IN the world of investment banking, there’s an adage “Insult is an investment.” The idea is simple those who are underestimated and ignored often end up making the most successful moves, purchasing stocks at a lower price before the crowd catches on. In political terms, this strategy mirrors how Donald Trump, after being insulted and sidelined following the 2020 election, has managed to turn his defeat into a powerful comeback. By leveraging the insults thrown his way, Trump has positioned himself as a major player in global politics once again, transforming public ridicule into political currency. But Trump’s resurgence isn’t just a matter of political savvy it’s also about alliances, the kind that transcend national borders and redefine power structures. One such alliance is his relationship with Vladimir Putin, which, when examined through a historical lens, resembles the complex political alliances of the past. Trump’s approach to Putin could be seen as a trump card of sorts. Just as the USSR was pulled into the Afghan War under Gorbachev and fractured into pieces, Trump seems poised to deconstruct the global balance of power. His policies, notably those in the Middle East and his contentious approach to Nato, have created a situation where the US now faces a $36 trillion debt, with Trump eyeing a future where the US might break apart transforming the “50 stars” on the flag into 51 states, while Israel’s role in the growing China-Russia-Iran alliance (CRI) could eventually lead to the destruction of Iran. A new world order under autocratic rule, with Putin at the helm, is a scenario that increasingly seems possible. In the midst of these shifting global tides, there’s one group that Trump has promised to “save”: the Hindus. While India’s Prime Minister Modi may claim to be their protector, Trump’s Diwali pledge to safeguard Hindus worldwide paints a different picture. For some, this might sound like a lofty promise, but for others, it is seen as a vital lifeline in a world where geopolitical alliances matter more than ever. Meanwhile, India’s relationship with Canada is one of the most sensitive flashpoints in this evolving narrative. Canada, a close ally of the US, is already at odds with India over several issues, particularly as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration has taken stances seen as anti-India. This growing friction risks exacerbating the simmering tensions within the Sikh community, particularly in Punjab. As Trudeau’s policies potentially fuel Sikh extremism, the instability could escalate, further complicating India’s geopolitical position. If Sikh militancy gains traction, it may find unexpected allies in the form of Pakistan, as Islamic extremism and Sikh separatism threaten to form a dangerous alliance – a combination that could undermine India’s internal security. This scenario isn’t entirely unlike the world that Henry Ford once supported, albeit in a different era and context. Ford, the founder of the Ford Motor Company, became infamous for his personal admiration of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. His anti-Semitic views, as laid out in his publication The International Jew, found resonance with Hitler’s vision of Aryan supremacy. Ford’s business interests aligned with the Nazi regime, including lucrative contracts that benefitted his German subsidiary, Ford-Werke. While Ford’s connection to Hitler was ideological, it was also financial, a pragmatic alliance that offered both political and economic rewards. Fast forward to today, and we see a striking similarity between Ford’s support for Hitler and Musk’s endorsement of Trump. Elon Musk, a tech magnate with enormous influence, has embraced Trump’s populist message, praising him for his policies on deregulation and free markets. Musk’s relationship with Trump may not be rooted in ideology to the same extent that Ford’s was with Hitler, but the political and business calculations are eerily similar. Like Ford, Musk sees in Trump an opportunity to align his business interests with a powerful political figure. Musk’s recent purchase of Twitter, his vocal support for Trump, and his willingness to use his platform to reshape public discourse are strategic moves, not just personal convictions.—The Statesman/ANN