"Why won't you condemn Hamas?" Why your allies are silent and what to do about it
By Prof. Deepak MalhotraOct 19, 2023
(This article was initially published by Prof Malhotra as an independent article on LinkedIn. It is being published here with his permission)
Israelis. Palestinians. Jews. Muslims. Everyone is angry. Everyone is afraid. And everyone feels that their legitimate fears and grievances are being ignored – and that turning a blind eye to acts of injustice is not only immoral, but dangerous.
These sentiments are not new, but in the aftermath of the most horrific attack on Jews since the Holocaust, they have taken on an intensity and urgency that we have rarely, if ever, seen. That people would disagree and debate about all aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a surprise. Nor does anyone think that someone who has a very strong opinion on the conflict is suddenly going to change their mind.
Prof Deepak Malhotra
What can be surprising, however, is when you feel that the people you most expected or needed to stand by your side on an issue that seems morally unambiguous, are suddenly hesitating to do so. For example, when a Jewish student asks classmates to denounce Hamas, and the conversation does not go at all as hoped or expected. This is much harder for people to accept. Not surprisingly, in both social media posts and emails, these words by Martin Luther King, Jr. are being constantly invoked this week:
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
I think it might be useful to understand one reason this happens, and what you might be able to do about it. This post, due to its timing and content, might seem most immediately relevant to my friends, students, and colleagues who are Jewish, for whom their disappointment with “allies” is verging on exasperation, and the pain of it is bleeding into outrage.
But this is, ultimately, a post about how all sides of this (or any) conflict, who feel that they are not being heard, understood, or supported, might be more effective. The tendency in such moments is to assume that your allies are cowards, or fence-sitting for political reasons, or just don’t care enough. Of course, all of these can be factors, but in my experience, it is usually something quite different that is most at play. Understanding what is going wrong in these conversations might help us become better at dialogue and building moral consensus.
So, let’s take the example of the most recent attack by Hamas. Why is it, that at a time when one might expect moral clarity and universal condemnation of the horrors that Hamas has perpetrated, people are instead stuck disagreeing, debating, and demonizing one another? Why is it that so many of our Jewish students, friends, and colleagues feel disappointed with how others in their social networks are responding – or refusing to respond – to the call for a clear statement condemning Hamas?
The father of a child from the al-Majaida family killed when an Israeli air strike hit their home carries its body during its funeral in Khan Yunis on the southern Gaza Strip, on October 19, 2023 (Photo by Mahmud HAMS / AFP) (Photo by MAHMUD HAMS/AFP via Getty Images)
Let’s start with what seems easy enough, at least for me: I, for one, can unequivocally say that I condemn, without reservation, the inhumane, wicked, and unjustifiable acts of Hamas. They cannot be excused.
Why then, when my Jewish friends, colleagues, or students say this, do others in the room not immediately and unanimously echo the same sentiment? Why do others sometimes hesitate, or argue, or suggest that the answer is more complicated? The thing to understand is that even when you ask a question as seemingly straightforward as “Isn’t what Hamas did completely unjustifiable?” it has the power to trigger three very separate conversations – and when that happens, you will probably start talking past each other. What are these three conversations?
Conversation #1 is the one you were trying to have in that moment, which is about whether what Hamas did is inhumane and unjustifiable.
Conversation #2 is about whether the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complicated affair that requires a careful and honest acknowledgment of the role everyone, including Israel, has played in the past. You might agree that there is a place and time for such conversations, but it’s not the conversation you were trying to have in that moment.
Conversation #3 is about what the Israeli government should or should not do in response to the attacks. For example, isn't it essential that Israel respect international law and human rights when it retaliates? You might agree completely with this, but that is also not the conversation you were trying to have in that moment.
For the moment, you were just trying to have Conversation #1, and your hope was that at this time of maximal pain and fear, others would find it easy to agree that the targeted and barbaric murder of civilians by Hamas is categorically wrong and must be condemned. Yes, there are reasons to also have Conversation #2 or #3, but does it have to be at the precise moment when you’re simply asking someone to acknowledge that “killing babies is wrong” and to condemn such acts (whether perpetrated against Jews or anyone else)?
As someone who has devoted much of their life to Conversations #2 and #3 – which is to say, as someone who knows that only by understanding the roots of conflict (and honestly examining how each side has perpetrated injustice) is it possible to solve problems effectively and in accordance with our values – I understand the importance of these other discussions and debates.
