Founded by Zahack Tanvir, SifraNi Labs positions itself as a research-driven consultancy designed to address problems that are difficult to define at the outset—where data exists, systems are operational, but decision-makers lack clarity.

Tanvir, who has an academic and research-oriented background in technology and systems analysis, said the firm was created to bridge a growing gap between advanced technical capability and effective decision-making.

SifraNi Labs works across IT architecture, applied AI and analytics, cybersecurity and system risk, research and advisory services, and strategy and communications. Its approach emphasizes first-principles analysis—examining systems, assumptions, and data flows before recommending solutions or interventions.

The firm’s name reflects that philosophy. “Sifr” traces its roots to Shunya, the concept of zero articulated by Aryabhata, which introduced a foundational abstraction that made large-scale computation and system-building possible. The concept later evolved through the work of Al-Khwarizmi, whose algebraic and algorithmic methods laid the groundwork for modern computation.

SifraNi Labs draws on that lineage to emphasize starting from fundamentals—stripping away assumptions to understand how systems actually behave in practice.

The launch comes as organizations face mounting pressure from digital transformation, AI adoption, cybersecurity threats, and regulatory scrutiny. According to industry observers, the demand for firms that can integrate technical analysis with strategic communication is growing, particularly in public-sector and high-accountability environments.

“Technology has advanced faster than our ability to govern, explain, and operationalize it,” Tanvir said. “Services that combine deep technical understanding with clear strategic communication are no longer optional—they’re necessary.”

SifraNi Labs said it will focus on long-term system reliability, responsible technology use, and decision-making that can withstand operational, regulatory, and public scrutiny.

As digital systems become more complex and AI-driven decisions more consequential, SifraNi Labs aims to position itself as a partner for organizations seeking clarity before action, rather than remediation after failure.

His remarks came in response to a question by the show’s host, Zahack Tanvir, who asked whether it would “be really … logical enough” to involve Pakistan in the Gaza Stabilisation Force — and what repercussions might follow.

Meyer’s answer was unequivocal. “I think you have to choose,” he said. “Either Pakistan will be involved or we can have a stabilisation force. The two are not going to happen together.” He added that the same logic applies to any other state — including those like Qatar — that some have proposed might contribute to the force.

“You know, there’s the old expression of inviting the fox into the hen house,” Meyer argued. “Once you have … bad actors … the only result is going to be negative.” He said it “does not take a crystal ball” to see the consequences and described even the possibility of such inclusion as “ludicrous.”

The debate unfolded against the backdrop of recent developments: the ISF has been proposed as part of a broader peace plan aimed at stabilising the Gaza Strip following ongoing conflict. Under that plan, a multinational peacekeeping force would be mandated to help restore security, oversee demilitarisation and facilitate the rebuilding of Gaza.

Countries such as Egypt, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have been frequently discussed in connection with potential troop contributions — but according to Meyer, inviting Pakistan into the mix would seriously undercut the force’s legitimacy.

Also participating in the podcast discussion were other security and regional-experts: Siddhant Kishore, a national-security analyst based in Washington DC; Yeshaya Rosenman, an India–Israel specialist in Jerusalem; and Irina Tsukerman, attorney and national security analyst. Their collective participation underscored the gravity of the conversation, which framed the ISF not only as a means for peace-building, but also as a test of the international community’s resolve to exclude parties deemed incompatible with such a mission.

Meyer’s intervention resounds especially strongly given the background against which the podcast was framed — a remembrance of the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, widely attributed to militants operating out of Pakistan. The episode aimed both to honour the memory of the victims and to raise awareness of what the hosts described as “Pakistan-sponsored terror.”

For the international audience, Meyer’s warning is likely to add weight to ongoing debates over the composition and mandate of the ISF. Critics of including contested actors warn that doing so could undermine both operational discipline and political legitimacy; proponents counter that broad inclusion may be necessary for regional buy-in. With the Gaza conflict continuing to exert global repercussions, the question of who gets to stabilise Gaza remains deeply fraught.

While it’s easy to feel demoralized by online negativity, it’s crucial to understand the roots of such behavior.

In the age of social media, the line between private thoughts and public outrage has virtually disappeared. No matter what you post—whether it’s a simple photo of biryani, a motivational quote, or a well-researched opinion on politics—there’s always a dark corner of the internet ready to unleash its fury. Abuse, personal attacks, slurs against parents, women, and even religious identity have become disturbingly common. But why?

While it’s important to acknowledge and appreciate the silent majority that supports, likes, and quietly agrees, the human mind is naturally drawn to negativity. Ten supportive comments get overshadowed by one hateful reply. That single insult lingers in the mind long after praise is forgotten.

