Europe has become a continent of folly, corruption and dangerous delusions by Christos Mouzeviris

In the recent months we have seen worrying and sometimes outrageous developments taking place in Europe, regarding the war in Ukraine.

Europe refuses to accept that this war is unwinnable and insists on keep throwing billions into it, while the US under President Trump is showing signs of caution and efforts to end this conflict, perhaps to the detriment of Ukraine. European politicians deny as usual to listen to their citizens, which are now increasingly sceptical of this war's direction and outcome, plus fearful of further escalation to an generalized warfare between Europe (with or without the US) and Russia.

As always, European leaders, media and the EU leadership under Von der Leyen won't listen to anything else, but the continuation of the support and thus, the perpetuation of this conflict. One after the other, our leaders are using Russia as a boogeyman to explain to us the need of spending billions of our money for the continuation of this conflict. The NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, warned us that " Russia could attack Nato within five years", while British Chief of the Defence Staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, claimed that "British families must be prepared to send their sons and daughters to war against Russia".

Yet, they were only two of Europeans that made such statements, others from across our continent also joined in to this farsical theatre, while USA is seemingly the only Western country willing to still negotiate with the Russians. However, it is dawning on Europe now, that "Europe will need to engage with Putin if US peace talks fail", as French President Emmanuel Macron admitted last week , during a press conference of a European Union leaders' summit, in Brussels, Belgium. Well, it better not be him again leading the negotiations, because it was Mr Macron who called Vladimir Putin three days before the Russian invasion which ended up in disaster, and every attempt of these two solving their differences ever since, failed to produced any results.

In contrast, Russia's President Vladimir Putin in a recent statement from Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan, branded fears that Moscow is planning to invade another European nation as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘complete nonsense’. To be honest, one minute Europeans mock Russia for failing to take Ukraine after three years of war, but now they are scaremongering us that they will attack the whole of Europe (and thus NATO), which will result to an all out war between Europe and Russia. Such an outcome and without the full commitment of USA, since under Trump it is doubtful if America will participate actively in this war, would be disastrous for our continent. The Americans most likely will wait it out and resolve on selling weaponry to an ever indebted Europe, and only when we are on our knees they will decide to step in, to make sure we are once more for ever relying on them for funds, weapons and "protection".

In their desperation to find resources and funds to continuing their support for Ukraine, EU leaders were engaging in weeks long debates and diplomatic activity, to use billions of euros in frozen Russian assets to help cover Ukraine’s war needs over the next two years. But Belgium pushed back and eventually managed to block such plan, arguing that the plan carries legal and financial risks that it fears it could end up shouldering alone. And it has every right to do so, as if things turn sour, Belgium would indeed be the country that payed the highest price.

Belgium worries that Euroclear – the Brussels-based financial clearing house that holds the bulk of the frozen Russian assets – could end up entangled in damaging litigation if Russia challenges the EU decision. Besides, it is not as if the EU would just grab and take Russian money from Belgium, but they would rather get a loan on these assets, to be used for supporting Ukraine. But who would end up paying, if Russia succeeded in challenging successfully such move? We, the European citizens would of course. The worse affected country would be Belgium, however the bill would be footed by tax payers money once again, to limit the total financial catastrophe of Belgium, a key EU member state.

Naturally, as we are well used in Europe, double standards came into play once again. Nobody called for sanctions against Belgium, for the country to "be kicked out of the EU", or for funds to be withheld from the Belgians, like they did with Hungary and Slovakia on numerous occasions; simply because they were safeguarding their own national interests. The two Visegrad nations, have jointly blocked the adoption of the European Union’s 18th sanctions package, aimed at further punishing Russia. The decision was a direct response to Brussels’ proposal to ban the import of cheap Russian oil and gas, a move that would severely harm the two nations' energy security and potentially double or triple utility costs for households.

Where is the difference to what these two were doing back then, from what is Belgium doing now? You cannot cut off ties with Russian energy products just like that, this takes years in preparation and a more step-by-step approach, however the EU wants its member states to achieve this in a few years, no matter how much this actually hurts Europe's own interests. Just as you cannot take a risk such a Belgium was asked to take, which could severly affect your economy.

Instead, what we got now is an agreement on a 90 billion loan to Ukraine, which will be placed on who? You've guessed it, each and one of us will have to to pay it off eventually. And do they ask us if we consent to this? Our economies are already suffering, but hey, according to our media the Russians are suffering more, so we got to beat them to it and keep going. They want to bring Ukraine in EU as soon as possible, even though we do not even know its final borders at this stage, and they blast Hungary for refusing and it is quite frankly, the most reasonable nation in EU right now. Ukraine was not ready to join the EU before the war, it is surely less ready to do so now.

Some countries however, like the United Kingdom found a new way to raise funds for this war; by forcing ex-Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich to release £2.5 billion for Ukraine. Britain aparently is giving the Russian "oligarch" a final chance to give Ukraine the funds, from the sale of top English soccer team Chelsea or face potential legal action. Abramovich has previously sought more flexibility and said he wants the money to go to all victims. He has 90 days to act under the terms of the government's new license.

In other words, either is Abramovich in favor of the invasion conducted by his own country against Ukraine or not, he will have to pay for it just because... he is Russian and rich! That level of desperation by the EU and European governments, indicate that it is Europe that is in fact in trouble and not America or Russia. The sense of emergency and illogical approaches, often illegal, always indicate who is acting out of need or fear.

And all that, while the US is brewing yet another conflict in Latin America, as if the American and European tax payers having to pay for one war is not bad enough; never mind the ever growing threat of an all-out war in our world, which comes closer to reality the more the Ukraine conflict lingers on.

Apparently the US has seized recently a second sanctioned vessel in international waters off the coast of Venezuela. The move comes after US President Donald Trump ordered a "blockade" of sanctioned oil tankers entering and leaving the country. Venezuela has previously accused Washington of seeking to steal its oil resources. In recent weeks, the US has been building up its military presence in the Caribbean Sea and has carried out deadly strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug-smuggling boats, killing around 100 people. The US has provided no public evidence that these vessels were carrying drugs, and the military has come under increasing scrutiny from Congress over the strikes.

Why are we getting a deja-vu feeling here? America lying or not being clear of his actions and military operations. Are they preparing another war or invasion? Most likely. US President Donald Trump stated recently that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's days "are numbered". Now imagine if Russia every made such statements. Imagine if any other nation across the globe, so blatantly made threats to overthrow another nation's leader, without the full support of that country's people. However Europe seems unbothered by such actions and are solely focusing on punishing Russia.

If we ever going to be taken seriously on global affairs, we cannot seem to be a US puppet. Not that we are not by this stage, but if we always turn a blind eye on one nation's actions, while we are outraged so much by another's that we are willing to shoot our own foot, in order to massage our self perceived higher sense of morality, can this really do us any favors in the long term? Our leaders seem to huff and puff about Russia's actions, but when America is being the bully they seem unbothered. Despite that in the recent years the American leadership under Trump, is constantly undermining and redefining the Trans-Atlantic relations and traditional alliance.

