For someone who once served as India’s Foreign Secretary, describing Chinese people as “trained robots” is not serious analysis. It reveals a deeply ingrained sense of superiority. Your argument follows a convenient formula: when Indians hold different views of China, it proves independent thinking; when Chinese people share similar criticisms of India, it supposedly proves brainwashing. Who established that standard? Why should disagreement in India automatically signify intellectual freedom, while agreement among Chinese people must signify intellectual conformity? Similar opinions do not prove an absence of independent thought, just as disagreement does not automatically prove intellectual freedom. A credible analysis examines why people hold certain views and what evidence informs them. It does not label more than a billion people as robots and then treat that label as a conclusion. Chinese views of India did not emerge in a vacuum. Border disputes, a lack of mutual trust, regulatory measures affecting Chinese businesses, and negative narratives about China in parts of Indian public discourse all influence how Chinese people perceive India. You are perfectly entitled to challenge those perceptions. But bring facts and arguments to the table instead of adopting a condescending attitude and dismissing Chinese people’s views as evidence of intellectual failure. There is an even more important question: why are Chinese people so often expected to prove they have not been brainwashed, while Indian nationalism, media narratives, and anti-China prejudice are rarely subjected to the same relentless scrutiny? If independent thinking means reaching only the conclusions approved by Western or Indian elites, then what you are defending is not intellectual freedom but another form of intellectual domination. Chinese people do not need to oppose their own country to prove they are intelligent. Nor do they need to satisfy the expectations of Indian elites to prove they can think for themselves. If you genuinely want to understand China, study the lived experiences, historical context, and legitimate concerns of Chinese people. If all you want is to portray Chinese people as mindless robots, then what you are demonstrating is not a sophisticated understanding of China, but arrogance toward a society you have made little effort to understand. You are entitled to criticize China, but do not disguise your prejudice as a diagnosis of the Chinese people.

#Mumbai Celebrating garba in Infinity Mall with laud music..!! But Muslim can't offer Namaz at corner peacefully without disturbance anyone..!!

#Mumbai Celebrating garba in Infinity Mall with laud music..!! But Muslim can't offer Namaz at corner peacefully without disturbance anyone..!!

How much of India’s oil continued to come from Russia despite Donald Trump’s threats, tariffs and pressure on New Delhi? Before Trump assumed office, Russian crude accounted for 36% of India’s oil imports. In the first three months of his presidency, it averaged 39%. Trump imposed a 26% tariff on India in April 2025. Yet, Russian oil continued to account for 40% of India’s imports. In August 2025, Trump imposed 50% tariff on India. From August 2025 to January 2026, Russia’s share averaged 33%. In February 2026, Trump claimed India would stop buying Russian oil. Since then, Russian crude has accounted for an average of 43% of India’s oil imports. Despite mounting US pressure, India continued to make its energy choices based on its national interests.