Aglaia Interactive Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

24/09/2026

The real story behind the Noel Tata and N Chandrasekaran conflict

The public face of the current Tata crisis is a disagreement between Noel Tata and N Chandrasekaran over Chandrasekaran’s continuation as Chairman of Tata Sons. But the real conflict is much deeper.

It begins with one issue above everything else: the proposed listing of Tata Sons.

Tata Trusts owns about 66 percent of Tata Sons. The Trusts have opposed the listing and argued that Tata Sons should explore every permissible alternative to remain private. The Tata Sons board, after the RBI rejected its application to surrender its regulatory status, has now decided to move towards listing. What makes this particularly significant is that the same board had supported keeping Tata Sons unlisted in 2024. 

Why does this matter so much?

Because listing Tata Sons could fundamentally alter the balance of power within the Tata Group. A private Tata Sons gives the Trusts enormous influence as the controlling shareholder. A listed Tata Sons would bring public shareholders, institutional investors, market scrutiny and a different set of governance obligations into the heart of the group.

That leads to the second issue: who should ultimately determine the direction of Tata Sons? The Trusts, as the controlling shareholder and custodians of the Tata legacy, or a professionally managed board with greater operational autonomy?

Then comes the third issue: capital allocation. Chandrasekaran has transformed the group through large strategic bets in Air India, electronics, semiconductors, digital businesses and other new areas. Some of these businesses require enormous capital and have yet to generate returns. Air India, in particular, has become a major financial commitment. Reports suggest that concerns over the performance and capital requirements of some unlisted businesses have contributed to the differences between Chandrasekaran and the Trusts. 

This is really a debate about the future philosophy of the Tata Group. Should Tata continue making long term strategic bets, even when they involve significant short term costs? Or should capital allocation become more conservative and return driven?

Then there is the question of trust. Chandrasekaran’s relationship with Noel Tata appears to have deteriorated over time. His reappointment had already become contentious months before the present crisis. Chandrasekaran announced in August that he would not seek another term. The Trusts accepted that decision and began looking towards succession. Then, dramatically, the board reversed course and offered him another five years. 

And this brings us to the most extraordinary part of the story.

On September 17, the Tata Sons board backed Chandrasekaran for another five years and decided to proceed towards listing Tata Sons. Noel Tata opposed both decisions. Tata Trusts has since challenged the validity of Chandrasekaran’s reappointment, arguing that its rights under the Articles of Association were not respected. 

So this is no longer simply Noel Tata versus Chandrasekaran. It is becoming a contest over who defines the future of Tata Sons.

And there is one historical factor.

Ratan Tata was the person who could bridge the Tata family, the Trusts, the board and professional management. After his death, that bridge disappeared. Noel Tata now heads the Trusts, while Chandrasekaran represents the professional management of Tata Sons.

Perhaps that is why this conflict has become so intense.

The real question is, what kind of Tata Group emerges after Ratan Tata: one primarily shaped by the Trusts as custodians of the Tata legacy, or one increasingly shaped by a professional corporate board and management.

The battle over the chairman may simply be the visible expression of that much larger struggle.

