To Live or To Leave

 

Bunga Raya

(Pic from Garden)

I was reading an article written by Amarjeet Singh@AJ which was being circulated in the social media, entitled, “Malaysia: Country That Exports Its Best Minds…For Free”.  Amarjeet Singh’s words cut sharply at the truth of Malaysia’s predicament, yet I find myself pausing at his conclusion of “who stays behind.” The reality, I believe, is more textured. Beyond the categories of those too poor to leave and those too indoctrinated to question, there exists another generation, “my generation”,  who remain not out of helplessness nor blindness, but out of rootedness.

We are tied to this land not merely by circumstance, but by the invisible threads of memory, relationships, and belonging. I have walked these roads, raised a family here, shared laughter with friends under these skies. Why should I trade that for an alien soil, where even in my old age I might mow my own lawn in solitude, or stand at a checkout counter under the gaze of strangers wondering why I am in “their” country? Here, even if tormented at times, I stand with dignity, because this is the place where my footsteps mean something, and where the soil remembers who I am.

For us, pride is not only in national achievements but in the quiet knowledge that we have contributed, as carpenters, doctors, lawyers, labourers, or teachers, to the fabric of this society. That lived journey cannot be erased, nor can its worth be denied.

To the younger ones, I say, “go forth if you must”. The world is now borderless, and your stage is global. Relationships are no longer bound by proximity, they live on through digital threads and evolving norms of connection. Build your lives where you find meaning and carry your roots lightly yet proudly.

But let us also question whether the term “brain drain” still holds its old weight. In today’s multipolar, hyperconnected world, human talent is no longer confined to national ownership. Skills and intellect flow like rivers, crossing borders, reshaping economies, creating value wherever they are welcomed. What nations lose in exclusivity, they may still gain in networks, remittances, and global reach.

Thus, I see Malaysia’s tragedy not as one of “loss,” but of missed opportunity, of failing to create a home vast enough in spirit to hold its brightest minds while also embracing their outward journeys. For love of country, like love itself, cannot be commanded, it must be reciprocated.

Perhaps then, the true challenge is not to lament those who leave, nor to judge those who stay, but to ask, “how do we become a place where staying is not resignation, and leaving is not escape, but both are simply different expressions of the same love for home?”

Cheers.

ravivarmmankkanniappan@1029140920253.0567° N, 101.5851° E

The Symbol Beyond the Cloth: Reflections on the Nation’s Flag

 

Selamat Hari Merdeka

(Photo captured at Kelly's Castle, Perak)

Sundralingam one of the key general under Veerapandiya Kattabomman, defiantly hoisted Kattabomman’s flag at Panchalankuruchi, even as a fully armed British army surrounded them. This act was emblematic of their courage and spirit in the face of colonial aggression. Kattabomman was one of the last standing local Chieftain who fought against the invading British in Tamil Nadu, India (1799), where he was eventually defeated and hung to death.

In the 100 year war, Joan of Arch always carried a white flag which had the image of Christ and Fleur De Lis. She kept the flag aloft in the battle front to inspire and lift the spirits of the soldiers, making them conscious that they are guided by the divine power. According to records the flag did not fall and it is believed that its constant presence and reminder was instrumental in breaking the British siege in 1429.

During the Napoleonic war at the battle of Eylau (1807), French soldiers sacrificed their lives to prevent the Eagle (a symbol of the French flag) from falling into the Russian hands. Napoleon famously was quoted saying, “The Eagle is the soul of the regiment. To lose it is dishonour.”

Thus, has been the value attached to a piece of cloth called a flag. In the last 3 weeks Malaysian’s have been waking up to much noise on the topic, all because an individual accidentally waved the flag upside down. The incident took a turn into becoming a political championing by some quarters and the ugly racial card yet again became the source of the discontentment. But after the incident more photos and videos appeared in the social media about similar mistakes all over the country. So, is it endemic? I really do not know. But what is a bigger concern is the apathy that occurs every year after the National Day Celebration, where many of these handheld flags can be seen strewn all over. Fortunately, over the last few years several civil society organizations took it upon themselves to pick up these flags and dispose it appropriately.

The above observation on public apathy towards the nations flag can only mean one thing, that there are citizens of this country who do not see the nation’s flag beyond it being an identification of our country rather than understanding the deeper meaning of the flag and its significance to citizenry.