Not that we are not used to European and Western hypocricy; in a recent scandal in Italy, wealthy foreigners paid £80k to shoot civilians in besieged Sarajevo, Italian prosecutors claim. They are examining allegations that during the 1990s, far-right extremists and gun enthusiasts from Italy, the United States, Russia and other countries travelled to Bosnia and paid Serbian forces to let them fire at city residents as a form of “war tourism”.

Additionally,a British journalist has alleged that while travelling through conflict zones over the past two decades, he was offered the opportunity to shoot civilians, describing the practice as neither “dark tourism” nor adventurism, but “murder”. Andrew Drury, has spent years travelling through some of the world’s most dangerous regions, including Somalia, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Iraq.

So while the West is scolding others on human rights, while they punished Serbia for the massacres in Bosnia, as they tarnished the country's reputation for ever, wealthy Westerners participated in such attrocities and they will never be brought to justice for hunting humans like animals. Surely this was known in some political or journalistic circles in Europe and America long ago, but it was easier to use the human suffering that people known to them inflicted onto the people of these regions to promote their desirable agenda. Plus, surely this is still happening today in Ukraine and Palestine too- you do the maths. I am sure that many of the ills that are inflicted upon regions of this world throughout our modern history, are initiated, perpetuated, exploited by the wealthy of this planet, to the detriment of humanity's dignity and unity.

The hypocrisy, corruption and utter lunacy that prevails in our world is sickening and desperate at this stage. However this is only an indicator of a "dying beast", which clings to life by roaring the loudest at its end of days. This beast is the mighty Western hegemony that ruled this world for centuries. America may come out of this political, economic, moral and societal crisis we are going through, in a better state than Europe, as they managed to dominate our continent since WW2. But for Europe I am afraid, this could be a definitive moment and we are edging towards the point of no return.

Our leaders are blinded by power mongering, refusing to accept reality or listen to the needs of their citizens, desperate to keep face as they frolic their inflatable egos and sense of a higher morality and they will destroy Europe in the end. The question is now what will we, the citizens of Europe do to prevent this?

First Published in The Eblana European Democratic Movement

A small door back to Europe by Jemma Norman

When the Government announced that Britain will rejoin the EU’s Erasmus youth exchange programme in 2027, it did not arrive with fireworks or grand speeches. It slipped into the news cycle almost quietly, like an afterthought. And yet, with one administrative decision, Britain edged closer to Europe again; not economically, not constitutionally, but emotionally. For a country still haunted by the aftershocks of Brexit, that matters more than ministers may care to admit.

Erasmus was never just a scheme about studying abroad. It was a rite of passage. It was cheap flights, shared kitchens, broken languages, lifelong friendships, and the slow realisation that borders are thinner than politics suggests. For decades, British students returned from Barcelona, Kraków, and Bologna with accents half-changed and assumptions permanently shaken. Erasmus did not make people less British; it made them more confident in being so within a wider world.

Brexit tore that experience away with brutal efficiency. The replacement, the Turing Scheme, was framed as global and ambitious, but it missed the point. It treated exchange as a transaction rather than a relationship. Erasmus was reciprocal by design. It said: you come here, we go there, and in the process we learn to live with each other. Its absence was symbolic of a Britain choosing distance over participation, observation over belonging.

Rejoining Erasmus does not undo Brexit. It does not reopen the single market or soften customs checks. But symbols shape reality, especially in politics. This move quietly acknowledges that total separation was never sustainable, at least not in the realm of culture and youth. It suggests a recognition that isolation carries costs that cannot be measured in trade figures alone. The price was paid by young people who had no vote in 2016, yet bore the consequences.

What makes this decision striking is how little resistance it seems to have met. A few years ago, re-entering any EU programme would have sparked outrage, headlines about betrayal, and warnings of a slippery slope. Now, the mood has shifted. Fatigue has set in. The culture war energy has drained away, replaced by something more pragmatic, even weary. Britain is not “rejoining Europe,” but it is quietly reconnecting where it hurts least politically and helps most socially.

There is also something telling about the timing. 2027 is far enough away to feel safe, distant from the next election cycle, insulated from immediate backlash. It allows ministers to gesture towards openness without confronting the deeper contradictions of Brexit. Yet students do not think in election cycles. For them, Erasmus in 2027 means horizons reopening, choices expanding, and futures feeling less boxed in by a referendum they inherited.

Critics will argue this is cosmetic, a token gesture dressed up as progress. They are not entirely wrong. Erasmus alone will not fix Britain’s strained relationship with Europe, nor will it solve the deeper issues of mobility, labour shortages, or academic collaboration. But dismissing it entirely misses the psychological dimension. Politics is not only about structures; it is about stories. Erasmus tells a different story from the one Britain has been telling itself since 2016.

It says that cooperation is not weakness. That shared systems do not erase sovereignty. That young people benefit from openness in ways that spreadsheets cannot capture. It hints, gently, that Britain’s future does not have to be defined by permanent divergence. That bridges, once burned, can sometimes be rebuilt plank by plank.

For a generation raised on closed doors and narrowed expectations, this matters. Erasmus will not make Britain European again. But it reminds Britain that it never truly stopped being European in the first place. And sometimes, coming close again is how bigger journeys begin.

Virtue, vice and the sudden epiphany of Jordan Bardella by Nadine Moreau

When Jordan Bardella, the polished young face of France’s far right, announced that he now supports the legalization of brothels, he framed it as a moral awakening. According to Bardella, forcing sex workers to operate in secrecy is “hypocritical.” At last, hypocrisy has been spotted, not in racism, not in authoritarian nostalgia, not in the selective obsession with “law and order,” but in the fact that prostitution exists whether politicians like it or not. One can almost hear the sound of a halo being carefully adjusted above his head.

To be clear, the question of how societies regulate sex work is complex, emotionally charged, and deserving of serious debate. But when a figure whose political movement has spent decades moralizing about family values, national virtue, and social decay suddenly discovers nuance, scepticism is not only allowed, it is mandatory. Because when the far right says it wants to protect women, history suggests you should check which women, under what conditions, and for whose benefit.

Bardella’s argument is wrapped in a surprisingly liberal ribbon. Legalize brothels, he says, and sex workers will be safer, healthier, and less exploited. This is a language that sounds suspiciously like harm reduction, a concept the far right usually treats as ideological poison. One wonders what happened. Did Bardella wake up one morning struck by empathy? Did a policy paper fall from the heavens? Or did someone finally explain that voters can be both socially conservative and quietly pragmatic when it comes to sex?

Because let us not pretend this is about liberation. The far right has never been particularly interested in expanding autonomy, especially for women whose lives do not fit neatly into approved narratives of motherhood and domestic virtue. The same political ecosystem that frets endlessly about declining birth rates, “traditional families,” and the moral collapse of society does not suddenly become a feminist think tank because it discovered that prostitution is inconvenient to ban.