21/09/2026

History of the Siachen betrayal, the only occasion when the Indian Armed forces were on the verge of a Mutiny: On the morning of May the 2nd 2012, officers of the Military Operations Directorate at the Army Headquarters held a Classified Briefing for the members of the National Security Advisory Board at Delhi. The presentation was on the strategic disadvantages of demilitarising the Siachen Glacier! They wanted to brief the National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon and the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The Army guided by it's Chief General V.K. Singh pressed the panic button on Siachen in the wake of the UPA Government's latest peace initiative with Pakistan. On April the 30th Defence Minister A.K. Antony told the Lok Sabha that the Government was holding a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan to demilitarise the Siachen Glacier. The Defence Secretaries of both India and Pakistan were to meet at Islamabad later that year to prepare the groundwork. The Indian Army which won the battle for Siachen was determined to prevent the politicians from surrendering what the soldiers won through their blood and sacrifice!
Antony was as usual only following Mr. Manmohan's peace script.
Way back on June the 13th 2005, addressing the soldiers at the Siachen base camp the Prime Minister said, "Siachen is called the highest battlefield where living is very difficult. Now the time had come we make efforts that this is converted from a point of conflict to a symbol of peace!"
Sources in the Government said the Prime Minister had endorsed the Siachen talks on demilitarization. For him, the world's highest battlefield and a snow capped symbol of the Indian Army's enduring sacrifice comes without the baggage of Jammu and Kashmir and forward movement (demilitarisation) would mean creating the right atmosphere for talks derailed by the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. Demilitarization was his confidence building measure offered to Pakistan. He too had become a victim of the Nobel Peace Prize syndrome trapped by the desire of temporary personal applause at the cost of the National Interest! It was his ticket to history.
DEAD AGAINST A CLIMBDOWN: "What is the guarantee that Pakistan will not occupy the heights vacated by India?" Asked General V.P. Malik, the Former Chief of Army Staff.
"The Prime Minister cannot compel the Army to withdraw based on empty, meaningless words not backed by any action," said Ajit Dobhal, the Former Director of the Intelligence Bureau.
"At Saltoro ridge we dominate the heights overlooking the Northern Areas and the land illegally ceded by Pakistan to China," said Kanwal Sibbal, the Former Foreign Secretary.
Siachen, 21,000 feet above the sea level is the world's largest mountain glacier. The temperature plummets to minus 50 degrees centigrade. But it is the Indian Army's permanent site of vigilance. In 1984 the Indian intelligence agencies provided concrete evidence about the Pakistani Army's plan to occupy the Saltoro Ridge which lines the south west flank of the Siachen Glacier. Pervez Musharraf was then the Skardu Brigade Commander and the officer in charge of the operations. On April the 13th 1984 the Indian Army launched the Heliborne Operation Meghdoot. Mountaineers of the Kumaon Regiment were dropped on the Saltoro Ridge to occupy the commanding peaks. Within 48 hours the Pakistan Army too launched an operation. Battles were fought in the extreme high altitude and cold climate but the first occupiers retained their edge. It is this advantage that the Indian Army was just not prepared to surrender on a platter to Pakistan. The cost of maintaining the troops there for India was roughly ₹ 5 crore per day. The merciless peaks have taken a heavy and constant human toll. The Pakistan Military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas told The New York Times on April 14th that about 3,000 Pakistani soldiers have died in the Siachen since 1984 and about 90 per cent of them were from weather related causes.
On April the 18th Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani pained by the death of 140 Pakistani soldiers in an avalanche at the Gyari base, spoke of the need to solve the outstanding dispute.
"Both the countries should sit together to resolve all the issues including Siachen," he said, "Pakistan deployed it's forces on the Siachen Glacier in response to the Indian occupation of a part of the glacier. The soldiers are doing their duty to defend the country and it is for the political leadership to find a solution!"
The tragedy changed the political hearts in Pakistan. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif spoke of the need for Pakistan to unilaterally withdrawing from Siachen.
"Let's not make it a matter of ego. Pakistan should take the initiative," Sharif told the reporters at the Skardu airport on April 17th after visiting the avalanche site.
But the ground sentiments were strong enough to force Sharif deny the statement. The next Prime minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Imran Khan told to India Today, "Pakistan and India should simultaneously withdraw the troops from Siachen."
Such sentences were music to Manmohan's Delhi. The Minister of State for Defence M.M. Pallam Raju was quick to welcome Kayani's statement. The Prime Minister's desire to convert Siachen into a mountain of peace got a fresh impetus from across the border. Twelve rounds of talks were held between India and Pakistan on the Siachen with no substantive headway. Pakistan refused to ratify the Actual Ground Position Line because it will prove to it's people that it's Army was never on the Siachen Glacier at all! The Indian Army was on the Saltoro Ridge itself while Pakistan was two to seven kilometres away from the glacier. But our Prime Minister was confident of overcoming all the hurdles on the road to demilitarization!
Since 1984 the two countries were jockeying for the heights. Musharraf mounted an operation in Kargil in 1999 to avenge Siachen but failed suffering over 700 casualties. There was a ceasefire during Ramzan in 2003 which continued, Pakistan tried desperately to force India out but failed Militarily. So she wanted to win through Track 2 diplomacy what it could not do at the battlefield.