In his compelling work, “Ä Flag worth Dying For: The Power and Politics of National Symbol”, Tim Marshall reminds us that a flag, though but a fragment of cloth, carries within its fold the weight of the history, identity and ambition. It is less an object than a vessel, bearing the struggles, sacrifices, and hopes of generations. To those who gather beneath it, the flag becomes both a mirror and beacon. A mirror reflecting who they have been and a beacon guiding of who they strive to become.

That brings us to nationalist consciousness amongst Malaysians, because without strong foundation on historical past and the appreciation of the country’s constitution, eliciting nationalism would be almost impossible.

Based on the available information regarding Malaysia’s education curriculum structure found through online sources, currently in the Primary education, history takes up between 5% - 10%, and constitutional an independence related topic account for between 2% - 4%. Whereas in the secondary education the former represents 10% - 15% and the latter 4% - 7.5% (the estimates provided are indicative rather than definitive). This can be seen as a positive effort by the national education policy developers, but within the existing construct perhaps they can tweak it to provide a deeper and meaningful pedagogy so that every student would grow with national pride, reflecting on the sacrifices made by their forefathers in not only ensuring independence from the colonialists but also later towards nation building.

Malaysia is a nation built by the contribution of many. These contributions must be addressed meaningfully and should not be a mere mentioned in history books. 

For example, many do not know that the Tamil Chettiar community played a pivotal role in Malaya’s economy both before and after independence. Traditionally renowned as financiers and money lenders, they provided essential credit to planters and traders when formal banking was limited, thus enabling the growth of agriculture and commerce. Historically even before the Melaka Sultanate, the Chettiars, linked to Tamil merchant guilds, were part of South Indian trading network across Southeast Asia, financing maritime trade and bridging local economies with global commerce, embedding themselves deeply in regional economic history.

But as far as Malaysian history is concerned the focus on Indians is only mentioned as indentured labourers brought in to work in plantation. But these workers were the backbone that built and gave rise to the Malaysian economy, along with the Chinese labourers brought in to work in tin mines.

After 1957 the Chinese community became the driving force in Malaysian economic growth. Building on their strong presence in trade, mining, and commerce, they expanded into plantation, retail and later into manufacturing. Their entrepreneurship fuelled urban development, exports, and job creations, while investments in education nurtured skilled professionals across industries. By combining adaptability with enterprise, the Chinese community significantly shaped Malaysia’s modernization, making them indispensable pillar of the nation’s post-independence economy.

How many Malaysians know of Yeop Mahidin Mohammed Shariff, the father of the Askar Wataniah Pahang. A police officer by training, he went underground during the Japanese occupation, established a guerrilla resistance group, the Pahang Wataniah, to fight against the Japanese. He risked his life sabotaging Japanese missions and collected intelligence for the Allied forces. Lived in jungle, constantly under threat, to protect his people and his homeland. Yeop Mahidin’s courage and selflessness symbolised patriotic sacrifice in Malaya’s struggle for freedom.

Whilst appreciating past legacies that built the country students should also be inculcated with being aware of their accountability within the framework of the nation’s constitution.

A constitution is not merely a legal document but the soul of a nation it’s a covenant that binds people across generations. To be a citizen then is to be entrusted with its guardianship. Accountability does not merely mean obeying the law but honouring the spirit of justice, freedom, and equality it enshrines. One must exercise rights with humility, balance liberty with responsibility and engage in shared work of democracy. To neglect the constitution is to neglect the moral compass of the nation. Therefore, every citizen bears a sacred duty to keep alive the promise of the constitution through thought, word and deed.

Merely raising the flag during school assembly and waiving the flag during Independence Day, without deeper understanding of its significance, is like reciting a poem in a language that one does not know.

We must correct the root of this apathy rather than trying to deal with the symptom.

The nation has come a long way, no turning back, instead we must invest in mind and action ever evolving to become a living testament of wisdom and justice. Where progress is not only measured in material wealth, but in the depth of our compassion, the strength of our unity, and the courage to shape a future worthy of those yet unborn.

SELAMAT HARI MERDEKA

Cheers.  

ravivarmmankkanniappan@1500250820253.1491° N, 101.6534° E

 

Children With Their Innovation Learning Via their Phone

(A pic taken at Prayagraj January 2025)

"How can a man die better

Than facing fearful odds,

For the ashes of his fathers,

And the temples of his Gods?"

