Q. Do you think the Indian diaspora in the US views Trump’s tariffs as a setback to the growing U.S.-India trade partnership or just part of a tough negotiation strategy?A. That’s a very important question. At first glance, when you read a headline like “Trump imposes 25% tariff,” it hits you hard, almost like a jolt. But in hindsight, the picture is more nuanced.&nbsp;Within the Indian diaspora, reactions are mixed. Some people feel this move could disrupt everything, especially at a time when the US and India have been building such strong ties. There’s definite concern about how this tariff might affect US-India trade, particularly because we’re two friendly nations. Over the last four to five years, there has been consistent engagement. Prime Minister Modi has met with several US Presidents, starting with the Obama administration, then Biden, and now Trump. Those meetings have always signalled a move toward a deeper strategic partnership, one that goes beyond just diplomacy to meaningful trade relations.&nbsp;This tariff, however, introduces uncertainty. It could slow things down, even if temporarily. Tariffs often act like walls between economies, they’re not just economic tools, they can also be perceived as barriers to collaboration.&nbsp;But at the same time, the Indian diaspora understands the strength and resilience of India’s economy. We believe this gap can be bridged, through innovation, STEM, AI, trade, and a shared vision. Both countries want to thrive. “Make India Great Again” and “Make America Great Again” don’t have to be opposing goals; they can align.&nbsp;What’s important is that we don’t let tariffs become walls. Instead, we need to find ways to build bridges or even flyovers over these trade obstacles. Ultimately, this could bring both nations back to the negotiation table. And I believe that’s the underlying effect here: a possible negotiation tactic.&nbsp;The diaspora sees all of this through a lens of deep economic, professional, and emotional ties. And that’s why, despite the challenges, there's still strong optimism for the future of US-India relations.&nbsp;Q. How do you see these tariffs affecting that mission and the broader sentiment among Indian-American entrepreneurs?A. Right now, India’s exports to the US stand at around $87 billion, and the overall trade between the two countries is in the range of $190 to $200 billion. The long-term vision for this partnership has been ambitious—we’ve envisioned a truly strategic, century-defining relationship, with a goal of reaching $500 billion in bilateral trade. That’s a substantial target, and until recently, we were marching quickly toward it.This sudden, unilateral decision to impose a flat 25% tariff is undeniably a setback. But it’s important to understand that most view it as a short-term challenge. We will find a way forward.&nbsp;What’s also important to note is that the concern isn't just from India’s side. If you look at the reactions from the Indian diaspora and, more crucially, from CEOs of American companies, there’s a shared concern, especially about the immediate cost increases this tariff will trigger. Take electronics, for example. On one hand, the US is trying to build supply chain resilience by diversifying manufacturing away from overdependence on a single country. India plays a crucial role in that strategy. Many American companies see India as a reliable manufacturing alternative. A good example is the iPhone, Apple has significantly ramped up production in India, which directly supports global supply chain stability. A 25% tariff could disrupt that progress and create unnecessary friction.&nbsp;Pharmaceuticals are another critical sector. Around 40% of generic drugs in the US come from India. If these tariffs make it harder or more expensive to source them, the question becomes: who ultimately suffers? It’s the American consumer. And that’s something we need to take seriously. If the goal is to make America great again, we must also recognize that great partnerships are built on mutual respect and balance. A strategic alliance especially one as significant as the US-India relationship, requires open negotiation and a willingness to consider not just our own interests, but each other’s as well. That’s the foundation of any truly healthy, forward-looking partnership.&nbsp;Q. Many in the diaspora identify as both proud Americans and proud Indians. How are they navigating this moment based on your experience, where the two countries may appear at odds economically?A. I truly believe the answer lies in time. We need to allow space for more favorable conditions to emerge on both sides. The Indian diaspora, in particular, views these tariffs through the lens of friendship and strategic partnership. A blanket 25% tariff, without consideration for specific sectors like manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, sustainability, and defense doesn't reflect the depth of our bilateral relationship.&nbsp;We shouldn't be swayed by headline-grabbing decisions like “25% across the board.” Instead, we need to consider the broader implications. If such tariffs are imposed, they may unintentionally give a strategic advantage to others. American investors and CEOs may start looking at Japan or Vietnam as alternatives. But in the long run, that may not be the most cost-effective or sustainable choice.&nbsp;India is a unique partner, diverse, technologically advanced, cost-efficient, and reliable. It’s one of the few countries that can genuinely serve as a long-term supply chain hub for the United States. That benefits not just big corporations, but also everyday American consumers. The average person shopping at Walmart, Target, or on Amazon should still be able to afford essential products.&nbsp;For example, if a product currently costs $10, what will its price be after August 7th? In September? October? Will we see a 20% jump? That matters, not just to importers and exporters, but to the average American family trying to manage their household budget. We have to think practically.Some in the diaspora also see this move through a geopolitical lens. There's a perception that this may be part of broader US pressure on India, possibly tied to India’s neutral stance on Russia amidst the Ukraine conflict. While that’s speculative, it’s worth acknowledging that trade actions often reflect deeper strategic calculations.&nbsp;But at the end of the day, both India and the US are democracies, one the oldest, the other the largest, with shared values and responsibilities to their people. I say this as an American citizen: it’s in our interest to maintain trust, fairness, and partnership. And the same holds true for India.Interdependence will ultimately guide us to an amicable solution. Neither India can ignore America, nor can America afford to ignore India. Especially with a 6-million-strong Indian diaspora in the US, there’s a deep human and economic connection that can’t be overlooked.&nbsp;I believe the resolution will come and it will be both swift and strong. Influential voices in the US business community and the diaspora will advocate for it, because sustaining the US-India momentum is not only important for both nations, but for the global economy.&nbsp;Q. Pakistan has proven conventional crude oil reserves estimated at around 200 to 300 million barrels and is ranked as the 50th largest oil importer in the world. Given this, what are your thoughts on the new oil pact between the USA and Pakistan?A. Absolutely. One key point that seems to be flying under the radar is India’s growing crude oil imports from the United States. No one is really talking about this, but since the Trump administration, India’s crude oil imports from the US have surged by 51%. That’s a significant development.This tells you something important: when it comes to trade, especially in critical sectors like energy, India is making decisions based on its own national interest, on what’s required and what’s most cost-effective. Crude oil is a major component of India’s import basket. It directly impacts our economic growth, foreign exchange reserves, and overall fiscal health.&nbsp;So, while conversations sometimes drift toward geopolitics, like US ties with Pakistan or other regional considerations, India’s focus remains firmly on safeguarding its economic interests. And energy security is a major part of that. At the same time, US oil producers are no longer losing market share to Russia the way they once were. That’s a sign that energy trade between the US and India is stabilizing and strengthening. India will continue to source oil from wherever it makes the most sense, based on pricing, reliability, and long-term strategic value. This reinforces the idea that the US-India relationship isn’t one-dimensional. It's not just about tariffs or defense, it's about energy, supply chains, technology, and more. And each of these pieces plays a role in maintaining the balance and momentum of this vital partnership.&nbsp;Q. In closing, how do you foresee this evolving in the future? Is there potential for additional tariffs to be implemented, and could we see a further increase in figures for the United States and India? The current 25% rate may well rise. What is your perspective on this trajectory?A. I’m not going to get into the number game, whether the tariff ends up being 15%, 20%, 25%, or even higher. What really matters is how both Indian Americans and Americans navigate this moment. And I believe they do so by leaning into their dual identity—not as a weakness, but as a strength.This is a time for advocacy, for pushing toward a trade deal that protects US economic interests, while also expressing pride in India’s resilience and the strength of the India–US. relationship. We must maintain our faith in this partnership, not just as a bilateral connection, but as one with long-term global significance. As I mentioned earlier, this is a strategic partnership, one that matters not only to India and America, but to the world. That’s why our focus should be on dialogue, on strategic compromises, on balanced negotiations. We must reflect the belief that these current economic tensions are temporary, short-term hurdles, not ruptures. We believe in the shared vision of India and America. We believe in our shared democratic values. And I remain hopeful, very hopeful, that this will lead to a strategic resolution. One that results in a trade deal both countries can be proud of—mutually beneficial, sustainable, and long-term.

WION spoke to Rakesh Malhotra CEO and President of Global Natural Resources Inc, who shared insights on the evolving US-India trade relationship. He emphasised the importance of strategic partnership, mutual respect for a balanced resolution despite current tariff challenges.

