Elisabeth Kübler-Ross came up with the five stage model for grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. If I had to adapt that model for my state, I had already crossed the first four. The issue was the final hurdle from depression to acceptance. As Sam Harris says, Free Will is an illusion. Once we form a habit, it is going to be hard to unlearn. Our brain takes over and triggers action way before we can ascertain the implications of the action. I couldn’t imagine a world I won’t be able to bulldoze the issues at work. I could feel the cortisol imbalance in my system. I walked into the therapy, hoping my problem was physiological and not psychological. My bigger want was a mean reversal back to my previous state.
My first session with the psychologist was a revelation. Once I sat down in front of the psychologist, I kept my bias aside. I wanted to give therapy a chance. I spoke for close to two hours. I shared my issues honestly. I opened up about my insecurities. I relived every incident from the previous six months. It left me in a battered state, completely drained and devoid of any energy.
The fortnight following the first session was comfortably the hardest. It coincided with the Christmas break, leaving me with very little official work to do. I felt exhausted and started sleeping at odd times. Interactions with people were still hard. As expected from a person of my ego, I managed to hide it from everyone except a select few.
Fast forward a couple of weeks, I was already at work. I had overestimated my recovery. In less than a week, I realised that I had no energy left to continue and needed a longer break from work. For starters, I took four weeks of leave. Little did I know that I wasn’t going back to work in the same place again.
In line with Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, my id was to take a battle head-on. The super-ego which had to instruct me about self-preservation doesn’t exist at all. What followed were cycles of ebb and flow on the path to recovery. I never really got my head out of the issues at work. As I mentioned in my first blog of this series, I have an addictive personality. My two addictions were:
My close circle of people I care
My work
My inability to get myself detached from the latter was affecting my relationship with the former. After every ebb, the fall was drastic and painful. Very soon, the situation hit an abyss.
Something had to give in as my situation started to deteriorate rapidly, and the discussions at work started to get more apathetic and tense. After almost eight weeks of leave, I realised returning to the same setup wasn’t an option. I decided to quit and move on. The anxiety also hit its peak as I was prescribed medication to deal with the situation.
Three weeks in, the medication started to take effect. I also began to disassociate myself from the job. The path to recovery had just started. My therapist told me that I am suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. The road to recovery will take time and plenty of care.
One year after this entire episode began, I am feeling close to my normal state. I am still on medication, but I haven’t had an episode of anxiety in close to 3 months. This traumatic experience has taught me how fragile my mind was, irrespective of what I thought. This recovery was possible mainly due to the support I received from my loved ones.
The business world judges a person on their ability to handle pressure. I took pride in wanting the most painful engagements. I had a war complex, a desperate need to overcome adversity and deliver results. This pride eventually resulted in my fall. As a consultant, I expected poor behaviour and pressure, but the customer always loves excellent outcomes. The situation is the opposite if you are a business leader. One is bound to attract all the ugly elements of corporate culture as they show positive outcomes. We must deal with insecurities, political backstabbing, nepotism and dishonesty in our organisation. I failed to recognise it.
As pressure mounted at work, sleep started to elude me slowly. Leaving my wife and daughter in one bedroom, I confined myself to another. Social interactions began to consume more energy than usual. It left me drained and battered at the end of the day. I asked my wife to not speak to me and instead text me if she needed anything. I spent 20 hours a day in a single room without interacting with my family. Isolation from face-to-face interactions and immersion in work were my drug as I felt increasingly petulant each day.
Anxiety is the worry of losing something which one considers precious. I started developing palpitations a few times a day. At first, I attributed a cause to each of these incidents. Being locked in a room was a good excuse for me to hide this state from my family. As the country was in lockdown, there was no need for me to step out. The duration and frequency of these started to increase slowly. I am still unsure if the anxiety caused the palpitations or vice versa. However, every time I felt a deep sense of loss. The insecurities in my life slowly started to come to the forefront. Questions like “why will my wife continue with me?”, “why will my daughter like me?”, “why will my friend continue to talk to me?” and “what value am I adding to work?” started to haunt me.