Based on years of observation and digital engagement, I’ve found five key types of individuals who fuel this online negativity:

1. The Mischievous Type – Born Troublemakers

These are the perennial troublemakers—the ones who, since childhood, found joy in irritating others. They’ve grown up provoking siblings, neighbours, teachers, and now, with the rise of social media, they’ve found a much larger playground.

They are the digital equivalent of Jinn—restless, unpredictable, and fueled by the discomfort of others. For them, leaving a sarcastic or negative comment is not just a habit—it’s a source of satisfaction. If they don’t mock or provoke someone online, their day feels incomplete. Even a harmless food photo can become their target.

Negativity is their diet, and trolling is their exercise. They exist not to contribute, but to disrupt—and without it, they simply cannot function.

2. The Low Comprehension Crowd

These are individuals who, regardless of how clearly something is stated, will twist it into something entirely different. You write “Moosa,” they read “Eesa.” You mention Coca-Cola, and they accuse you of promoting alcohol. You appreciate India’s development, and they brand you a bootlicker of Modi. Their thinking is clouded by bias, insecurity, and an almost compulsive urge to misrepresent.

This group suffers from what can only be described as a mental habit of distortion. They don’t engage with the actual words—they engage with what they want to believe was said. They are, in many ways, a constant source of tension not just online, but within their own homes. Family members, especially women, often struggle to communicate with them or find peace around them due to their combative and suspicious nature.

Ironically, this mindset is not limited to the uneducated. Many of these individuals hold degrees and possess formal literacy, yet lack the emotional intelligence and clarity of thought needed to engage constructively. Their education becomes a tool for more sophisticated forms of twisting and arguing, not for understanding.

Among all online personalities, these are perhaps the most dangerous—not because they are aggressive, but because they distort reality and spread confusion with a tone of misplaced confidence.

3. The Hasty and Half-Informed

These are the individuals who lack the patience to fully engage with content before reacting. They won’t watch a video till the end, nor will they read an article in its entirety. Driven by impulse and the rush of instant opinion, they leap straight to the comment section with criticism—often without understanding the context.

When confronted, a simple question usually exposes them: “Did you read the full article?” or “Did you watch the entire video?” More often than not, the answer is silence or deflection.

Their engagement is superficial—limited to a headline, a thumbnail, or a few seconds of a clip. From that limited input, they form sweeping judgments, start arguments, and even preach. Nuance is lost on them. In their world, quick opinions matter more than thoughtful reflection.

This culture of half-reading and knee-jerk reactions is one of the major drivers of online negativity. It fosters misunderstanding, fuels outrage, and buries meaningful discourse under a flood of misplaced criticism.

4. The ‘Holier-Than-Thou’ Crowd

One of the most troubling sources of online hostility stems from individuals who believe only their religious interpretation leads to salvation. Everyone else, in their view, is misguided or doomed. This mindset doesn’t arise overnight—it is the result of years of indoctrination, taught as piety but rooted in arrogance and fear.

Across all faiths, this pattern is visible. Many are raised to view those outside their religion—or even within it, from other sects—with contempt. Sectarianism thrives when marriages are invalidated, prayers dismissed, and communities divided, all in the name of doctrinal purity.

This obsession with the “only true path” isn’t unique. Christian denominations clash, Muslim sects argue over legitimacy, and divisions exist among Hindus, Jews, and others. Such rigidity drains religion of compassion and turns it into a badge of moral superiority.

Ironically, the more outwardly religious some become, the less tolerant they are of differing views. True religiosity should nurture empathy and humility—not arrogance. But when faith becomes a weapon of superiority, dissent is not debated—it’s demonized.

Online, this manifests as trolling. Differing opinions are seen not as opportunities for dialogue, but as threats. So, instead of reflection, there’s rebuke. Instead of empathy, there’s accusation.

This self-righteousness, masked as devotion, poisons discourse and drives hate. Unless religious communities begin promoting humility over hostility, the toxic cycle will worsen—alienating believers, silencing seekers, and turning faith into a battleground instead of a refuge.

5. The Unfulfilled and Frustrated

These are individuals who once aspired to achieve something meaningful beyond their routine jobs—but life didn’t go as planned. In childhood, their talents were overlooked. As they grew older, they found little encouragement from family or peers. Their dreams were dismissed, their ideas mocked, and their confidence eroded.

Today, even in their own homes, they feel powerless—some can’t switch to their preferred TV channel without fearing backlash from a domineering spouse. This accumulated frustration, suppressed over the years, finds an outlet in the digital world.

When they see someone doing something different, creative, or impactful—something they once dreamed of—they feel triggered. At first, they cloak their bitterness in the language of advice or religious “Islah”, offering unsolicited critiques under the guise of concern. But when their advice is ignored or rejected, the mask slips. What follows is a barrage of insults, curses, and hostility.