A couplet from "Horatius), a poem in "Lays of Ancent Rome" (1842) by Thomas Babington Macaulay.

The above is inscribed on the Rezang La War Memorial erected on the Chushul Plains, at an altitude of over 4,500 metres right on the Indo-China Line of Actual Control, in remembering the 120 Indian soldiers who stood against 5000 China Peoples liberation Army.

“In India's modern military history, only a few battles rival the raw courage shown by Indian soldiers at Rezang La, a mountain pass in eastern Ladakh. In the battle in November 1962, just 120 soldiers of Charlie Company of the 13 Kumaon Regiment of the Indian Army stood in temperatures of up to -40 degrees Celsius, blocking the path of an invading 5,000 force of the PLA”- (August 8, 2025, India Today Online)

Their defiance stalled the advance, though only 10 survived to recount the heroism. That battle symbolized an India defined by grit and sacrifice. Six decades on, the nation’s trajectory has shifted. Today, India increasingly wields soft power, through technology, innovation, and diplomacy. This transformation appears less a calculated strategy than a natural evolution, reflecting how India seeks influence in the world without diminishing the memory of its martial past.

The unease Donald Trump, and segments of the American right, may feel about the rise of Indian executives in corporate America is revealing. It is not merely a question of immigration or economics but it speaks to a deeper anxiety about shifting centres of influence. Right-wing populism has historically associated such transitions with the erosion of national identity and the destabilization of traditional hierarchies. For a political figure often accused of authoritarian leanings, the growing visibility of Indian leaders in the commanding heights of U.S. business represents not just competition but a perceived loss of control over the symbolic levers of power.

This anxiety becomes clearer when set against the historical backdrop of how power has operated. Rarely has true authority been exercised in the open. In medieval Europe, the Vatican shaped political order from behind the curtain of religion. Later, financial elites, industrial magnates, and media conglomerates became the shadow brokers of influence. Today, that mantle appears to be shifting again, towards global technology corporations, financial platforms, and transnational professional networks. What distinguishes the present moment is the outsized role played by Indian talent in this transformation.

The list of Indian-born or Indian-origin CEOs at America’s most powerful firms, the likes of Satya Nadella at Microsoft, Sundar Pichai at Alphabet, Arvind Krishna at IBM, and many others, just illustrates more than individual success stories. It reflects the structural realignment of global talent flows, where the Indian diaspora has become a pivotal node in the knowledge economy. Their leadership represents both the globalization of corporate America and the erosion of old boundaries that once defined who could or should wield influence at the top.

For established power bases, this moment is profoundly unsettling. Unlike the past, where influence could be traced to clear institutions or domestic elites, today’s digital and transnational order is fluid. Authority is dispersed across networks that do not map neatly onto national borders. The traditional walls that elites once leaned on for security are slippery, unstable, and constantly shifting. Betting on a “right horse”, be it a nation, an industry, or a leader, has never been more uncertain.

This explains the disquiet in populist and nationalist circles. India’s rise in corporate America does not simply represent success for a diaspora community but it underscores the broader disintegration of familiar power structures. In a digital, globalized era, the very architecture of power is being rewritten, and those who once claimed ownership of it are struggling to keep their footing.

The uncertainty is not merely economic or political but structural, signalling a transition in how power is organized and exercised in the 21st century. For established powers, this may well be the most disorienting period in recent history, one where the old playbook of control no longer guarantees outcomes.

Cheers.

ravivarmmankkanniappan@1103160820253.0567° N, 101.5851° E

CHETTINAD MUTTON UPPU CURRY

 

GRAND FINALE

It was my son in law Kuga's birthday, and I only realised a day later. Nevertheless called him to wish a belated birthday greeting. At the same time wanted to try Chef Shankar Santhiram's Chettinad Mutton Uppu Curry for sometime, hence invited Kuga and Dhivyaa for lunch to experiment the mutton curry in celebrating Kuga's Birthday..

The Ingredient

I thought this recipe had the most hassle free ingredients. Mutton, of course, small onions (shallots), chopped onions, Gingerly oil, chopped tomatoes, cinnamon sticks, gundu milagai (dried round chillies), and garlic (it is missing in pic but it also had a twist during cooking).