Confidence is the most underrated virtue. We don’t realise the value of it till we lose it. I was a person with immense confidence in my abilities and total disregard for my shortcomings. In short, prior to this episode, I was highly assured. I failed to identify the attacks happening at work. The deviousness of the character assassination and lack of atonement made it worse. I didn’t recognise that the support I sought was part of the problem. The senior leaders whom I trusted turned out to be callous. This inability to foresee affected my perception of myself and dented my confidence. I slowly lost the sense of who I was and what I could do.
Self can’t be an illusion when one is depressed. Lack of sleep, anxiety attacks and loss of confidence left me in a state I hadn’t experienced. I had to admit the vulnerability of my mental health. I became a victim of my expectations. I couldn’t concede I was affected. I was too strong to end my life. I lay down every night, hoping I wouldn’t have to wake up. Every sunrise was a disappointment.
The worst happened sometime in December. Stress levels at work reached a new high. As a team, we celebrated our Christmas by having a Go Karting race. The rush of adrenaline during the race compounded the palpitations caused by my anxiety. I lost my ability to think sanely. I woke up every 10 seconds that night with a fear of loss. The next couple of days were horrendous. I was acting my fears out. The unpleasant feeling hit rock bottom when my wife saw me struggle to watch a movie with her.
Unable to stand my state, my wife confronted me and forced me to open up. I was also a person with biases against anything I perceived as irrational. One of my biases is the need for therapy. I always felt it was for the weak. While I appreciated psychology as a study, especially evolutionary psychology, I found the concept of seeking psychological help beneath me and never perceived myself in that state. Perception isn’t reality. Something had to change to arrest this downward spiral.
Life is as fragile as it comes. The quarks in our body have survived 13.6 billion years to evolve into a conscious species which can think, feel, plan and act. Above all, it forms relationships with people and attachments. In July of 2021, if someone had asked me about my life, I would have categorically said it is as perfect as possible. Fast forward six months, I suffered from anxiety and depression at levels I had never encountered. The fall from perfection was rapid, especially for a person with no expectations from his life. If you compare my state with people in the war-torn areas, it does feel like a first world problem. As a person with a high ego who never thought I could ever need external support for my mental health, the last few months have been a big revelation. Randomness and entropy drive this universe and life. My solitary insignificant consciousness cannot be an exception to that rule. At the risk of sounding cliched, my life has come a full circle.
Every being is a summation of our evolutionary past and learnings from the time of birth. We are deterministic and like to seek answers to all questions. I am no different. I was born agnostic like every other child. I was fearful of consequences, anxious about unknowns and insecure about my value. The loneliness of these traits, coupled with some horrendous childhood trauma, made me the person I am known by people around me today. I am obnoxious, cynical, confident, brutally honest and an ergomaniac.
“On a treadmill, I either win, or I die”, Will Smith once said in an interview.
“A cynic is just a dead idealist”, said the famous comedian George Carlin.
These two quotes summarise my attitude roughly. The anxieties and insecurities were buried deep as I forgot to care about anything but the truth. Over the years, I also realised the two key pillars of my personality, addiction and ego. I get addicted to people and behaviours. My ego pulls me out when I realise the loss of control. This combination has kept me in check overall. It also meant I was keeping an eye on my attachments.
As the saying goes, the only way from the top is down. In July of 2021, my life was at its best. I was happy and content as lockdown hit Sydney. I immersed myself in my new role at work. I loved the job and found it quite gratifying. Unfortunately, life isn’t gambling. One can’t quit when they are high. The situation at work started to take a turn for the worse. Lockdown helped me as I lost track of time. As the work environment got toxic, I spent more time trying to compensate. In less than a month, my mind started to crumble without my knowledge. In a few months, I was suffering from a stress induced anxiety disorder.
The choice between sure death and a small probability of life is not something most of us will ever encounter. It is not even something we can fathom as it isn’t within the realms of possibility. If one is fleeing an oppressive Taliban regime with barbaric beliefs, then even clinging onto the outside of an aircraft is a chance worth taking. As we see the plight of millions of people stranded in Afghanistan and thousands trying to flee in the middle of a global pandemic, it is natural to question the timing of American troops withdrawing from the war-torn, landlocked country. I want to retrace the events which led to this decision and the reaction of the global leaders. Foreign policy can be messy, illogical, inconclusive and also devious. Foreign policies decisions also have a long term impact which are hard to predict.
