huge volume of FDI. The US base investors who were hungry for investment opportunity humped on it. The Forex reserve of China started swelling and reached the level of US $ Tree Trillion, the majority in the form of US dollars. However, once the industry base was established China was no longer in need of fresh investment. Secondly, China became a trade surplus nation.

On 4th January this year, I wrote an answer to “ Is the world de-dollarising?” There I wrote “China is gradually reducing its holding of US dollar reserve, down to 25% in 2023 from 59% of its total foreign exchange in 2016 and down from 79% in 2005. For economists, it would be very imperative to study the Chinese model of foreign exchange reserve - why they are reducing US Dollar reserves. This is not part of the question, so I am not getting into that.”

China has been consistently reducing its US Dollar reserve though there is only a marginal drop in China’s overall foreign exchange reserve. As of the end of November 2023, China's foreign exchange reserves stood at USD 3171.8 billion. China had a trade surplus of approximately 877.6 billion U.S. dollars as of 2022. This was the highest in the world. And this year China has recorded a trade surplus of $684 billion in the first 10 months of 2023.

So you can see that China is no longer in need of fresh FDI to meet its import cost. China is capable of meeting any expenditure of industrialization or the creation of infrastructure. This is exactly the reason China has been steadily offloading its US Dollar reserve. With the US, China had a trade surplus of $367.4 billion in 2022. With the European Union, China’s trade surplus hit $277 billion last year.

So it is clear that FDI contraction or repatriation should not at all be any concern for China. Rather this could be the result of a consolidation drive. China could be buying out the equities held by foreign investors in a bid to consolidate its holding.

Yes, the growth rate of China is not expected to hit very high for two reasons. 1. The size of the economy. When the size of the economy becomes too large, holding the earlier growth rate is practically not possible because on a larger GDP base bringing a larger growth in absolute numbers becomes a difficult task. 2. Secondly China is a huge trade surplus nation means predominantly a producing economy. So its growth would be dependent on the growth of the world economy. And unless the world economy grows, the Chinese economy can not grow despite having the capacity to drive larger production growth. This means China is not required to expand its infrastructure base. So no requirement for fresh FDI.

Quarterly GDP Growth of China

Source: China National Bureau of Statistics

At this moment the world economy is in a sluggish mode, more so because of the ongoing wars. I do not see the demand to grow up in another six months. It would be extremely difficult for China to hold its current growth in the new financial year. In fact, the growth China registering may not be volumetric. It could be largely driven by price escalation. China's GDP nonetheless has been projected to grow at a strong average of 5.2 percent year-over-year in the first three quarters of 2023. But the same is expected to drop in 2024 to 4.6 percent. Anyway, that is not part of the question at hand. What we can see is that there is no reason for China to receive a fresh dose of FDI from external investors nor there is any such requirement for FDI.

The China International Import Expo in Shanghai has been billed as a showcase of an "opening up of market opportunities," but the EU Chamber says it is "full of smoke and mirrors." (Photo by CK Tan)

In the above section, I have written that China had a trade surplus of approximately 877.6 billion U.S. dollars as of 2022. Now suppose China had to add such a big amount to its Forex reserve every year, its reserve would swell to a mammoth amount. So China is increasing its outbound investment (OBI) year on year. By the end of 2022, China’s cumulative ODI stock had reached US$2.75 trillion (RMB 20.10 trillion), consistently ranking among the world’s top three. China's overall outward direct investment (ODI) was US$40.5 billion in the first quarter of (Q1) 2023. So if you take net FDI, possibly you would see negative value only.

Secondly, if China is looking another another emerging market attractive for investment, the Western investors are not blind to see the same opportunity. This also means that investment opportunities in China are drying up and its production capacity has reached an optimal position. So it's quite possible that some of the investments made in China would be withdrawn by Western investors.

Another very important is that the current US Federal Reserve interest rate was raised by a quarter-point from 5.25% to 5.50% in July, which is at its highest level in 22 years. So a lot of US-based investors have withdrawn their overseas investment. This has allowed China to penetrate other emerging markets for outbound investment.

I always say that, unlike the common belief, FDI is not a good indicator of economic strength or growth. Withdrawal of FDI need not mean a bad sign for the economy.

Was Aurangzeb, the Mughal emperor of India, the most evil human being in history?

No story of the Mughal Dynasty can be completed without talking about the cruelty of Aurangzeb. Mughal rule was established in India by Timurid prince Babur in 1526. Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi in the first battle of Panipat in 1526. He invaded India when the Lodi dynasty was ruling Delhi and surrounding areas and defeated Ibrahim Lodi to capture Delhi. This was one of the earliest battles where gunpowder firearms and field artillery were used. “Gunpowder,” as it came to be known, is a mixture of saltpeter (potassium nitrate), sulfur, and charcoal. Together, when these materials get mixed they will burn rapidly and explode as a propellant. Chinese monks discovered the technology in the 9th century CE. However, it took a few more centuries to perfect the formula and the proportion. Cutting the long story short. Mughals had a great technical advantage in the battle against the Indian rulers. Aurangzeb took the Mughal Empire to its largest size. And he resorted to all possible cruelty to achieve this.

