top of page

By:

Bhalchandra Chorghade

11 August 2025 at 1:54:18 pm

Healing Beyond the Clinic

Dr Kirti Samudra “If you want to change the world, go home and love your family.” This thought by Mother Teresa finds reflection in the life of Panvel-based diabetologist Dr Kirti Samudra, who has spent decades caring not only for her family but also thousands of patients who see her as their guide. As we mark International Women’s Day, stories like hers remind us that women of substance often shape society quietly through compassion, resilience and dedication. Doctor, mother, homemaker,...

Healing Beyond the Clinic

Dr Kirti Samudra “If you want to change the world, go home and love your family.” This thought by Mother Teresa finds reflection in the life of Panvel-based diabetologist Dr Kirti Samudra, who has spent decades caring not only for her family but also thousands of patients who see her as their guide. As we mark International Women’s Day, stories like hers remind us that women of substance often shape society quietly through compassion, resilience and dedication. Doctor, mother, homemaker, mentor and philanthropist — Dr Samudra has balanced many roles with commitment. While she manages a busy medical practice, her deeper calling has always been service. For her, medicine is not merely a profession but a responsibility towards the people who depend on her guidance. Nagpur to Panvel Born and raised in Nagpur, Dr Samudra completed her medical education there before moving to Mumbai in search of better opportunities. The early years were challenging. With determination, she and her husband Girish Samudra, an entrepreneur involved in underwater pipeline projects, chose to build their life in Panvel. At a time when the town was still developing and healthcare awareness was limited, she decided to make it both her workplace and home. What began with modest resources gradually grew into a trusted medical practice built on long-standing relationships with patients. Fighting Diabetes Recognising the growing threat of diabetes, Dr Samudra dedicated her career to treating and educating patients about the disease. Over the years, she has registered nearly 30,000 patients from Panvel and nearby areas. Yet she believes treatment alone is not enough. “Diabetes is a lifelong disease. Medicines are important, but patient education is equally critical. If people understand the condition, they can manage it better and prevent complications,” she says. For more than 27 years, she has organised an Annual Patients’ Education Programme, offering diagnostic tests at concessional rates and sessions on lifestyle management. Family, Practice With her husband frequently travelling for business, much of the responsibility of raising their two children fell on Dr Samudra. Instead of expanding her practice aggressively, she kept it close to home and adjusted her OPD timings around her children’s schedules. “It was not easy,” she recalls, “but I wanted to fulfil my responsibilities as a mother while continuing to serve my patients.” Beyond Medicine Today, Dr Samudra also devotes time to social initiatives through the Bharat Vikas Parishad, where she serves as Regional Head. Her projects include  Plastic Mukta Vasundhara , which promotes reduced use of single-use plastic, and  Sainik Ho Tumchyasathi , an initiative that sends Diwali  faral  (snack hamper) to Indian soldiers posted at the borders. Last year alone, 15,000 boxes were sent to troops. Despite decades of service, she measures success not in wealth but in goodwill. “I may not have earned huge money,” she says, “but I have earned immense love and respect from my patients. That is something I will always be grateful for.”

A Harder Line

America’s negotiating tactics with Iran grow tougher, but the risks of escalation remain familiar.

America’s diplomatic posture toward Iran has shifted once again. This week, Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump’s special envoy, announced that no agreement with Tehran would be possible unless Iran fully dismantles its nuclear programme. Only hours earlier, he had suggested on Fox News that limited civilian enrichment might be acceptable. The change, whether tactical or reactive, will complicate the already fraught negotiations in Oman and revive fears that without a deal, the United States may resort to military means to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.


Such volatility is hardly new. American policy on Iran’s nuclear programme has long oscillated between pressure and engagement, often driven more by domestic politics than by a consistent strategic vision. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated under Barack Obama, sought to extend Iran’s ‘breakout time’ (the period required to amass enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon) to over a year through strict enrichment limits and intrusive inspections. According to international inspectors, Iran complied until 2018 when Trump withdrew America from the accord, declaring it flawed and unenforceable.


Since then, Iran has progressively breached the JCPOA’s limits, reducing its breakout time to mere weeks. Negotiations under Joe Biden’s presidency to revive the deal stalled amid shifting demands and political hesitations. Trump’s return to the negotiating scene comes at a time when Iran’s nuclear capacity is far more advanced and the strategic landscape far more perilous.


The sudden hardening of the American stance may reflect internal pressures within Trump’s camp. Iran hawks have long warned against any agreement that resembles the JCPOA, viewing it as a strategic capitulation. Witkoff’s initial flexibility, suggesting acceptance of low-level civilian enrichment, may have triggered fears of a repeat of Obama-era diplomacy. By demanding total elimination of Iran’s enrichment and weaponisation programme, the Trump camp is seeking to project toughness and perhaps to prevent internal divisions from derailing the effort before it has begun.


Yet, setting maximalist demands carries obvious challenges. Iran has made clear across successive administrations that its nuclear programme is a matter of national sovereignty and pride. Even during the JCPOA talks, Tehran resisted dismantling its enrichment infrastructure, accepting only temporary and reversible restrictions. Today, after years of escalating tensions and growing technical capabilities, it is even less likely to agree to unconditional surrender of its nuclear activities.


Meanwhile, diplomatic channels remain fragile. Tehran had initially expressed guarded optimism that partial sanctions relief could be achieved. That window now looks narrower.


The military dimension is also sharpening. The recent deployment of American B-2 bombers to bases within striking range of Iran sends a deliberate signal. These aircraft, capable of delivering the most powerful bunker-busting munitions, underline that military options remain on the table. Israel, too, has made clear that it retains its own strike plans should diplomacy fail.


Yet military experts caution that even the most sophisticated strikes would probably achieve only limited objectives. Iran’s nuclear facilities, notably Fordow, are buried deep underground and widely dispersed. Bombing them might delay Iran’s progress but would almost certainly not destroy its nuclear capability. Worse, such attacks could prompt Iran to expel UN inspectors, withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and accelerate a clandestine push towards a nuclear arsenal - a scenario that America and its allies have long sought to avoid.


The historical precedents are sobering. Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor delayed but did not eliminate Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions. In Iran’s case, the regime has already demonstrated remarkable resilience and adaptability under pressure. It is not clear that greater pressure alone will produce greater concessions.


The Trump team appears to be gambling that a tougher negotiating posture will compel Iran to capitulate without the need for conflict. Yet without a clear strategy to manage escalation risks or a credible path to a sustainable diplomatic outcome, the chances of achieving a lasting settlement remain uncertain. The longer the stalemate endures, the more the balance shifts towards a dangerous new phase of confrontation.

Comments

bottom of page