Isn't the idea of the 'European Single Market'—much celebrated as the pinnacle of free trade—actually revealing a deeper truth about capitalism? That it requires a central authority to watch and control the free movement of goods, services, capital, and even people. Beyond the social ideology imbued in liberal values and the notion of freedom, the recent fall of centrist parties and the return of the 'right-wing repressed' in major Western societies like America, France, and Germany tells us one thing clearly: capitalism without authoritarianism cannot sustain itself. 

And yet, it's only 'communist capitalism'—as practiced by China—that is naturally seen as 'progress without freedom.' This model sustains paradoxes not just for Marxist ideologues but also for liberals and conservatives alike. The rise of China as a global superpower in the capitalist world reveals an unsuspected truth: it’s not capitalists but rather communists who can run capitalism much better—especially when it comes to delivering better outcomes for the working class. 

No modern nation, whether in the East or the West, can deny the bigger fact: China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and has been the world's primary engine of economic growth, contributing 30% of global economic growth in the last decade. China's per capita income has nearly quadrupled in the past 15 years. In 2016, China's economy surpassed the US when measured in purchasing power parity (PPP), and today, it is the biggest trading partner of most major nations. 

Once considered a peripheral economy like India still is, China has flipped the global market and created its own peripheries—becoming the center, even for the Western world. What made this transformation possible? One key factor is China's state control over agricultural land. Unlike India—which opened its economy at the same time but remains shackled by caste-based inequalities in rural areas—China smoothly transitioned from an agrarian to an industrial economy. State control allowed millions of rural workers to become an urban workforce without triggering a large-scale social crisis. Meanwhile, India’s majority population remains in rural areas, bound by fragmented and caste-determined land ownership, which results in vast income inequalities across social groups. As we know, the global capitalist system operates through the center-periphery dynamic—where Western nations dominate as centers, extracting raw materials and cheap labor from peripheral regions. But China reversed this structure by transforming itself from a periphery to the center of global production. India, on the other hand, remains trapped as a periphery, with low domestic industrial production and continued dependence on Western economies. 

Theories like those of Max Weber fall short when it comes to understanding capitalism in China and India. Weber famously argued that capitalism grew out of the Protestant ethic—an ideology rooted in rationality and individualism—but he failed to grasp how alternative models of capitalism could emerge outside the West. While India remains dominated by a ruling upper-caste minority that controls ideology and political power, China operates through a system where the ruling class represents the ethnic and social majority under the banner of socialist ideology. The importance of centralised authority in sustaining capitalism is not unique to China. Even the European Union—despite claiming to be a bastion of free-market democracy—relies on centralised regulatory mechanisms to manage its common market. This reinforces the argument that capitalism without authority and control cannot sustain itself. 

Francis Fukuyama once proclaimed the 'end of history,' suggesting that liberal democracy and free-market capitalism represented the final stage of ideological evolution. But the internal crisis of Western capitalism and the sustained success of China's 'communist capitalism' tell a different story. Far from being an aberration, China's model suggests that capitalism may function more effectively under centralised control and planning. 

In conclusion, the rise of China challenges the dominant narrative that free markets and liberal democracy are the inevitable future of human society. It reveals an uncomfortable truth: capitalism, far from being synonymous with freedom, may actually work best under the firm hand of authoritarian governance. While Western societies struggle with their contradictions and the resurgence of the far-right, China continues to reshape the global economic order. Perhaps the most unsettling thought for the champions of liberal democracy is this—'communist capitalism' may not be an exception, but the future of capitalism itself.

Dr Rahul Sonpimple is President of the All India Independent Scheduled Castes Association (AIISCA) and director of the Savitribai Phule Resource Centre (SRC) in Nagpur.  He holds a Master’s degree in Dalit and Tribal Social Work from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, along with MPhil and PhD degrees in Sociology from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Views expressed are the author's own.

The Union government on Thursday, Friday 31, cleared the appointment of Supreme Court judge, Justice Surya Kant, as the next Chief Justice of India (CJI).  

"In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Surya Kant, Judge of the Supreme Court of India, to be the Chief Justice of India with effect from November 24, 2025,” read a notification issued by the Union Ministry of Law and Justice.

Incumbent CJI Bhushan R Gavai is set to retire on November 23, upon attaining the age of 65 years.

