Modi 3.0 - Bharat
Re: Modi 3.0 - Bharat
The man was such a pompous windbag. No wonder 1962 deflated him - all that he had believed lay in ruins.
Re: Modi 3.0 - Bharat
Union Minister Piyush Goyal addresses India-Brazil Business Dialogue | Full Speech
Re: Modi 3.0 - Bharat
EAM: Opening remarks at 1st India-Egypt Strategic Dialogue
Re: Modi 3.0 - Bharat
Sudha Murty, Narayana Murthy Refuse To Participate In Karnataka Caste Survey, Social And Educational Survey.
Re: Modi 3.0 - Bharat
#ESTIC2025 - India's flagship event celebrating disruptive innovation across multiple areas of S&T.
From 3rd to 5th November 2025, the #ESTIC2025 will bring together leading minds from academia, industry and government to shape the nation’s innovation landscape.
The event will be inaugurated byModi ji In partnership with 13 Ministries and Departments, this conclave will explore 11 thematic areas that define India’s future innovation ecosystem. It is an opportunity to imagine, innovate & inspire for Viksit Bharat 2047!
Stay tuned for more updates....
From 3rd to 5th November 2025, the #ESTIC2025 will bring together leading minds from academia, industry and government to shape the nation’s innovation landscape.
The event will be inaugurated byModi ji In partnership with 13 Ministries and Departments, this conclave will explore 11 thematic areas that define India’s future innovation ecosystem. It is an opportunity to imagine, innovate & inspire for Viksit Bharat 2047!
Stay tuned for more updates....
-
nandakumar
- BRFite
- Posts: 1685
- Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37
Re: Modi 3.0 - Bharat
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pay-rs- ... mp-9462978
The divorce case concerns a Samajwadi Party MP. The person is not pleading that he is only bound by the Muslim Personal Law. He is only saying that he is confident of reaching an amicable settlement. That's why the Court has given 90 days. Wonder what the legal position under the new BNS law. Can someone weigh in on this?
The divorce case concerns a Samajwadi Party MP. The person is not pleading that he is only bound by the Muslim Personal Law. He is only saying that he is confident of reaching an amicable settlement. That's why the Court has given 90 days. Wonder what the legal position under the new BNS law. Can someone weigh in on this?
Re: Modi 3.0 - Bharat
PM Modi's speech during the launch of various youth-focused initiatives in New Delhi | Eng subtitles
Re: Modi 3.0 - Bharat
https://x.com/aravind/status/1979049424945828204
I believe this 100%
I am sure BJKP, GOI and morons of Babudom will get caught flat footed ... Even if you yell at them 100 times, no one will notice until the moment arrives and then they scramble ... How can we set this narrative and make it a useless campaign?
I got a good hunch of farmer and other protests being instigated in India coming winter by the USDS by using fake news, their infiltrated orgs, and local politics to arm twist GoI.
We recently saw Trump's fake claim of PM Modi talking to him and "assuring me India will cut all purchases of Russian oil" and in the same line "I don't want to destroy Modi's political career." And we saw immediately the opposition in India starting to attack PM using it.
This was a silly and ridiculous attempt to arm twist India. But soon, by winter session of parliament, Trump will definitely claim Modi sold him India's agriculture and is going to allow all US agri products in.
And they will do it after getting a trade deal with India, where India may in some limited way, allow some access for US agri companies for other concessions. This news along with fake claims from the US will be used to stir up agitations in India against GoI and disrupt parliament.
So my suggestion is GoI must start pre-empting any such plans with proactive narrative and messaging that at least keeps their base together backing them, even if not able to control the opposition. Read my attached post.
I believe this 100%
I am sure BJKP, GOI and morons of Babudom will get caught flat footed ... Even if you yell at them 100 times, no one will notice until the moment arrives and then they scramble ... How can we set this narrative and make it a useless campaign?
Re: Modi 3.0 - Bharat
Q: How do you fight someone who lies so smoothly and is in a position of authority. No one can question their lies as offending the authority
Grok analysis
Dealing with a smooth liar in a position of authority requires a careful, strategic approach to avoid backlash while protecting yourself and potentially exposing the truth. Direct confrontation often backfires, especially when questioning them risks offending their status or inviting retaliation. Instead, focus on indirect methods that build evidence, maintain professionalism, and shift dynamics over time. Here's a step-by-step guide based on established conflict resolution strategies:
1. Assess the Situation and Protect Yourself First
Before taking any action, evaluate the lie's impact on you, your work, or others—ask if addressing it is worth the potential conflict, or if it's better to let minor ones slide to preserve peace. Avoid impulsive reactions; step back to manage your emotions, perhaps by discussing anonymously with a trusted confidant or journaling to regain perspective. In authority contexts like a workplace, recognize that the power imbalance might stem from your own feelings about authority, so reflect on whether rebellion or fear is clouding your judgment.