However, I don’t think this means one cannot take a moment (or hopefully longer) to acknowledge Conversation #1 when someone brings it up. The point is not even that Conversation #1 must always be had before #2 or #3, just that it deserves some space and time.
I think most people are capable of, simultaneously, exhibiting moral clarity and having a nuanced understanding of a complex conflict. For example, I happen to believe that the attacks by Hamas are so inhumane that they cannot possibly be “justified”. I am equally sure that we should never shy away from “explaining” what happened and why – nor allow ourselves to be bullied into adopting a one-sided (e.g., only pro-Israeli) perspective on the history of this or any other conflict.
Family and friends of siblings Noa and Gideon Chiel, who were killed in the Nova party by Palestinians militants mourn during their funeral on October 18, 2023 in Achuzat Barak, Israel (Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)
I happen to also believe that Israel has a right to defend itself and its citizens, but that does not mean I will excuse or condone retaliatory acts that ignore human rights and international law – which is something that might already be happening; nor will I be bullied into an absolutist “you are either with us or against us” modality.
Why then, even with people who would agree in principle that what Hamas did was terrible and unacceptable, do conversations get derailed? Because the two sides are coming into the conversation with different underlyingconcerns. I think what my Jewish friends, colleagues, and students want others to know is that they deeply believe – no, they are convinced – that now is the time to sit shiva as one global community and say that some things are simply never acceptable or excusable.
Meanwhile, I think that people who respond by shifting the discussion to Conversation to #2 or #3 (“well, we have to see the conflict in context”) are instead working to ensure that any acknowledgment of the evil perpetrated by Hamas does not minimize or forget the suffering that Palestinians (or other groups) have experienced; they also worry that their acknowledgment will be seen as tacit support for whatever Israel's government will do in retaliation—and many people are not ready to go that far.
But both sets of concerns can be met. It might be possible for both sides to get what they need from the dialogue – in fact, it will be easier for each side to get what it wants if it accommodates the genuine concerns and fears of the other.
Here are a few suggestions that might make such conversations more effective — and less likely to lead to disappointment or outrage.
It is important for everyone to be having the same conversation at the same time, no matter which conversation it happens to be. It does not help if you are trying to have Conversation #1 and others are having #2 or #3. It helps to clarify and coordinate on the scope of the discussion.
If you are starting Conversation #1, it is more likely to go well if the other side knows (or if you have conveyed) that you are also open to the other two conversations; this makes it less likely that others feel it’s their job to continually interrupt and advocate or lobby for what you seem to be ignoring.
It never helps when the other side feels like they are being judged—or being bullied into having a conversation on your terms—regardless of which position you are taking. Even when bullying seems to work, at best you can achieve temporary compliance, not true commitment.
We need to be mindful of what exactly we appear to be asking of others. For example, asking someone to agree that "Hamas is perpetrating evil" is not quite the same as asking them to agree that "Hamas is evil and you should support the Israeli government's response," or that "If you don't support Israel, you are on the side of the terrorists". Most people I know who are saddened or offended by the lack of support they are experiencing simply wanted their friends, colleagues, professors, employers and/or universities to agree with the first of these statements: that is, to offer a clear condemnation of Hamas. Unfortunately, the way this request or demand is conveyed can sometimes make the other side feel that they are being asked to sign on to far more than just a condemnation of Hamas. And this can lead to reactance or resistance or hesitation. In general, the more demands you are making, the less likely you will get the one thing you most wanted.
Some might bristle at these suggestions. A Jewish person might ask: why should I have to navigate conversations so carefully? It should not be so hard for people to say that the killing of babies is evil. A Palestinian might bristle at this for an entirely different reason: Where was this discussion, and where were these suggestions, when Palestinians are being killed? Both are fair complaints. And there are probably many other fair complaints.
But the purpose of this post is simply to point out that whether you’re incensed by what Hamas has done in Israel, or by what Israel has done in the West Bank or Gaza, if you want to have more productive conversations about it—with potential allies or even with people who generally disagree with you but might be receptive to aspects of your perspective—this might be a more effective approach.