Justice Gavai had earlier recommended Justice Kant as his successor, following the established convention of appointing the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice of India.

Justice Kant, who will be the 53rd Chief Justice of India, will have a tenure of about 14 months, demitting office on February 9, 2027.

Born on February 10, 1962, in a middle-class family in Haryana, Justice Surya Kant completed his graduation from Government Post Graduate College, Hisar, in 1981, and earned his law degree from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, in 1984.

He began his legal practice in Hisar in 1984 and moved to Chandigarh the following year to practise before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Justice Kant was appointed as the youngest Advocate General of Haryana on July 7, 2000, and was designated a senior advocate in March 2001. He was elevated as a permanent judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 9, 2004. He went on to serve as Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court from October 5, 2018, until his elevation to the Supreme Court on May 24, 2019.

Justice Kant has also been associated with various judicial and legal service institutions. He served as a member of the Governing Body of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) for two consecutive terms between 2007 and 2011 and currently serves on several committees of the Indian Law Institute, a deemed university functioning under the Supreme Court of India.

Since November 2024, he has been the Chairman of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

Objecting to the induction of former Indian Cricketer and Congress leader Mohammed Azharuddin as a Minister in the Telangana cabinet, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has accused the Congress party of violating the poll code.

Azharuddin is set to be sworn-in as a Minister on October 31.  The move is widely perceived as the Congress’s attempt to garner support from the Muslim community ahead of the crucial Jubilee Hills bypoll. The party has faced criticism for the lack of Muslim representation in the Telangana cabinet.

“After losing the previous election as a Congress candidate, Azharuddin is now being hastily appointed as a Minister. For the past 22 months, there hasn't been even one minority representative in the cabinet.”

“If Congress truly cared about minority welfare, it would have given representation earlier. Doing this just before the elections clearly shows their intent. Appointing someone as a minister while the election code of conduct is in force is illegal. To appease minority voters, the Congress is blatantly violating the code and using ministerial posts as political incentives," said Union Minister G Kishan Reddy, according to Deccan Herald. 

A former Lok Sabha MP from Moradabad, Azharuddin had contested the 2023 Assembly elections from Jubilee Hills but lost to BRS candidate Maganti Gopinath, whose demise in June led to the upcoming byepoll.

Chairman of BJP’s state election affairs committee Marri Shashidhar Reddy and BJP MLA Payal Shanker also wrote a letter to the Telangana Chief Electoral Officer stating that the decision to induct Azharuddin into the cabinet is a violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). “We have just noticed through TV and newspapers that there is a proposal to offer ministry to Mr Mohamed Azharuddin,” said their complaint.

They said that the decision was taken to woo a “section of voters” – without naming Muslims. Reports suggest that the Jubilee Hills constituency has a 22% Muslim population.

The former India cricket captain, who joined the Congress in 2009, began his political career by winning the Moradabad Lok Sabha seat, but lost from Tonk–Sawai Madhopur in 2014. In 2018, he was appointed Working President of the Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee (TPCC) before contesting the 2023 Assembly election.

Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.

A former Chief Financial Officer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) from Bengaluru has alleged that he was forced to pay multiple bribes for official processes following the death of his daughter. In a now deleted LinkedIn post, Sivakumar K detailed his experience after the death of his 34-year-old daughter, Akshaya. “Recently my only child passed away at age 34. The amount of open bribes being asked by ambulance, police for FIR and post-mortem report, crematorium for giving receipts, BBMP office for death certificate,” he wrote. 

Akshaya had suffered a brain haemorrhage at their home on September 18. 

Sivakumar said in his post that an ambulance driver had demanded Rs 3,000 to transport his daughter’s body from a hospital in Kasavanahalli to St John’s Hospital in Koramangala. He alleged that at the Bellandur police station, where he went to complete formalities for the post-mortem, an inspector was “rude” and “showed no empathy”. 

He further alleged, “Since police have to give FIR copy and post mortem report, we met after 4 days. They openly demanded cash which I paid in the police station. I later found there were no CCTV cameras in the area where they take money (sic),” 

“Very sad state. I had money, I paid. What will the poor do?” Sivakumar added.

According to his post, the ordeal continued at the crematorium, where he was asked to pay money for the receipt, and later at the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) office, where he struggled for five days to obtain the death certificate. He said officials told him that no one was available because of an ongoing “caste survey,” and that the certificate was eventually issued only after he paid more than the official fee to a senior officer.