The tale of 2 foreign policy blunders
The Cold war between the Capitalistic Social Democracies and the growing Communist single party rule was vastly responsible for what we consider present. From nuclear arms race which can obliterate our planet 10 times over to technology race to conquer space, the cold war had immense influence. What gets discussed less is the foreign policy impact of the cold war. Let’s pick two of the foreign policy blunders made by the US which are relevant to the context of Afghanistan.
The first foreign policy fiasco can be traced back to the era of Henry Kissinger and his indirect support for the capture of East Timor. The ego of the US war machine had been recently wounded by the Vietnamese. When Indonesian dictator Suharto invaded East Timor under the pretext of anti-communism, the Nobel peace prize winner Henry Kissinger found the opportunity to quench his thirst by supporting the movement. A weak Australia and other NATO nations joined. What followed in East Timor was ethnic cleansing and grave violation of human rights. The UN peacekeeping forces finally managed to get the imperialistic Indonesian forces in 1999. Why is this story relevant? This story is relevant as the freedom of East Timor is one of the biggest grudges Osama bin Laden had against the Americans.
The second foreign policy was the involvement of the US/UK coalition in the Soviet-Afghan war. The Soviet-Afghan war, ravaged Afghanistan from 1979-1989 between the USSR backed People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan and the US and UK backed Mujahideen. Most of the later Taliban leaders were part of the Mujahideen. The principles of the Mujahideen haven’t changed from their original days. Towards the end of this war, al-Qaeda (formed in 1988) joined sides with Mujahideen to fight the Soviet-backed forces. The Mujahideen won the war with the fall of the USSR. This was followed by an Afghan Civil war which went till 1996. With the communist threat eliminated, the various factions of Mujahideen started fighting for control and ideologies. A newly formed group called the Taliban emerged victorious with the support of the al-Qaeda fighters and the Pakistani army. They took over Kabul in 1996, to establish the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Once their mission of capturing Afghanistan was accomplished al-Qaeda started its attack against the US and its allies. This culminated in the 9-11 attack which shook the world.
By now, the world had forgotten the two big policy blunders which were nothing more than an extension of the cold war policy. The US support for both the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Indonesian invasion of East Timor was driven by their anti-communist ideals. Borrowing the language of Margaret Thatcher, the US government gave the necessary oxygen for the Taliban monster to grow. Would they have done this had they had the power of hindsight? It is anybody’s guess.
Evolution of the Afghan policy after 9-11 attacks
Three months after the 9-11 attacks, the Taliban government in Afghanistan and their al-Qaeda were ousted. They took refuge in the various remote parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and some of its leaders went to Qatar. At this time the NATO army had less than 10,000 forces on the ground. They reached this level again only late last year. The total cost for the US treasury from this war is $830 billion which doesn’t include the military aid given to other countries to support the base or the support to veterans. A total of over 1 million people have been deployed to Afghanistan over the last 20 years.
The US foreign policy has also consistently changed over time. President George Bush said he wanted a ‘stable and free and peaceful’ Afghanistan. after the destruction of al-Qaeda and total elimination of the Taliban. When his administration finished its term, there were 30,000 American troops in Afghanistan.
The next President Barrack Obama wanted to end the war. His foreign policy included having a conversation with the weakened Taliban troops. Ironically, he increased the number of troops from 30,000 to around 100,000 by 2010. However, he did have a conversation with Taliban leaders. The then, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a condition, “Insurgents must renounce violence, abandon al-Qaeda, and abide by the constitution of Afghanistan, including its protections for women and minorities. If insurgents cannot meet those red lines, they will face continued and unrelenting assault.” The peace talks didn’t move further but the number of troops came down slowly. Obama left close to 10,000 members when his term ended. However, some territories had slowly been captured by the Taliban by then.
In comes the next President, Donald Trump. Trump has been calling for the end of the Afghan war and the return of the US troops during his entire campaign. The big difference between his secretary of state Mike Pompeo and the previous one was, Secretary Pompeo wasn’t keen on some of the protections which Secretary Clinton had demanded. So, on Feb 29, 2020, the US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, and Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban group’s top political leader signed a peace agreement. This deal meant close to 8600 US troops will leave in less than 4 months and the remaining by 14 months.
