A saffron-clad sly old devil
The animal kingdom will most likely protest and take a serious offence if they were to be compared with the deceitful and conceited human species. Smaller the mind greater the conceit. There have been far and few individuals (humans) about whom the universe of animals did not object to being associated with — the Tigers are proud to be prefixed to the Heroes, Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan, popularly known in history as 'Tigers of Mysore'; Lions take pride to be clubbed and linked to 'King Richard— The Lion Hearted'.
However, the entire skulk will be up in arms with their teeth and paws sharpened, against any who compares Modi with a Fox. The risk is taken, by this writer, because indeed foxes like Modi creep quietly and stealthily to sneak upon prey. That's exactly what the sly foxy Modi did when he attacked Pakistan's civilian sites at seven different locations.
Fox is known in folklore, literature and mythology as a clever, cunning and deceitful animal. The Kitsune (fox) in Japanese folklore is a shape-shifter known for trickery and deceit. However, it is known better as a symbol of slyness and guile. Shri Narendra Modi fits the bill and label of 'SLY'.
Modi and his cabinet colleagues (leash of foxes) have blood on their hands— the poor innocent 26 Indian tourists who were murdered in cold blood in Kashmir by Indians themselves as part of false flag operation and the Pakistani civilians, including infants, who were made to achieve martyrdom. The canine cabinet has lot to answer to the common man on the streets of India. The saffron robe hides a dirty and bloody hand. Evil politicians think they have leave to lie and cheat.
India was under the shadow of self-inflicted delusional thinking that it could cross at will the LOC and hoped that Pakistan will make at best verbal protest and the world will applaud the daring adventure. India made an extremely serious mistake in their estimation of Pakistan's reaction.
Pakistan opting for restraint all through this period of uncertainty was sitting on a powder keg of internal reaction of its own people who patiently believed that India must be forced to see its ugly face in the mirror. The government was reticent; however, the ever-growing belligerence of Indians tipped the scales in favour of giving a suitable response to the foolish misadventure of Modi.
The ferocity of the blitzkrieg unleashed by our superior and highly professional air force took the Indians by utter surprise. In a flash they were lying flat on their faces on the mat of the ring with the scary buzzing sound of the several drones that illuminated New Delhi's airspace.
Until recently Indians were in denial of the role they sought from the US. However S. Jaishanker, the foreign minister, mumbled away his acceptance and confirmation of the role played by Donald Trump and JD Vance in securing for India a ceasefire. On the brokered ceasefire, Pakistan welcomed Donald Trump's intervention because it has a compelling case against India in view of its continued violation of UN resolutions on Kashmir.
The ceasefire relieved India. The cyberattack had unnerved the entire military establishment of India— they were gasping for cessation of hostilities. They were in a trance not knowing what hit them and how deep the hurt was.
Loss embraces shame. No conscience can be found near a leader who has lost his or her sense of shame. Modi is carrying within himself, deep inside his heart, a mine of coals, burning red and hot. His face today is an index of the events as they happened on 7th-9th May.
Their media is still unrelenting in its pursuit of hate agenda and narrative. Every bird loves to hear itself sing. All India Radio's every single programme begins with exhortation to be aware of the enemy, alongside some patriotic quote or religious incantations; this is followed usually with a war song (desh bhakti) to the chagrin of those Hindutva zealots, they have to rely on Mohammed Rafi and Talat Mahmood, both Muslims. 'Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive' (Sir Walter Scott— Marmion).
For the blazing and loud TV channels, the answer to this brazenness of lies is: 'What manner of souls have these men? What is the end of their striving; and on what accounts do they love and honour? Imagine their souls naked before you. When they fancy that their censures hurt, or their praises profit us, how great is their self- conceit'.
Pakistan cannot and must not trust the ceasefire. India has bought time to re-assess its strategy. It should be no surprise if in a reprisal India indulges into another mis-adventure. As a Nation we should expect the worst of behaviour that is completely sans decency and diplomacy from the evil-minded Narendra Modi. He is licking his wounds. The fox in him, with the sting of a scorpion, shall keep egging him to seek revenge of the thousand cuts on his soul. Revenge the longer it is delayed, the cruelest it grows. Let's be prepared and not slack into any state of complacency. Neither should we be on cloud nine in the belief that they (the Indians) have been taught a lesson till eternity. No, it isn't the case. Modi is wounded; he will be seeking healing through revenge. We have to learn to play the fox with the fox.
'Cowards die many times before their deaths (William Shakespeare in Julius Caesar). Modi's cowardice arises from the lack of courage to resign after suffering this debacle. During the 1962 Sino- Indian conflict, which India lost miserably, Nehru's health deteriorated. A man of honour he was. He passed away unable to reconcile with the loss. The scribe here doesn't desire any such end of Modi but believes that if he has some character, he would accept responsibility for this debacle and step down and take Amit Shah into the hole of oblivion. Of cowards no history is written.