2. Document Everything Meticulously
Create a detailed record of interactions, including dates, times, witnesses, and exact statements—this serves as your backup if denials arise and helps you track patterns without relying on memory. Follow up verbal discussions with emails summarizing key points and requesting confirmation, turning potential he-said-she-said disputes into verifiable facts. This is especially crucial with authority figures, as it builds a paper trail for escalation to HR, higher-ups, or legal channels if needed.
3. Probe Indirectly Without Accusing
Avoid direct accusations like "You're lying," which escalate defensiveness and allow them to spin more tales. Instead, frame concerns as misunderstandings or seek clarification with open questions: "Can you clarify how that aligns with what was said earlier?" or "What details support that?" This unmasks inconsistencies without confrontation and keeps you professional. Present facts neutrally, focusing on evidence rather than judgments, to encourage them to come clean by offering a face-saving out, like redemption or better collaboration.
4. Build Alliances and Use Organizational Structures
If the lies affect a group, subtly gather input from others without gossiping—share observations factually to see if patterns emerge, potentially forming a collective voice that's harder to dismiss. When ready to address the issue, tie your concerns to shared goals (e.g., "This impacts team efficiency") and suggest collaborative solutions rather than demands. If direct dialogue fails, escalate through proper channels like a supervisor's boss or compliance teams, armed with your documentation, while staying calm and solution-oriented.
5. Set Boundaries and Know When to Exit
Prepare personal boundaries in advance—if lies continue, limit interactions, avoid relying on them for critical tasks, or create backups for their unreliability. Ultimately, if the environment remains toxic and unresponsive, weigh the pros and cons of staying; sometimes, leaving for a healthier setting is the most effective "fight." Remember, you can't force change in them, but controlling your responses empowers you.
These tactics prioritize self-preservation and long-term resolution over immediate wins, turning the liar's smoothness against them by emphasizing facts and professionalism. If the situation involves legal or ethical violations, consult a professional like a lawyer or therapist for tailored guidance
Q: https://x.com/aravind/status/1979049424945828204
Grok analysis:
This X post by user @aravind, dated October 17, 2025, builds on an earlier August 2025 thread where the author speculates about geopolitical pressures on India, particularly involving U.S. tariffs, Russian oil imports, and potential trade deals under President Trump. In the main post, @aravind expresses a "hunch" that the U.S. Deep State (referred to as USDS) could instigate farmer protests and other agitations in India this winter through fake news, infiltrated organizations, and local politics to pressure the Government of India (GoI). The author ties this to recent events, claiming Trump's statement about PM Modi assuring a halt to Russian oil purchases was a "fake claim" and a form of arm-twisting, which the opposition in India quickly amplified.
Verification of Key Claims in the Post
To assess the post's assertions, let's break down the central elements based on recent reports:
Trump's Claim on Russian Oil: On October 15, 2025, President Trump stated during a White House press interaction that PM Modi had "assured me today" India would stop buying Russian oil, framing it as a response to U.S. tariffs imposed on India for continuing those imports. He reiterated this the next day, adding that he didn't want to "destroy Modi's political career." However, India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) did not confirm any such conversation or assurance, effectively casting doubt on the claim. Sources indicate no official Indian commitment to fully cease Russian oil imports, though India has been diversifying its energy sources amid global pressures.
Opposition Response in India: Indian opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, did seize on Trump's remarks to criticize PM Modi, accusing him of weakness or capitulation to U.S. demands. This aligns with @aravind's observation of domestic amplification of foreign narratives.
Potential for Protests and Trade Deals: The post predicts agitation over agriculture if a U.S.-India trade deal allows limited access for American agri products. While no such deal has been announced as of October 17, 2025, discussions on tariffs and trade concessions are ongoing, with Trump pushing for reduced Indian reliance on Russian energy in exchange for tariff relief. Historical patterns show external influences have sometimes fueled Indian protests (e.g., via NGOs or media), but @aravind's "USDS" framing leans into conspiracy territory, as the author's bio explicitly notes they post "conspiracies" and advises not to believe their content. No concrete evidence from reliable sources confirms orchestrated U.S. interference in upcoming Indian protests at this time.