Q. Do you think the Indian diaspora in the US views Trump’s tariffs as a setback to the growing U.S.-India trade partnership or just part of a tough negotiation strategy? A. That’s a very important question. At first glance, when you read a headline like “Trump imposes 25% tariff,” it hits you hard, almost like a jolt. But in hindsight, the picture is more nuanced. Within the Indian diaspora, reactions are mixed. Some people feel this move could disrupt everything, especially at a time when the US and India have been building such strong ties. There’s definite concern about how this tariff might affect US-India trade, particularly because we’re two friendly nations. Over the last four to five years, there has been consistent engagement. Prime Minister Modi has met with several US Presidents, starting with the Obama administration, then Biden, and now Trump. Those meetings have always signalled a move toward a deeper strategic partnership, one that goes beyond just diplomacy to meaningful trade relations. This tariff, however, introduces uncertainty. It could slow things down, even if temporarily. Tariffs often act like walls between economies, they’re not just economic tools, they can also be perceived as barriers to collaboration. But at the same time, the Indian diaspora understands the strength and resilience of India’s economy. We believe this gap can be bridged, through innovation, STEM, AI, trade, and a shared vision. Both countries want to thrive. “Make India Great Again” and “Make America Great Again” don’t have to be opposing goals; they can align. What’s important is that we don’t let tariffs become walls. Instead, we need to find ways to build bridges or even flyovers over these trade obstacles. Ultimately, this could bring both nations back to the negotiation table. And I believe that’s the underlying effect here: a possible negotiation tactic. The diaspora sees all of this through a lens of deep economic, professional, and emotional ties. And that’s why, despite the challenges, there's still strong optimism for the future of US-India relations. Q. How do you see these tariffs affecting that mission and the broader sentiment among Indian-American entrepreneurs? A. Right now, India’s exports to the US stand at around $87 billion, and the overall trade between the two countries is in the range of $190 to $200 billion. The long-term vision for this partnership has been ambitious—we’ve envisioned a truly strategic, century-defining relationship, with a goal of reaching $500 billion in bilateral trade. That’s a substantial target, and until recently, we were marching quickly toward it. This sudden, unilateral decision to impose a flat 25% tariff is undeniably a setback. But it’s important to understand that most view it as a short-term challenge. We will find a way forward. What’s also important to note is that the concern isn't just from India’s side. If you look at the reactions from the Indian diaspora and, more crucially, from CEOs of American companies, there’s a shared concern, especially about the immediate cost increases this tariff will trigger. Take electronics, for example. On one hand, the US is trying to build supply chain resilience by diversifying manufacturing away from overdependence on a single country. India plays a crucial role in that strategy. Many American companies see India as a reliable manufacturing alternative. A good example is the iPhone, Apple has significantly ramped up production in India, which directly supports global supply chain stability. A 25% tariff could disrupt that progress and create unnecessary friction. Pharmaceuticals are another critical sector. Around 40% of generic drugs in the US come from India. If these tariffs make it harder or more expensive to source them, the question becomes: who ultimately suffers? It’s the American consumer. And that’s something we need to take seriously. If the goal is to make America great again, we must also recognize that great partnerships are built on mutual respect and balance. A strategic alliance especially one as significant as the US-India relationship, requires open negotiation and a willingness to consider not just our own interests, but each other’s as well. That’s the foundation of any truly healthy, forward-looking partnership. Q. Many in the diaspora identify as both proud Americans and proud Indians. How are they navigating this moment based on your experience, where the two countries may appear at odds economically? A. I truly believe the answer lies in time. We need to allow space for more favorable conditions to emerge on both sides. The Indian diaspora, in particular, views these tariffs through the lens of friendship and strategic partnership. A blanket 25% tariff, without consideration for specific sectors like manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, sustainability, and defense doesn't reflect the depth of our bilateral relationship. We shouldn't be swayed by headline-grabbing decisions like “25% across the board.” Instead, we need to consider the broader implications. If such tariffs are imposed, they may unintentionally give a strategic advantage to others. American investors and CEOs may start looking at Japan or Vietnam as alternatives. But in the long run, that may not be the most cost-effective or sustainable choice. India is a unique partner, diverse, technologically advanced, cost-efficient, and reliable. It’s one of the few countries that can genuinely serve as a long-term supply chain hub for the United States. That benefits not just big corporations, but also everyday American consumers. The average person shopping at Walmart, Target, or on Amazon should still be able to afford essential products. For example, if a product currently costs $10, what will its price be after August 7th? In September? October? Will we see a 20% jump? That matters, not just to importers and exporters, but to the average American family trying to manage their household budget. We have to think practically. Some in the diaspora also see this move through a geopolitical lens. There's a perception that this may be part of broader US pressure on India, possibly tied to India’s neutral stance on Russia amidst the Ukraine conflict. While that’s speculative, it’s worth acknowledging that trade actions often reflect deeper strategic calculations. But at the end of the day, both India and the US are democracies, one the oldest, the other the largest, with shared values and responsibilities to their people. I say this as an American citizen: it’s in our interest to maintain trust, fairness, and partnership. And the same holds true for India. Interdependence will ultimately guide us to an amicable solution. Neither India can ignore America, nor can America afford to ignore India. Especially with a 6-million-strong Indian diaspora in the US, there’s a deep human and economic connection that can’t be overlooked. I believe the resolution will come and it will be both swift and strong. Influential voices in the US business community and the diaspora will advocate for it, because sustaining the US-India momentum is not only important for both nations, but for the global economy. Q. Pakistan has proven conventional crude oil reserves estimated at around 200 to 300 million barrels and is ranked as the 50th largest oil importer in the world. Given this, what are your thoughts on the new oil pact between the USA and Pakistan? A. Absolutely. One key point that seems to be flying under the radar is India’s growing crude oil imports from the United States. No one is really talking about this, but since the Trump administration, India’s crude oil imports from the US have surged by 51%. That’s a significant development. This tells you something important: when it comes to trade, especially in critical sectors like energy, India is making decisions based on its own national interest, on what’s required and what’s most cost-effective. Crude oil is a major component of India’s import basket. It directly impacts our economic growth, foreign exchange reserves, and overall fiscal health. So, while conversations sometimes drift toward geopolitics, like US ties with Pakistan or other regional considerations, India’s focus remains firmly on safeguarding its economic interests. And energy security is a major part of that. At the same time, US oil producers are no longer losing market share to Russia the way they once were. That’s a sign that energy trade between the US and India is stabilizing and strengthening. India will continue to source oil from wherever it makes the most sense, based on pricing, reliability, and long-term strategic value. This reinforces the idea that the US-India relationship isn’t one-dimensional. It's not just about tariffs or defense, it's about energy, supply chains, technology, and more. And each of these pieces plays a role in maintaining the balance and momentum of this vital partnership. Q. In closing, how do you foresee this evolving in the future? Is there potential for additional tariffs to be implemented, and could we see a further increase in figures for the United States and India? The current 25% rate may well rise. What is your perspective on this trajectory? A. I’m not going to get into the number game, whether the tariff ends up being 15%, 20%, 25%, or even higher. What really matters is how both Indian Americans and Americans navigate this moment. And I believe they do so by leaning into their dual identity—not as a weakness, but as a strength. This is a time for advocacy, for pushing toward a trade deal that protects US economic interests, while also expressing pride in India’s resilience and the strength of the India–US. relationship. We must maintain our faith in this partnership, not just as a bilateral connection, but as one with long-term global significance. As I mentioned earlier, this is a strategic partnership, one that matters not only to India and America, but to the world. That’s why our focus should be on dialogue, on strategic compromises, on balanced negotiations. We must reflect the belief that these current economic tensions are temporary, short-term hurdles, not ruptures. We believe in the shared vision of India and America. We believe in our shared democratic values. And I remain hopeful, very hopeful, that this will lead to a strategic resolution. One that results in a trade deal both countries can be proud of—mutually beneficial, sustainable, and long-term.

WION's Dhruv Goyal spoke to Rakesh Malhotra CEO and President of Global Natural Resources Inc, who shared insights on the evolving US-India trade relationship. He emphasised the importance of strategic partnership, mutual respect for a balanced resolution despite current tariff challenges.

'Tariffs must not become walls': Indian diaspora calls for strategic US-India trade dialogue