I kept the cooking process very close to Chef Shankar's. Firstly pour about 400ml of gingerly oil in the wok and let it heat. Add gundu milagai, and when it gives out the aroma, add chopped garlic (which I forgot), instead I transferred the shallots and later the chopped onions. Allow the chopped onions to lightly turn colour, then add cinnamon sticks, and stir for a while. Then add the chopped tomaotes and sprinkle one or two tea spoon of tumeric powder. Mind you I am only cooking about one and a half kilo of meat. Then add salt and allow it to blend well.

The Blended Ingredient

Finally add the mutton and stir well and allow the blended ingredient to seep through the mutton. Allow the mutton to cook for half an hour or so. By the way I have not added any amount of water at all, and you don't have to too.

Mutton and Added

Stir periodically, and allow the mutton and the ingredients to blend well. Actually the juice from the mutton would add to the flavour and would keep the moist for cooking intact. Close the lid and allow it to cook for 30 minutes. Then continuously stir from time to time. Since I did not preasure cook the mutton, the meat needed a good one hour or so on the fire to get it cooked well. By the way I forgot about the garlic which I blended and was still in blender, so what I did was I added it later as the meat was cooking. In actual fact the Garlic should go right after the gundu milagai. Also I added potatoes too, just to give body to the curry.

The Final Product

I stirred allowing the meat to cook and blend with juice and gingerly oil till the entire curry became dry, and after an hour and half of toil, voila the Chettinad Mutton Uppu Curry was ready.

With Greeja's saffron rice with ghee, the uppu curry went extremely well, downed with Indian Sherbet. I guess we made the day for the birthday boy.  

Thank you Chef Shankar for this great recipe.

ravivarmmankkanniappan@1619090820253.0567° N, 101.5851° E

The KEEZHADI Dilemma

 

The KEEZHADI Dilemma

Sa Ra Va Na Ba Va 

(Damizhi Script)

The reason buzz in the Indian archaeology and political circle was the discovery of an early civilization predating/contemporary to the Indus Valley Civilization. The excavations at Keezhadi (13 km from the city of Madurai), part of the emerging Vaigai Valley Civilization (VVC) in Tamil Nadu, have sparked a foundational shift in how we understand the origins and development of Indian civilization. Dating from as early as 6th century BCE, with some evidence potentially indicating earlier cultural continuity, Keezhadi appears to reflect an urbanized, literate society with a high degree of socio-economic complexity. This timeline places the VVC not only contemporaneous with the later phases of the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) but raises the possibility of an even earlier or parallel development trajectory in the Indian subcontinent's south.

This revelation challenges the long-standing narrative that civilizational impulses originated in the northwest (IVC), migrated to the Gangetic plains, and eventually disseminated to peninsular India. That linear diffusion model which rooted in colonial historiography has deeply influenced academic discourse, school curricula, and popular imagination in India. Keezhadi disrupts this by suggesting that South India may have developed urban, literate settlements independently, potentially even predating the so-called Vedic or Aryan movements into the subcontinent.

The Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), popularized by 19th-century philologists like Max Müller, held that Indo-European-speaking "Aryans" invaded and supplanted the existing Dravidian culture in India. This narrative, while originally shaped by colonial race theory, became institutionalized in Indian academic and political thought, especially post-independence. However, modern genome research and archaeological analysis have largely debunked this theory.

Genetic studies, including the landmark 2019 paper by Narasimhan et al. published in Science, indicate multiple waves of migrations into South Asia, but no evidence of a large-scale, violent invasion. (“The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia,” was published in the journal Science, specifically in Science 365 (issue 6457): eaat7487, with the publication date being September 5, 2019). Instead, the data suggest gradual admixture over centuries, with a strong genetic continuity in southern populations.

Archaeologists such as B.B. Lal and more recently Michel Danino and Tony Joseph have highlighted the lack of material evidence, as no destruction layers nor abrupt cultural disruptions are evident to support the traditional invasion narrative. This leaves us with a more nuanced understanding that Indo-European speakers may have migrated into the subcontinent, but they did not bring civilization to a blank slate. Where cultures like the Sangam-era settlements, as evidenced by Keezhadi, were already flourishing then.

Historically, the British utilized the AIT to justify colonial domination, by portraying themselves as "later Aryans" bringing order to a fragmented native population. Post-independence, dominant political narratives, largely shaped by the northern elite, continued to favor Gangetic-centric histories, emphasizing Vedic traditions and Sanskritic heritage as civilizational benchmarks.