Context and Analysis
This post appears speculative and precautionary, urging supporters to back the GoI and preempt misinformation. It echoes themes of hybrid warfare—blending diplomacy, tariffs, and propaganda—which have been discussed in international relations analyses regarding U.S.-India ties under Trump. However, the author's self-described conspiratorial style means it should be taken with skepticism; similar predictions in the quoted August thread (e.g., about Russian-Ukraine peace impacting oil discounts) haven't fully materialized yet, as no peace deal has been reached.
Relating back to your earlier query on handling smooth liars in authority: This scenario illustrates a real-world example where a high-profile figure (Trump) makes an unverified claim that gets amplified, potentially to negotiate leverage. The Indian government's response—clarifying without direct accusation—mirrors the indirect probing and documentation strategies I outlined, focusing on facts to avoid escalation while building a counter-narrative. If facing similar dynamics personally or professionally, emphasize verifiable records (like MEA statements) and alliances (e.g., rallying public support) to undermine the lie without offending the authority directly
Grok analysis
Dealing with a smooth liar in a position of authority requires a careful, strategic approach to avoid backlash while protecting yourself and potentially exposing the truth. Direct confrontation often backfires, especially when questioning them risks offending their status or inviting retaliation. Instead, focus on indirect methods that build evidence, maintain professionalism, and shift dynamics over time. Here's a step-by-step guide based on established conflict resolution strategies:
1. Assess the Situation and Protect Yourself First
Before taking any action, evaluate the lie's impact on you, your work, or others—ask if addressing it is worth the potential conflict, or if it's better to let minor ones slide to preserve peace. Avoid impulsive reactions; step back to manage your emotions, perhaps by discussing anonymously with a trusted confidant or journaling to regain perspective. In authority contexts like a workplace, recognize that the power imbalance might stem from your own feelings about authority, so reflect on whether rebellion or fear is clouding your judgment.
2. Document Everything Meticulously
Create a detailed record of interactions, including dates, times, witnesses, and exact statements—this serves as your backup if denials arise and helps you track patterns without relying on memory. Follow up verbal discussions with emails summarizing key points and requesting confirmation, turning potential he-said-she-said disputes into verifiable facts. This is especially crucial with authority figures, as it builds a paper trail for escalation to HR, higher-ups, or legal channels if needed.
3. Probe Indirectly Without Accusing
Avoid direct accusations like "You're lying," which escalate defensiveness and allow them to spin more tales. Instead, frame concerns as misunderstandings or seek clarification with open questions: "Can you clarify how that aligns with what was said earlier?" or "What details support that?" This unmasks inconsistencies without confrontation and keeps you professional. Present facts neutrally, focusing on evidence rather than judgments, to encourage them to come clean by offering a face-saving out, like redemption or better collaboration.
4. Build Alliances and Use Organizational Structures
If the lies affect a group, subtly gather input from others without gossiping—share observations factually to see if patterns emerge, potentially forming a collective voice that's harder to dismiss. When ready to address the issue, tie your concerns to shared goals (e.g., "This impacts team efficiency") and suggest collaborative solutions rather than demands. If direct dialogue fails, escalate through proper channels like a supervisor's boss or compliance teams, armed with your documentation, while staying calm and solution-oriented.
5. Set Boundaries and Know When to Exit
Prepare personal boundaries in advance—if lies continue, limit interactions, avoid relying on them for critical tasks, or create backups for their unreliability. Ultimately, if the environment remains toxic and unresponsive, weigh the pros and cons of staying; sometimes, leaving for a healthier setting is the most effective "fight." Remember, you can't force change in them, but controlling your responses empowers you.
These tactics prioritize self-preservation and long-term resolution over immediate wins, turning the liar's smoothness against them by emphasizing facts and professionalism. If the situation involves legal or ethical violations, consult a professional like a lawyer or therapist for tailored guidance
Q: https://x.com/aravind/status/1979049424945828204
Grok analysis:
This X post by user @aravind, dated October 17, 2025, builds on an earlier August 2025 thread where the author speculates about geopolitical pressures on India, particularly involving U.S. tariffs, Russian oil imports, and potential trade deals under President Trump. In the main post, @aravind expresses a "hunch" that the U.S. Deep State (referred to as USDS) could instigate farmer protests and other agitations in India this winter through fake news, infiltrated organizations, and local politics to pressure the Government of India (GoI). The author ties this to recent events, claiming Trump's statement about PM Modi assuring a halt to Russian oil purchases was a "fake claim" and a form of arm-twisting, which the opposition in India quickly amplified.