What are your thoughts on the overall economy so far? From your perspective as a scholar, how do you see the current situation? Specifically, with the US prioritising tariffs and placing itself first, what is your opinion on this approach?&nbsp;Yeah, look, I mean, at one level, this reflects a kind of view taken by the administration and by this president, that the U.S., for a very long time, has borne the costs of global public goods, right? So, setting up the WTO or the United Nations, or whatever it is, and that the U.S. has not earned the proportionate return from having borne those costs. So this is a perspective. There are many who would disagree with that perspective and push back, saying that in fact the U.S. has done extremely well, and that the kind of post-World War II, postwar trading regime or geopolitical system that was in place has actually served U.S. interests and the U.S. economy very well. But be that as it may, right? So this idea that America has to be first, and that other countries are exploiting the United States and so on, is a particular type of view, and the view that, for example, trade deficits the U.S. is experiencing, or has experienced for many decades now, reflect some sort of exploitative intent by other countries toward the United States. I personally disagree with that, but that's where the thinking is, and that's where the policy is emanating from in Washington, right? So very clearly, it's led to a very high degree of economic uncertainty, a very high degree of geoeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty. And where this all ends, we’ll see. We're still very much in a stage of transition. And, as I’m sure you’ve noticed as well, just over the last three or four months, even under this administration, there have been tons of announcements: the recalls of the tariffs, delayed tariffs, changes in tariffs. And so, you know, where all this actually settles, and what finally is implemented, I guess, is yet to be seen.&nbsp;&nbsp;Do you think the Indian diaspora in the U.S. views Trump’s tariffs as a setback to the growing U.S.-India trade partnership or just part of a tough negotiation strategy?&nbsp;Yeah, but given the very positive trajectory of U.S.–India trade relations both in an economic sense and a geopolitical sense over the last several decades, I think there was certainly an expectation that this would be continued, and maybe even improved, under the new Trump administration, especially given the apparently friendly relationship between the two leaders, Prime Minister Modi and President Trump. So there was everyexpectation going into this that there would be continuity or even an improvement in that trajectory. So, in a certain sense, then, the tariff announcements and the trade negotiations are, in fact, a setback. But let's be careful, I mean, the dust really hasn’t settled on this issue. The tariffs announced for India, even they are not permanent; they can be changed anytime, really. And as I understand it, at least, negotiations are still ongoing. So we’ll wait and see where things finally settle. Maybe this is just a tough negotiation strategy. Maybe it’s going to be the case that the eventual outcome is a trade deal that leaves both countries in a better position than where they are today. That’s entirely conceivable. And so, that’s yet to be seen. I think most people are just still taking in the news. In terms of the diaspora, I don’t think they’ve really had a chance to fully process what it is that’s going on. That being said, I’m sure that there are many who are surprised, and maybe a bit disappointed, by the toughness of the statement from the White House with respect to India, right? So this stance taken in these negotiations seems to focus very narrowly on the issue of international trade, trade deficits, and business, and doesn’t seem to give any allowance or room for the broader goal of improving economic and geopolitical linkages between the two countries. So I think there’s some element of surprise there, that the kind of positive connection that was building, and where the momentum had been growing over the past many years, including very recently, I would add, that somehow, that seems to have been set aside. And these negotiations are on a kind of track that seems to have their own momentum, independent of those broader considerations.&nbsp;How do you see these tariffs affecting that mission and the broader sentiment among Indian-American entrepreneurs?&nbsp;Yeah, current tariffs will certainly lower trade. And this is especially consequential because, on the one hand, one of the dominant themes of the last decade or at least the last half-decade has been this U.S. attempt to pivot away from overreliance on China. The so-called “China plus one” strategy, where you have China as a key supplier of goods to the U.S., but you’re also looking for other partners. And India was certainly one of the countries mentioned very often in that context, as a possible alternative platform for manufacturing particularly for the kinds of goods the U.S. needs to import. So that was an interesting window of opportunity, both for Indian businesspeople and for entrepreneurs in the U.S. And some of those opportunities were taken some very high-profile, including Apple setting up shop and opening a plant in India to manufacture iPhones and so on. So that, too, was something on a positive trajectory. But that becomes harder when there’s friction in the flow of goods between the two countries whether it’s Indian goods being exported to the U.S., or U.S. goods going to India, or U.S. companies setting up manufacturing plants and sending intermediate inputs from the U.S. to be processed and finalized, then sent back to the States. All of this type of exchange starts to become more problematic in the presence of tariffs. And so, if the tariffs are implemented and stay in place for some time, I’m sure there will be negative impacts on businesses on both sides of the border, and there’s bound to be some apprehension about that. That being said, I still think there’s an opportunity for India and the U.S. to work out a better trade arrangement even given the particular concerns expressed by the White House. I think there’s room for India to look at its own tariff regime, which is undoubtedly characterized by high tariffs in some manufacturing and other sectors, and ask some tough questions about what type of liberalization it can realistically undertake. One that could, on the one hand, satisfy American demands, and on the other, actually help the Indian economy itself. So this shouldn’t be seen purely as a concession to the United States. These are tariff reductions that could help Indian consumers, and also Indian producers especially if these are intermediate inputs coming in from the U.S. that would aid domestic production. In many ways, these goals are actually joint goals. If you think about Prime Minister Modi’s “Make in India” aspiration and President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” with its emphasis on manufacturing these two goals can be reconciled. I still believe a trade negotiation and deal could achieve both. And so I’m optimistic about that. I’m sure the business community remains optimistic as well. That being said, there’s no doubt we’re in a period of great uncertainty about policy. I expect this will hurt business sentiment and likely freeze, or at least pause, some investment plans and new business ideas that people were thinking about. And overall, when the whole concept was first introduced by the administration, they were proud to announce that everything was going to be “made in America.” But from an economic standpoint, we understand that importing goods from countries like China and others with cheaper labor and inputs often makes more sense than trying to build something like an iPhone entirely within America. Because at the end of the day, the costs of that approach are going to be felt by consumers. And ultimately, it all comes down to the consumer being affected by the cost of these decisions.&nbsp;Many in the diaspora identify as both proud Americans and proud Indians. How are they navigating this moment where the two countries may appear at odds economically?&nbsp;Yeah, let me take both of these slightly separately, right? So your first point about the benefits of international trade you're a good student of international trade, and so you know there are benefits to mutual exchange and so on. And I think that’s obvious, that’s visible. By and large, I would think that public sentiment in the United States as well as political sentiment over many decades has been broadly in support of free trade. And that’s reflected in the fact that the U.S. is a relatively open economy I’d say a very significantly open economy and has been for many decades. That being said, I think this kind of increasing concern in the U.S. is not completely unjustified when it applies to specific issues. So, if you reach a point where you're over-reliant on a particular country for crucial imports imports that may have national security implications then it’s very natural to recalibrate and rethink: how reliant are we on, say, China? We’re not talking about the import of Barbies and Kendalls here. If it’s rare earths, semiconductors, communications devices, and so on, I think it’s reasonable for a country to ask itself: what can we do to ensure our national security interests aren't threatened? Now, whether the response that’s actually come out of the White House is the right one to that concern I think it’s been too broad in its sweep. Alongside chips and sensitive technologies, the policy also targets everything else plastic toys, razor blades, every other goddamn thing in the world. So, it seems poorly targeted, if you will. So that’s the question about international trade the benefits of trade versus concerns about over-concentration which, again, I’d summarize as legitimate, but perhaps not adequately or efficiently addressed by the current policy. On the Indian diaspora I’m sure there’s a wide range of views and reactions to recent developments. Some are hoping this is temporary and will get resolved. Others are more pensive, not just about what this means for international trade relations, but also for broader relations between India and the U.S., and even the U.S. and the rest of the world. There are immigration concerns; people are worried about the way the U.S. is engaging the world and the shift that appears to be taking place. So yes, there are many different concerns. But I think one important thing to recognize in the midst of all this and it’s important for your readership as well is that it’s not as if India has been specifically singled out by this administration. India has not been uniquely targeted. Very close allies of the U.S. like the European Union, Japan, NATO countries, South Korea, Mexico, Canada have all been in similar positions. These are strong military and economic allies, many of whom are part of long-standing trade agreements like NAFTA, and even they have been targeted by high tariffs and have gone through tough negotiations with the U.S., many of which remain unresolved. So from the standpoint of proud Indians and proud Indian Americans, it’s important to keep in mind that this is not something specific to India it reflects a broader policy shift. Of course, we can remain disappointed with the policy that’s valid but this should not be viewed as an action aimed solely at India. I’m sure everyone wishes for a smooth resolution that addresses the core interests of both countries to mutual benefit. And I remain optimistic about that as well.&nbsp;Pakistan has proven conventional crude oil reserves estimated at around 200 to 300 million barrels and is ranked as the 50th largest oil importer in the world. Given this, what are your thoughts on the new oil pact between the USA and Pakistan?&nbsp;Frankly, I was surprised to see that announcement as I think many others were. I didn’t know that Pakistan had major oil reserves. Maybe someone unearthed reserves that we were previously unaware of, and we’ll just have to wait for future announcements on that. And I’ll just leave it at that, right? Of course, if there are oil reserves and there’s interest in developing them, the U.S. is free to engage in those businesses as it sees fit and so is Pakistan. So I don’t know much more about the Pakistan issue, especially with respect to oil reserves. Yeah.&nbsp;In closing, how do you foresee this evolving in the future? Is there potential for additional tariffs to be implemented, and could we see a further increase in figures for the United States and India? The current 25% rate may well rise. What is your perspective on this trajectory?&nbsp;Look, my thoughts on this operate at two or three different levels. One, purely from the perspective of just going into the U.S. or India or any other country lowering tariffs would be a good thing, right? There’s a very long economic history of the world that shows the benefits of international trade, the benefits of freer international trade, and that really can’t be ignored. And right now, we seem to be going against that experience. So I hope, at some point, that what we’re seeing is just the positioning and posturing that comes with negotiations and that once those are complete, we’ll return to more reasonable levels of tariffs that support global commerce in the way it has done so effectively in the past. Trade has helped generate prosperity and lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the past few decades. All of that has been supported by a relatively open international trading system, and I hope we can return to that.&nbsp;On the other hand, I’m actually concerned and I say this as someone who works in international economics and trade, and who has spent time thinking about the global trade system, the WTO, and so on. This kind of unilateral action by the United States, as I see it, violates many of the rules and norms of the WTO. And that has left the WTO in a very weak position. It clearly cannot enforce its own rules when one of its most powerful members chooses to act outside them. That weakens the overall structure of international trade law the rules that countries have broadly followed since the GATT and the WTO came into existence. It wasn’t a perfect system far from it but there was a framework. And now we have to ask: What is the future of that system, if countries can just decide, with little notice, to pull back from it or violate its principles, and do so without consequence? If the U.S. can do it, so can others. And if arbitrariness becomes the norm, then a lot of countries facing economic or political difficulties may start to do the same. That’s a real concern, one of the potentially lasting consequences of these recent developments.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is an old point but one that economists and students of international trade know well: It is to remind your readers that when a country imposes tariffs, the cost is largely borne by that country itself. Sure, some of that cost may be passed on to the exporting country, because they might lower their prices to stay competitive. But for the most part, and there are many quantitative studies to support this the cost falls on the importing country. Even with the tariffs the U.S. imposed on China in recent years, studies have shown that 90% of the cost was borne by the U.S. by U.S. consumers.

Pravin Krishna, Intl Economics Prof, Johns Hopkins SAIS, spoke to WION's Dhruv Goyal and shared insights on the evolving US-India trade relationship. He emphasised the importance of strategic partnership, mutual respect, and optimism for a balanced resolution despite tariff war.

