Instead, global media is talking about them. Now, the argument is what will people know what's happening at the ground level? The reality at the ground level is often misrepresented in media. Now, that is true for majority of news outlets. However, there are a few which look beyond the rhetoric, which look beyond the jingoism and focus solely on a neutral, unbiased, factual databased insight
So the question I had for you was, is it even possible to have a discourse where we shed that back, where we look at these are the problems which are clear and present right now. Doesn't matter whose decisions or what led to this point of time, what is the best path forward, what is the best path to kind of address the problem which are facing the country or a group or whatever it is, and how do we be fair moving forward?
Aayan B
@aayanisms · 5:00
And the other thing is, of course, there are two litmus tests in cricket, which is the Asia Cup. If India goes to Pakistan, that surely will be a sign, and the ODI World Cup. Then Pakistan has to either boycott playing the World Cup or come to India. Either way, these are big, these are non, quote unquote dodgegable events. So it's a binary decision and somewhere, one way or the other, the reality will emerge of the direction
Aayan B
@aayanisms · 4:46
So at least in the foreseeable future, I do see an interim, some work around. And then again, things will revolve tool as usual. Unless, like I said, there's a stop press moment. That'd be my limited view with the limited exposure that I have to Global Geopolitics or Indian Geopolitics
Aayan B
@aayanisms · 2:49
The larger picture was a similar culture across more number of regions which constituted a civilization, is my sense. So I refer it from that standpoint that it was never expansionist in the sense we've not read in history where an Indian king has gone and invaded Russia, for example, or China for that matter. That's not happened, but the reverse of it has happened, right? We have had Kilji and Lodhi, all these people come over and invade India
At some point they were asking rules, even Sri Lanka, right, that was often ruled by, I mean, you can call it part of the Indian subcontinent, so maybe you exclude that. But parts of Southeast Asia, I think are where many empires had the seafaring kind of rulers, I believe, to the cholera. And again, I'm not the expert, so you will have to look up into the research. But we've done that
Aayan B
@aayanisms · 3:19
Much to do. It it's just an extrapolation theory is to do with the geopolitics or the geography of the region. If you go back to a very simplistic definition, those who have had an unfavorable landscape, they've traditionally had to struggle hard and so they develop instinct to fight, to struggle to survive. On those lines, visually, say large part of India which had very favorable landscape, favorable conditions, lots of natural resources, there wasn't an inherent need to struggle beyond one's needs