The Mughals ruled India for roughly about 250 years. Akbar and Aurangzeb together ruled for about 100 years. Both ruled about 49 years each to be specific. So both occupy a large chapter when we look at Indian history by the sheer length of ther tenure. Cruel? Yes, they were like any major medieval-period ruler. Aurangzeb in particular was no exception. Rather he was on the extreme side. That’s why n the beginning of my answer I mentioned that Babur was from the Timurid clan. According to modern scholars, Timur’s campaigns caused the death of an estimated 17 million people, which was roughly 5% of the world’s population at the time. In that sense, his army was a killing machine. In his lifetime, Timur conquered more than anyone else except for Alexander the Great.

Aurangzeb possibly wanted to follow his ancestors' DNA spreading the Mughal Empire. During the large part of Akbar’s rule, the Mughal Empire covered only about 30% of India. Shahjahan It expanded it to about 50%. Aurangzeb took the Mughal Empire to its zenith and controlled about 80% of India. Though this was for a very brief period (less than a decade). His cruelty or killing spree was in consonance with expanding Mughal rule.

However, he is evaluated more in the backdrop of the religion Hindu-Muslim. Go back to the emperor Ashoka period. Alone in the Kalinga war, the casualty figure was around 200000–250000. And this was without any firearms or weapons of mass destruction. The Maurya Empire also reached its zenith during Ashoka’s rule only. You see this killing business has a direct connection with the expansion of empire and consolidation of power. Banvir killed the innocent son of Dhatri Panna and the elder brother of Rana Uday Singh to make sure holding power. Ajat Shatru imprisoned his father for the empire. Ashoka gave up his killing spree and his empire fell immediately after his death. Most Indian kings failed despite being great warriors for not being ruthless killing machines

In the medieval period possibly killing was the only way to sustenance for a kingdom or empire. Governance and administration were largely dependent on killing and public displays of brutality. This continued throughout the 2nd World War. Unfortunately, it's continuing even today. Look at the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza. Muslim rulers never followed any honor codes like Chivalry or Bushido or our very own Rajput honor code.

However, when we evaluate the Mughal rule in India inclusive of that of Aurangzeb, we can not ignore the economic prosperity of India under Mughal rule. Especially when we know that India had almost a quarter share of world GDP under the Mughal rule. Not that the Mughal rule created the robust economic base of India. India was an economic superpower since the 1st century AD and continued to be so till the beginning of the 18th century. Aurangzeb despite all his not so conducive image managed to hold the economic stability and progress for half a century. Aurangzeb was reasonably successful in providing good administration and a conducive atmosphere for the economy to prosper. He didn’t let the economy of the vast nation go down even though he was constantly fighting wars. This could be some silver lining in his reign.

One more thing people need to take note that India stopped bleeding financially after the Mughals came to power. Before the Mughals, all the invaders came to loot India. However, the Mughals settled down here. Not only did looting out of India stop but internal development also started. Whereas earlier every time somebody invaded India a trail of devastation was left behind. Definitely, casualties occurred in the internal wars. Yes, we had casualties before that even when we were constantly fighting wars with external enemies in addition to internal wars.

However, I do not have readymade data to compare whether the pre-Mughal or Mughal period was better in terms of casualties. Though the constant wars fought by Aurangzeb had a disastrous effect on the Mugla empire. In his desire to expand the Mughal empire, Aurangzeb went too far to exhaust his resources and manpower. The result was that the Mughal empire started collapsing after his death.

Matthew White estimates that about 2.5 million of Aurangzeb's army were killed during the Mughal–Maratha Wars (100,000 annually during a quarter-century), while 2 million civilians in war-torn lands died due to drought, plague, and famine. This campaign also had a ruinous effect on Mughal Treasury, and Emperor's absence led to a severe decline in Governance in Northern India. Marathas started expanding northwards shortly after the death of Aurangzeb, defeated the Mughals in Delhi and Bhopal, and extended their empire up to Peshawar by 1758.

After Aurangzeb's death his son, Bahadur Shah I, repealed the religious policies of his father and attempted to reform the administration. However, he could rule only for five years. After he died in 1712, the Mughal dynasty began to sink. I said violence, cruelty inflicting atrocities, and killing had a big role to play in the medieval ruling. Meanwhile, the Indian economy started losing its shine as India shrunk into political instability. Marathas were great warriors but they never had the ingredients to build a great empire.