What are your thoughts on the overall economy so far? From your perspective as a scholar, how do you see the current situation? Specifically, with the US prioritising tariffs and placing itself first, what is your opinion on this approach? Yeah, look, I mean, at one level, this reflects a kind of view taken by the administration and by this president, that the U.S., for a very long time, has borne the costs of global public goods, right? So, setting up the WTO or the United Nations, or whatever it is, and that the U.S. has not earned the proportionate return from having borne those costs. So this is a perspective. There are many who would disagree with that perspective and push back, saying that in fact the U.S. has done extremely well, and that the kind of post-World War II, postwar trading regime or geopolitical system that was in place has actually served U.S. interests and the U.S. economy very well. But be that as it may, right? So this idea that America has to be first, and that other countries are exploiting the United States and so on, is a particular type of view, and the view that, for example, trade deficits the U.S. is experiencing, or has experienced for many decades now, reflect some sort of exploitative intent by other countries toward the United States. I personally disagree with that, but that's where the thinking is, and that's where the policy is emanating from in Washington, right? So very clearly, it's led to a very high degree of economic uncertainty, a very high degree of geoeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty. And where this all ends, we’ll see. We're still very much in a stage of transition. And, as I’m sure you’ve noticed as well, just over the last three or four months, even under this administration, there have been tons of announcements: the recalls of the tariffs, delayed tariffs, changes in tariffs. And so, you know, where all this actually settles, and what finally is implemented, I guess, is yet to be seen. Do you think the Indian diaspora in the U.S. views Trump’s tariffs as a setback to the growing U.S.-India trade partnership or just part of a tough negotiation strategy? Yeah, but given the very positive trajectory of U.S.–India trade relations both in an economic sense and a geopolitical sense over the last several decades, I think there was certainly an expectation that this would be continued, and maybe even improved, under the new Trump administration, especially given the apparently friendly relationship between the two leaders, Prime Minister Modi and President Trump. So there was every expectation going into this that there would be continuity or even an improvement in that trajectory. So, in a certain sense, then, the tariff announcements and the trade negotiations are, in fact, a setback. But let's be careful, I mean, the dust really hasn’t settled on this issue. The tariffs announced for India, even they are not permanent; they can be changed anytime, really. And as I understand it, at least, negotiations are still ongoing. So we’ll wait and see where things finally settle. Maybe this is just a tough negotiation strategy. Maybe it’s going to be the case that the eventual outcome is a trade deal that leaves both countries in a better position than where they are today. That’s entirely conceivable. And so, that’s yet to be seen. I think most people are just still taking in the news. In terms of the diaspora, I don’t think they’ve really had a chance to fully process what it is that’s going on. That being said, I’m sure that there are many who are surprised, and maybe a bit disappointed, by the toughness of the statement from the White House with respect to India, right? So this stance taken in these negotiations seems to focus very narrowly on the issue of international trade, trade deficits, and business, and doesn’t seem to give any allowance or room for the broader goal of improving economic and geopolitical linkages between the two countries. So I think there’s some element of surprise there, that the kind of positive connection that was building, and where the momentum had been growing over the past many years, including very recently, I would add, that somehow, that seems to have been set aside. And these negotiations are on a kind of track that seems to have their own momentum, independent of those broader considerations. How do you see these tariffs affecting that mission and the broader sentiment among Indian-American entrepreneurs? Yeah, current tariffs will certainly lower trade. And this is especially consequential because, on the one hand, one of the dominant themes of the last decade or at least the last half-decade has been this U.S. attempt to pivot away from overreliance on China. The so-called “China plus one” strategy, where you have China as a key supplier of goods to the U.S., but you’re also looking for other partners. And India was certainly one of the countries mentioned very often in that context, as a possible alternative platform for manufacturing particularly for the kinds of goods the U.S. needs to import. So that was an interesting window of opportunity, both for Indian businesspeople and for entrepreneurs in the U.S. And some of those opportunities were taken some very high-profile, including Apple setting up shop and opening a plant in India to manufacture iPhones and so on. So that, too, was something on a positive trajectory. But that becomes harder when there’s friction in the flow of goods between the two countries whether it’s Indian goods being exported to the U.S., or U.S. goods going to India, or U.S. companies setting up manufacturing plants and sending intermediate inputs from the U.S. to be processed and finalized, then sent back to the States. All of this type of exchange starts to become more problematic in the presence of tariffs. And so, if the tariffs are implemented and stay in place for some time, I’m sure there will be negative impacts on businesses on both sides of the border, and there’s bound to be some apprehension about that. That being said, I still think there’s an opportunity for India and the U.S. to work out a better trade arrangement even given the particular concerns expressed by the White House. I think there’s room for India to look at its own tariff regime, which is undoubtedly characterized by high tariffs in some manufacturing and other sectors, and ask some tough questions about what type of liberalization it can realistically undertake. One that could, on the one hand, satisfy American demands, and on the other, actually help the Indian economy itself. So this shouldn’t be seen purely as a concession to the United States. These are tariff reductions that could help Indian consumers, and also Indian producers especially if these are intermediate inputs coming in from the U.S. that would aid domestic production. In many ways, these goals are actually joint goals. If you think about Prime Minister Modi’s “Make in India” aspiration and President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” with its emphasis on manufacturing these two goals can be reconciled. I still believe a trade negotiation and deal could achieve both. And so I’m optimistic about that. I’m sure the business community remains optimistic as well. That being said, there’s no doubt we’re in a period of great uncertainty about policy. I expect this will hurt business sentiment and likely freeze, or at least pause, some investment plans and new business ideas that people were thinking about. And overall, when the whole concept was first introduced by the administration, they were proud to announce that everything was going to be “made in America.” But from an economic standpoint, we understand that importing goods from countries like China and others with cheaper labor and inputs often makes more sense than trying to build something like an iPhone entirely within America. Because at the end of the day, the costs of that approach are going to be felt by consumers. And ultimately, it all comes down to the consumer being affected by the cost of these decisions. Many in the diaspora identify as both proud Americans and proud Indians. How are they navigating this moment where the two countries may appear at odds economically? Yeah, let me take both of these slightly separately, right? So your first point about the benefits of international trade you're a good student of international trade, and so you know there are benefits to mutual exchange and so on. And I think that’s obvious, that’s visible. By and large, I would think that public sentiment in the United States as well as political sentiment over many decades has been broadly in support of free trade. And that’s reflected in the fact that the U.S. is a relatively open economy I’d say a very significantly open economy and has been for many decades. That being said, I think this kind of increasing concern in the U.S. is not completely unjustified when it applies to specific issues. So, if you reach a point where you're over-reliant on a particular country for crucial imports imports that may have national security implications then it’s very natural to recalibrate and rethink: how reliant are we on, say, China? We’re not talking about the import of Barbies and Kendalls here. If it’s rare earths, semiconductors, communications devices, and so on, I think it’s reasonable for a country to ask itself: what can we do to ensure our national security interests aren't threatened? Now, whether the response that’s actually come out of the White House is the right one to that concern I think it’s been too broad in its sweep. Alongside chips and sensitive technologies, the policy also targets everything else plastic toys, razor blades, every other goddamn thing in the world. So, it seems poorly targeted, if you will. So that’s the question about international trade the benefits of trade versus concerns about over-concentration which, again, I’d summarize as legitimate, but perhaps not adequately or efficiently addressed by the current policy. On the Indian diaspora I’m sure there’s a wide range of views and reactions to recent developments. Some are hoping this is temporary and will get resolved. Others are more pensive, not just about what this means for international trade relations, but also for broader relations between India and the U.S., and even the U.S. and the rest of the world. There are immigration concerns; people are worried about the way the U.S. is engaging the world and the shift that appears to be taking place. So yes, there are many different concerns. But I think one important thing to recognize in the midst of all this and it’s important for your readership as well is that it’s not as if India has been specifically singled out by this administration. India has not been uniquely targeted. Very close allies of the U.S. like the European Union, Japan, NATO countries, South Korea, Mexico, Canada have all been in similar positions. These are strong military and economic allies, many of whom are part of long-standing trade agreements like NAFTA, and even they have been targeted by high tariffs and have gone through tough negotiations with the U.S., many of which remain unresolved. So from the standpoint of proud Indians and proud Indian Americans, it’s important to keep in mind that this is not something specific to India it reflects a broader policy shift. Of course, we can remain disappointed with the policy that’s valid but this should not be viewed as an action aimed solely at India. I’m sure everyone wishes for a smooth resolution that addresses the core interests of both countries to mutual benefit. And I remain optimistic about that as well. Pakistan has proven conventional crude oil reserves estimated at around 200 to 300 million barrels and is ranked as the 50th largest oil importer in the world. Given this, what are your thoughts on the new oil pact between the USA and Pakistan? Frankly, I was surprised to see that announcement as I think many others were. I didn’t know that Pakistan had major oil reserves. Maybe someone unearthed reserves that we were previously unaware of, and we’ll just have to wait for future announcements on that. And I’ll just leave it at that, right? Of course, if there are oil reserves and there’s interest in developing them, the U.S. is free to engage in those businesses as it sees fit and so is Pakistan. So I don’t know much more about the Pakistan issue, especially with respect to oil reserves. Yeah. In closing, how do you foresee this evolving in the future? Is there potential for additional tariffs to be implemented, and could we see a further increase in figures for the United States and India? The current 25% rate may well rise. What is your perspective on this trajectory? Look, my thoughts on this operate at two or three different levels. One, purely from the perspective of just going into the U.S. or India or any other country lowering tariffs would be a good thing, right? There’s a very long economic history of the world that shows the benefits of international trade, the benefits of freer international trade, and that really can’t be ignored. And right now, we seem to be going against that experience. So I hope, at some point, that what we’re seeing is just the positioning and posturing that comes with negotiations and that once those are complete, we’ll return to more reasonable levels of tariffs that support global commerce in the way it has done so effectively in the past. Trade has helped generate prosperity and lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the past few decades. All of that has been supported by a relatively open international trading system, and I hope we can return to that. On the other hand, I’m actually concerned and I say this as someone who works in international economics and trade, and who has spent time thinking about the global trade system, the WTO, and so on. This kind of unilateral action by the United States, as I see it, violates many of the rules and norms of the WTO. And that has left the WTO in a very weak position. It clearly cannot enforce its own rules when one of its most powerful members chooses to act outside them. That weakens the overall structure of international trade law the rules that countries have broadly followed since the GATT and the WTO came into existence. It wasn’t a perfect system far from it but there was a framework. And now we have to ask: What is the future of that system, if countries can just decide, with little notice, to pull back from it or violate its principles, and do so without consequence? If the U.S. can do it, so can others. And if arbitrariness becomes the norm, then a lot of countries facing economic or political difficulties may start to do the same. That’s a real concern, one of the potentially lasting consequences of these recent developments. This is an old point but one that economists and students of international trade know well: It is to remind your readers that when a country imposes tariffs, the cost is largely borne by that country itself. Sure, some of that cost may be passed on to the exporting country, because they might lower their prices to stay competitive. But for the most part, and there are many quantitative studies to support this the cost falls on the importing country. Even with the tariffs the U.S. imposed on China in recent years, studies have shown that 90% of the cost was borne by the U.S. by U.S. consumers.