What Bardella is really denouncing is not hypocrisy itself, but inefficient hypocrisy. The problem, apparently, is not that sex is commodified, nor that inequality drives people into vulnerable work, nor that power imbalances exist. The problem is that all this happens untidily, out of sight, without regulation, receipts, or a proper administrative stamp. This is not moral clarity. This is bureaucratic irritation.

There is also something almost charming about the selective outrage. For years, far-right rhetoric has painted immigrants, minorities, and the poor as threats to social order, frequently invoking sexual danger and moral decay. Now, suddenly, sex work is no longer a symptom of societal collapse but an industry in need of transparency. One imagines the same politicians who recoil at a woman wearing a headscarf nodding approvingly at the concept of a well-regulated brothel, provided it flies the right flag and fills out the right forms.

Humour aside, there is a deeper political calculation at work. Supporting legalized brothels allows Bardella to appear modern, pragmatic, even compassionate, without challenging the structural beliefs of his movement. It costs him very little. The people most affected by sex work policy are rarely his core voters, and the proposal conveniently avoids uncomfortable discussions about poverty, migration, or gender inequality. It is reform without redistribution, empathy without introspection.

And of course, calling the current system “hypocritical” is a clever rhetorical trick. It shifts the spotlight away from his own camp’s long-standing contradictions. Hypocrisy, after all, is much easier to diagnose in abstract systems than in personal or ideological motives. It is far harder to explain why a movement obsessed with controlling bodies suddenly wants to regulate, rather than restrict certain ones.

Perhaps Bardella genuinely believes this policy would reduce harm. If so, good. But politics is not therapy, and intentions are less interesting than patterns. When moral guardians discover flexibility only when convenience demands it, suspicion is healthy. Hypocrisy is not cured by repackaging it in a cleaner, more market-friendly format.

So yes, one really does have to wonder about the hypocrisy of Bardella’s motives. Not because the idea itself is unspeakable, but because of who is speaking, and when. In politics, as in life, sudden enlightenment often arrives precisely at the moment it becomes useful. And nothing is more traditional than that.

Birth Anniversary of Woodrow Wilson by Rene Wadlow

Wilson adventured for the whole of the human race. Not as a servant, but as a champion. So pure was his motive, so unflecked with anything that his worse enemies could find, except the mildest and most excusable, a personal vanity, practically the minimum to be human, that in a sense his adventure is that of humanity itself. In Wilson the whole of mankind breaks camp, sets out from home and wrestles with the universe and its gods.

    William Bolitlo Twelve Against the Gods (1939)

Thomas Woodrow Wilson, the son of a Presbyterian (Calvinist) minister and a minister's daughter was born 28 December 1856 in Virginia. His father was his first teacher of writing style. “When you frame a sentence, shoot with a single bullet and hit that one thing alone”. In an earlier generation, Wilson probably would have become a minister as well.

Rather, he chose the world of political scholarship and then political action. He first went to Princeton University as an undergraduate. He quickly developed a vision of political leadership. He wrote “The president must, above all things else, be a man of unbiased judgment, energy, determination, intelligence, moral courage, conscience.” When he graduated in 1879, he was voted by his classmates as the class's “model statesman”. He then started to study at the law school of the University of Virginia and dropped his first name. He withdrew at the end of a year, citing his health which was always fragile. He later earned a PhD at Johns Hopkins in Maryland, writing his thesis in 1886 on Congressional Government which was published as a book, the first of a series on US government and the need for governmental reform.

In 1890 he was named chair of political economy (as political science was then called) at Princeton where he wrote his five volume History of the American People. In 1902, he was named president of Princeton University, his predecessor having been forced out for bad management. Wilson brought about educational reforms at the university but also used his post as a pulpit, speaking in public about education, service to the nation, and governmental reform, thus attracting the attention of New Jersey's Democratic Party.

In 1910, he resigned his position at the university and ran for governor of a state which had long been under the administration of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party organizers were looking for a progressive who was not associated with the political corruption which was the public view of both the New Jersey Republican and Democratic Parties. Woodrow Wilson came to the world of politics from the quite different world of scholarship. The academic years were years of preparation for leadership. His studies and writings were devoted not to the theory but to the practice of government, not to 'doctrine' but to 'affairs'. He was concerned with the real working of the US political system with all its strengths and weaknesses, its potentialities and problems.

He had barely settled his family into the New Jersey governor's mansion (which is located in Princeton though the administration is in Trenton) and started his battles against the economic monopolies and trusts, when he was nominated by the Democratic Party to run for President in 1912.

The 1912 election was one of the few US elections when there were more than two candidates with the potential to win: William Taft, the incumbent Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, the former President who ran as a newly-created Progressive Party candidate, Eugene Debs, for the Socialists, and Wilson or the Democrats. Wilson received less than 50 per cent of the vote, but he most votes of the four and so became president.

Wilson, under the banner of “The New Freedom” began a series of interlocking reforms: lowering the tariff, reforming banking and currency laws, instituted a graduated income tax and abolished child labour. Wilson believed that it was the obligation of the federal government to regulate the economy to protect the people from what he wrote was “the consequences of great industrial and social processes which they cannot alter, control or singly cope with.”

However, it is as a war-time leader and especially as a “father of the League of Nations” that Wilson moves beyond US politics to enter world history. At the start of the First World War in August 1914, Wilson − as most in the US− wanted to stay out of it. For most Americans there was little to chose among Germany, Austria-Hungary, Czarist Russia, imperialist France and the United Kingdom. War was a tragedy, not a crime. Wilson was elected for a second four-year term in 1916 with an election slogan of “He kept us out of war.” Wilson was inaugurated on 5 March 1917. Days later, German U-boats sank three US ships. Wilson concluded that there was no longer any way to stay out of the war. On 2 April, 1917, he went to the Capitol and asked Congress to declare war.

For Wilson in his Calvinist view of history “the hand of God is laid upon the nations. He will show them favour, I devoutly believe, only if they rise to the clear heights of His own justice and mercy”. In order to justify US war aims, in 1918, he drafted a speech outlining the war aims. The last of its fourteen points called for “a general association o nations for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.”

Yet his voice was frowned out in the discordant chorus of vengeance and selfishness. In his insistence on international cooperation in a world in which nations could no longer live apart, he spoke for a new principle for the New Age. In the League of Nations, he offered an instrument of good will. The failure of the League lay in that he could not provide that good will.

Today, in the United Nations and its Agencies of international cooperation, we have the means for reconciling differences among States amicably and fairly. We have the instruments to preserve freedom and establish peace. We need the will, the courage and the self-discipline to do what the tasks require.

 **********************

Notes
For a good one-volume life of Wilson see August Heckscher Woodrow Wilson: A Biography (Charles Scribner's Sons).
For Wilson's academic writings see Nils Aage Thorsen's The Political Thought of Woodrow Wilson 1875-1910 (Princeton University Press)

*********************

René Wadlow, president and a U.N. representative (Geneva) of the Association of World Citizens and editor of Transnational Perspectives.