In April 2021, the current President Jo Biden announced that the remaining troops will return as per the agreement signed by his predecessor. In a press conference in Jul 2021, President Biden said he doesn’t believe the Taliban will take over Afghanistan. Was this wishful thinking or just bluff? Considering that the peace deal was signed with the Taliban permitting them to return, this was a very bold statement at its best.
The fall of Kabul
On the 6th of Jul 2021, the US forces leave Bagram airfield their main military base. By the 6th of Aug, the Taliban had started capturing provincial capitals. On 13th Aug, they take over Kandahar, the second-largest city in Afghanistan. At the dawn of 15-August-2021, when the Indians were celebrating their Independence day, their Afghani friends lost their national capital to the militia. It is not the collapse that has surprised people but the speed of it. President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai fled the country leaving his people in the hands of a dangerous militia. Now, three big questions remain.
a. Who won this war? b. Was this a strategic mistake? c. What is going to unfold now?
The Afghan war has lasted twenty long years. The NATO forces spent over a Trillion USD in the war and building new infrastructure. 18 years of democracy crumbled in less than 9 days. The original leader Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden are dead. Much to all our wishes, the Taliban have come back. Should we change the goal post now to say the aim was not to defeat the Taliban but to eliminate al-Qaeda?
For years now, members of both the left and right in the US have wanted the troops back. The only faction which was against it was the ones funded by the military-industrial complex. From Donald Trump to Bernie Sanders, from Rand Paul to Tulsi Gabbard, the politicians have called for the troops to return. This wasn’t a war for the US troops. The question was return was the one of if but when.
Now, could the handover been planned better? Was there an intelligence or strategic failure? To answer these questions, we need to look at the facts first. The US government has spent over $80 billion was spent training the 300,000 Afghan troops and provided them with modern war machinery. The Taliban on the other hand had 80,000 people with relatively older artillery. The Afghanistan government had army, police and local militia to support. Even with all these advantages, there was no clashes. The Afghan troops surrendered without a fight in most places. Would the situation have been any different if the US forces left a little later? Should the US forces have anticipated this and helped migrate the vulnerable people? In hindsight, I have to affirm the same. However, the writing for Afghan democracy was always on the wall. The only policy mistake I can see is that the allied forces should have got the people who supported them out of the country before exiting.
The future
Finally, to understand what could happen in the future, let’s look at the reaction of the global leaders in the aftermath. There are few distinct factions here. First is the pro-Taliban group which has the Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan. He has always been extremely supportive of the Taliban. Having been educated in Oxford and enjoyed the liberty of the western lifestyle for himself, Imran Khan has proclaimed this as “breaking the shackles of slavery”. The next group are opportunists, which include Russia and China. The leaders from these two countries have already spoken to the Taliban leaders. They see an opportunity with the fall of the retreat of the western forces. The next group are the sceptics, which includes countries like the US, EU, Australia and India. These countries won’t recognise the Taliban government but will be ready to have peace talks with them. The final group will include three countries that will not recognise or have discussions with the Taliban namely Isreal, Canada and Iran.
However, the big question in my mind is whether this move is the next foreign policy blunder after Vietnam, East Timor and the support of Mujahideen? While I don’t think it is a mistake of similar proportion, I fear the impact might be similar. We are going to see another refugee crisis, extreme oppression and international cry over human rights violations. The Taliban have an approach to gain power and unwavering allegiance to their interpretation of their religious texts. This approach will give them the power to rule but not the ability to govern. The local and global unrest is going to continue. The disadvantage for the Taliban over the Saudi Royal family is that they don’t have an oil supply to generate wealth.
For over a decade the year 2020 was earmarked to be a milestone year in both business and politics. However, no one could have foreseen the horror that hit us. The world was unprepared to deal with a pandemic of this proportion. The official figure states that approximately 80 million people have been affected and over 1.75 million have died. Plenty of people have lost their near and dear ones. In the process, we have also lost some global icons like Diego Maradona, Kobe Bryant and Sean Connery. However, the two who have left an indelible mark in public sphere were Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Helen Reddy. I want to take a moment and reflect on the latter, a woman who became an representation of the second wave of feminism with a single song.