The status quo was bleeding Pakistan more than India, for the Indian Army Siachen was not negotiable.
"There is no reason for withdrawal from the Siachen at this stage! Both tactically and strategically holding the commanding heights is to India's advantage. Pakistan have given no reason for India to trust her," the chief V.K. Singh was very clear in his mind.
If ordered to withdraw troops he would seek an order in writing and give his opinion that he opposed the withdrawal in the National Interest in writing.
"After that it's the Prime Minister's decision," a highly placed source in the Army Headquarters said.
"When the former Chief of Army Staff General J.J. Singh came under pressure to accept the withdrawal from Siachen he went public saying it was not in the National Interest," the sources said, "the present Chief will not go public but at the same time he will not allow the National Interest to be compromised at the altar of the Political Gamesmanship!"
In the wake of the Prime Minister's peace overdrive the Army through it's retired Generals tried to create an awareness about the Ground Realities and the need to hold on to the Saltoro Ridge. The Army drew a list of Pakistan's deceits since 1947 and shared it with the veterans to educate the country.
"Pakistan have violated every written agreement and verbal commitments since 1947. Why does our Prime Minister want to close his eyes to the hard facts and trust Pakistan so blindly?" Asked Lieutenant General Ravi Sawhney, the former Director General of Military Intelligence, "what are the guarantees that Pakistan will not occupy the heights vacated by India?"
"Months after the Lahore Peace Process in February 1999 the Pakistan Army violated the Line of Control and occupied several Indian posts in Kargil and the Kargil intrusion was the violation of the Line of Control signed and verified by both the Armies and the Governments during the Simla Agreement of 1972," said General Ved Prakash Malik, the former Chief of Army Staff.
The Strategic Community was completely opposed to the Indian Government's piecemeal approach to peace. They wanted Pakistan to stop infiltration, close down the terror camps, crack down on the terrorist groups hostile to India on their soil before there was any forward movement on Siachen. India suffered major casualties at the Glacier. The Government Statistics for the past 10 years revealed that the Army suffered 204 casualties in 2000 in Siachen, it came down to 198 in 2001, 201 in 2002, 187 in 2003, 23 in 2004 after the Ramzan ceasefire and just 2 in 2005. Defence Minister Antony told Lok Sabha that the casualties in 2011 were 26.
"The Army is well deployed in the Glacier. It's casualties are low and the troops are as comfortable as the situation permits. Pakistan on the other hand is in dire straits. It's troops themselves resent being in the inhospitable conditions and the deployment is hurting Pakistan! Should it deem fit it can withdraw unilaterally. India will not move forward," said Major General G.D. Bakshi, a former Division Commander and Defence Analyst.
"For India the core concern is Pakistan sponsored terror. Have Pakistan closed the terror factories? Have it arrested the Jamaat ud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed or Dawood Ibrahim? Have Pakistan closed down the mints that print fake Indian currency notes? Prime Minister Singh cannot compel the Army to withdraw from the commanding heights based on empty and meaningless words not backed by action," cautioned Ajit Doval, the Former Director of the Intelligence Bureau.
The Strategic Community declared Manmohan Singh's Siachen gamble as a strategic harakiri!
"Why is Pakistan so desperate for India to withdraw?" Asked Lieutenant General Sawhney, "because the Indian Army is strategically deployed to overlook and should the need arise interject the Pakistan China Axis in the Northern Areas! Holding the Saltoro Ridge is also important to block the routes of ingress into the Ladakh and Kargil sectors. It forms a part of the forward defences! The cost of withdrawal and redeployment would be higher than staying where we are!"
The Army prepared a Detailed Presentation for the Government on why India should not demilitarize the Siachen Glacier.
1. Indian Army is deployed on commanding heights, crucial for mountain warfare.
2. From it's position on the Saltoro Ridge the Indian Army can monitor the growing Pakistan China movements. Pakistan handed over large parts of Gilgit and Baltistan to China. Thousands of Chinese troops and Engineers were stationed in these areas!
3. Indian Army is deployed on the Saltoro Ridge beyond the Siachen Glacier and it is important for the Forward Defence of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.
4. Pakistan wants to focus on Afghanistan to regain it's strategic depth following the planned US withdrawal in 2014. Pakistan cannot afford to have troops on two fronts. Post 2014 it will once again focus on it's Eastern flank with its resurgent fourth arm the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Taliban and Al Qaeda.
5. The Strategic Community was livid, "first the shameful sell off at Sharm El Sheikh where Manmohan Singh accepted the inclusion of Balochistan, then the Thimphu thaw where Pakistan was let off the terror hook despite no action against the 26/11 perpetrators and now the proposed Siachen demilitarization! Dr. Manmohan Singh will do grave injustice to the Nation if he ignores the Army's sincere advice on Siachen," said Major General Bakshi. However Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal, the Former Director of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies argued, "today technology permits monitoring of troop movement and violation if any of the agreements. There will be a clause in place on punitive action should Pakistan violate the iron clad agreement."
Brigadier Rajeev Williams who commanded a Brigade in Drass concurred, "India and Pakistan need to look beyond Kargil and Siachen. Demilitarization will help the Army save lives and precious resources."
As his tenure inched towards an unglorious final Manmohan Singh was desperate for a peace trophy even if it meant a Siachen sell out! But he required to win his own Army first headed by an unpredictable fighter, that is where he failed!