Any way coming back to your question - Was Aurangzeb the most evil human being in history? I don’t think so. When we evaluate a ruler we have to look at the macro picture taking into consideration all angles. And I definitely don’t find him the most evil human being in history. He was cruel & ruthless - definitely yes. But that alone wouldn’t be enough to be the most evil human being in history. The search for the most evil human being in history would be a long one. And I am possibly not qualified to do that. I know too little.

Who was the English teacher of Shashi Tharoor?

 I do not have any knowledge about who all were Tharoor’s teachers. There could have been multiple teachers who have contributed to his intellectual growth as well as to make his command of English stronger. His teachers could have been any of those common teachers randomly teaching a batch of 30–40 students in a class and multiple such classes in a day for over 30 years or so. However, we know nothing of those other students taught by the same teacher or the teacher himself. A lot depends on the student himself, and his hunger for learning and knowledge.

I wouldn’t say that the institution and the teachers do not matter, but you have to get that one student who has an insatiable hunger. Possibly Tharoor himself would be able to throw light on who shaped him up in his early years. There must have been someone who influenced his young mind. On my personal account, I give entire credit to my father and my school English teacher of 9th & 10th class for whatever a few lines I am being able to write today. I have studied in a vernacular medium school, so their contributions have been immense.

The Tharoor we know now must have been transformed over the years because of his long years of exposure to the diplomatic world and politics. Apart from his treasure of vocabulary and command over English, what makes him unique is his thought process. The kind of language he uses is the outcome of his critical thinking ability. Even if you find someone with a vocabulary as strong as that of Tharoor, possibly he or she wouldn’t be speaking in a similar manner.

Sometime back I wrote that vocabulary is like raw chicken. What an individual master chef will cook would depend on his specialization, what he likes as well as what the customers order. Also, it may depend on which country or contaminant he is serving. So you have different tastes with different Chefs even when they cook the same dish.

Tharoor is an accomplished writer, having authored 23 bestselling works of fiction and non-fiction. In addition, he has written hundreds of article columns in internationally acclaimed journals and publications. He was a contributing editor for Newsweek International for a period of two years. Tharoor started writing at the age of 6 and his first story was published in a journal when he was 10 years old. Tharoor was formerly the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and he ran for the post of The Secretary-General in 2006. The US didn’t want a strong candidate like Tharoor and he was vetoed. Tharoor withdrew his candidature and ended his career in the UN even though he was invited by Baan Ki-Moon to continue his service as Under-Secretary-General.

Tharoor is a combo of being an accomplished writer, a career diplomat of the highest degree, and a politician. So possibly this is what gives his communication an invincible twist. This along with his extraordinary command over the language makes him speak in a manner that mostly goes beyond our comprehension. He doesn’t need to put any effort into speaking like that, because he thinks at that level. Possibly on the contrary, he has to put effort to scale it down to match our level of understanding.

My husband and I are at a verge of divorce, but I love him. What should I do to save this marriage?

These days more relationships are going towards divorce. Every relationship survives on a unique bond and connection. Most of the time relationship fails because of a lack of communication and poor communication. Relationships wither when we take things for granted and do not invest in them. We need to invest in our relations like we water plants every day. There would be many stimulus points in every relation, we need to identify them and keep them activated. There would be toxicity in every relation like our body also produces some amount of toxicity every day. we need to channelize them and give them a way out. Our body has an excellent mechanism to throw out waste and toxicity. However, unfortunately in a relationship, we hold on to the toxicity. We never let go of the negativity and relationships suffer.

Holding back attitude could be one of the major reasons for divorce. This holding-back attitude could be one-way or could be two-way also. The problem is that most of the time we are not aware of it, so corrective actions are not taken. Rather we enjoy the pain inside for self-pity or pity from others. We keep on complaining that he or she doesn’t understand me. Have we ever expressed it the right way what we want or need? No, our ego comes in between. We give strong hints, weak hints, short hints, show our anger, etc but we do not express ourselves. 

Lack of proper communication could be one of the strongest reasons for breakup and divorce. For most men love after marriage changes. He becomes more responsible, and more focused on his job and business so that he can provide the best for his family. Plus with seniority in the official position, the workload and responsibility also go up. So husbands are not able to give time earlier even if they wish. But the wife thinks just the opposite - that is not giving me time, possibly he has lost interest in me, possibly he loves someone else, etc. Since the communication levels have already gone down these things never get clarified. If both spouses are working then the communication level goes further down. So it's very important to take breaks from the regular schedule and enjoy time together.