It would be a folly to place trust and reliance on assurances of the international interlocutors, as sincere as their efforts may be; we must remain in a 'state of alert and preparedness'.
Pakistan in a tit-for-tat reaction has also formed a team of politicians from across the entire political spectrum (PTI's nominee is conspicuously missing) to engage with important world capitals. The government must use the best brains available— Mushahid Hussain Sayyid and Maleeha Lodhi's names are missing; they should be on invited too, based on their on their contacts and experience. Petty political differences must be parked on the kerb. Sherry Rehman, Hina Rabbani khar and Tehmina janjua will make for a formidable women's team from Pakistan. Together they can dislodge Shashi Tharoor's magnetic capture of international news media.
Personally I find it painful to use words of indecent import for anyone, including prime minister Shri Narendra Modi; it doesn't augur well for decency, which is the hallmark of our noble religion. It is the circumstances that push to use derogatory language and comparisons; however, in the case of Modi it is necessary to do so, because, after being glamorously feted to the cold blooded murder of over 2000 innocent men, women and children, in his home state of Gujarat, he made it to the prime minister's office.
Modi is emboldened by this feat, of popularizing religious hatred, so was Hitler when he ran amok in Europe, but the end was bitter for him. The time is right for the Indian electorate to return back to the office of prime minister, a person who believes in India's age-old traditions of 'ahimsa' coupled with political ideology of Gandhi and Nehru.
Indians like any other nation essentially are good and peace loving. Modi is not the true representative of Indian polity and culture. Let the ballot box be his undoing and not the bullet. Violence begets violence—something Modi doesn't understand today in his delusional intoxication of being invincible. Reality is stark. The Congress party has correctly said, while juxtapositioning between Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi: 'One Nation, Two leaders'. Indians wake up.
Where blood has been spilt the tree of forgetfulness cannot flourish is an apt Brazilian proverb.
(The writer is a Senior Banker, published Author & Freelance Columnist)
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US mediation offer
Listen to article The Kashmir dispute is not a regional fault line. It is a global flashpoint — one that demands more than sterile diplomatic statements and historical posturing. The recent military flare-up between Pakistan and India, the most serious between the two in decades, brought the subcontinent dangerously close to open conflict. A ceasefire was achieved, but not through bilateral diplomacy — it was the intervention from none other than the President of the United States of America that helped defuse the escalation that threatened what is called mutually agreed destruction. This begs the question: can the Kashmir dispute be resolved without the active involvement of a major world power? For far too long, India has been averse to third-party mediation, insisting that Kashmir is a bilateral matter in line with the Shimla Agreement of 1972. This rigid stance has, in effect, blocked any meaningful dialogue while allowing the conflict to fester. But the latest developments suggest a subtle shift. New Delhi and Islamabad, while not openly inviting mediation, allowed space for President Donald Trump to intervene — a notable departure from past rejections of third-party involvement. Just yesterday, the US Department of State reiterated Trump's willingness to help resolve the Kashmir issue, stating that "each step that he takes is made to solve generational differences between countries". This statement, while significant, should be viewed with cautious optimism considering the chequered US history. The stakes are too high to leave the longstanding Kashmir issue to empty slogans or rigid bilateralism. And as long as it remains unresolved, it will continue to poison relations between the two nuclear-armed neighbours and destabilise an already fragile region. Whether it is Trump or any other global leader, only a credible and powerful mediator can help break the deadlock. Currently, the US — which enjoys leverage over both Islamabad and New Delhi — remains best placed to lead that effort.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Migration crisis: what really matters?