Sivakumar questioned the lack of compassion among public officials and recounted how his family donated his daughter’s eyes after the post-mortem. 

“Do police officials have a family or feeling when they demand money or speak rudely to a person who is already in trauma and in emotional turmoil?” he wrote, adding that he was able to navigate the process only because of his financial means and professional connections.

Screenshots of his post went viral, triggering widespread public outrage. Bengaluru police have now taken cognizance of the allegations. Police Commissioner Seemanth Kumar Singh ordered immediate action, and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Whitefield) K Parashurama confirmed that Police Sub-Inspector Santosh and Constable Gorakhnath from Bellandur police station had been suspended. A departmental inquiry has also been initiated against them.

Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.

The Karnataka High Court ordered an interim stay on the investigation into the Dharmasthala mass burials case till November 12. This came at a time when the Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by IPS officer Pronab Mohanty, was all set to submit its interim report to the government and a complaint report (equivalent to a chargesheet) to the Magistrate. This report was regarding perjury and the submission of a skull, which the police said was false evidence.  

The SIT had also received FSL reports that confirmed that the two bodies exhumed in Dharmasthala were male.  

Justice Mohammad Nawaz passed the order on Thursday, October 30, on a petition filed by activists Girish Mattanavar, Mahesh Thimmarodi, Jayant T, and Vittal Gowda. They had sought the quashing of the FIR filed by the Dharmasthala police based on the complaint of Chinnaiah, who had alleged that he had buried several bodies illegally at the behest of the temple administration in Dharmasthala. 

The petitioners had been at the forefront of the ‘Justice for Sowjanya’ movement and had backed the claims made by Chinnaiah. The SIT, however, summoned them nine times over a skull that Chinnaiah produced before a magistrate in July 2025. The SIT had found that Chinnaiah had not exhumed the skull himself and served notices to the four men, who were believed to know how and from where it was exhumed. 

On receiving a fresh summons on October 24, the four petitioners approached the court, challenging the summons and seeking the quashing of the FIR. 

“The quashing was sought on technical grounds and the procedures adopted by the SIT and not on the merits of the case itself,” said advocate S Balan, who is representing the four petitioners. 

The petition says that the FIR registered by the Dharmasthala police under Section 211(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was a violation of Section 174(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires the police to record non-cognisable offence information and refer the informant to the Magistrate who would then direct the action to be taken.

Balan argued in court that the Dharmasthala police initially registered a non-cognisable report (NCR) as Chinnaiah’s statements were of a non-cognisable nature. “The police should have referred the informant to the magistrate under Section 174(1)(i) of the BNSS, and it was the magistrate who should have directed action on the basis of the NCR,” Balan told the court. 

He also said that the nine BNS sections subsequently added to the FIR against the four petitioners by the Special Investigation Team were illegal, as they were against procedure. 

Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha opposed the petition, stating that activists involved in the mass-burial issue had approached the SP and senior government officials demanding action and had pressured for the investigation. He told the court that Chinnaiah himself had alleged that the same individuals pushed him into wrongdoing and accused the petitioners of trying to interfere with the investigation. The SPP contended that if the petitioners feared arrest, they should seek bail and not expect blanket protection.

Justice Nawaz directed that the petitioners be protected from harassment and stayed the investigation until the next hearing on November 12. 

Balan told TNM that the court relied on two judgements of the Karnataka High Court, Vageppa Gurulinga Jangaligi vs State of Karnataka and Rachayya Swamy vs State of Karnataka, on the procedure to deal with non-cognisable offences. 

The petitioners also said that they had received nine notices from the SIT to appear for questioning and that they were sent via WhatsApp and email. They said they had received a 10th notice under Section 35(3) of the BNS, which indicated that the petitioners may be arrested on their appearance on October 27. 

The petition also notes that the FIR did not contain any allegations against them. 

The petitioners also sought the quashing of additional charges invoked later in the same FIR. These include Sections 336 (forgery), 230 (fabricating false evidence), 231 (giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment), 229 (punishment for false evidence), 227 (giving false evidence), 228 (fabricating false evidence), 240 (giving false information respecting an offence committed), 236 (false statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence), 233 (using evidence known to be false), and 248 (false charge of offence made with intent to injure) of the BNS.