Against this backdrop, the implications of Keezhadi were understandably contentious. Reports emerged that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), under central oversight, allegedly pressured field officers to modify or delay findings that could challenge the existing paradigm. The officer who initially led the excavation, K. Amarnath Ramakrishna, was transferred, sparking criticism from academic and civil society circles.

Sensing both cultural significance and political opportunity, the Tamil Nadu government, led by the DMK, stepped in to continue the excavations through the State Department of Archaeology, rebranding the site as emblematic of Tamil antiquity and Dravidian heritage. While critics argue that this move was politically motivated, to bolster regional identity and claim historical primacy, it nonetheless ensured the continuity of a major excavation that could reshape Indian historiography.

Regardless of political motivations, the discoveries at Keezhadi, and in the broader Vaigai Valley region, are forcing a re-evaluation of long-standing assumptions that urbanization and literacy in South India appear to have developed independently of Aryan or Vedic influence. Tamil-Brahmi script found at Keezhadi shows evidence of early literacy in Tamil, aligning with classical Sangam literature references, which themselves suggest a rich cultural and political history.

The sheer sophistication of the artifacts, such as brick structures, industrial-scale pottery, and evidence of trade, mirrors features found in mature Harappan sites, suggesting South India was not peripheral but central to India’s civilizational arc.

Keezhadi does more than just elevate Tamil Nadu’s historical status, it opens the door to a pluralistic, multi-origin view of Indian civilization, one that moves beyond the binaries of Aryan vs Dravidian or North vs South. This shift is essential not only for academic accuracy but for national integrity, allowing every region to see itself not as a recipient of history, but as a contributor to it.

To fully embrace the implications of Keezhadi, India must decentralize historical narratives, support independent and transparent archaeological research, and allow evidence, not ideology, to shape its understanding of the past.

ravivarmmankkanniappan@155912072025 2.7278° N, 101.9454° E

TRUMPONOMICS

 

“For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike,”-  Donald Trump .

While dramatic in tone, this sentiment resonates with a significant portion of the American public. However, this narrative of victimhood is, at best, only half the truth. The forces that have shaped America’s current predicament—economically, politically, and socially—have largely been born from within its own institutions. The Freemasons, the CIA, and sprawling American corporations, independently and sometimes in concert, have wielded an arsenal of instruments—economic pressure, covert operations, political interference, and outright military interventions—to construct and maintain global supremacy. This architecture of dominance, built on fragile moral and economic foundations, is now unravelling. What Trump laments is, in many ways, the blowback from decades of unchecked ambition.

Historically, American foreign and economic policy has often prioritized corporate interests and geopolitical leverage over ethical considerations. The CIA’s role in the 1953 Iranian coup (Operation Ajax), orchestrated in part to protect the interests of British Petroleum, is one such example. So too is the infamous United Fruit-backed coup in Guatemala in 1954, aimed at safeguarding American business interests under the guise of anti-communism. These interventions were not anomalies—they were features of a system in which American corporations and agencies played god in foreign lands, reshaping sovereign nations in pursuit of resource control and market access.

Fast forward to the modern era, and this imperialistic model has come full circle. The very forces that once extended America’s reach are now implicated in its decline. Deindustrialization, the offshoring of jobs, and the rise of the financialized economy were not orchestrated by foreign powers, but by domestic elites and institutions seeking short-term profit over long-term stability. The very corporations that once profited from empire-building now exploit global labour arbitrage, hollowing out the American middle class in the process.

In this context, Donald Trump emerges not merely as a populist, but as a gunslinger—an erratic, self-styled saviour trying to patch a sinking ship with brute rhetoric and protectionist tools. His approach to global affairs can best be described through the lens of "brinkmanship"—a negotiation tactic that involves pushing a situation to the edge of crisis to compel the other side to concede. Trump wielded this aggressively during his trade wars with China, in his strong-arm renegotiation of NAFTA (culminating in the USMCA), and in his loud criticisms of NATO members and the European Union. The objective was simple: make the other party believe they had more to lose by not making a deal.

This is the essence of what many observers have dubbed the “Trump Doctrine”—not a formal geopolitical theory, but a recognizable pattern of behaviour marked by disruption, unpredictability, and a hyper-transactional worldview. The Doctrine rejects multilateralism in favour of bilateral arm-wrestling. It prizes short-term wins over long-term relationships. It uses pressure, not persuasion, and thrives on keeping allies and adversaries alike uncertain about what comes next. In essence, Trump brought the drama and brinkmanship of The Apprentice to the world stage—this time, the boardroom was global, and the stakes far greater.

