About Sandeep Bhalla.
Sandeep Bhalla graduated in Economics and chose law as his profession. He has practiced in New Delhi since being called to the bar in 1991 and has been on the rolls of the Supreme Court of India since 2001. Over three decades he has worked across nearly every branch of law.
He knows English and Hindi fluently, converses in Punjabi with ease, and understands Urdu reasonably well. He is conversant with Gujarati and Bangla to a limited extent. He can read and understand Sanskrit and Marathi but has difficulty with the auditory channels. He has studied Arabic with limited result.
He has authored 20 books covering legal and other subjects, initially published in print and later as self-published eBooks. Among them is a book on lifestyle principles rooted in ancient Hindu Sanskrit philosophy. He earns modest royalties from these books. He does not market them. He has not been paid a single word for anything he writes on this site or anywhere else.
This blog is funded by no one.
His writing combines legal training, economics, and practical experience in life and investment management. His current work extends to economic and geopolitical critique through a decolonial lens. The subjects he covers include History, Politics, Geopolitics, Economics, Law, Civilisation, Sanatana Dharma, Artificial Intelligence, and Business.
He is not a technologist. He uses computers and AI for an hour or two each day, the way one might use a library or a telephone. He has raised children. He has absorbed Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti not as academic exercise but as living inquiry long enough to test them against real experience. He relates both to the Srimad Bhagavad Gita, even though those philosophers would deny it.
How This Started
He wrote on WordPress for about a decade before this Analytical Blog. That writing was more note-taking than analysis. The serious epistemological work began in 2025, after four years of long covid that forced a near-complete withdrawal from professional life. Doctors were the first experts to fail. Then the research papers they relied on failed. Looking around from that position, the pattern became impossible to ignore. Expertise in general was far fragiler than the public trust placed in it. That is where the method came from. It is no philosophy. It is a lived experience.
What emerged on the other side was a different relationship with life, beliefs, knowledge, with institutional authority, and with the question of how confident one should actually be in anything.
AI changed the practical equation entirely. Earlier, one serious analysis meant a month or two of work: searching, keeping browser tabs open, manually checking links across days. Before that it was slower still, collecting books, bookmarking, reading each in sequence. A book that once took three years with two research assistants and a typist can now be written with a few AI tools, one agentic AI, and one laptop in about 45 days, start to finish. The long covid created the need for a different kind of inquiry. AI made the volume of that inquiry possible.
Without AI there would be one article a month.
The Method
Every subject is treated as ambiguously understood. Every source, including himself, is treated as a potentially compromised instrument.
Experts are not trusted by default. Not because they lack knowledge, but because institutional harnesses prevent them from asking honest questions. Laziness disguised as expertise is the most obvious failure in expert commentary and analysis.
Primary sources come first. Every claim is verified against events as they actually happened. Where conclusions were wrong, that failure becomes part of the knowledge.
AI is used as a blank-slate peer reviewer. Information is fed one step at a time without revealing the thesis. Independent arrival at the same conclusion is corroboration. A missed connection reveals where the argument needs stronger construction. Different AI systems are used, knowing each carries its own institutional and political biases. Convergence across biased systems is more reliable than agreement from a single source.
No single instrument is trusted completely.
The goal is not to be right. The goal is precision about how confident one should be in each fact, each inference, and each connection between them. That precision is the only honest foundation for serious argument.
On Labels
He has been called pro-BJP. The record does not support it. He criticised BJP’s eleven-year archaeological record as a cultural dark age. He wrote a multi-chapter series on India’s governance crisis indicting politicians, bureaucracy, CBI, Lokpal, and chartered accountants without exempting the party that has governed India for over a decade. He analysed business conditions in India without crediting GST, Make in India, or any BJP reform as a solution. He documented SEBI failures under BJP’s watch. He raised a mathematical challenge to Western colonial scholarship that has no BJP connection whatsoever.
The honest description is simpler. He is biased against institutional failure. Every institution, every authority, every community that does not discharge its functions properly figures in his writing. Those that do function properly do not seem to matter. He is not searching for BJP failures or Islamic failures or Western failures. He encounters institutional failures and follows them wherever they lead.
In a system that mistakes selective blindness for neutrality, consistent method will always look like bias to someone.
When not writing or practicing law, he is at the gym, in the financial markets, tending to his garden, photographing, or cooking.