Some people have an impact which goes beyond their actual work. They inspire a generation. Helen Reddy was such an inspiration. When most cultures of the world were still stuck with prehistoric myths about women, the counter culture and the feminist movement made huge strides in taking civilisation forward. The civil rights is much more than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and “I have a dream”. The free speech movement is much more than Mario Savio and “Bodies upon the gears”. The feminist movement is also much bigger than Helen Reddy and “I am a woman, hear me roar!”. However, both the individual and their work had a significant impact in shaping up an entire generation.
The biggest mark of respect for Helen Reddy is what we can learn from the woman who roared. Her songs and voice have already been immortalised, thanks to our ability to record and play them. However, as I mentioned before her work signifies more than the construct of the creation. There are two key learnings I want to highlight from the works of the lioness.
Showcase strength not weakness
Constant fighting can be sapping and will easily pave wave for self pity and weakness. The trend these days is to infantilise every community when they are affected. However, the battle for equality cannot be left to infants. There are some key values I want to share in order to showcase the strength.
It is fine to be the first
Humans innately seek patterns. We look for people who share our traits. This is especially true if we think that trait has been historically discriminated. The most common ones are physical ability, gender, religion, sex, race and nationality. We don’t hear about the first bald Nobel Prize Winner. That is because no one associates with baldness as their key attribute. One key value we should learn is not to find precedence with the characteristic we associate with ourselves.
Equity is not a means for equality
To give every individual adequate support so that they can do well is paramount in a civil society. To give every individual different advantage so that they can all reach the same destination at the same time is discrimination. The former is equality. The latter is equity. If I had trained alongside Usain Bolt all my life, it doesn’t guarantee me achieving the same result in sprinting. Equality is where I get all the necessary facilities to be the best sprinter possible. Equity on the other hand is ensuring I get a head start to ensure I finish the race at the same time as Usain Bolt. It is a dangerous idea. Equity is often thrust as a tool for equality. It is completely contrary. It sidelines people and in a passive aggressive way also denies them the opportunity to live their life with grace and respect. We should showcase enough strength to reject equity even if it sounds tempting.
Act sensibly, standup immediately if you can
Safeguard yourself first. Once you are safe, then do not be a silent spectator to an injustice. If one doesn’t act at the first possible opportunity, then one invariably allows the injustice to propagate. Think of the number of Hollywood stars who didn’t open about either Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein. These starts who preach morality to us sitting in the comfortable beach houses could have highlighted the issue years in advance. They were in a safe space. Instead they quietly watched as the predators kept counting their victims.
Prepare the next generation
Every individual is a victim of their situation. Not everyone has the courage to face and fight back. However, everyone can prepare the next generation for a fight. It is crucial that we teach our kids to question, standup and fight for their rights and everyone else’s rights.
Do not become the monster you hate
Perpetuating community hatred
What is the difference between the below sets of assertions?
“Women are too weak to be by themselves” “All men are horrible”
“White race is superior” “All white people are racist”
Both these sets have two opposing views and all arguments are non sequiturs. It is a generalisation from one example. These assertions will only propagate further division and violence in the society. However, what we see today is a strong movement towards the second assertion. It is almost like the pendulum has swung too far to the other side.
Belief shouldn’t circumvent due process
For centuries the word of a woman has been either ignored or undermined in the court of law. This has resulted in men getting their way with the judgement of their choice. For example even today in most islamic courts, the evidence of a woman is only weighed half as much as a man. This horrific situation where justice is based on barbaric laws and incorrigible beliefs has caused havoc to societies which practice this. We all need to fight for due process, facts and verification of evidences.
The same due process should apply if the roles are actually reversed. An accusation against a man which is based on preconceived notions established by the stereotypes is just as horrible. It isn’t justice but an inappropriate revenge. Such behaviours will only send the civil societies spiral into anarchy.
Liberty is a freedom to choose not a mandate to change
A woman should have the right over her reproductive cycle. She needs to have the right to go back to work when she chooses. She needs to have the right to choose the career she can excel. The key word in all this in choice. This means the woman has the right to choose a path which can be stereotyped. For example, she can decide to quit her job and raise the child. She can decide to be a teacher over an engineer. The mandate to have diversity in a field shouldn’t come at the expense of forcing a woman out of her comfort.
I increasingly see woman who decide to have a family, go into creative arts or in some extreme cases just be soft spoken looked down by the fellow women. This isn’t liberalism or feminism. This is unadulterated discrimination. It is the unforeseen result of people who have become the monsters they hated.