America today is ensnared in its own fragmented narratives. The unity that once held under the myth of exceptionalism is breaking down. Competing ideologies, alternative facts, and polarized media have created an epistemological chaos. Trump’s brash diagnosis of decline—though simplistic—speaks to the disorientation many Americans feel. He offers no nuanced policy blueprint, but a kind of political catharsis. He channels rage, nostalgia, and distrust into action, regardless of whether the solutions are viable in the long term.

Can he pull off his histrionic crusade? That remains to be seen. Economics, after all, is not a hard science. It is interpretive, contingent, and often shaped more by perception and power than by theory. Throughout history, many policies dismissed by the academic consensus have found unexpected success—or at least, political efficacy. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal was derided by orthodox economists of the time. More recently, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), once ridiculed, is now entering mainstream fiscal debates.

If economists themselves can’t agree on foundational issues—from inflation drivers to fiscal multipliers—then why should Trump's actions be judged solely by traditional metrics? He may not be a scholar or a statesman, but he has demonstrated an uncanny ability to tap into the collective psyche. And that, in the realm of politics, can be more potent than technical correctness.

Ultimately, the Trump phenomenon is less about the man than the moment—a nation reckoning with its own contradictions, seeking clarity in chaos, and flirting with the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, the loudest man in the room might be the one holding the mirror.

ravivarmmankkanniappan@1757040420253.0567° N, 101.5851° E

The End Of FEIGNED DIPLOMACY

The White House Meeting

(Screenshot from Youtube)

I was watching the diatribe in Washington recently when both Trump and Vance went on a diatribe against Zelensky. It almost sounded like an Indian talk show where they invite a guest, together with a few others who have an opposing view of the main guest, and everyone will target the main guest with barrage of offensive spews. With the thumping of noise, eventually the poor guest will give up arguing and end up looking like an incompetent fool.

What particularly caught my attention are articles written by Pro Democrats describing how Trump had nailed the end of global political diplomacy via his uncouth behaviour against his guest, Zelenskyy at the White House.

But looking deeper into this entire episode I find it reeks western hypocrisy since the “Great Game”. The Great Game was an era from the early 19^th century where both the British and Russian empires were turmoiled in strategic rivalry to exert influence in Central Asia. This parasitic hypocrisy festered exponentially, from colonial expansion under the guise of civilising missions, to contemporary interventions, camouflaged as “humanitarian aids”.     

This led me to relook at an old frustration with the modern systems of political diplomacy, particularly within Western framework.

Western polity today have come to believe that they own and are the guardian of democracy and hence they have peddled that Political diplomacy and political correctness to be the pillars of modern democratic discourse. The purpose of it all is to maintain civility, avoid unnecessary conflicts, and promote dialogue among nations, communities, and individuals. But history has taught us bitter lessons, where these very mechanisms had and can prolong conflicts and exacerbate further problems.

Political diplomacy often involves negotiation, compromise, and avoidance of confrontational language. While this can be effective in certain circumstances, it sometimes delays necessary actions. By focusing on tact, subtlety, and consensus, difficult issues may be deferred or watered down, never fully addressed. This is especially true in cases of deep-rooted systemic injustice, where addressing the "elephant in the room" requires hard choices and uncomfortable truths.

Case in point, the Israel-Palestine conflict. It when through decades of negotiations, peace accords, and UN resolutions, but todate negotiating parties have avoided direct confrontation with core issues, such occupation, settlements, and state of displaced populations. So, what we see is, in the name of political tact and compromise, the powers that be have skirted urgent action, prolonging suffering and instability instead of addressing systemic injustices with decisive, uncomfortable solutions.

In the form of political correctness, which was originally the outcome of cultural sensitivity and awareness, it prevents political leadership from speaking bluntly about uncomfortable topics, even when those topics demand urgent attention. For example, the unwillingness to confront inequalities or histories of exploitation head-on, out of fear of offending certain groups, may inadvertently perpetuate the very issues one aims to resolve.

This was evident in South Africa’s post-apartheid transition. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) prioritized national unity over full accountability, granting amnesty to many perpetrators of apartheid-era crimes. On one hand this fostered peace, but on the other it failed to address the more pressing economic inequalities which stemmed from historical exploitation. Hence the failure to confront this systemic injustice ended up with wider socio-economic disparity.