Alfredo & CO #041 #cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

As the saying goes, it may be the rooster that does all the crowing
but it’s the turtle, the dog, the cat and perhaps the dog that deliver the goods.

For more Alfredo & CO, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

From Hegemony to Harmony: A Roadmap for Bangladesh–India Relations Post-Hasina by Habib Siddiqui

The fall of Sheikh Hasina in August 2024 reset Bangladesh’s domestic politics—and unsettled its most consequential external relationship: India. In the months since, mistrust has deepened, rhetoric has grown inflammatory, and both capitals have taken steps that signal a troubling shift—from what New Delhi once branded as ‘cooperative pragmatism,’ but which most Bangladeshis viewed as a lopsided bargain compromising sovereignty—toward grievance-driven posturing and outright hostility.

The assassination of Osman Hadi—a key figure in the July Revolution(also called Bangladesh’s Second Liberation)—has become a flashpoint, symbolizing the fragility of Bangladesh’s transition and amplifying anti-India sentiment. Ashok Swain, writingforScroll.in, observes that this killing has driven Dhaka–New Delhi relations to their most perilous point in decades. Allegations suggest the perpetrator fled to India, which is also reported to be hosting numerous Awami League leaders, including Sheikh Hasina, who faces convictions linked to the deaths of over 1,400 Bangladeshis.The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Bangladesh has found crores of Taka in suspicious financial transactions in bank accounts linked to the prime accused Faisal Karim Masud and his associates."The transactions may be linked to money laundering, organized crime and possible terrorist financing," it added.

Recent reporting and commentary note anti-India anger on Bangladeshi streets, tit-for-tat diplomatic démarches, and growing fears that connectivity and trade gains of India of the past decade could stall or unravel if both sides keep “feeding the fire.”

How we got here?

The Scroll analysis makes an important point: Indian political discourse and sections of media have treated Bangladesh’s transition predominantly as a security problem—casting suspicion on the post-Hasina interim order, amplifying anti-Dhaka soundbites, and framing student-led mobilizations as radical threats. That reactive posture, the article argues, is pouring fuel on already volatile sentiment inside Bangladesh.

Compounding the narrative spiral are symbolically charged decisions—particularly the continued presence of Hasina in India after her ouster—that many Bangladeshis read as New Delhi’s political bet on the old order. These optics are not trivial; they shape public opinion and can harden new political elites against engagement. Independent analysts warn that the chill in Dhaka–New Delhi ties is no longer just diplomatic—it’s hitting India’s bottom line. The downturn in Bangladeshi medical tourism, once a billion-dollar lifeline for Indian hospitals, underscores how political missteps are translating into economic pain.

What the July Revolution demanded—and why it matters for external relations

My own and collaborative essaysemphasized that Bangladesh’s youth-led uprising was anchored in accountability, rule of law, and dignity—a rejection of cronyism, politicized institutions, the weaponization of security agencies, and Indian hegemony. We called for a National Accountability Ordinance, an empowered anti-corruption bureau, and swift asset recovery to rebuild trust and deliver tangible economic relief—paired with firm guarantees of minority protection and communal harmony so no actor could hijack the transition with polarizing provocations.

These domestic priorities inevitably shape foreign policy. A government pursuing systemic reform at home needs predictable, non-interfering neighbors abroad. Conversely, a neighbor that signals partiality—whether through sanctuary politics (of providing refuge or safe haven to political figures, dissidents, or fugitives from another country) or securitized commentary (by framing a political or social issue primarily as a security threat)—undercuts moderates in Dhaka, empowers hardliners, and narrows space for pragmatic cooperation.

The escalation loop: incidents and rhetoric

Since Hasina’s fall, Indian media has unleashed relentless attacks on the Interim Government led by Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus. A torrent of fake news and manufactured narratives painted a grim picture of Hindu insecurity in Bangladesh—as if their very survival were at stake. Independent observers, however, found no evidence to support these claims, exposing them as deliberate distortions. This campaign fits a broader pattern of bigotry and intolerance that has come to define India’s political discourse under the current BJP rule.

Even India’s own Bengali-speaking Muslims felt the backlash. Between May and June 2025, Indian authorities forcibly deported and “pushed back” more than 1,500 Bengali-speaking Muslims—including Indian citizens—across the Bangladesh border, fueling humanitarian concerns and diplomatic friction. Inside India, Muslim homes, mosques, and businesses were torched, particularly in Occupied Kashmir and BJP-ruled states such as Uttar Pradesh.

Meanwhile, the fallen dictator Sheikh Hasina was openly hosted in New Delhi, where she accused the Yunus-led government of empowering extremists and destabilizing ties—amplifying political criticism from exile. India provided this platform to foment unrest inside Bangladesh. With funding from pro-Indian and pro-Awami League networks, many operating from Indian soil, anti-government protests and gheraos became an almost daily occurrence in Bangladesh.

Flashpoints now escalate rapidly: an Indian politician calling for reclaiming Chattogram; counter-threats from Dhaka to isolate India’s Northeast; tit-for-tat diplomatic summons; anti-India protests over Osman Hadi’s killing; and sensational coverage of communal violence. Whatever the merits of these claims, the perception of hostile intent is hardening—and that is dangerous.

If this cycle continues, the first Indian casualties will be connectivity projects, border management reforms, and the quiet technical cooperation that has historically cushioned the relationship from political shocks. The deeper risk is a structural reset—from problem-solving to grievance-driven posturing.

Here below I suggest ten practical steps for Dhaka and New Delhi.

1) Mutual non-sanctuary pledge

Issue parallel, public assurances that neither side will shelter politically sensitive fugitives or allow their territories to be used for destabilization. Create a hotline mechanism between interior ministries for case-by-case coordination and rapid clarifications. This directly addresses optics around post-ouster safe haven and related rumors.This step could begin with transparent cooperation on high-profile cases, including a roadmap for addressing individuals facing criminal proceedings, to signal mutual commitment to rule of law.

2) Calibrate media discourse and political speech

Encourage leading outlets and political figures in both countries to adopt de-escalation frames: avoid securitizing student-led activism as extremism and refrain from casting the neighbor as an omnipresent puppet-master. Editors’ roundtables and joint media advisories—facilitated by press councils—can shift incentive structures away from inflammatory sensationalism.

3) Reaffirm minority protection as a shared red line

Reiterate, in Dhaka and New Delhi, that communal violence and temple/church/mosque attacks are intolerable—and set up a bilateral minority safety working group. My August 2024 open letterto the U.S. Congressmen underscored how unverified rumors about temple vandalism can be weaponized; countering that requires transparent, joint fact-checking and rapid public updates.

4) Fast-track accountability reforms to stabilize the street

Advance the National Accountability Ordinance, stand up an independent asset recovery bureau, and publish monthly metrics (assets frozen, funds recovered, cases filed). Economic credibility cools politics; visible progress on accountability undercuts narratives of chaos that foreign media latch onto.