So, where should these conversations start? It probably depends on who is in the room and what you are trying to accomplish. Especially in the aftermath of a tragedy such as this, starting with Conversation #1 makes a lot of sense. We should be able to take a moment to agree that what Hamas did should not be allowed to happen again—not to our Jewish brothers and sisters, not to our Palestinian brothers and sisters, and not to any group of people.
We should be able to clearly state that such acts can never be condoned. At the same time, with Israel’s response in Gaza already raising concerns regarding violations of international law, Conversation #3 can also not wait. We need to ensure that in this moment of maximal anger, pain, and fear, the Israeli government does not feel licensed to take actions that will make matters worse or run afoul of its own stated moral standards—because if history is any guide, it is often the case that vengeance leads to ineffective and short-sighted policymaking and to the perpetration of regrettable human rights violations. And, of course, a case could also be made for prioritizing Conversation #2 (i.e., discussing the roots of the conflict and seeing current events in context).
Which is to say, we should be able to have Conversation #1—and that doing so does not have to mean Conversation #2 or #3 is any less essential or urgent. Indeed, all of these are crucial if we are to do what is necessary to create a better world for future generations of Jewish Israelis, Arab Israelis, and Palestinians alike. We cannot give up on that goal.
We must all try, yet again, despite so many past failures and disappointments, to build a future that will provide peace and justice for all of humanity, not just for any one group. For that to happen, effective dialogue will be essential, and we can all do better in that domain.
(Deepak Malhotra is a professor at Harvard Business School)
Doreen Simson, 87, a child evacuee from London; 100-year-old former Wren Ruth Barnwell; and veteran Henry Rice, 98, in front of a full-size replica Spitfire during an event organised by SSAFA, the UK’s oldest Armed Forces charity, to launch the ‘VE Day 80: The Party’ countdown outside Royal Albert Hall, in London
Winning the war was no longer any kind of surprise. After all, Hitler had committed suicide. What had once seemed in deep peril a few years later had become a matter of time.
BBC newsflashes on May 7 announced Germany’s unconditional surrender, so the next day would be Victory Day, in Europe at least. Cue perhaps the biggest party that this country had ever seen – with jubilation and relief reflecting the heavy toll of five years of war.
How far will the meaning of VE Day still resonate today, some 80 years on? Most wartime memories come from childhood now. More than three million people in Britain today were born before VE Day – but over half were aged under five as the war ended. About 120,000 people in Britain today were at least 14, the age that most people left school then. You have to be at least 98 today to have been able to join the armed forces, legally before 1945, though some did fib to serve under-age.
It is estimated that 8.6 million people served during the war – five million from the British Isles, the rest from the empire and Commonwealth. It is probable there are fewer than 15,000 survivors today. The UK Ministry of Defence has no official figures on the number of living veterans, though the US Ministry of Veterans produces annual estimates.
But the 2021 census asked about military service for the first time, enabling better informed estimates than before. British Future’s crunching of that census data finds that 5,000 men and 4,000 women in Britain aged 98+ report serving as veterans – about a quarter of the age group – including service after the war as well as during it.
Up to 4,000 veterans aged over 100 are more likely to have seen active service during the war itself. Ten veterans wrote a letter to the nation inviting us all to remember. That they included three Indian Army volunteers – Corporal Mirza Khan, Sergeant Mohammad Hussain and Sergeant Major Rajindar Singh Dhatt – reminds us that the armies which fought and won the war look more like the Britain of 2025 than that of 1945.
Recognising the ever-dwindling few will be one poignant focus of the VE Day anniversary. Culture secretary Lisa Nandy notes that it is “one of the last chances we have to say thank you to this generation of heroes”.
It would surprise many that more than four in 10 surviving veterans are women (largely because women are four times as likely as men to live to 100).
The anniversary is a good chance to increase knowledge of the auxiliary services roles – undertaken by around one-10th of women, such as the ‘Wrens’ in the Navy or the WAAFI in the air force.
Yet, this 80th anniversary faces challenges to capture public attention. Next Thursday (8) is not a bank holiday, so will be a day of official ceremonies, but a normal working day too in many schools and offices. Three days earlier, the bank holidaday next Monday (5), will see a parade on the Mall and community celebrations, including street parties.
Our politicians will have to switch from a focus on the local elections to the national commemorations. The July 1945 general election – with a landslide defeat for the war leader Winston Churchill – was a powerful demonstration of the democracy that the war had been fought for, and the determination to forge a better peace.