Therefore, in times of a transparent digital connect today, the notion of discreet hidden agenda is no longer viable nor judicious. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is one good example of how digital transparency exposes covert political agendas. In 2018, it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica had harvested data from millions of Facebook users without consent, using it to influence elections, including the 2016 U.S. presidential race and the Brexit referendum. This incident highlighted the erosion of privacy and the need for greater oversight in digital political strategies, and it goes to show nothing goes without scrutiny of the masses.

It is about time political statesmanship approaches both global or domestic issues, in a direct, confrontational approach and break the cycle of evasive diplomacy.

This recalls the philosophy of pragmatism, propounded by the likes of William James and John Dewy, where they believe that solutions must be judged by its practical consequences rather than adherence to abstract principles, case in point political diplomacy and political correctness. Therefore, a pragmatic approach would cease diplomatic courtesy over actually solving the problem at hand.

We have seen in history; bold actions had been necessary evil to halt further sufferings. In the case of slavery in the American history, the Civil War, which was considered a direct and violent confrontation that, while tragic, was a necessary response to the inability of diplomacy to address the problem. At the end of World War II, negotiations failed under the Potsdam Declaration for Japan to surrender unconditionally. All diplomacy failed even with USSR onboard the process. The failed diplomacy to end the Pacific war led the US to go for an atomic strike on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By no means to justify the act, it appears that it was the only pragmatic way to jolt the Japanese to concede surrender. Hence the phrase “to catch the bull by its horn” though appears hardnosed would be an unflinching stance to achieve meaningful solution in global politics.

The "Western political gentlemanship" which is bounded by a system that has been built upon a façade of civility, often comes with the risk of maintaining the status quo, particularly when power structures benefit from the existing situation. The irony is this construct disguises the truth by using diplomacy as a shield to avoid confronting uncomfortable baggage that the Western powers carry.

Philosophically, Nietzsche argues that moral codes and ethical structures can be a form of weakness, hiding the true will to power. In diplomacy, moralizing or portraying it as the universal solution, can serve as a cloak to evade addressing the deep-seated power imbalances that shape international relations or even domestic policies. Interestingly Western political elites had for time immemorial have engaged in these practices not out of genuine concern for fairness, but because these systems serve their interests and uphold a facade of legitimacy.

So, did Trump expose the elephant in the room? Far too long the leftist media had portrayed Zelensky as the victim but never once attempted to explore his role in the entire conflict. Putin (not an angel himself), was a convenient entity to put the entire blame on, and the media pandered to this gallery.

Hence it will be apt to give a philosophical twist to expound the limits of politeness and diplomacy. Jean-Paul Sartre, the existentialist, postulates that individuals and societies often choose to ignore uncomfortable truths because facing them would demand responsibility and action. Hence Sartre says, this avoidance is a form of bad faith or simply put an act of self-deception that shields stakeholders from the consequences of their own freedom and the responsibility to change things.

Philosophically, acknowledging the elephant means being willing to confront not just the obvious political issues at hand but also the willingness to accept accountability for the historical, structural, and systemic factors that have allowed the conflicting issues to exist and persist.

Interestingly, this confrontational style embraces the discomfort of acknowledging that, at times, the structures of diplomacy and political correctness serve the interests of the powerful rather than those they purport to protect.

Candor is essential in seeking an amicable solution to any conflict, particularly in global politics. The need for honest and openness in confronting political issues, must be a given, particularly when the current systems of diplomacy and political correctness seem to either sidestep or perpetuate these problems. While diplomacy and political correctness have their merits in maintaining peace and civility, there are times when these mechanisms fail to address the core issues at hand, and direct action is necessary. This incident underscores a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about power dynamics, moving beyond polite conventions to address systemic issues directly.

The Oval Office meeting between Trump, Zelenskyy, and JD Vance exemplifies this confrontational approach that challenges traditional diplomatic norms.

Philosophically, this aligns with pragmatic, existential, and Nietzschean ideas that urge individuals and societies to stop hiding behind polite conventions and face the hard truths that can lead to real change. This, however, comes with a cost, the willingness to accept discomfort and potentially contentious action.

“Never underestimate the sly of a person, Trump is not a clown, nor Zelenskyy an angel.”

Cheers.

ravivarmmankkanniappan@1241030320253.0571° N, 101.5911° E