21/09/2026

Mohammad Hamid Ansari revives Nehru's warning at IICC, forgets to mention voters called RSS a hope, not a menace...

There is a fixed calendar in Delhi.

Every few months, at India Islamic Cultural Centre, the same guests gather, same book is quoted, same speech is given - Nehru warned us, RSS is a menace, democracy is in danger etcetera. This Saturday, former Vice President of India, Hamid Ansari did the honours, launching another remembrance for AG Noorani's book "The RSS: A Menace to India."

Let's remember what they forget to remember.

Jawaharlal Nehru warned about many dangers. He warned about communal politics. Yet the same brigade stayed silent when Congress alliance partners gave communal calls from Tamil Nadu. He warned about dynasty. Yet they celebrate 3 generations of one family as idea of India.

AG Noorani was a constitutional expert. He also wrote that Article 370 was permanent. Supreme Court said it was temporary. He wrote RSS is a menace. The people of India voted for RSS-backed ideology 3 times in a row with full majority. Who is menace - an organization of 60 lakh swayamsevaks doing seva in floods, or authors who call voters menace?

And the choice of venue and timing is never accidental. Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) 2026 election week. Student event in Indore where "system captured India" is chanted. Now this event. The ecosystem knows its student wing cannot win hostels, so it must win headlines.

Ask a simple question - if RSS was such a menace, why did Hamid Ansari as Vice President and Ambassador continue to serve a system that RSS allegedly controls? Why did he never resign on principle?

Because Nehru is not a history lesson for them. He is a shield. When you have no answer for 2026's India - startup India, UPI, 25 crore out of poverty - you open 1947's diary.

The danger to India was never RSS. The danger was always the idea that only one family and its friends can define India.

It is a shame that Hamid had to make such an irresponsible statement. Or was he paid for it?

TIMES NOW Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Narendra Modi PMO India Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Republic BJP ST Morcha Tejasvi Surya Amit Shah Smriti Zubin Irani Friends of RSS Pratap Simha Aaj Tak Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) The Hindu Kangana Ranaut Mohan Bhagwat ABVP Karnataka PM Narendra Modi Piyush Goyal Dr. Sambit Patra Dr Sudhanshu Trivedi Shehzad Poonawalla

18/09/2026

..