The message of this VE Day anniversary should not just be that we mark it because a few of those who took part in the war are still alive. If that was the reason, there would be little point in marking the 2039-2045 centenary at all.
So a bigger challenge for our leaders, marking this anniversary, is how far they can begin to shape a new narrative about what these foundational moments in our history would mean once the war does finally slip beyond living memory. That is a central part of what it is to be a nation – to have a story about how our past, present and future are linked. What does who we are today, and how we got here, mean for the next chapter?
The events of 1945 shaped the lives of everybody who has lived in this country since – not only because the war was won, but also thanks to the choices made at home and abroad after it ended.
Yet this has been a year when those foundations of democracy and the multilateral order are in peril. How we could do with recapturing the spirit of 1945, however distant it may seem to us now.
That was a time when money was scarcer than today – yet where people faced the future with hope.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
Leadership today can feel like flying a plane through dense fog.
You’re managing priorities, pressures, and people. You’re flying through turbulence, and the instruments keep changing. And still, you’re expected to chart a clear course, adapt to change in real time, and help others do the same.
But what if the biggest threat to your trajectory isn’t external? What if it’s how your own experience shapes what you can no longer see?
When experience becomes a blindfold
The Curse of Knowledge is a cognitive bias that occurs when we become so familiar with something that we stop examining it. Once we “know” something, our brains tag it as settled. We make it part of the mental autopilot.
That’s helpful for getting through a busy day. But it’s dangerous in an environment that demands change.
Here’s how it shows up:
“That’s how we’ve always done it.”
“We already tried that.”
“Our customers wouldn’t go for it.”
These aren’t facts. They’re filters — installed by past experience, running quietly in the background. We don’t notice them because they feel like truth. But the real problem is that we stop questioning them.
The Curse of Knowledge makes it harder to see new solutions, new paths, and new ways to solve the new challenges you’re facing.
And in a business like yours — where competition is fierce, timelines are tight, and customer expectations keep evolving — that can cost you dearly.
From obstacle thinking to possibility thinking
There’s a different way to lead through uncertainty, and it starts with possibility thinking.
Possibility thinkers don’t assume that the first roadblock is the end of the road. They’re willing to look again. To question what seems fixed. To ask, “What else could be true?”
This isn’t wishful thinking. It’s disciplined curiosity.
And in industries balancing new technologies, workforce dynamics, economic pressures, and rapid change, curiosity is one of the most underutilised competitive advantages available.
Here are three practical ways to break out of the Curse of Knowledge and shift from “obstacle” to “opportunity”:
1. Assumption smashing
Most of what limits your thinking isn’t a real rule. It’s a made-up one — created by your brain based on all your past experience and expertise.
People absorb assumptions from their own history: what’s worked, what hasn’t, what got praised, what got shut down. But just because something was true once doesn’t mean it’s true now.
Assumption smashing is the act of surfacing those invisible “rules” and breaking them on purpose.
In innovation sessions, it often takes just one bold move — and it shifts the entire room. Once someone questions what others were treating as non-negotiable, it unlocks the permission to do the same.
One person’s reframing can become everyone’s breakthrough.
As a leader, that person needs to be you. You go first — and show others that it’s not only allowed to question assumptions, it’s expected.
2. Change the question
If a team is stuck, the problem might not be the problem. It might be how it’s being defined.
Small changes in language lead to big differences in thinking. Let’s say the goal is to reduce customer churn. It could be framed as:
“How can we retain customers?”
…or:
“How can we surprise our customers?”
“How might we create something they’d brag about?”
“What would make them stay, even if a competitor charged less?”
Each question sends the brain down a different path.
The goal isn’t to wordsmith. It’s to find the frame that leads to fresh possibility.
3. Borrow a brain
Sometimes teams are simply too close to the problem.
That’s why bringing in someone who doesn’t “know how it works here” can be so powerful. They’re not stuck inside the same patterns. They don’t carry the same assumptions.
Invite a colleague from another department. Pair up a veteran with a next-generation team member. Ask a new hire what they see.
Fresh eyes can expose what the Curse of Knowledge has hidden.
You’re already flying — just don’t forget to check the map.
Pilots check their instruments constantly. They don’t assume. They cross-check. They adjust course when needed.