Listen to article When President Donald Trump signed an executive order back in January banning refugee resettlement, citing national security and the need to "protect the homeland", it wasn't just a policy shift but a declaration of how the modern world views displacement. Refugees are increasingly seen not as victims of circumstance, but as potential threats, burdens or political pawns. The tough reality that emerges with increasingly strong borders and inflammatory people-powered politics is: in the world at large, is it borders or bodies that weigh more? The United States, long a symbol of refuge, has been retreating from its commitments. Under Trump's previous administration, the refugee cap reached historic lows, and entire populations were blocked entry on the basis of religion and nationality. Now, the familiar language of fear is back, cloaked in sovereignty, but rooted in exclusion. And this is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Across Europe, the narrative echoes. The UK's attempts to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, Italy's criminalisation of migrant rescue ships and Greece's illegal pushbacks in the Aegean all signal a global trend: the securitisation of human movement. Refugees are treated less like people in need and more like liabilities to be managed, repelled or offloaded. But in today's world, the category of the "refugee" itself is expanding — or at least, should be. While the 1951 Geneva Convention defines a refugee as someone fleeing persecution due to race, religion, nationality or political opinion, this framework fails to accommodate the new and growing class of displaced persons: climate migrants. Many people are made homeless each year by floods, droughts, fires and flooding waters. Entire nations on islands are in peril and at the same time, changing weather in South Asia and Africa leads to conflicts and destroys people's livelihoods. These people do not receive the same status as refugees, according to international rules. No one is protecting them and there is no form of recognition set aside for them. This lack of rules further highlights a weakness in how the world is run. The rules in war do not update as the world shifts. Refugee institutions made after World War II do not keep up with the issues caused by today's displacement. Although the Geneva Convention is admired, it no longer works well. It cannot address the blurred lines between conflict and climate, between persecution and poverty, between war and weather. As a result, these grey zones are overlooked by the international community as rich nations stop accepting refugees but claim to follow humanitarian principles. This raises a fundamental moral dilemma: What are borders actually protecting? If the answer is sovereignty, then sovereignty itself becomes a justification for indifference. Hannah Arendt once warned of the danger faced by those who lose the "right to have rights". Today, millions roam the world with no state to speak for them, no law to defend them and no border willing to welcome them. Their existence is a daily negotiation with rejection. The debate is not just about who crosses borders; it's about how the global order prioritises state security over human security; it's about whether IR will keep being just about power or if it will become something fairer and more open. We can no longer afford to treat migration as a temporary crisis or a political inconvenience. Climate displacement, economic collapse and civil conflict are not going away; they are the future. And that future demands new definitions, new protections and, above all, new compassion. If we continue to worship borders and ignore the bodies knocking on them, then we must also accept what that reveals about our values. If the world is set up to protect the few at the expense of the disadvantaged, it will not be a true just society. And in the end, the lines we draw on maps will mean little if they come at the cost of our shared humanity.
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Business Recorder
US slams UN conference on Israel-Palestinian issue, warns of consequences
PARIS: U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is discouraging governments around the world from attending a U.N. conference next week on a possible two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, according to a U.S. cable seen by Reuters. The diplomatic demarche, sent on Tuesday, says countries that take 'anti-Israel actions' following the conference will be viewed as acting in opposition to U.S. foreign policy interests and could face diplomatic consequences from Washington. The demarche, which was not previously reported, runs squarely against the diplomacy of two close allies France and Saudi Arabia, who are co-hosting the gathering next week in New York that aims to lay out the parameters for a roadmap to a Palestinian state, while ensuring Israel's security. 'We are urging governments not to participate in the conference, which we view as counterproductive to ongoing, life-saving efforts to end the war in Gaza and free hostages,' read the cable. President Emmanuel Macron has suggested France could recognise a Palestinian state in Israeli-occupied territories at the conference. French officials say they have been working to avoid a clash with the U.S., Israel's staunchest major ally. UN conference on two-state solution to Mideast conflict set for June 'The United States opposes any steps that would unilaterally recognise a conjectural Palestinian state, which adds significant legal and political obstacles to the eventual resolution of the conflict and could coerce Israel during a war, thereby supporting its enemies,' the cable read. The United States for decades backed a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians that would create a state for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza alongside Israel. Trump, in his first term, was relatively tepid in his approach to a two-state solution, a longtime pillar of U.S. Middle East policy. The Republican president has given little sign of where he stands on the issue in his second term. But on Tuesday, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, a long-time vocal supporter of Israel, said he did not think an independent Palestinian state remained a U.S. foreign policy goal. Gaza war 'Unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state would effectively render Oct. 7 Palestinian Independence Day,' the cable read, referring to when Palestinian Hamas carried out a cross-border attack from Gaza on Israel in 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking about 250 hostages. Hamas' attack triggered Israel's air and ground war in Gaza in which almost 55,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of the 2.3 million population displaced and the enclave widely reduced to rubble. If Macron went ahead, France, home to Europe's largest Jewish and Muslim communities, would become the first Western heavyweight to recognise a Palestinian state. This could lend greater momentum to a movement hitherto dominated by smaller nations generally more critical of Israel. Macron's stance has shifted amid Israel's intensified Gaza offensive and escalating violence against Palestinians by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank, and there is a growing sense of urgency in Paris to act now before the idea of a two-state solution vanishes forever. The U.S. cable said Washington had worked tirelessly with Egypt and Qatar to reach a ceasefire in Gaza, free the hostages and end the conflict. 'This conference undermines these delicate negotiations and emboldens Hamas at a time when the terrorist group has rejected proposals by the negotiators that Israel has accepted.' This week Britain and Canada, also G7 allies of the United States, were joined by other countries in placing sanctions on two Israeli far-right government ministers to pressure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bring the Gaza war to an end. 'The United States opposes the implied support of the conference for potential actions including boycotts and sanctions on Israel as well as other punitive measures,' the cable read. Israel has repeatedly criticised the conference, saying it rewards Hamas for the attack on Israel, and it has lobbied France against recognising a Palestinian state. 'Nothing surprises me anymore, but I don't see how many countries could step back on their participation,' said a European diplomat, who asked for anonymity due to the subject's sensitivity. 'This is bullying, and of a stupid type.' The U.S. State Department and the French Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