5) Rivers and energy: visible wins within 100 days

Announce near-term deliverables—data-sharing on transboundary rivers, pilot seasonal water releases, and expanded power trade scheduling transparency—to demonstrate cooperation still serves citizens tangibly. Quick wins repair public trust faster than communiqués.

6) Joint protocol on political refugees and high-profile cases

Given the sensitivity around Hasina’s status, Dhaka and New Delhi should codify case-handling protocols: humanitarian protections, non-political use of asylum, and clear boundaries against public mobilization. Transparent rules lower the temperature and reduce space for rumour-mongering.

7) Border public-safety charter

Launch a Border Human Security Initiative—joint training to reduce lethal incidents, community liaison boards, and shared incident dashboards. Media-reported flashpoints often originate near borders; human-centric protocols can turn borders from theatres of fear into corridors of normalcy.

8) Youth and university exchanges as political shock absorbers

Scale up student exchange programs, hackathons on river health and logistics, and joint scholarships. The July Revolution was youth-led; giving that cohort constructive cross-border channels reduces susceptibility to hostile narratives and builds constituencies for moderation.

9) A “no surprises” compact among diplomats

Agree that ambassadors and high commissioners will provide advance private notice of sensitive actions (summons, advisories, major public statements). “No surprises” habits prevent symbolic slights from escalating into public showdowns.

10) A State-level Apology from India

For decades, India has acted less like a partner and more like a hegemon—interfering in Bangladesh’s internal politics and prioritizing its own strategic interests at Bangladesh’s expense. This pattern must end. Nothing would signal a genuine reset better than an open acknowledgment of past wrongs. A formal apology to the people and government of Bangladesh would go a long way toward healing deep-seated mistrust.

Yes, this may be the hardest step for India to take—but it is essential for its own long-term stability and regional credibility. During the Hasina era, India enjoyed unprecedented, one-sided gains under the banner of “connectivity.” By leveraging overland routes through Bangladesh, India’s landlocked Northeast—the “Seven Sisters”—secured vital access to the sea, strengthening regional integration and maritime strategy.

India reaped enormous benefits: new cross-border passenger trains like the Mitali, Bandhan, and Maitree Express boosted trade and tourism; the Akhaura–Agartala rail link, Maitri Setu bridge, improved inland waterways, and expanded port access at Chattogram and Mongla enabled faster, cheaper movement of goods—critical for the Northeast, West Bengal, and Bihar. Access to Bangladeshi seaports diversified India’s logistics, cut costs, and supported exports. These projects didn’t just accelerate trade—they fortified India’s geopolitical posture, turning connectivity into a strategic asset.

Acknowledging past interference and offering a formal apology would not diminish India—it would elevate its moral authority and reset the relationship on a foundation of mutual respect.

Why this approach is realistic now

Independent strategic notes this year describe a drift from the previous decade’s problem-solving ethos toward mutual suspicion. Reversing that drift does not require grand bargains; it requires small, confidence-building moves that insulate technical cooperation from the political cycle while Bangladesh consolidates reforms at home. That, in turn, strengthens Dhaka’s hand with its own public—because citizens can see practical benefits—and gives New Delhi pragmatic partners rather than polarized counterparts.

Just as the July Revolution was ultimately a demand for dignity and accountability, a stable post-Hasina foreign policy rests on predictability and restraint—from both sides. The fastest way to cool tension is to change incentives: punish grandstanding, reward quiet fixes, and measure progress transparently.

---

Dr. Habib Siddiqui is a peace and human rights advocate with a distinguished career in operational excellence. He has successfully led Lean transformation initiatives across four major multinational corporations. His forthcoming book, Operational Excellence in the Process Industry: A Practitioner’s Guide to Lean Six Sigma, offers practical insights for driving efficiency and innovation in complex industrial environments.

Less government, bigger throne by Harry S. Taylor

Republicans have long sold themselves as the party of restraint, less government, fewer federal mandates, a smaller Washington footprint and more power pushed down to states, communities, and individuals. It is a simple, elegant promise that resonates deeply in a country founded on suspicion of centralized authority. Yet the modern Republican movement, particularly under Donald Trump, reveals a contradiction so glaring it borders on parody. The rhetoric of shrinking government survives, but the practice has been replaced by something else entirely, an aggressively centralized, personality-driven state orbiting around the White House.

Take the recurring Republican dream of abolishing the Department of Education. On paper, it fits perfectly with conservative philosophy. Education, they argue, should be local, responsive to parents, and free from federal bureaucrats issuing one-size-fits-all decrees. It is a compelling argument, and one that has broad appeal beyond party lines. But what is striking is how quickly this commitment to decentralization evaporates when the conversation moves from theory to power.

Under Trump, the federal government did not shrink; it metastasized. Decision-making did not flow outward to states or inward to citizens. Instead, it flowed upward and inward, concentrating around the president himself and a tight circle of loyalists. The result was not a leaner state, but a swollen one, a kind of political hydrocephalus in which authority pooled unnaturally at the top while the rest of the system struggled to function.

Trump governed not as a believer in limited government, but as a chief executive obsessed with control. Federal agencies were not empowered to act independently within clear boundaries; they were expected to reflect the president’s moods, grudges, and instincts. State governors were not treated as partners in federalism but as subordinates, rewarded or punished based on loyalty rather than competence. Even Republican-led states found themselves pressured, threatened, or publicly humiliated if they deviated from the White House line.

This is not small government. It is personalized government. It replaces institutional authority with individual dominance, substituting rules with whims and long-term policy with short-term spectacle. Ironically, this approach requires more intervention, not less. Micromanagement is labor-intensive. It demands constant interference, constant messaging, constant enforcement of loyalty. A truly limited government sets boundaries and steps back. Trump’s government hovered, intruded, and interfered.

The contradiction extends beyond Trump himself to the broader Republican ecosystem that enabled him. Lawmakers who once warned of executive overreach suddenly discovered an enthusiasm for presidential power, so long as it was wielded by the right man. Conservatives who decried federal intrusion into state affairs cheered when Washington leaned heavily on states to conform to national political narratives. The principle was not abandoned openly; it was quietly suspended.

What makes this moment especially corrosive is the way it hollows out the very idea of conservative governance. If “less government” merely means fewer regulations you personally dislike, while embracing sweeping executive control elsewhere, then the phrase loses all meaning. It becomes branding, not belief. And branding is easily discarded when inconvenient.

The danger is not confined to one presidency or one party. A centralized, loyalty-based model of governance sets precedents that outlive any individual leader. Powers claimed in the name of fighting enemies, silencing critics, or enforcing ideological conformity rarely disappear. They are inherited, repurposed, and expanded by whoever comes next. Conservatives who applaud a powerful president today may find themselves powerless under a powerful president tomorrow.

If Republicans truly believe in less government, they must confront this contradiction honestly. Dismantling a department while inflating the presidency is not reform; it is reshuffling power. Shrinking bureaucracy while expanding personal authority is not decentralization; it is consolidation. The choice is not between big government and small government, but between institutional restraint and personal rule.