Their negativity is less about you—and more about their unresolved disappointment with themselves. Social media becomes their venting ground, not for ideas, but for grievances.

Should We Take Them Seriously?

While it’s easy to feel demoralized by online negativity, it’s crucial to understand the roots of such behavior. The silent majority is still there—supportive, kind, and observant. But as content creators or opinion sharers, we must develop thicker skin and sharper filters. Every negative comment is not a reflection of you—it often reveals more about the person writing it.

Let us focus on building meaningful content, engaging with thoughtful readers, and remembering that even in the noisy world of social media, silence often speaks volumes.

Executive Editor of TV9 Network Aditya Raj Kaul posted, “Funeral prayers for Terrorist Yaqub Mughal, head of Bilal Terror Camp in Pakistan. Pakistan ISI and Pakistan Police present in the funeral.”

The claim has prompted reactions from a wide spectrum of users. Arjun, a prominent commentator, accused the Pakistani state of open endorsement, stating, “The State of Pakistan publicly endorsing terrorism by giving state funeral to slain terrorists. Shameless subhumans.”

Similarly, Ratnish wrote, “They have gathered for the funeral of a terrorist and then want us to believe they don’t support terrorism. Imagine having any kind of sympathy for this terrorist nation.”

Rashmi, another X user, pointed to a recurring pattern, saying, “First they shelter terror groups and then they play victim. So typical.”

Zahack Tanvir, Founder of Milli Chronicle London, also highlighted the alleged presence of state officials: “Funeral prayers held for terrorist Yaqub Mughal, chief of Bilal Terror Camp in #Pakistan. Shocking presence of ISI and Pakistan Police officials at the ceremony raises fresh questions about state support for terror networks.”

The funeral comes at a time of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, particularly in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, during which India reportedly struck multiple terror infrastructure targets across the border.

Daniel Bordman, a senior correspondent for National Telegraph, summarized the ongoing situation: “India hit multiple terror targets in Pakistan… Expect Pakistan to play victim and claim total victory.”

Though the official confirmation of the attendees remain unclear, the incident has amplified calls for greater scrutiny of Pakistan’s alleged dual role in counterterrorism and support for militant entities. The controversy once again casts a shadow over Islamabad’s global narrative of being a victim of terrorism, as critics argue the state continues to harbor and legitimize extremist elements within its borders.

Vaibhav Singh opened the conversation with a blunt observation: there seems to be a glaring absence of protests when it comes to atrocities faced by Uyghur Muslims in China, Balochs in Pakistan, or even the Sindhi and Pashtun communities who have endured brutal oppression. He questioned why the deaths of 20,000 Mahajirs in Karachi, Hyderabad, and Sukkur go unmentioned in Indian Muslim discourse, while emotional demonstrations erupt for Palestine and Rohingya Muslims.

He highlighted the horrific reality in Xinjiang, where practicing Islam is almost criminalized—people are forced to surrender prayer mats in police stations, growing a beard is banned, and even Islamic names are discouraged. Yet, no placards or rallies appear in Indian streets for them.

Instead, Singh lamented, the spotlight is always on Palestine. Thousands protest in Indian cities, sometimes to the extent of vandalism, as was the case when some reportedly attacked Amar Jawan Jyoti in Mumbai in the name of solidarity with the Rohingyas. “Why such selective empathy?” he asked. “Are Indian Muslims afraid of Pakistan and China?”

Zahack Tanvir responded with a layered analysis that combined historical context with geopolitical realism. He agreed that the overwhelming focus on Palestine while ignoring other equally devastating crises suggests a form of emotional manipulation rather than informed advocacy. “Most Muslims here don’t even realize that India is engaged in a silent conflict with both Pakistan and China,” he said. “But even beyond that, there is a kind of shameless tunnel vision—where people hold on to just one or two issues and act as if those define the entire Muslim world’s struggle.”

He dug deeper into the Palestinian issue, emphasizing how it has evolved over the last 75 years into a political industry. “Billions have been poured into it. NGOs, lobbies, donations, protests—yet no solution has emerged. Not because one isn’t possible, but because resolving it would shut down a global cottage industry of activism, influence, and income,” Zahack said. He clarified that his statements weren’t anti-Palestinian but rather critical of the politicization of their suffering.

He further illustrated how Palestinians, themselves a diverse mix of Muslims, Christians, Communists, Marxists, and Atheists, have historically disrupted the very nations that sheltered them. In Lebanon, internal conflict erupted with the local Christian population. In Jordan, they attempted to assassinate King Hussein. “This isn’t just a Muslim issue—it was initially an Arab issue supported by Arab Christians,” Zahack explained.

Shifting the lens inward, he shared a startling reality: many Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians are unaware that India has over 250 million Muslims. “When I told them, they were shocked. For them, Pakistan equals Muslims, and India equals Hindus,” Zahack said.