/ Albert Camus /
"An intellectual? Yes. And never deny it. An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself. I like this, because I am happy to be both halves, the watcher and the watched. “Can they be brought together?” This is a practical question. We must get down to it. “I despise intelligence” really means: “I cannot bear my doubts.”
"Albert Camus, (born Nov. 7, 1913, Mondovi, Alg.—died Jan. 4, 1960, near Sens, France), Algerian-French novelist, essayist, and playwright. Born into a working-class family, Camus graduated from the university in Algiers and then worked with a theatrical company, becoming associated with leftist causes. He spent the war years in Paris, and the French Resistance brought him into the circle of Jean-Paul Sartre and existentialism. He became a leading literary figure with his enigmatic first novel, The Stranger (1942), a study of 20th-century alienation, and the philosophical essay “The Myth of Sisyphus” (1942), an analysis of contemporary nihilism and the concept of the absurd. The Plague (1947), his allegorical second novel, and “The Rebel” (1951), another long essay, developed related issues. Other major works include the short-story collection Exile and the Kingdom (1957) and the posthumous autobiographical novel The First Man (1994). His plays include Le Malentendu (1944) and Caligula (1944). Camus won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957. He died in a car accident." (Britannica)
Notebooks (1942-1951)

17/09/2026

Dear Scroll, Naresh Fernandes and Supriya Sharma , what kind of third-rate, malicious and deeply misogynistic journalism is this?

Pallavi Joshi is a four National Award-winning actor. She started acting at the age of four. She had already become one of India’s most recognised television stars at a time when many of the journalists writing this story weren’t even born.

I didn’t even know the P of production when Pallavi produced Arohan, a landmark work centred on women in the Indian Navy. She has produced and created more meaningful work than your collective reports ever will.

And yet, when you write about an accomplished, self-made woman, you choose to introduce her primarily as “the wife of filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri.”

Why?

Because apparently a woman’s own achievements are still not enough to establish her identity.

This is precisely how patriarchy works. Reduce a woman with decades of independent achievement to the man she happens to be married to.

Pallavi Joshi did not borrow her identity from anyone. She built it herself through four decades of acting, producing, television, cinema and an extraordinary body of work. She has never needed to compromise with mediocrity, fashion herself around a powerful surname, or seek validation through a husband.

If you cannot acknowledge an accomplished independent woman on her own terms and instead feel compelled to define her through her husband, then perhaps the problem isn’t Pallavi Joshi. Perhaps it is your own deeply patriarchal lens.

And , as someone who otherwise positions herself as a feminist, I am genuinely surprised that you would encourage, defend or allow such a headline merely for a few additional views. Feminism cannot be selective. It has to apply even when the woman in question is inconvenient to your narrative.

Here is what the headline could have said:

“Pallavi Joshi, four-time National Award-winning actor who played Kasturba in Shyam Benegal’s The Making of the Mahatma, revolutionised Indian television with some of its most successful shows, delivered a memorable antagonist in , championed human rights, produced meaningful cinema, and is a mother of two, also married to filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri.”

See the difference?

One headline tells you who she is.

The other tells you whose wife she is.

That difference is not journalism. It is patriarchy masquerading as journalism.

16/09/2026

.

With our attention splintered into a million pieces by digital distractions, it’s no surprise that reading for pleasure has fallen off in recent years. Social media, video, and other forms of “content” are eating reading’s lunch, and it’s not particularly close. And so, it’s easy to forget that reading for fun is… fun. Now a new review published in Psychological Medicine is offering a reminder of all the ways reading for pleasure can benefit your mental health, too.

According to data from the National Literacy Trust, reading for pleasure may be at its lowest level ever recorded with the deepest plunges among children and adolescents. It’s a shame because, according to the researchers, young people reap some of the greatest rewards from reading.

For example, a longitudinal study of more than 10,000 young adolescents found that reading for pleasure was associated with improved attention, memory, and executive functioning, not to mention better mental health, more sleep, and less screen time. Many of these benefits seem to be independent of the kids’ socioeconomic backgrounds (an important factor because reading for fun can also be free).

“Reading is a great way to support our brain health, develop important cognitive skills, and boost our wellbeing,” study author Barbara Sahakian of the University of Cambridge explained in a statement. “It’s something we ought to be encouraging from an early age, given the increasing evidence of its benefits, particularly to children.”