Until that reckoning happens, calls for limited government will ring hollow. A government dominated by one man and his inner circle is not smaller simply because it flies fewer flags. It is heavier, more fragile, and far more dangerous. True restraint requires letting go, and that is something the modern Republican leadership has repeatedly shown it is unwilling to do. In the end, voters should ask not what slogans promise, but where power actually settles. When authority flows upward instead of outward, freedom contracts regardless of party labels. A movement serious about liberty must resist the temptation of strongmen, even charismatic ones. Otherwise, the language of small government becomes camouflage for something far less principled, and far more enduring. History shows such systems rarely reverse themselves without significant damage to democracies.

When the last letter falls by Felix Laursen

Four centuries of tradition will come to an end on 30 December, when Denmark’s national postal service delivers its final letters. It sounds like a footnote, a bureaucratic adjustment in a digital age. But it is not. It is the quiet closing of a chapter that once carried the weight of a nation’s heartbeat in paper, ink, and patience.

PostNord Danmark traces its roots back to the 17th century, to King Christian IV, a ruler who understood that power, commerce, and cohesion depended on communication. The postal service was not merely logistical infrastructure; it was an act of statecraft. Letters stitched together distant towns, farms, ports, and people long before railways or telephones. To end that tradition is to admit that something elemental in public life has changed, perhaps permanently.

Supporters of the decision will argue, reasonably, that letters are obsolete. Email is instant, messaging is free, and administrative correspondence has migrated online. Why subsidize a service few people use? Why cling to nostalgia when efficiency demands adaptation? These arguments are tidy, rational, and incomplete. They treat the postal service as a product rather than a public institution, and they measure its worth solely by volume and profit.

The letter was never just about speed. It was about deliberation. Writing a letter required time, intent, and reflection. Receiving one demanded attention. In an era where communication is endless and disposable, letters imposed friction, and that friction gave meaning. A letter arriving at your door carried a quiet authority: someone, somewhere, had thought enough of you to slow down.

There is also something deeply democratic about a national postal service. It promises that every address matters equally, whether in a city center or a remote village. When letters disappear, that promise weakens. Digital communication assumes access, literacy, devices, and trust in systems that are increasingly centralized and opaque. The postal service, by contrast, was tangible, visible, and accountable in a way algorithms are not.

Denmark is often admired for its efficiency and forward-thinking governance, and rightly so. Yet progress should not always mean erasure. Ending letter delivery feels less like innovation and more like surrender to a narrow definition of usefulness. It reflects a worldview in which anything slow, unprofitable, or analog is expendable, regardless of its cultural or civic value.

There is a symbolic loss here that spreadsheets cannot capture. The final letter will not just mark the end of a service; it will mark the end of a shared ritual. Generations grew up recognizing the sound of mail arriving, the familiar route of the postal worker, the subtle sense of connection to a wider world. These small experiences formed a quiet social glue, unnoticed until it dissolves.

Of course, societies evolve. Quills gave way to typewriters, telegrams to telephones. But those transitions added layers rather than stripping them away entirely. The disappearance of letters feels different because it is not being replaced by something equally public or humane. Instead, communication fragments into private platforms governed by corporate interests, terms of service, and data extraction.

What disappears with the last letter is also a sense of permanence. Digital messages vanish into archives we rarely revisit or trust to endure. Letters could be saved, rediscovered, inherited. They formed personal histories and collective memory. Historians will have no shortage of data from our era, but they may struggle to find the human voice amid the noise.

This is not an argument against technology, nor a plea to live in the past. It is an argument for balance. A society that discards its oldest connective institutions too easily risks becoming efficient but brittle. When everything is optimized, little is cherished.

On 30 December, Denmark will deliver its final letters. The envelopes will arrive quietly, without ceremony. Yet their silence will echo. Four hundred years after a king imagined a network of human connection stretching across his realm, that network will close, not with collapse, but with indifference. And that may be the most telling message of all.

Perhaps the deeper question is not whether letters are needed, but what kind of future we are choosing to normalize. If connection is reduced to efficiency alone, we risk forgetting that society is built as much on shared pauses as on shared speed. The end of letter delivery should trouble us not because it is inconvenient, but because it reveals how easily we let meaning slip away when it no longer turns a profit or fits neatly into quarterly financial logic.

Is President Bola Tinubu a Nigerian? By Tunde Akande

Nigeria must emerge as a nation and those leaders who are not Nigerians must be rejected. Ahmed Bola Tinubu is one of them.

Reading the headline I chose for this piece, I know your heart may be screaming: what again? You are quite used to the whole lot of accusations the president has faced the courts over and which at least Nigerian courts have given him a clean bill of health. I promise you this is not one of those accusations. But we must interrogate this question; Is President Bola Tinubu a Nigerian? The president claims to be an indigene of Lagos, the former capital of Nigeria, even though his enemies say he is an interloper there; that his state of origin is Osun and that he hails from Iragbiji town. Nobody has been able to establish that, no court has ruled on that.

We can safely say that we don’t know the secondary school Mr. President attended. Let’s just stop at that so that we don’t begin to mention his alleged non-attendance at the Government College, Ibadan over which there have been so many controversies. Some smart-aleck say all records pertaining to that have suddenly vanished from that old school. Who keeps records in Nigeria? But Reno Omokri who knows how to find his way round in God’s own country, which its current president, Donald Trump has turned to Satan’s citadel, America, after a very diligent search has, at least as he made Nigerians to believe, turned around to tell the nation that President Bola Tinubu attended Chicago State University. Reno was at the peak of his ‘amebo’ career (amebo is the name given to a career gossip by those who created the popular television soap, Village Headmaster on NTA many years ago) with Atiku Abubakar who wanted to be president in 2023 and so locked horns fiercely with Bola Ahmed Tinubu. At the tail end as it became a reality that Nigeria’s magical political elections would not favour the Adamawa born serial presidential contender, Atiku Abubakar, Reno Omokri tactically withdrew his search for Tinubu’s identity and began a great ‘Amebo’ megaphone for Bola Tinubu. Reno’s sudden about-turn was so professional that even his worst critics cannot but praise his dexterity at reading the political thermometer in Nigeria and turning to face the direction which will butter his bread.

You say Reno is not a good example of stable loyalty and that he is one of those who prevent good leadership from being recruited in Nigeria. But he will soon be on his way out of the country as an ambassador. President Bola Tinubu had nominated him and the Senate, which does the bidding of Mr. President, has rubber-stamped that nomination. If you also want to move up in Nigeria, you better take lessons in Reno Omokri’s school of political philandering. Who cares about truthfulness? Who cares about merit? Who cares for unity and brotherhood, Who cares about the progress of the country? Who cares whether the poor and the disadvantaged are attended to in Nigeria? As long as your bread is buttered, the poor can remain in their pernury, as far as your family does fine, other families can go jump into the lagoon. You didn’t learn Omokrism in vain, it costs you damage in reputation but you are there, you are at the top, let the critics go to hell. So blurring the edges of real investigation, the stuff on which David Hundeyin is labouring on day after day, has meant the security service chasing him from pillar to post, Reno Omokri has proved the authenticity of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s place of origin as Lagos and his well-earned certificate from Chicago. The rest is history. David Hundeyin will tell you the story of the pains of being genuine, Reno will tell you the sweet story of being a court jester and of playing to the gallery even if it means twisting facts and telling lies.