Verification of Key Claims in the Post
To assess the post's assertions, let's break down the central elements based on recent reports:
Trump's Claim on Russian Oil: On October 15, 2025, President Trump stated during a White House press interaction that PM Modi had "assured me today" India would stop buying Russian oil, framing it as a response to U.S. tariffs imposed on India for continuing those imports. He reiterated this the next day, adding that he didn't want to "destroy Modi's political career." However, India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) did not confirm any such conversation or assurance, effectively casting doubt on the claim. Sources indicate no official Indian commitment to fully cease Russian oil imports, though India has been diversifying its energy sources amid global pressures.
Opposition Response in India: Indian opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, did seize on Trump's remarks to criticize PM Modi, accusing him of weakness or capitulation to U.S. demands. This aligns with @aravind's observation of domestic amplification of foreign narratives.
Potential for Protests and Trade Deals: The post predicts agitation over agriculture if a U.S.-India trade deal allows limited access for American agri products. While no such deal has been announced as of October 17, 2025, discussions on tariffs and trade concessions are ongoing, with Trump pushing for reduced Indian reliance on Russian energy in exchange for tariff relief. Historical patterns show external influences have sometimes fueled Indian protests (e.g., via NGOs or media), but @aravind's "USDS" framing leans into conspiracy territory, as the author's bio explicitly notes they post "conspiracies" and advises not to believe their content. No concrete evidence from reliable sources confirms orchestrated U.S. interference in upcoming Indian protests at this time.
Context and Analysis
This post appears speculative and precautionary, urging supporters to back the GoI and preempt misinformation. It echoes themes of hybrid warfare—blending diplomacy, tariffs, and propaganda—which have been discussed in international relations analyses regarding U.S.-India ties under Trump. However, the author's self-described conspiratorial style means it should be taken with skepticism; similar predictions in the quoted August thread (e.g., about Russian-Ukraine peace impacting oil discounts) haven't fully materialized yet, as no peace deal has been reached.
Relating back to your earlier query on handling smooth liars in authority: This scenario illustrates a real-world example where a high-profile figure (Trump) makes an unverified claim that gets amplified, potentially to negotiate leverage. The Indian government's response—clarifying without direct accusation—mirrors the indirect probing and documentation strategies I outlined, focusing on facts to avoid escalation while building a counter-narrative. If facing similar dynamics personally or professionally, emphasize verifiable records (like MEA statements) and alliances (e.g., rallying public support) to undermine the lie without offending the authority directly
Re: Modi 3.0 - Bharat
https://x.com/MumbaichaDon/status/1978825267196920184
SIDES ARE PICKED! US chose Pakistan, Bharat has chosen Afghanistan.
THIS STATEMENT FROM BHARAT IS BIG!
“We are closely monitoring the situation. Three things are clear –
1. Pakistan hosts terr0ri$t orgñs & sponsors terr0ri$t activities
2. it is an old practice of Pakistan to blame its neighbors for its own internal failures
3. Pakistan is infuriated with Afghanistan exercising sovereignty over its own territories. INDIA REMAINS FULLY COMMITTED TO THE SOVEREIGNTY, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, AND INDEPENDENCE OF AFGHANISTAN.”
SIDES ARE PICKED! US chose Pakistan, Bharat has chosen Afghanistan.
THIS STATEMENT FROM BHARAT IS BIG!
“We are closely monitoring the situation. Three things are clear –
1. Pakistan hosts terr0ri$t orgñs & sponsors terr0ri$t activities
2. it is an old practice of Pakistan to blame its neighbors for its own internal failures
3. Pakistan is infuriated with Afghanistan exercising sovereignty over its own territories. INDIA REMAINS FULLY COMMITTED TO THE SOVEREIGNTY, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, AND INDEPENDENCE OF AFGHANISTAN.”
Re: Modi 3.0 - Bharat
NDTV CEO Rahul Kanwal Welcomes PM Modi At NDTV World Summit
Re: Modi 3.0 - Bharat
> Sudha Murty, Narayana Murthy Refuse To Participate In Karnataka Caste Survey, Social And Educational Survey.
@chetak gaaru, and others who are watching the INC/Communists in Bharat.
What does this mean? Are they objecting only to caste census or any census at all? Does this census have questions on religion as well?
@chetak gaaru, and others who are watching the INC/Communists in Bharat.
What does this mean? Are they objecting only to caste census or any census at all? Does this census have questions on religion as well?