top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Street Circus

The NEET-UG paper leak was a genuine grievance. Millions of students who spent years preparing for one of India’s toughest examinations deserved answers, accountability and justice. But what unfolded at Jantar Mantar was no movement for educational reform. It was a spectacle of rage, abuse and performative rebellion that often appeared more interested in viral clips than viable solutions. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which claimed to represent the anger of students, ended up exposing...

Street Circus

The NEET-UG paper leak was a genuine grievance. Millions of students who spent years preparing for one of India’s toughest examinations deserved answers, accountability and justice. But what unfolded at Jantar Mantar was no movement for educational reform. It was a spectacle of rage, abuse and performative rebellion that often appeared more interested in viral clips than viable solutions. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which claimed to represent the anger of students, ended up exposing itself, revealing itself to promote a culture of outrage without responsibility and more troubling, have aspersions cast on its funding sources. Besides the fact that just how many of those gathered were afflicted NEET students, the ugliest part of the protest was the language. Videos from Jantar Mantar showed protesters hurling the most obscene and personal abuses at Prime Minister Narendra Modi. One can dislike the PM or oppose his policies, reducing political disagreement to filthy personal abuse against an elected Prime Minister is gross cowardice and at the basic level, a sheer failure of basic civic etiquette. No entity cannot claim to be fighting for the dignity of students while abandoning all standards of dignity in public discourse. The irony was impossible to miss. A section of this self-proclaimed progressive generation speaks constantly about equality, feminism, tolerance and justice. Yet the very same voices displayed extraordinary intolerance towards anyone they decided was an enemy. Journalists were targeted, political opponents were dehumanised and anyone carrying a different opinion was casually branded with labels designed to silence rather than debate. Social media has created a dangerous illusion among many young activists that a viral video is a victory, and that shouting louder is the same as achieving something. A few Instagram reels, borrowed revolutionary imagery and slogans can create the appearance of rebellion. But governing a country and reforming institutions and fixing broken systems require far more than theatrical anger. The government, however, cannot escape responsibility either. The crisis was allowed to grow because of delayed communication and inadequate political management. A prompt response, transparent investigation and early intervention could have prevented a limited controversy from becoming a national embarrassment. Instead, the government was forced into damage control, and Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, a capable minister, became the political casualty. For the citizens, it was a colossal waste of time. After weeks of noise, confrontation and disruption, the students gained little. The examination system remains under scrutiny and larger problems remain unresolved. The only visible outcome is the removal of a minister. A protest that begins with a genuine grievance but ends as a contest of abuse and attention-seeking has not strengthened democracy. It has weakened the very standards it claims to defend.

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