To conclude, I strongly feel we need to go back to the principles which stand out of the famous song. Rest in peace Helen Reddy. Your words are immortal. They will last till we have language. The words will resonate in my ears till my brain can process sound.
I am woman, hear me roar In numbers too big to ignore And I know too much to go back an’ pretend ’cause I’ve heard it all before And I’ve been down there on the floor No one’s ever gonna keep me down againOh yes I am wise But it’s wisdom born of pain Yes, I’ve paid the price But look how much I gained If I have to, I can do anything I am strong (strong)I am invincible (invincible) I am woman You can bend but never break me ’cause it only serves to make me More determined to achieve my final goal And I come back even stronger Not a novice any longer ’cause you’ve deepened the conviction in my soul I am woman watch me grow See me standing toe to toe As I spread my lovin’ arms across the land But I’m still an embryo With a long long way to go Until I make my brother understand Oh yes I am wise But it’s wisdom born of pain Yes, I’ve paid the price But look how much I gained If I have to I can face anything I am strong (strong) I am invincible (invincible) I am woman Oh, I am woman I am invincible I am strong I am woman I am invincible I am strong I am woman
Today marks the seventy-first birthday of a great man whose words and actions liberated a lot of young minds across the globe, a man whose language skills inspired a generation of writers and whose drinking ability brought charm to alcoholics. The man is none other than the great orator, author, polemicist, journalist Christopher Eric Hitchens or as his friends call Hitch. I couldn’t find a more apt day to come out of my hiatus and write again. This is my tribute to the great man, who had an unparalleled influence on me and a person I consider my mentor. Writers and scientists far superior to me have written about the great man. I can’t stop expressing my admiration to my hero just because there were people who did it more eloquently than I.
The most impressive part about Christopher is the axioms on which he operated. He also had a unique ability to refine them. While lesser mortals prefer distilled truths, Christopher can make his own from the collective learning of our entire species. As new facts emerged, he will be more than happy to dismiss those axioms for new ones. Further, his premises to those axioms were fairly simple. They were to achieve liberty, fellowship and wisdom. Every action and view of the great man were an extension of these. While many people say this very few people have ever stayed true to it in the face of adversity or contradicting facts but not Christopher. He will fight you even as his friend if you have to be corrected.
Very few people in history have defied loyalty to their group identity and always stayed true to their identity. Christopher Hitchens was a darling of the American radical left. His views were always in line with what we refer as traditional leftist views. He walked in lockstep with the famous linguist, dissident and author Noam Chomsky. He then parted ways with his comrades over the issue of Islamic terrorism. They wanted to blame the United States for it and Christopher wasn’t ready. This led to a year of trading insults in the public. Christopher wasn’t the one to flinch in the face of adversity. He fought back in a way only he can.
Oliver Goldsmith lived over 2 centuries before the birth of Christopher Hitchens but I imagine he had a view of Christopher’s ability when he wrote the Village Schoolmaster. The words can only do justice to Christopher.
Full well they laugh’d with counterfeited glee,
At all his jokes, for many a joke had he:
Full well the busy whisper, circling round,
Convey’d the dismal tidings when he frown’d:
Yet he was kind; or if severe in aught,
The love he bore to learning was in fault.
The village all declar’d how much he knew;
‘Twas certain he could write, and cipher too:
Lands he could measure, terms and tides presage,
And e’en the story ran that he could gauge.
In arguing too, the parson own’d his skill,
For e’en though vanquish’d he could argue still;
– excerpt from the Poem The village Schoolmaster by Oliver Goldsmith found in his collection “Deserted Village”
Christopher Hitchens was a ticking bomb in the hands of the people who want to use him for their vested interests. When Christopher parted ways with the American left on his war on terrorism, many people in the right started using him as a useful idiot or a tool in their hands. Little did they realise, that he was a ball of fire on their dirty hands. He burnt them alive with his scathing attack on religion with his book ‘god is not Great – How Religion Poisons Everything’. The book remains a masterpiece amongst the books written by the Four horsemen of Atheism. Christopher went on a book tour debating religious leaders across faiths and politicians across parties. The debates can only be described as the annihilation of the forces of darkness. His speech on the book at Google is still one of the best talks I have listened in Google.