I hope your heart is no longer palpitating. I don’t mean evil but just to interrogate the question, is Mr. President a Nigerian. We must do this Reno Omokri or no Reno Omokri. We must do it David Hundeyin or no David Hundeyin. We must do this for the sake of defining in practical terms what Nigeria is. And we say from the outset very boldly, Mr. Bola Tinubu is not a Nigerian. In fact, as of today there is not a single Nigerian among the over 250 million people that live within the geographical space that is called Nigeria. I’m getting old now and have seen many leaders come and go in Nigeria. Sad to say, I have not seen one of them that is Nigerian. Perhaps if Obafemi Awolowo icon of issue politics in Nigeria and first premier of the defunct Western Region, had not been either rigged out or schemed out of leading Nigeria, he might have made a difference as a real Nigerian. Garrulous and proud Olusegun Obasanjo, who got himself the title of founder of modern Nigeria, is after all not a Nigerian. He pretended to be but it is very difficult to be what you are not in your heart. I had the opportunity of entering his Hill Top mansion in Abeokuta where I saw in one of the spacious rooms where I had to wait, for it is only more privileged mortals than me that can go further; a giant painting of the Owu chief standing so tall and dominating. Under that giant painting was written, ‘’Founder of modern Nigeria.’ When I took a look at that idol I thought may be it was a consolation gift to Obasanjo for his failed third term project. Up till today Obasanjo is still claiming that he did not not seek a third term. The more he denied the more credible evidence pour in that he actually did. How can Obasanjo be such a liar and still want to be a Nigerian. That painting showed me that Reno Omokri is not the only one in this ‘Amebo’ game, there were others before him and there will be many after him. Who coined that term ‘Founder of modern Nigeria’ for Obasanjo. Let’s give it to that person who I don’t know, he is a great sychophant. If Obasanjo is proud today, if Obasanjo always want to give himself the credit of the only one who has the solution to all Nigerian problems, if he feels he is above all our laws, if he feels he can do anything and get away with it, whoever created that ‘modern Nigeria founder’ title gave Obasanjo all those attitudes. It tells you there was an old Nigeria; that it ended before Obasanjo but there is a modern Nigeria that began with Obasanjo. Obasanjo in his delusions like to rate himself above iconic Obafemi Awolowo. If you could denigrate Obafemi Awolowo before Obasanjo, you will be his best friend. Obasanjo has written many books and he’s still writing, all of them very poor attempt at self-glorification.

But despite all these efforts, including the efforts of his own ‘Reno Omokris,’ Obasanjo is still not a Nigerian. His junior in the military, the gap-toothed and self-styled military president who also dribbled Nigeria so much so that he could be a Nigerian. But he failed because Nigeria was not in his heart. He told many lies, he made friends with people from across Nigeria but he is not a Nigerian. At the proper time, the ethnic bigotry, the religious bigotry locked up in his heart came out when his life was threatened. He cannot lay down his life for Nigerians. He told late Prof Omo Omoruyi, his friend, adviser and confidant, that the north made him, the emirs were in control and he would do whatever they wanted. Nigeria stops where the north begins. He must not allow the Yoruba to think that they are the only ones that can shape Nigeria; the Yoruba will learn the lessons of Igbo. That was the Babangida that took his wife Mariam Babangida from Asaba in Delta state, an Igbo area. Blood is thicker than water, and the north takes better pride of place over his Igbo wife and her place of birth. IBB was simply not a Nigerian; he had seized power to see what he could make for himself and for his cronies and then leave. In his eight years inglorious reign he became one of the richest Nigerians that when he came out of years of seclusion to launch his equally inglorious book, Journey in Service, he collected the biggest donation so far in Nigeria, about 18 million naira, in just one day and from persons he had sold Nigeria to during his reign. He sold that book of lies for a cover price of N40,000 so that many Nigerians who have become so poor will not be able to afford it. Let it rot away forever on bookstands, but do not let Nigerians who must be permanently kept ignorant not get it to read.

Pardon my little rigmarole, I had to contextualize the subject. Now I get back to the man in the saddle, President Bola Tinubu. Is he a Nigerian? Capital No. But he is from Lagos or Iragbiji in Osun State. That does not matter. He is not a Nigerian. Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore is a Singaporean by any means. In fact, he gave the world Singapore. He established it, he defined it and made it what it is today, a modern, united and progressive first world nation. He sacrificed so much for that nation that he said just before his death that if any of his successors made any attempt to mess the nation up he would rise from his grave and begin to fight. Bola Tinubu didn’t come to power for you and I. He came for himself, his wife, his daughter who calls herself the first daughter, his son, Seyi Tinubu, who goes about with a retinue of security that renowned Nobel laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka said will be up to a battalion. Wole Soyinka said that when Tinubu wanted to send soldiers to quell a coup in neighbouring Republic of Benin, he would not have bothered the military, “he would have just dispatched his son Seyi Tinubu and his battalion.”

That is how self-centered Bola Tinubu is about governance. Seyi Tinubu takes preeminence over all Nigerians. All Nigerians can die at the hands of kidnappers, bandits or insurgents, it will not matter a hoot, once Seyi is alive and fine. When President Tinubu stopped oil subsidy his concern was not the economy as it affects the majority of Nigerians; his concern was the small group of elites running the country and making laws to preserve their interests. All those calling themselves Nigerians, indeed they are not, they are Igbo, Fulani, Hausa, Yoruba, Ibibio etc, can die of hunger, it doesn’t matter. Once the interest of the elites is fed, they can as usual give some crumbs at the election time and Tinubu will be back in power. He promised during the 2023 election campaign that he will by ‘anyhow’ give electricity to the people and they will stop collecting estimated bills from the Discos. I’m sure I’m also a Nigerian but I’m still receiving an estimated electricity bill two years into Tinubu’s administration. I got one a few days ago. The distribution company does not have to supply electricity, they just have to give me bills which if I don’t pay will be added to the next month’s bill. I must pay N10,000 monthly whether I receive electricity or not. Hardly do I receive that much electricity any month. They have me by my balls because Tinubu told me a lie when he promised me the death of estimated electricity bills. He didn’t mean to perform because he is not a Nigerian. He is just passing by to collect his own loot, give to his family and his cronies and leave for another non-Nigerian sucker to rape the people. You wonder why Nigeria had to go to Benin Republic to quell the coup there. It was at the bidding of Emmanuel Macron, the president of France and a friend of Tinubu. Some Nigerians thought Tinubu took a deserved tough response because Nigeria cannot afford to have another enemy on its border. But when the Foreign Affairs Minister, Yusuf Tuggar went crawling before the youthful but tough Ibrahim Traore, the military ruler of Burkina Faso, much more African than aging Tinubu, Nigerians knew that our visit to Burkina Faso airspace was for surveillance and not an emergency landing as Tinubu and his co-travellers had told the nation. Tinubu again did the bidding of his master, Macron of France. Let’s hope Macron will not create another Paul Biya of Cameroon in Nigeria? You know what that means: a permanent dictator, a president for life. Up Tinubu.