As a leader, that same discipline matters.
The Curse of Knowledge isn’t a flaw. It’s a cognitive bias — a natural part of how human brains work. But it doesn’t have to decide what’s possible. It can be challenged, and others can be led to do the same.
You’re already flying the plane.
Now ask yourself: Are you still headed in the right direction?
The most dangerous limits are rarely external.
They’re the ones that go unquestioned.
Susan Robertson empowers individuals, teams, and organisations to more nimbly adapt to change, by transforming thinking from “why we can’t” to “how might we?” She is a creative thinking expert with over 20 years’ experience speaking and coaching in FTSE 500 companies. As an instructor on applied creativity at Harvard, Susan brings a scientific foundation to enhancing human creativity. To learn more, please visit: SusanRobertsonSpeaker.com.
In a world increasingly defined by scarcity, one resource is emerging as the most quietly decisive factor in the future of industry, sustainability, and even geopolitics: water. Yet, while the headlines are dominated by energy transition and climate pledges, few companies working behind the scenes on water issues have attracted much public attention. One of them is Gradiant, a Boston-based firm that has, over the past decade, grown into a key player in the underappreciated but critical sector of industrial water treatment.
A Company Born from MIT, and from Urgency
Founded in 2013 by Anurag Bajpayee and Prakash Govindan, two researchers with strong ties to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Gradiant began as a scrappy start-up with a deceptively simple premise: make water work harder. At a time when discussions about climate change were centred almost exclusively on carbon emissions and renewable energy, the trio saw water scarcity looming in the background.
Their insight was that some of the world’s largest industries—semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, food and beverage—were facing acute water-related challenges long before the general public grasped the issue. “Without water, these industries don’t just slow down; they stop,” Bajpayee has often remarked. What Gradiant offered was not just a way to save water, but a way to rethink how it is used, recycled, and valued.
The Engineers Behind the Mission
Anurag Bajpayee, the company’s CEO, whose academic path took him to MIT, where he completed a PhD in Mechanical Engineering focused on water treatment technologies. It was there that he met Govindan, a fellow engineer and now Gradiant's co-founder and COO, whose expertise complemented his in fluid mechanics and process engineering.
Unlike many founders who drift towards the language of venture capital and corporate strategy, Anurag Bajpayee and his team remained grounded in the technical problem: how to make industrial water treatment more efficient, more affordable, and more sustainable. The company still bears the imprint of its founders’ engineering roots. Gradiant is less Silicon Valley startup and more MIT lab, albeit one that has quietly expanded across Asia, the Middle East, Europe and North America.
What Gradiant Actually Does
The company specializes in designing and building bespoke water treatment and reuse systems for industrial clients. Its technologies are aimed at enabling factories and plants to reclaim water that would otherwise be discarded as waste, reducing both the amount of water withdrawn from natural sources and the volume of contaminated water discharged.
At the heart of Gradiant’s portfolio are proprietary technologies such as Counter Flow Reverse Osmosis (CFRO), Carrier Gas Extraction (CGE) and Selective Ion Recovery (SIR), developed from the Gradiant founders’ early research at MIT. Unlike traditional methods like reverse osmosis, these systems are designed to handle highly contaminated or complex wastewater streams, enabling clients to extract clean water even from previously unusable sources.
But Gradiant does not sell “one-size-fits-all” machines. Each project is tailored to the customer’s unique needs. For a semiconductor plant in Singapore, this might mean achieving ultrapure water reuse levels of 98%; for a food and beverage factory in Texas, it might be about safely treating wastewater for discharge while minimising energy consumption. The company's approach—sometimes called "solutioneering" internally—is both its competitive advantage and its raison d'être.
Expansion Without the Usual Hype
Gradiant’s growth has been quietly impressive. From its first commercial project in the oil and gas sector, it has gone on to complete over 500 installations worldwide. The company has raised more than $400 million in funding from a mix of institutional investors and private equity firms, achieving so-called “unicorn” status, with a valuation reportedly over $1 billion.
Unlike many green tech firms, Gradiant’s expansion has not been accompanied by flashy marketing campaigns or grandiose statements. Instead, the company has preferred to build credibility client by client, particularly in Asia, where water-intensive industries and growing environmental pressures make its services indispensable. Anurag Bajpayee, never one to speak in superlatives, frames the company’s expansion as a “response to urgent need” rather than a triumph of business.