Christopher Hitchens was a friend any honest individual would love to have and every dishonest person should fear. The two tales of friendship, one Salman Rushdie and the next with Sidney Blumenthal, perfectly encapsulates the fellowship Christopher held. Salman Rushdie found the militant support and reinforcement in Christopher when there was a fatwa against him from the Islamic nations or the protest against him being awarded the Bookers prize. On the other hand, Sidney Blumenthal faced the wrath of his once friend when he decided to backstab Christopher to be a confidante of the corrupt Clinton family. The man lived by and for his principles, right till his very end.
One of the famous quotes of Christopher was his response to a question on feeling safe in the night in an unknown city with religious people. Christopher responded to that question with cities without leaving the letter ‘B’ where he will never be comfortable when he knows that the crowd he is encountering is coming after a prayer meeting. It was brilliant, witty and above all irrefutable. I want to wrap my tribute to the great man by describing him with adjectives without leaving the letter ‘C’.
cantankerous – He was in all his views
captivating – He was when he expressed himself
cathartic – He was to every individual fighting for liberty
caustic – He was when you hurt his respect
challenging – He was when your views are wrong
changeable – He was with facts
charged – He was when taking on his foes
charming – He was admist adversity
cherished – He was amongst all his admirers
circumspect – He was about any faith
civilised – He was when dealing with common people
clever – He was as evident from his words
coherent – He was even when drunk
combative – He was when liberty is challenged
comfortable – He was with what he was doing
comical – He was when the situation demands
commendable – He was for all his output
communicative – He was to capture even a dissenting audience
compassionate – He was for people in need
competent – He was in every field
conscientious – He was when dealing with any issue
contentious – He was when drawn to dishonest attacks
convincing – He was in any argument
cordial – He was when being treated with respect
courageous – He was when facing a crisis
courteous – He was when speaking to strangers
Creative – He was with all his works
critical – He was of anything which affects humans in a wrong way
cultured – He was even when challenged
curious – He was as he kept learning
I can’t thank the great man enough. The world misses him as do I. His thoughts will live with me for the rest of my life.
The last week saw the result of three national election results in Indonesia, Australia and India. In all three places the incumbent leaders fondly called Jokowi, ScoMo and NaMo were reelected respectively. We all know the result, what we need to do is understand it. I want to quote Albert Einstein, one of my heroes.
Any fool can know. The point is to understand.
Now I want to understand the result and see what I can learn about politics in a representative democracy. Albert Einstein also said “We now have to divide up our time like that, between politics and our equations. But to me, our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever.”. Since I am not smart to present the behaviour of the whole universe in a mathematical equation, I find it easier to concentrate on politics.
Politics vs Governance
Politics is the act of gaining power. Governance is the act of enacting policies and controls using the power to reach the outcome. There are plenty of ways to get power. In a representative democracy, an election is a way of getting the power directly from the voters. Once in power, part of the governance is also to enact policies which control the scope of the politics. This cycle is intended to keep societies in balance.
In general, politics has a very negative connotation and quite justifiably so. Politics is not a game where both parties play the same game the same way with the same resources. It is inherently divisive and is a game where people are allowed to play rough under a very broad legal umbrella. Acts which would normally be considered uncivil are almost essential in the space of gaining power. It is a fight for dominance in the hierarchy and fights are inherently unhealthy and disturbing. In order to win an election, the parties have to perform this act well.
Steps to win elections
Understand how people vote
In any election, people vote based on the below criteria.
Loyalty to an ideology/party/person
One issue closest to me
The charisma of the leader
Policies and Manifesto
Past performance
Least objectionable
Primary Research/Listen
There is no substitute for primary research. The research should give the following answers.
Percentage of people in each of the category given above
Key issues in people’s mind
What policies will shift people’s opinion towards you? What is the percentage swing?
What policies will shift your loyal vote base away? What is the percentage swing?
Communicate the policy
Draft a policy set: The manifesto is a policy set which will help you get the maximum swing.
Create a slogan: The best way to communicate a summary of the policy is to create a slogan which will resonate with the voter base. It should play with the confirmation bias of the users. As Einstein said, “If you can’t express is simply, you don’t understand it well enough”.
Create a communication strategy: Build an on the ground strategy to communicate the policies to people.