Per the team, developing reading habits during this critical developmental period may also lead to changes in the brain. Children between the ages of 8 and 13 with strong reading skills showed greater integrity in their white matter, the neural connective tissue of the brain that facilitates communication between different regions. In a small study of dyslexic children, an eight-week program that yielded better reading skills also resulted in increases of grey matter volume in areas associated with language skills and working memory.

Of course, reading doesn’t just benefit kids. A survey of over 4,000 adults found that those who read for pleasure showed more empathy, less stress, and a deeper interest in their own personal development. For example, books inspired 27 percent of readers to find a new job, motivated 36 percent of readers to travel, and spurred 20 percent of readers to take better care of their health.

In even better news, it’s never too late to gain benefits from reading, which seems to act as a shield against dementia later in life. A study of more than 5,400 healthy adults 55 and older who engaged in activities like reading (and playing games like chess) found they had a significantly reduced risk of developing cognitive impairment over a five-year period. Another study of nearly 2,000 people 64 and over showed frequent readers were less likely to suffer cognitive decline over a whopping 14-year follow-up period—something that held true regardless of educational background.

Additionally, reading clubs can provide the elderly with an important social outlet. “Shared reading groups and book clubs appear to provide additional benefits through social interaction,” Sahakian said. “They can help people feel less isolated and more connected to others, which has been shown to reduce the risk of dementia.”

So if you’re reading this, you’re doing great. But you can always do better. We’ve compiled a series of reading lists from both experts and Nautilus editors that are sure to spark your curiosity. Now put down your phone and pick up your e-reader! Or better yet, an actual book.

https://nautil.us/tag/reading-lists

16/09/2026

The Arabs never had any architecture!
CAN ART & CRAFT DEVELOP AMIDST SAND DUNES? - THE BEDOUIN DIET DURING THE 9th CENTURY
The Saffarids (867-900), though descended from a coppersmith, vaunted the Persian national tradition: they were kings, they claimed, when the Bedouin were still eating snakes, lizards and mice.
- The Spread of Islam, Michael Rogers

“These ends were attained……by the wealth, technical traditions and skill of the conquered and, doubtless, to a large extent converted peoples….There is nothing improbable in the suggestion already referred to, that the multifoil arch came from as far east as India.” The multifoil arches of the windows at Samarra are also to be noted. Signor Rivoira has suggested that this form may have come from India. There was certainly every opportunity during the days of the Abbasides for the introduction of forms from as far east as India. The multifoil arch spread as far west as Spain, where, in the mosque at Cordova, it is one of the most notable and curious features. The absence of any mihrab, or prayer niche another interesting point.
Moslem Architecture, Ernest Tatham Richmond, 1926

Again, Dr. Le Bon complains that English writers call the style of the early Mussulman architecture of old Delhi Pathan[1], which it is; and then he goes on to say that this style does not differ from that of the Arabs except by some Hindu editions. As a matter of fact, the Arabs have not, and never have had, any style of architecture at all. The architecture of the various countries that have different times embraced Islam arose out of Hellenistic, Byzantine, and Mesopotamian traditions, and contained no Arab element whatever.
– A French Architect in India, WM Conway, 1893

Conway , however, forgets to mention that Bharat had Vāstushāstra (e.g. Mānsāra Series, 7 volumes) for town-planning including forts, roads, temples, castles, multi-storied building, stambhs, ponds, canals, reservoirs, interior decoration etc.

[1] The oft-quoted phrase that “the Pathans built like Titans and finished like goldsmiths” conveys an historical fallacy. The Pathans were fighting men, not builders; the building traditions they brought with them into India, called Pathan by Fergusson, were those which Mahmudd of Ghazni and his descendants had borrowed from India. - Indian Architecture, EB Havell, 1913

13/09/2026

.

"What We Need is Here" by Wendell Berry.
Geese appear high over us,
pass, and the sky closes. Abandon,
as in love or sleep, holds
them to their way, clear
in the ancient faith: what we need
is here. And we pray, not
for new earth or heaven, but to be
quiet in heart, and in eye,
clear. What we need is here.