Inside Gradiant’s Operations
At its core, Gradiant is still an engineering-first company. Anurag Bajpayee and Govindan, both technically trained and heavily involved in the company’s operations, have instilled a culture where R&D is not just a department but the lifeblood of the business. The firm currently holds more than 250 patents globally, a testament to its ongoing commitment to innovation.
But Gradiant’s success is not just about technology. The company has differentiated itself by offering not just equipment but full-service solutions, including project design, construction, operations, and maintenance. This full-stack approach has been particularly attractive to clients in highly regulated industries, who need water management solutions that work seamlessly and reliably without requiring deep in-house expertise.
Gradiant’s clients include some of the world’s largest manufacturers, including Fortune 500 companies in sectors like microelectronics, pharmaceuticals, and energy. Some, like semiconductor producers, rely on Gradiant to help them meet stringent water reuse targets while maintaining ultra-clean production environments.
Navigating a Changing World
Gradiant operates at the intersection of several converging trends: climate change, regulatory pressure, and industrial decarbonisation. In many regions, water scarcity has become the limiting factor for industrial growth, sometimes more than energy availability or supply chain constraints.
While public attention often focuses on domestic water use, it is industries that consume the lion’s share of freshwater. Gradiant's pitch is straightforward: industries will have to do more with less, and Gradiant offers the tools to make that possible.
Anurag Bajpayee is keenly aware of the paradox that water, despite being vital, is often underpriced and undervalued, especially when compared to energy. “We don’t pay what it’s worth, only what it costs,” he told an audience at a recent conference. Yet, the landscape is shifting. Regulators, investors, and companies themselves are increasingly acknowledging water as both a business risk and a social responsibility.
What's Next for Gradiant?
Looking ahead, Gradiant appears poised to play a central role as industries adapt to water scarcity. Yet, Anurag Bajpayee remains cautious about the hype cycle. "The problem we’re working on isn’t going anywhere," he says. "It’s not a question of innovation alone, but of execution—of making sure these solutions actually reach the places that need them most."
In an era where water risk is increasingly material to business, Gradiant’s quiet, technically grounded approach may prove to be exactly what is needed.
(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Eastern Eye. The publication does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy of any statements made by the author.)
Keep ReadingShow less
Malnutrition is the underlying cause of almost 50 per cent of child deaths around the world
The word “nutrition” can mean many things. In the UK, the word might conjure images of protein powders or our five-a-day of fruit and veg. But nutrition is much more than that. Nutrition plays a crucial role in shaping the health and life chances of people around the world.
Malnutrition is the underlying cause of almost 50 per cent of child deaths around the world as it weakens the immune system, reducing resilience to disease outbreaks such as cholera and measles. This is equivalent to approximately 2.25 million children dying annually - more than the number of children under five in Spain, Poland, Greece, or Portugal.
In 2022, more than 50 per cent of the world’s 45 million children suffering from wasting - the deadliest form of malnutrition - lived in south Asia.
Beyond the tragic human cost, malnutrition is an enemy to economic growth. Malnutrition reduces school achievement and work productivity, costing us an estimated $2.4 trillion globally every year. The worst-affected nations lose up to 16 per cent of their GDP annually.
Ultimately, it increases dependence on international aid, when global pressures mean we have to ensure every penny of our aid budgets is delivering as effectively as possible.
We’re determined not to look away from this issue. We need a new development model that responds to the evolving global challenges we face. We need a modern approach that will help low- and middle-income countries in the fight against malnutrition, support a healthy population and become self-sufficient, by forming genuine, respectful partnerships.
Baroness Chapman
Afshan Khan
The UK has already supported new thinking, sharing ideas and finding what works, and cofounded the Child Nutrition Fund, which seeks to transform the way we finance action against malnutrition.
For example, unlocking local financing for producers of essential nutrition supplies and services in low- and middle-income countries, and match-funding governments’ contribution to double investments which go towards tackling nutrition.
The Child Nutrition Fund aims to reach 230 million children and 70 million women with life-saving support globally, including the provision of nutrition supplements, breastfeeding support, and treatments for child wasting.