Pravin Krishna, Intl Economics Prof, Johns Hopkins SAIS, spoke to WION's Dhruv Goyal and shared insights on the evolving US-India trade relationship. He emphasised the importance of strategic partnership, mutual respect, and optimism for a balanced resolution despite tariff war.

US–India trade at a crossroads: An expert’s take on tariffs and diplomacy in Trump's world

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is currently the hot topic, but do we truly understand what it is? This technology simulates human intelligence and is programmed to perform complex tasks, analyse large amounts of data, identify patterns and models at speeds that surpass human capabilities. AI is already here; we have chatbots and generative tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot.Large language models (LLMs) can process vast datasets and generate content within minutes; this technology is transforming how we consume information daily. From art to education to politics, AI's influence is vast. The real challenge with such technology lies in understanding its impact across various industries and establishing smart, tailored rules.In the entertainment industry, whether it is Hollywood or Bollywood, AI is actively shaping content. It goes beyond scriptwriting and design; AI-generated performances are becoming increasingly mainstream. A great example of Computer-generated imagery (CGI) being used in Hollywood is Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016), where CGI digitally recreated Peter Cushing's Grand Moff Tarkin, decades after the actor's death. While some viewers, like @heyjpk on Threads, praised this, "I have ZERO problem with CGI Grand Moff Tarkin…recasting would have been dumb", others criticised newer CGI edits on Disney Plus as "unbelievably bad" and jarring (@ninthhostage on X).This raises ethical questions: Should we recreate the images and voices of deceased actors?Similarly, AI voice cloning is gaining traction on social media platforms. On TikTok, @ghostwriter977 posted a song, "Heart On My Sleeve," featuring clones of Drake and The Weeknd. Audiences liked it, Reddit user @galaxy_rae commented, "Umm, does not feel right," highlighting the uneasy grey area AI creates in music authenticity."AI is like any tool—it can empower artists without access to expensive studios, but it can also be misused. AI helps demos, but cannot replace real human emotion. I would not want my voice cloned for final releases," &nbsp;says Musician Raj Pandit , who has worked with artists like Salim-Sulaiman and Shreya Ghoshal."An app created a full song in 30 seconds based on prompts. I began to cry—what happens to songwriters who study the craft of emotional composition? How do they compete with something instant?" asks Grammy-winning artist Falu (Falguni Shah) echoing similar concerns.Currently, entertainment laws are struggling to catch up. Artists and labels are advocating for stronger policies on consent and compensation, but until clear rules are established, creators should approach AI with caution.AI's role extends further beyond entertainment. In India, actor Amitabh Bachchan secured legal protection under copyright law to control the use of his image and voice after they were misused in scams and fake advertisements.During India's 2024 electoral season, deepfake videos featuring celebrities and politicians like Ranveer Singh, Narendra Modi, and Rahul Gandhi circulated, spreading false messages they never promoted.Similarly, in the U.S., AI voice cloning also made headlines. New York City Mayor Eric Adams utilised AI to communicate in multiple native languages, demonstrating an effective and inclusive approach to the technology. However, a survey I conducted reveals mixed feelings; people like the idea, but many were unsure about its authenticity and worried whether their voices would be truly heard or replaced.Now AI's powers can be used in any industry, both as a tool and also as a weapon, given that it can accelerate misinformation faster than most fact-checkers can respond. Some governments mandate labelling AI-generated political content; however, enforcement of this is slightly behind, especially given the stakes and the scale of its influence.In the U.S., laws like Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024) protect personal traits and likenesses. Federal bills like the NO FAKES Act and No AI FRAUD Act are proposed. India has seen court recognition of personality rights in a 2024 case protecting singer Arijit Singh's voice and likeness from unauthorized AI use. This has raised further questions: when AI replicates your voice or face, who owns your identity? Could it be considered identity theft?AI is transforming education as well. Many Indian ed-tech companies utilize LLMs to transition from passive lectures to active learning, enabling the generation of lesson plans, quizzes, and engaging content.Maithreya Chakravarthula, a Consumer AI Expert, warns about literacy and accountability. "It matters what materials AI was trained on and whether educators understand how it works," he said. "If professors rely on AI but cannot identify errors or biases, we risk falling into the 'black-box dilemma' where AI's inner workings are opaque. Without transparency, there is no accountability, opening doors to misinformation and unmet educational goals."He applies a framework called CLASS: Context, Literacy, Accountability, Safety, and Sustainability to evaluate AI's use across industries. "Human nature favours ease and convenience without considering long-term effects. Education must teach people to question deeply and consistently why and how we use AI," Maithreya tells WION."An AI tool should admit when it does not know something. If it cannot say 'I do not know,' it is probably hallucinating," Chakravarthula concludes that the strongest safeguard is the ability to question deeply and practically. &nbsp;AI's impact is profound and spans various industries, including entertainment and music, as well as politics and education. While the technology offers immense potential, it also presents complex ethical, legal and societal challenges.Understanding this will help support the creation of tailored rules, strong education on AI literacy and transparent policies, as they are essential to tackle AI's benefits without compromising identity, creativity, or trust.AI is not just a tool; it is a force that is reshaping how we live and communicate. With responsibility and informed use, we can shape this revolution to ensure a better, more responsible future for the technology.&nbsp;

AI is already here; we have chatbots and generative tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot.

Large language models (LLMs) can process vast datasets and generate content within minutes; this technology is transforming how we consume information daily. 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is currently the hot topic, but do we truly understand what it is? This technology simulates human intelligence and is programmed to perform complex tasks, analyse large amounts of data, identify patterns and models at speeds that surpass human capabilities. AI is already here; we have chatbots and generative tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot. Large language models (LLMs) can process vast datasets and generate content within minutes; this technology is transforming how we consume information daily. From art to education to politics, AI's influence is vast. The real challenge with such technology lies in understanding its impact across various industries and establishing smart, tailored rules. In the entertainment industry, whether it is Hollywood or Bollywood, AI is actively shaping content. It goes beyond scriptwriting and design; AI-generated performances are becoming increasingly mainstream. A great example of Computer-generated imagery (CGI) being used in Hollywood is Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016), where CGI digitally recreated Peter Cushing's Grand Moff Tarkin, decades after the actor's death. While some viewers, like @heyjpk on Threads, praised this, "I have ZERO problem with CGI Grand Moff Tarkin…recasting would have been dumb", others criticised newer CGI edits on Disney Plus as "unbelievably bad" and jarring (@ninthhostage on X). This raises ethical questions: Should we recreate the images and voices of deceased actors? Similarly, AI voice cloning is gaining traction on social media platforms. On TikTok, @ghostwriter977 posted a song, "Heart On My Sleeve," featuring clones of Drake and The Weeknd. Audiences liked it, Reddit user @galaxy_rae commented, "Umm, does not feel right," highlighting the uneasy grey area AI creates in music authenticity. "AI is like any tool—it can empower artists without access to expensive studios, but it can also be misused. AI helps demos, but cannot replace real human emotion. I would not want my voice cloned for final releases," says Musician Raj Pandit , who has worked with artists like Salim-Sulaiman and Shreya Ghoshal. "An app created a full song in 30 seconds based on prompts. I began to cry—what happens to songwriters who study the craft of emotional composition? How do they compete with something instant?" asks Grammy-winning artist Falu (Falguni Shah) echoing similar concerns. Currently, entertainment laws are struggling to catch up. Artists and labels are advocating for stronger policies on consent and compensation, but until clear rules are established, creators should approach AI with caution. AI's role extends further beyond entertainment. In India, actor Amitabh Bachchan secured legal protection under copyright law to control the use of his image and voice after they were misused in scams and fake advertisements. During India's 2024 electoral season, deepfake videos featuring celebrities and politicians like Ranveer Singh, Narendra Modi, and Rahul Gandhi circulated, spreading false messages they never promoted. Similarly, in the U.S., AI voice cloning also made headlines. New York City Mayor Eric Adams utilised AI to communicate in multiple native languages, demonstrating an effective and inclusive approach to the technology. However, a survey I conducted reveals mixed feelings; people like the idea, but many were unsure about its authenticity and worried whether their voices would be truly heard or replaced. Now AI's powers can be used in any industry, both as a tool and also as a weapon, given that it can accelerate misinformation faster than most fact-checkers can respond. Some governments mandate labelling AI-generated political content; however, enforcement of this is slightly behind, especially given the stakes and the scale of its influence. In the U.S., laws like Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024) protect personal traits and likenesses. Federal bills like the NO FAKES Act and No AI FRAUD Act are proposed. India has seen court recognition of personality rights in a 2024 case protecting singer Arijit Singh's voice and likeness from unauthorized AI use. This has raised further questions: when AI replicates your voice or face, who owns your identity? Could it be considered identity theft? AI is transforming education as well. Many Indian ed-tech companies utilize LLMs to transition from passive lectures to active learning, enabling the generation of lesson plans, quizzes, and engaging content. Maithreya Chakravarthula, a Consumer AI Expert, warns about literacy and accountability. "It matters what materials AI was trained on and whether educators understand how it works," he said. "If professors rely on AI but cannot identify errors or biases, we risk falling into the 'black-box dilemma' where AI's inner workings are opaque. Without transparency, there is no accountability, opening doors to misinformation and unmet educational goals." He applies a framework called CLASS: Context, Literacy, Accountability, Safety, and Sustainability to evaluate AI's use across industries. "Human nature favours ease and convenience without considering long-term effects. Education must teach people to question deeply and consistently why and how we use AI," Maithreya tells WION. "An AI tool should admit when it does not know something. If it cannot say 'I do not know,' it is probably hallucinating," Chakravarthula concludes that the strongest safeguard is the ability to question deeply and practically. AI's impact is profound and spans various industries, including entertainment and music, as well as politics and education. While the technology offers immense potential, it also presents complex ethical, legal and societal challenges. Understanding this will help support the creation of tailored rules, strong education on AI literacy and transparent policies, as they are essential to tackle AI's benefits without compromising identity, creativity, or trust. AI is not just a tool; it is a force that is reshaping how we live and communicate. With responsibility and informed use, we can shape this revolution to ensure a better, more responsible future for the technology.