And yet, Indian Muslims in places like Mominpura, Shivaji Nagar, or Zakir Nagar wage symbolic battles—boycotting multinational brands like Nestlé, Starbucks, and McDonald’s—as a gesture of protest.

“But what difference does it make? In 1973, all Arab nations imposed an oil embargo on the U.S. It didn’t stop America from giving $2 billion in aid to Israel, and later $8 billion more,” Zahack pointed out. “When a country has wealth and a strong lobby, a few boycotted chocolates and potato chips won’t matter.”

Zahack stressed that national interest should always come first. “Every country is looking after itself. Sudan and Morocco don’t have a problem with Israel. Bahrain and the UAE have formal ties. The Turks and Kurds have moved on. So why are we getting emotionally entangled in their politics?”

Zahack reiterated India’s pragmatic foreign policy: a two-state solution that respects both Israeli and Palestinian rights to exist. “India isn’t blindly siding with anyone. It maintains healthy relations with Russia, the U.S., Israel, and the Arab nations. We are focused on trade, growth, and development,” he said.

He ended the discussion with a powerful anecdote: while speaking with an Egyptian army officer, Zahack explained why India doesn’t get involved in third-party fights. The officer nodded in agreement, appreciating India’s non-interventionist stance.

“Why should we fight your fight?” Zahack asked. “You fight today and hug tomorrow. We’ll mind our own business.”

The dialogue between Vaibhav Singh and Zahack Tanvir wasn’t just a critique of selective outrage; it was a call to maturity in activism. It challenged Indian Muslims—and Indians at large—to think with clarity, weigh their allegiances with wisdom, and prioritize national interest over borrowed causes.

The webinar focused on some of the key-points such as: Abraham Accords, Israel-Pakistan relations, the rise of Islamism in Middle-East, the latest reforms taking place under Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the constant attacks Saudi Arabia has to face from the western media, etc.

The live video had technical issue from 3:40 – 4:20. Please use the YouTube link as a substitute.

Guests

1 – Lt. Col. Anthony (Tony) Shaffer. He is a Senior Fellow and President of the London Center for Policy Research, and he served as Defense Intelligence Officer for 28 years. He was also Advisory Board Member of Trump2020 campaign. Lt. Col. Shaffer has appeared on Fox News, CNN, and other major TV and radio programs, and has been interviewed by The New York Times and other publications on pre-9/11 operations focused on Al Qaeda. He is the author of Operation Dark Heart, and the novel The Last Line.

2 – Ahmed Quraishi, who is a journalist, commentator, and author, with presence in the media of the Middle East and Pakistan. He covered the Afghanistan war for Aljazeera (Arabic), and was embedded with U.S. military in Iraq. He has hosted foreign policy related television talk shows. He covered events in Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Mr. Quraishi has participated in academic exercises involving Pakistani and American militaries (2006); joined in a Sino-Pakistani academic exchange in Beijing (2005); and sat in closed-door academic discussions organized in Kuwait City by U.S. and Gulf institutions on strategies for post-Saddam Iraq (in 2000, before the war).

3 – Dalia Ziada, who is an Egyptian author/writer, and award-winning blogger. She is the author of “The Curious Case of the Three-Legged Wolf – Egypt: Military, Islamism, and Liberal Democracy”. She currently works as the Director of the Liberal Democracy Institute, a think tank advising policymakers in Egypt and the Middle East. Dalia’s story and struggle for liberal democratization in Egypt is profiled in American best-selling books such as: Robin Wright’s “Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion across the Islamic World”. Ziada worked as the Executive Director of Ibn Khaldun Center for Democratic Studies; and regional director for The American Islamic Congress. Currently, she leads the Liberal Democracy Institute. In addition, Ziada is a board member of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the National Council for Women in Egypt.

4 – Khaled Homoud Alshareef, who is a Saudi political analyst. Khaled holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He often writes about Islamism, Islamist factions and modern Terrorism.

5 – Mohammed Abbasi, who is Director of Association of British Muslims. He worked as a peace activist and conflict resolution specialist. He is part of Football for Peace Global, and he advises sports for peace organizations internationally. He has met Prime Ministers and Presidents including British, Pakistani and Indonesian. Abbasi also speaks on military strategy such as the Chinese Art of War which is used by many military academies around the world and also speaks on mind mapping, memory skills and coaches on meditation and mindfulness.

Moderator

The webinar was moderated by Zahack Tanvir, who is a Saudi-based Non Resident Indian (NRI). He is professionally an ERP Consultant. He also holds Diploma in Journalism from London School of Journalism. Tanvir founded The Milli Chronicle in September 2018, and he’s been working on a non-commercial basis to publish the works of notable researchers and Think-Tank groups, mainly focused on exposing the Islamist and other extremist factions.