At this week’s Nutrition for Growth Summit in Paris, the UK is continuing that leadership. Along with the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement and partners from around the world, the UK has launched a Global Compact on Nutrition Integration.
It focuses on thinking about nutrition as part of all we do, rather than trying to tackle it as a standalone issue. A new coalition, including the UK, Ireland, Netherlands, and Germany will embed nutrition objectives into wider government policies. This approach will help better leverage existing support for maximum impact and accelerate progress towards a world free from malnutrition.
We know this works. In Bangladesh, thinking about nutrition alongside prenatal and childhood vaccination programmes has helped bring under-five child mortality down 80 per cent. In Sierra Leone, the government has integrated nutrition into agricultural policies, successfully reducing impaired growth due to malnutrition by more than three per cent.
However, to reduce child malnutrition to zero, we need to mobilise and work globally. The Global Compact for Nutrition Integration will unite countries and partner organisations in setting and implementing more ambitious commitments. The first signatories include Cambodia, Nepal, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Lesotho and organisations like the World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and others.
Doing nothing would be a disaster. But if we tackle this issue together - millions of lives could be saved and trillions of dollars put back into the global economy.
At the Nutrition for Growth summit, we’re rising to the challenge. Not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s pivotal to the health and prosperity of us all.
(Baroness Chapman is the UK minister for international development and Afshan Khan is the coordinator of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement)
Keep ReadingShow less
Mevy Qureshi conducting a Bollywoodinspired exercise programme
IN 2014, I pursued my passion for belly dancing at the Fleur Estelle Dance School in Covent Garden, London. Over the next three years, I mastered techniques ranging from foundational movements to advanced choreography and performance skills. This dedication to dance led to performing in front of audiences, including a memorable solo rendition of Bruno Mars’ Uptown Funk, which showcased dynamic stage presence and delighted the crowd.
However, my connection to dance began much earlier. The energy, vibrancy, and storytelling of Bollywood captivated me from a very young age. The expressive movements, lively music, and colourful costumes offered a sense of joy and empowerment that became the foundation of my dance passion.
Fast forward to 2018, I discovered BollyX, a Bollywood-inspired exercise programme that combined my love for dance with fitness. That same year, I became a certified CL1 BollyX fitness instructor, setting me on a path to share this unique blend of dance and fitness with others.
After recognising a lack of Bollywood-inspired and ladies-only fitness classes in the Waltham Forest area of London, I decided to launch my own Bollywood fitness sessions, starting in Walthamstow. These classes have since become a cornerstone of my efforts to bring Bollywood fitness to the community, offering participants an exciting way to stay active and connect with the vibrant world of Indian cinema.
Another turning point came when I expanded my horizons by attending a Bollywood workshop in Rome, Italy. This led to my debut live performance at Saaz Restobar, where I had the opportunity to showcase the beauty of Bollywood dance fitness to an appreciative Italian audience. These experiences further reinforced my passion for dance and cultural expression.
That dedication to promoting Bollywood fitness led to me being selected by the Glastonbury Festival as a performing artist. I have also been able to lead workshops for organisations such as Carers UK, Dementia UK, the Financial Conduct Authority, Lloyds Bank TSB, Parkinson’s UK, the Times, and the Wellnergy Festival. These workshops enabled me to show how Bollywood-inspired dance fitness can be used as a tool for team-building and cultural engagement.
My current Bollywood dance fitness classes uniquely blend cardio and strength training with high-energy routines set to infectious film music. They are designed for all fitness levels, with routines that are simple to follow and adaptable to individual abilities.
Participants enjoy improved cardiovascular health, calorie-burning workouts, and enhanced muscle tone, all in a fun and supportive atmosphere. Dance classes also offer mental health benefits, such as stress relief, mood enhancement, and increased mental clarity, creating a holistic experience.
My journey, along with the classes, has reinforced that dance is not only a great form of entertainment but also offers many health benefits and a positive energy that should be experienced by everyone. That combination of fitness, dance, and cultural immersion will leave you energised and inspired. That is why you should always remember to dance like no one is watching.
Mevy Qureshi holds Bollywood dance classes every Thursday at All Saints Church, Highams Park E4 9QZ, from 12.30 pm to 1.15pm, for £5 per session or £18 for four classes. Visit Instagram @bollyxwithmevy
"Why won't you condemn Hamas?" Why your allies are silent and what to do about it