It would not be possible to do counseling without knowing the details. However, one good thing is that you still love your husband. This is a good side that you are still committed to and still value this relationship. The point is that you still love him means he must be having some good points that score over the tussle points and over his negativity. This is what I call net-negative or net-positive in any relation. In your case, it's still a net-positive relation at least from your side. So there is some hope left out, which can be worked upon even though you have drifted away. so long a relationship is net-positive there is hope to stop going towards divorce and save the marriage.

To save a marriage or make a relationship survive so that we do not proceed towards divorce, there have to be mutual efforts from both sides. However, as a consultant, I work from the side of our control first. This means we need to work on things that are in our control since we can not act on things under the control of the other side. But rest assured there are ways and means to address issues of another side as well as sitting on this side of the table. However, we would first focus on things in our control. We will address our actions and reactions first

When I speak about saving a marriage from divorce, the above pictorial representation is very important to understand the nuance of how a relationship works. The above represents our respective domains and codomains in our relationship. The domain is the area that is exclusively in our control or our action area. Codomain is the common area of operation. The problem or clash occurs when we step into the domain of the other side which could lead to clash points. And if we go on having more clash points, things could aggravate and lead to a divorce situation. We need to work on our domain and control/regulate our reaction in the codomain area. Consider your domain as A and your husband’s domain as B, AUB is the common area of interaction. On good days when the relationship is at its best the common area becomes bigger or the largest. However, when relation starts souring, this common area starts shrinking and the domains start distancing from each other as if there is nothing common between the couple like in the picture below.

Possibly your situation could be like in the above picture. There is no common area, rather you have already distanced yourself from each other. If it is not addressed immediately it could lead to the divorce point. Now somebody needs to push the two circles closer or even overlap each other. Your common friends and close relatives and children if any, can do this. You can take the help of a consultant or counselor as well.

If you two are still living in the same house, then you are living in close proximity even though emotionally distanced. And if you are really serious about saving this relationship you could do the following things…

1. Though I hate manipulative people, but at times we all need to be a little bit manipulative. And to save a marriage or to avoid a divorce, we shouldn't mind being a little bit manipulative. Purpose and intentions matter. And in love and war, everything is fair. Don’t worry, I wouldn’t suggest anything wrong to be done. Even being a little overt is also a form of manipulation. I call it applying makeup, it enhances your beauty. Just being good or just loving is not enough, at times you need to project it. We need to display our love, affection, and concern. We need to show our appreciation. Holding hands, sitting together, and going on small-small dates are very important. Even going to the vegetable market could be considered as a small date - have a cup of coffee or ice cream together.
2. Seek the help of family and friends, particularly people who are dear to him. Build up and improve your relations with those people
3. Seek the help of a professional consultant or counselor.
4. If do not want divorce then you have to digest your ego. Women are generally far stronger in handling emotions. Men though act tough, but most are vulnerable inside. The problem is that men are poor at expressing their emotions. They hide their emotions with arrogance, while actually, they may be breaking from the inside. Women are the powerhouse of strength, relationships survive because of them. So understand the reason behind your husband’s actions and words.
5. Men also seek love, affection, attention, and appreciation. Recount what brought you closer and what is pushing you apart. If possible avoid those clash points and arguments. If you are on talking terms then find some genuine reason to appreciate or compliment him. Small-small things matter - like cooking or ordering his favourite dishes, wearing the dress he has been gifted on some special occasion. This acts as an indication that you are still the old self, care for him. These works like saying “I love you”
6. Act very normally, and behave very cordially in the presence of a third person, common friend, inlaws, or parents. He would also be forced to behave normally. This will help take off some heat at least you would be on talking terms.
7. Don’t push for divorce from your side, or sign the document in the hit of the moment. If he is pressing for divorce don’t give in. Bargaining time is very important. You can always tell that things are not so easy for a woman. Remember one-sided divorce is very difficult in India, especially if it is moved by the husband. If divorce has to happen, it should happen on your terms and conditions. This is what I call being manipulative. If there is no hope left for saving the marriage then there is no point in having sympathy for him and setting him free from the hook so easily for somebody else. Of course in the process, you will also not be free.

At one point in time, I used to frequent family court regularly though not for the wrong reason. I had the privilege to observe the proceedings sitting in the court. The judges are always inclined towards the wife unless the wife is really notorious. Trust me by shedding little tears, telling the judge that you still love him so much and you don’t want the marriage to be dissolved, you can practically screw up the divorce case filed by your husband. One judge, I have seen, would simply not allow any lawyer to speak. She would allow only the couple to speak. And there are other ways to stall divorce as well, which I wouldn’t discuss here.

I know a number of cases where the wives filed for divorce but later they retracted from their stand saying that they had realized their mistake and didn’t want the divorce anymore and the cases kept on lingering for years without any decision. In India, most divorces happen through settlements that arrive outside the court.