Tinubu still has two more years in his tenure. He can change to be a Nigerian if he wants but I doubt if he wants. Almost all governors in the south are in the kitty of his APC party. Almost daily, all senators continue to cross over to his APC. Grapevine has it that it costs N250 billion to get a senator to cross over and about N450 billion for a governor. As I write, only Seyi Makinde, Governor of Oyo State is the only southern and middle belt governor that has not crossed to APC. Every other governor and senator has crossed to the APC. What does that mean to you? Tinubu is changing the political geography of Nigeria. If he has the south and middlebelt in his purse, the northwest and northeast can go to blazes. Is that not what Gideon Okar planned to do to Nigeria when he and his fellow coupists attempted to remove Ibrahim Babangida from power? If Tinubu is achieving that, is he a Nigerian? What about Tinubu’s appointment that is skewed to the Yoruba people? If you believe he is from that part of Nigeria, do you still think he is a Nigerian by those skewed appointments. What about the latest noise in the House of Representatives that there is a difference between what is published in the gazette and what the lawmakers passed as the Tax Reforms Act? We hear that all the powers of the legislature to checkmate the executive in the law have been deleted and all powers transferred illegally to the president. What is that? Fraud, if it is true. And can a Nigerian do that? I don’t think so. What is emerging? Dictatorship is what political scientists would call it. Nigerians must watch it. When we next vote we must scrutinize the character of those we vote for. Anybody who has a tendency for fraud or lies must be rejected because he or she cannot be a Nigerian.

We must vote for people not on their religious or ethnic credentials. We must aim for a Nigeria that is big enough to contain all of us. That is what Obafemi Awolowo said. I like the definition given by Professor Olayinka Omigbodun, foremost psychiatrist at UCH, Ibadan, on the concept of nation. She said while she faced an interview with Edmund Obilo on YouTube that -a nation is not a geographically contiguous people speaking the same language as we think of in Nigeria. Rather, a nation is a disparate and diverse people brought and built together deliberately by nation-builders. She has studied how nations emerge, she said. That was very pleasing to my ears. Nigeria must emerge as a nation and those leaders who are not Nigerians must be rejected. Ahmed Bola Tinubu is one of them.

First Published in METRO

***********************

Tunde Akande is both a journalist and pastor. He earned a Master's degree in Mass Communication from the University of Lagos.

Maples & Oranges #057 #cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

Taunting oranges in the midst of other fruity links,
constantly spreading the wares of their juicy gloom.

For more Maples & Oranges, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

The World Watched Gaza Bleed - Yet Human Courage Still Spoke by Javed Akbar

In the long shadow cast by the Bondi massacre, when public joy was pierced by calculated hatred, an older truth presses itself upon us: darkness does not have the final word. Human beings do—by the choices they make when fear demands retreat and conscience calls them forward.

Christmas arrives each year as a season of moral reckoning as much as celebration. Even in secular Canada, it summons reflections on family, peace, justice, and the stubborn hope that the lives of the lonely, the war-scarred, and the dispossessed can yet be changed. Some pursue that hope without religious faith, relying solely on human resolve—often with extraordinary courage and sacrifice. Others draw strength from sacred traditions, prayer, and a conviction that moral action participates in a purpose larger than the self.

As a Muslim, guided by the Qur’anic call to peace, security, and goodwill toward the People of the Book, I see no contradiction between these paths. The Qur’an honours Jesus, son of Mary, as a sign of God’s mercy, and commands believers to stand firmly for justice and the sanctity of human life. It is in this shared moral terrain that the events of Bondi Beach must be understood.

On 14 December, the first night of Hanukkah, the menorah was lit publicly—an ancient defiance of fear, a declaration that light belongs in the open. Hours later, that same space was violated by murderous intent, Jews targeted for the simple, courageous act of celebrating their faith. It was an assault not only on lives, but on the principle that religious identity may be lived openly and safely.

Yet even there, light answered darkness. One such light was Ahmed al Ahmed, an unarmed recent Muslim migrant from Syria who confronted one of the gunmen with his bare hands. In his final moments—terrified yet resolute—he chose solidarity over self-preservation. In Ahmed al Ahmed, we can see a light of hope: a reminder that moral courage is not the preserve of institutions or ideologies, but of ordinary human beings who, when confronted by evil, refuse to look away. His action was not strategic; it was ethical. Whether shaped consciously by faith or by an instinctive recognition of human dignity, it affirmed a truth shared across our traditions—that every life is sacred, and that courage in defence of others is the highest form of witness.

In a society that often treats religion as a private eccentricity, events like Bondi expose the poverty of that assumption. Religious belief, at its best, does not withdraw from the public square; it illuminates it. When a Muslim risks his life to save Jews celebrating Hanukkah, the hollow rhetoric of clash of civilization¹” collapses under the weight of lived reality.

At a time when Gaza, Ukraine, Myanmar, and South Sudan testify to the fragility of global order and the erosion of moral restraint, such examples matter profoundly. In Gaza, a devastating genocide has unfolded before the open eyes of the world—children starved to death, families erased, entire neighbourhoods reduced to rubble—a mass murder witnessed in real time, yet met with a silence and fatigue that stand in painful contrast to the rightful outrage provoked by Bondi Beach. One life lost to terror should trouble the human conscience; the slow starvation and annihilation of thousands of children in Gaza should haunt it beyond measure. That it has not done so reveals not a hierarchy of suffering, but a failure of moral consistency—one that corrodes our collective humanity.

Christians recall at Christmas the words of the prophet Isaiah: “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light.” Jews affirm the same hope through the Hanukkah flame. Muslims echo it in the Qur’anic teaching that saving one life is as if saving all of humanity. Different languages, one moral grammar.

If this season teaches us anything, it is this: peace is not an abstraction negotiated only by states, nor a sentiment rationed by media attention. It is a discipline of conscience, lived daily. If we could all be, like Ahmed al Ahmed, a small leaven of unity, fraternity, and courage, then even flickering lights might yet drive back the darkness.

May those who walk in gloom see a great light. And may we, together, help keep it alive.

¹The term The Clash of Civilizations was coined by Samuel P. Huntington, an American political scientist in a 1993 article published in Foreign Affairs. Huntington later expanded on this concept in his 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, giving it global prominence and policy influence.

---

¹The term The Clash of Civilizations was coined by Samuel P. Huntington, an American political scientist in a 1993 article published in Foreign Affairs. Huntington later expanded on this concept in his 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, giving it global prominence and policy influence.

---

Javed Akbar is a freelance writer with published works in the Toronto Star and across diverse digital platforms.