AI is already here; we have chatbots and generative tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot. Large language models (LLMs) can process vast datasets and generate content within minutes; this technology is transforming how we consume information daily.&nbsp;

AI is already reshaping entertainment, education, and politics, but are we ready?

By Dhruv Goyal&nbsp;Acharya Lokesh Muni is a revered Jain spiritual leader and peace advocate, recognized for integrating ancient Indian philosophy into global discussions on nonviolence and harmony. A speaker at major forums, such as the World Parliament of Religions, he seamlessly blends timeless wisdom with modern relevance. He is the recipient of the National Communal Harmony Award, one of India’s highest honours for promoting peace and unity.&nbsp;I recently had the chance to speak with Acharya Lokesh Muni during his visit to the U.S., where he addressed the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago. He shared powerful insights on nonviolence, peace, and the relevance of Jain philosophy in today’s world. Drawing from Lord Mahavira’s teachings, he spoke about&nbsp;‘Anekantavad’, the dangers of intellectual intolerance, and how blending spiritual wisdom with modern science can guide us toward a more peaceful world.&nbsp;Disclaimer: This text has been translated from Hindi to English and may have been lightly edited for clarity while preserving the original meaning.&nbsp;Q. We hear the words peace and nonviolence a lot, but they can feel a bit distant from real life. From your experience, what does true peace look like in the real world, especially in difficult or divided places?A. We’re discussing peace and nonviolence at a time when many parts of the world are engulfed in war, conflict, and violence. I believe that war, weapons, and terrorism are not the solutions to any problem. Dialogue, conversation, and peaceful negotiation can resolve even the most difficult issues.I agree with your point, you mentioned that in our personal lives, there is often a big gap between what we believe and how we act. That contradiction also exists in the world at large. We all want the fruits of peace and nonviolence. Still, the reality is that governments around the world spend billions of dollars every year on building new weapons and advancing military research.At the same time, there are almost no training centres for peace. We don’t hear about institutions dedicated to teaching nonviolence. So, if we truly want to establish peace and harmony in the world, we must address it at its root level. We need to address the issue at its source.Only then can we bring this vision to life. If I had to put it in one line: before there can be world peace, there must be inner peace, peace within the mind. And for that, it’s not medicine that we need, but meditation.Through inner peace and mental calm, we can begin to cultivate peace in our communities, our nations, and ultimately, in the world.&nbsp;Q. Jain monks often wear a white cloth over their mouths. Can you share the meaning behind that practice and what it reflects about how Jainism views life and compassion?A. You must have heard that in Jainism, the concept of ahimsa (nonviolence) has been explored with great depth and subtlety. I can respond to this in two ways. One is that, yes, the Jain monk has become a symbol of nonviolence. But more importantly, we must understand the deep philosophical reasoning behind that symbolism.For example, you may have noticed that during winter, when we speak, a visible breath or vapour escapes from our mouth. In Jainism, the idea of nonviolence is so refined that even unintentionally harming invisible or microscopic life forms, or mentally hurting someone, is also considered an act of violence.In this universe, every living being, seen or unseen, has value. The goal is to live in a way that avoids harming any of them, even unintentionally.Let me give you a practical example: the use of a mask, which Jain monks have traditionally worn. This mask slows down the force of our breath, preventing it from disturbing or harming tiny organisms in the outside environment. Behind this practice is a deeply thought-out reason.Of course, over time, the world has come to see its value. For instance, before the COVID era, when I used to visit the U.S. wearing a mask, people would ask me,&nbsp;“Why are you wearing this?” And then, during the pandemic, we reached a point where not wearing a mask could result in a fine from the police.Today, what was once a spiritual practice is also being recognized as a scientifically valid one. There is both a spiritual and a scientific logic behind it.&nbsp;Q. You’ve spoken at global events and met political and spiritual leaders. How do you bring ancient Jain ideas into those modern spaces, and what makes those teachings still matter today?A. During my visit to the United States for the convention held in Chicago, more than 5,000 delegates from around 70 centres participated. On that platform, I once again shared this thought and I want to repeat it here through you, Dhruv, and through this platform, Lord Mahavira’s (Spiritual leader also known as Vardhamana) philosophy is not only deeply spiritual, but also scientific. And it is more relevant today than it was 26 centuries ago.In today’s world, where we witness war, violence, and conflict, Mahavira’s philosophy of&nbsp;‘Anekantavad’ (the doctrine of the multiplicity of views) holds profound meaning. I believe that environmental pollution is a serious problem, including climate change and global warming, but an even bigger issue is intellectual pollution. This pollution of thought, of intolerance, is more dangerous than environmental damage.&nbsp;Mahavira’s doctrine of Anekant teaches us that just as we value our existence, we must also respect the existence of others. Just as we hold our own beliefs, we must learn to respect the viewpoints of others. This idea lies at the heart of Indian culture: unity in diversity, a pluralistic society rooted in mutual respect.Sarva Dharma Sambhava: respect for all religions, is not just a phrase; it is a profound principle. As Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (Philosopher and former President of India) once said, India’s democracy itself is built on the foundation of Mahavira’s Anekant philosophy.Within Anekant and Ahimsa (nonviolence), we&nbsp;can&nbsp;find solutions to many of the world’s greatest problems. If I had to name three major challenges today: terrorism and violence, global warming and climate change, and poverty and inequality. I believe Mahavira’s philosophy offers answers to all of them.You also raised an important point, the balance between ancient wisdom and the modern world. I believe that ancient knowledge and modern science are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary. When we bring them together, we can build a more beautiful world and a better society.That is why I’ve been advocating for Peace Education at the United Nations. The core idea behind this is the integration of spirituality and science, bringing religion back to its spiritual roots, not just as ritual or identity, but as a guide for living with compassion, balance, and understanding.Only through this integration can we create a world filled with peace, harmony, and beauty.&nbsp;Q. Many people today feel overwhelmed or disconnected, especially in fast-paced environments. What simple ideas from Jainism do you think can help someone find a bit more balance or calm in everyday life?A. In this obsession with becoming number one, and in the chaos-filled world we live in, I believe that people have invited restlessness into their lives. To find a solution for this, when we consider our ancient principles, balance has always been a key concept in our tradition.Read the Upanishads. They talk about the&nbsp;“Purusharth Chatushtaya” (the four aims of life): Artha (wealth), Kama (desires), Dharma (righteousness), and Moksha (liberation). There is no conflict between Dharma, Artha, and Kama, but Dharma must guide the other two. When all four are in balance, that’s where a healthy society is built. That’s where a well-structured and peaceful community emerges.Whether you read the Upanishads or the Bhagavad Gita, you’ll find the same message. There’s a shloka in the Gita:“Yatra Yogeshwarah Krishna Yatra Partho Dhanur Dharah…”Lokmanya Tilak (Indian nationalist, teacher, social reformer, and independence activist), in his commentary, interpreted this differently. He saw Krishna, the Yogeshwar (master of yoga), as a symbol of spirituality, and Arjuna as a symbol of material life. He said that where there is balance between the spiritual and the material, that is where true victory lies. That is where prosperity, strength, and grace (Lakshmi) are found.Lord Mahavira established the five Mahavratas (great vows) for monks, including nonviolence, truth, and celibacy, among others. But for householders, for common people, he gave Anuvratas. Anu means small, and vrata means a disciplined vow. These were like a minimum moral code. Following even this basic ethical framework helps build a healthy, functioning society.So we should not reject the ancient, nor blindly chase only the modern. Instead, we should strive to draw from both. By blending the wisdom of the old with the innovation of the new, we can help make the world a more beautiful place.&nbsp;Q. You’ve worked to bring people together across different religions and cultures. What have you learned from those moments about what different belief systems have in common?A. In the context of India, we’ve seen political parties, whether 15, 20, or 25 of them, come together under alliances like the NDA or UPA and run governments for 5, 10, or even 15 years based on a Common Minimum Programme. So why can’t spiritual and religious leaders do the same?After all, we all believe in nonviolence, peace, harmony, compassion, love, and the idea of&nbsp;‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’: that the whole world is one family. If our core values align, why can’t we come together and work collectively?I would go so far as to say that even global institutions: whether it’s the United Nations, the World Bank, UNESCO, or UNICEF, have now begun to realize that if there’s to be any meaningful transformation in India, it can happen most effectively through the medium of religion and spirituality.I recall addressing the World Parliament of Religions in Salt Lake City in 2015, then again at the next World Parliament in Toronto in 2018, and most recently at the one held in Chicago, the same city where Swami Vivekananda (Indian monk and philosopher) delivered his iconic speech in 1893. On that stage, I shared this very thought: in India, every day, millions of people go to their places of worship, temples, mosques, churches, gurudwaras. If religious leaders unite and guide them with clarity and purpose, they can achieve what even massive government budgets often fail to do.So yes, I strongly believe that this is the need of the hour.Take the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine or even Russia and Ukraine, for example. Why is it still happening? Should it be happening? I won’t go into all the political details, but I will say this: innocent children are dying, and common citizens who have done nothing wrong are suffering. In such times, the voice of religious leaders is essential. They need to come together, raise their voices, and work actively for peace, love, harmony, and brotherhood in this world.That’s why I call upon all global religious leaders. My organisation, Ahimsa Vishwa Bharti, has often brought various religious networks together on a common platform to solve social issues and promote spiritual upliftment.Today, through this message, I urge everyone: let’s sit together and talk. Even if we take just a few steps together, it makes a difference. Otherwise, the distances between us will only grow.And only when we come closer can we truly meet ourselves.

Before there can be world peace, there must be inner peace, peace within the mind. And for that, it’s not medicine that we need, but meditation. Through inner peace and mental calm, we can begin to cultivate peace in our communities, our nations, and ultimately, in the world.

By Dhruv Goyal Acharya Lokesh Muni is a revered Jain spiritual leader and peace advocate, recognized for integrating ancient Indian philosophy into global discussions on nonviolence and harmony. A speaker at major forums, such as the World Parliament of Religions, he seamlessly blends timeless wisdom with modern relevance. He is the recipient of the National Communal Harmony Award, one of India’s highest honours for promoting peace and unity. I recently had the chance to speak with Acharya Lokesh Muni during his visit to the U.S., where he addressed the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago. He shared powerful insights on nonviolence, peace, and the relevance of Jain philosophy in today’s world. Drawing from Lord Mahavira’s teachings, he spoke about ‘Anekantavad’, the dangers of intellectual intolerance, and how blending spiritual wisdom with modern science can guide us toward a more peaceful world. Disclaimer: This text has been translated from Hindi to English and may have been lightly edited for clarity while preserving the original meaning. Q. We hear the words peace and nonviolence a lot, but they can feel a bit distant from real life. From your experience, what does true peace look like in the real world, especially in difficult or divided places? A. We’re discussing peace and nonviolence at a time when many parts of the world are engulfed in war, conflict, and violence. I believe that war, weapons, and terrorism are not the solutions to any problem. Dialogue, conversation, and peaceful negotiation can resolve even the most difficult issues. I agree with your point, you mentioned that in our personal lives, there is often a big gap between what we believe and how we act. That contradiction also exists in the world at large. We all want the fruits of peace and nonviolence. Still, the reality is that governments around the world spend billions of dollars every year on building new weapons and advancing military research. At the same time, there are almost no training centres for peace. We don’t hear about institutions dedicated to teaching nonviolence. So, if we truly want to establish peace and harmony in the world, we must address it at its root level. We need to address the issue at its source. Only then can we bring this vision to life. If I had to put it in one line: before there can be world peace, there must be inner peace, peace within the mind. And for that, it’s not medicine that we need, but meditation. Through inner peace and mental calm, we can begin to cultivate peace in our communities, our nations, and ultimately, in the world. Q. Jain monks often wear a white cloth over their mouths. Can you share the meaning behind that practice and what it reflects about how Jainism views life and compassion? A. You must have heard that in Jainism, the concept of ahimsa (nonviolence) has been explored with great depth and subtlety. I can respond to this in two ways. One is that, yes, the Jain monk has become a symbol of nonviolence. But more importantly, we must understand the deep philosophical reasoning behind that symbolism. For example, you may have noticed that during winter, when we speak, a visible breath or vapour escapes from our mouth. In Jainism, the idea of nonviolence is so refined that even unintentionally harming invisible or microscopic life forms, or mentally hurting someone, is also considered an act of violence. In this universe, every living being, seen or unseen, has value. The goal is to live in a way that avoids harming any of them, even unintentionally. Let me give you a practical example: the use of a mask, which Jain monks have traditionally worn. This mask slows down the force of our breath, preventing it from disturbing or harming tiny organisms in the outside environment. Behind this practice is a deeply thought-out reason. Of course, over time, the world has come to see its value. For instance, before the COVID era, when I used to visit the U.S. wearing a mask, people would ask me, “Why are you wearing this?” And then, during the pandemic, we reached a point where not wearing a mask could result in a fine from the police. Today, what was once a spiritual practice is also being recognized as a scientifically valid one. There is both a spiritual and a scientific logic behind it. Q. You’ve spoken at global events and met political and spiritual leaders. How do you bring ancient Jain ideas into those modern spaces, and what makes those teachings still matter today? A. During my visit to the United States for the convention held in Chicago, more than 5,000 delegates from around 70 centres participated. On that platform, I once again shared this thought and I want to repeat it here through you, Dhruv, and through this platform, Lord Mahavira’s (Spiritual leader also known as Vardhamana) philosophy is not only deeply spiritual, but also scientific. And it is more relevant today than it was 26 centuries ago. In today’s world, where we witness war, violence, and conflict, Mahavira’s philosophy of ‘Anekantavad’ (the doctrine of the multiplicity of views) holds profound meaning. I believe that environmental pollution is a serious problem, including climate change and global warming, but an even bigger issue is intellectual pollution. This pollution of thought, of intolerance, is more dangerous than environmental damage. Mahavira’s doctrine of Anekant teaches us that just as we value our existence, we must also respect the existence of others. Just as we hold our own beliefs, we must learn to respect the viewpoints of others. This idea lies at the heart of Indian culture: unity in diversity, a pluralistic society rooted in mutual respect. Sarva Dharma Sambhava: respect for all religions, is not just a phrase; it is a profound principle. As Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (Philosopher and former President of India) once said, India’s democracy itself is built on the foundation of Mahavira’s Anekant philosophy. Within Anekant and Ahimsa (nonviolence), we can find solutions to many of the world’s greatest problems. If I had to name three major challenges today: terrorism and violence, global warming and climate change, and poverty and inequality. I believe Mahavira’s philosophy offers answers to all of them. You also raised an important point, the balance between ancient wisdom and the modern world. I believe that ancient knowledge and modern science are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary. When we bring them together, we can build a more beautiful world and a better society. That is why I’ve been advocating for Peace Education at the United Nations. The core idea behind this is the integration of spirituality and science, bringing religion back to its spiritual roots, not just as ritual or identity, but as a guide for living with compassion, balance, and understanding. Only through this integration can we create a world filled with peace, harmony, and beauty. Q. Many people today feel overwhelmed or disconnected, especially in fast-paced environments. What simple ideas from Jainism do you think can help someone find a bit more balance or calm in everyday life? A. In this obsession with becoming number one, and in the chaos-filled world we live in, I believe that people have invited restlessness into their lives. To find a solution for this, when we consider our ancient principles, balance has always been a key concept in our tradition. Read the Upanishads. They talk about the “Purusharth Chatushtaya” (the four aims of life): Artha (wealth), Kama (desires), Dharma (righteousness), and Moksha (liberation). There is no conflict between Dharma, Artha, and Kama, but Dharma must guide the other two. When all four are in balance, that’s where a healthy society is built. That’s where a well-structured and peaceful community emerges. Whether you read the Upanishads or the Bhagavad Gita, you’ll find the same message. There’s a shloka in the Gita: “Yatra Yogeshwarah Krishna Yatra Partho Dhanur Dharah…” Lokmanya Tilak (Indian nationalist, teacher, social reformer, and independence activist), in his commentary, interpreted this differently. He saw Krishna, the Yogeshwar (master of yoga), as a symbol of spirituality, and Arjuna as a symbol of material life. He said that where there is balance between the spiritual and the material, that is where true victory lies. That is where prosperity, strength, and grace (Lakshmi) are found. Lord Mahavira established the five Mahavratas (great vows) for monks, including nonviolence, truth, and celibacy, among others. But for householders, for common people, he gave Anuvratas. Anu means small, and vrata means a disciplined vow. These were like a minimum moral code. Following even this basic ethical framework helps build a healthy, functioning society. So we should not reject the ancient, nor blindly chase only the modern. Instead, we should strive to draw from both. By blending the wisdom of the old with the innovation of the new, we can help make the world a more beautiful place. Q. You’ve worked to bring people together across different religions and cultures. What have you learned from those moments about what different belief systems have in common? A. In the context of India, we’ve seen political parties, whether 15, 20, or 25 of them, come together under alliances like the NDA or UPA and run governments for 5, 10, or even 15 years based on a Common Minimum Programme. So why can’t spiritual and religious leaders do the same? After all, we all believe in nonviolence, peace, harmony, compassion, love, and the idea of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’: that the whole world is one family. If our core values align, why can’t we come together and work collectively? I would go so far as to say that even global institutions: whether it’s the United Nations, the World Bank, UNESCO, or UNICEF, have now begun to realize that if there’s to be any meaningful transformation in India, it can happen most effectively through the medium of religion and spirituality. I recall addressing the World Parliament of Religions in Salt Lake City in 2015, then again at the next World Parliament in Toronto in 2018, and most recently at the one held in Chicago, the same city where Swami Vivekananda (Indian monk and philosopher) delivered his iconic speech in 1893. On that stage, I shared this very thought: in India, every day, millions of people go to their places of worship, temples, mosques, churches, gurudwaras. If religious leaders unite and guide them with clarity and purpose, they can achieve what even massive government budgets often fail to do. So yes, I strongly believe that this is the need of the hour. Take the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine or even Russia and Ukraine, for example. Why is it still happening? Should it be happening? I won’t go into all the political details, but I will say this: innocent children are dying, and common citizens who have done nothing wrong are suffering. In such times, the voice of religious leaders is essential. They need to come together, raise their voices, and work actively for peace, love, harmony, and brotherhood in this world. That’s why I call upon all global religious leaders. My organisation, Ahimsa Vishwa Bharti, has often brought various religious networks together on a common platform to solve social issues and promote spiritual upliftment. Today, through this message, I urge everyone: let’s sit together and talk. Even if we take just a few steps together, it makes a difference. Otherwise, the distances between us will only grow. And only when we come closer can we truly meet ourselves.

Before there can be world peace, there must be inner peace, peace within the mind. And for that, it’s not medicine that we need, but meditation. Through inner peace and mental calm, we can begin to cultivate peace in our communities, our nations, and ultimately, in the world.

‘War, weapons, and terrorism are not solutions to any problem’: Peace advocate Acharya Lokesh Muni

By Dhruv Goyal&nbsp;Rashmeet Kaur is the musician behind hits like Nadiyon Paar, Thumkeshwari, Ik Meri, and Janiye. With a voice rooted in tradition and a sound that pushes boundaries, she’s carved a space where folk meets fearless experimentation. WION caught up with Rashmeet Kaur during her debut performance in New York, and she opened up about her classical training, her deep connection to Punjabi folk music, and how she’s redefined it for a new generation. She also reflected on her creative process, her journey through the industry, and what it means to stay authentic while constantly evolving as an artist—excerpts from the interview below. &nbsp; &nbsp;Q: You’ve reimagined classics like “Bajre Da Sitta” for a new generation. What draws you to folk music, and how do you approach modernizing it while keeping its soul intact?&nbsp;A: Bajre Da Sitta is a Punjabi folk song by Surinder Kaur ji, who is the queen of Punjabi folk music. She’s known as the koel of Punjabi folk music. I was sitting with my team and they came up with the idea that we should do something with Bajre Da Sitta. I started singing it because it's in every household. We grew up listening to this song, and to other folk musicians, Qawwali, classical, Gurbani Shabad.&nbsp;Surinder ji has always been my idol. So, the song just came to me. I sang the hook and wrote another verse. And then, because it's an era of rap and hip-hop, my team thought, who should we get? Ikka paji (Indian rapper) came to mind. He did a verse, and it became a banger.&nbsp;You always take a chance when recreating folk, but that’s the life of an artist. The real win for me was that people who didn’t know about Bajre Da Sitta or Surinder ji went back and found the original. That’s the biggest achievement.&nbsp;Q: How have you navigated the Indian music industry, what have been some of your biggest challenges?&nbsp;There have been a lot of ups and downs. I’ve worked with all kinds of musicians, directors, composers, rappers, and instrumentalists. My journey started with Gurmat Sangeet, taught to me by my mom. That’s my root, and I will never forget where I come from. It helped me stay strong. I’ve met many people and faced challenges, but I’m grateful. I’ve learned a lot, and I think I’ve had the most collaborations a female has done in DHH (Desi Hip Hop). I'm thankful I got to work and grew with so many people.&nbsp;Q: How do you approach the pressure of making viral music in the era of 15-second clips? Can you predict when a song will be a hit?&nbsp;A: Everyone is trying hard to get those 15 seconds. But I push to make every 15 seconds strong. If a song is three minutes long, every chunk should feel full. I don’t look at it as just one part going viral. I see the whole song as one complete product. That’s how I’ve always learned and worked. Secondly, social media and the pandemic changed everything. You can’t predict a song’s life. Bajre Da Sitta became popular in Canada before India. Then it circled back, and people started making reels. I just give my best. No matter the genre or the artist I’m working with. I step into the studio, and I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I show up. That’s how I move now.

&nbsp;&nbsp;Q: Your energy on stage is electric. What’s your mental or emotional process before stepping into a live performance?&nbsp;A: I’m a person who tries to be in the moment all the time. I have a ritual, a few of them, actually, before going on stage. I do my warm-up exercises while doing my makeup, so I never waste time. Before going on stage, of course I’m nervous. I want the show to be the best show of my life and the next one, the best again. I want to give my best. I want people to feel the energy I’m feeling, through my songs and my art that I’ve created over time.&nbsp;All those little warm-up exercises really help, especially before a show. So I do my makeup, I do my riyaaz, I put on a track on my phone, and I start jumping right before I go on stage because I need that energy.&nbsp;I’m that kind of performer. And then, because my riyaaz is strong and my makeup is okay, I look okay, then the rest is just history. It’s up to the people. I just love singing and connecting with people. That’s my favorite thing to do.<h2>Quick take with Rashmeet Kaur</h2><ul><li>Ultimate role models: Beyoncé and John Mayer</li><li>Favorite international artist now: Doechii</li><li>Song you wish you sang: There are so many, but I would say the song Taras by Jasmine Sandlas. She did an incredible job. I love her. But I could see myself also doing the same song.</li><li>Most unforgettable fan moment: The most unforgettable fan moment was in Chhattisgarh (India). There was a meet and greet after my performance at a festival, and I went for the meet and greet. This girl came up to me crying and I was like, “What happened?” She said, “Your three songs have helped me in these last six years to get through life.” I can never forget that. It makes me emotional.</li><li>Dream collaborations: Arijit Singh, Doechii, Gurdas Maan, Beyoncé, Russ</li><li>Go-to comfort food on tour: Dal chawal (dal tadka to be specific not dal makhani)</li><li>One word friends use for you: Bindass – free soul&nbsp;</li></ul>

WION caught up with Rashmeet Kaur recently and she opened up about her classical training, her deep connection to Punjabi folk music, and how she’s redefined it for a new generation. The singer is credited for viral songs like Bajre Da Sitta, Thumkeshwari and more.

By Dhruv Goyal Rashmeet Kaur is the musician behind hits like Nadiyon Paar, Thumkeshwari, Ik Meri, and Janiye. With a voice rooted in tradition and a sound that pushes boundaries, she’s carved a space where folk meets fearless experimentation. WION caught up with Rashmeet Kaur during her debut performance in New York, and she opened up about her classical training, her deep connection to Punjabi folk music, and how she’s redefined it for a new generation. She also reflected on her creative process, her journey through the industry, and what it means to stay authentic while constantly evolving as an artist—excerpts from the interview below. Q: You’ve reimagined classics like “Bajre Da Sitta” for a new generation. What draws you to folk music, and how do you approach modernizing it while keeping its soul intact? A: Bajre Da Sitta is a Punjabi folk song by Surinder Kaur ji, who is the queen of Punjabi folk music. She’s known as the koel of Punjabi folk music. I was sitting with my team and they came up with the idea that we should do something with Bajre Da Sitta. I started singing it because it's in every household. We grew up listening to this song, and to other folk musicians, Qawwali, classical, Gurbani Shabad. Surinder ji has always been my idol. So, the song just came to me. I sang the hook and wrote another verse. And then, because it's an era of rap and hip-hop, my team thought, who should we get? Ikka paji (Indian rapper) came to mind. He did a verse, and it became a banger. You always take a chance when recreating folk, but that’s the life of an artist. The real win for me was that people who didn’t know about Bajre Da Sitta or Surinder ji went back and found the original. That’s the biggest achievement. Q: How have you navigated the Indian music industry, what have been some of your biggest challenges? There have been a lot of ups and downs. I’ve worked with all kinds of musicians, directors, composers, rappers, and instrumentalists. My journey started with Gurmat Sangeet, taught to me by my mom. That’s my root, and I will never forget where I come from. It helped me stay strong. I’ve met many people and faced challenges, but I’m grateful. I’ve learned a lot, and I think I’ve had the most collaborations a female has done in DHH (Desi Hip Hop). I'm thankful I got to work and grew with so many people. Q: How do you approach the pressure of making viral music in the era of 15-second clips? Can you predict when a song will be a hit? A: Everyone is trying hard to get those 15 seconds. But I push to make every 15 seconds strong. If a song is three minutes long, every chunk should feel full. I don’t look at it as just one part going viral. I see the whole song as one complete product. That’s how I’ve always learned and worked. Secondly, social media and the pandemic changed everything. You can’t predict a song’s life. Bajre Da Sitta became popular in Canada before India. Then it circled back, and people started making reels. I just give my best. No matter the genre or the artist I’m working with. I step into the studio, and I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I show up. That’s how I move now.

WION caught up with Rashmeet Kaur recently and she opened up about her classical training, her deep connection to Punjabi folk music, and how she’s redefined it for a new generation. The singer is credited for viral songs like Bajre Da Sitta, Thumkeshwari and more.

Singer Rashmeet Kaur on creating viral songs like Bajre Da Sitta, Nadiyon Paar and more: You can’t predict a song’s life | Exclusive

Value-based leadership has become very important. We call it Dharmic leadership in the Sanatan Dharma tradition. We can also call it Vedic leadership, said Gauranga Das Prabhu—a spiritual teacher, monk, and sustainability advocate.

Value-based leadership has become very important. We call it Dharmic leadership in the Sanatan Dharma tradition. We can also call it Vedic leadership, said Gauranga Das Prabhu—a spiritual teacher, monk, and sustainability advocate.

Value-based leadership has become very important: Gauranga Das Prabhu

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Dhruv Goyal

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.