Outsmart and outwork the opponents
Hillary Clinton didn’t visit some of the states which she was confident of winning. She lost them by a very few votes. There is no substitute for hard work. Always the party which is smarter and ready to put in the hard yards wins.
Steps to lost elections
Alienating voters
The centre-left parties have been extremely guilty of insulting its voters. No voter likes to be patronised. It is worse to insult their loved ones. Few very common examples are the ‘Basket of deplorables’ comment by Hillary Clinton, ‘Anti-LGBT’ comment by Bill Shorten and ‘Divider-in-Chief Hindu nationalist’ comment by Indian Liberal media. These didn’t help their cause.
Resting on laurels
As I mentioned above, there is no substitute for hard work. The common theme sometimes is the leader not even visiting the constituencies. One can remember Hillary Clinton not even visiting some of the rust belt states. Rahul Gandhi didn’t campaign in his constituency Amethi. If a politician is so overconfident that they are not going to even address the people directly then it is a matter of time before they lost. The voters don’t like a condescending leader.
Weak leader
As strong as a system may be, it is important to have a respectable leader. The elected leader represents the people. So, the voters need to see the person as a strong respectable person. A weak leader is not going to be helpful.
Not understanding the needs
The most extreme mistake is to misunderstand, malign, dismiss, patronise or worst of all not attempt to understand the needs of the voters. The voters needs have no obligation to be in line with your ideology. The key mistake made here is go with a slogan which is completely different from the needs of the people. The Trump’s build the wall didn’t work in the states where people didn’t have problem with loss of jobs, crime or immigration. In the same vein, Hillary Clinton’s slogan ‘Stronger together’ didn’t address the issues of the rust belt. ALP under Shorten failed to address the needs of the working class in Queensland. This led to their collapse in the Australian federal election 2019.
To conclude, politics in a representative democracy is a game of tricks to gain power. It requires a lot of ground work, respect for the opinions of the voters and willingness to do the hard work. This will sometimes mean the party has to be decisive without alienating the voters. Insulting groups s a good strategy if you are a comedian wanting to win claps but not if you are a politician wanting to win votes.
Socrates considered Democracy as a system which is only better than anarchy. If I have to quote a more recent one, our fictional friend from Yes Minister, Sir Humphrey Appleby explains the purpose of the government as “Stability. Keeping things going. Preventing anarchy. It is only about order or chaos”. As Australia votes to elect its federal government, it is a good opportunity to reflect on the policies of the two key parties to see if Socrates and Sir Humphrey Appleby were indeed right. Is any party going to look at intergenerational investments and future proofing Australia instead of going through the motions? I want to do this analysis in four sections.
How is Australia doing?
The key risks & issues
Policies of the two key parties
My opinion
While I will try my best to state facts without cherry picking them to suit my narrative, I have to admit I am not an unbiased player in this space. I will never vote for authoritarians who erode civil liberties and I will never vote for conservatives.
There is also a popular misconception that the Labour Party is pro-workers and not tough on crime while the Liberal party is pro-business and socially conservative. While one can choose an example for these, it is definitely a stereotype. It is worth debunking this but I don’t think I will be able to do it in this blog. I find it more prudent to look at policies and implementation rather than opinions and feelings.
How is Australia doing?
In order to identify the key risks and issues facing Australia, I want to look at parameters which are under the influence of the government. I specifically didn’t focus on parameters which are not critical or have been consistently good (like Poverty rate, infant mortality). in the country.
Government
In order to form a judgement on voting, it is important to see which party has rules Australia in the last 2 decades. The Coalition led by Liberal has been the party in power for most of the time. The Labour party ruled from 2008 – 2013 during the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath.
Demographics
The population of Australia has grown at a fast rate since 2006. Allowing skilled immigration has been the key contributor to this. As an immigrant myself, it can sound hypocritical but Australia has to control the inflow for a variety of reasons. The most important of this is the economy, especially the social safety. There is a strain on the economy now with the end of the mining boom and the falling of the housing sector. Adding more people at this time could have more dire consequences in the recovery. Further, raping growth will make integration extremely hard. Countries in Europe have already experienced this.
Economic
If we look at the economic parameters there are some interesting points to note.
The total GDP and GNI and per capita GDP and GNI have consistently trended up over the years. However, the rate hasn’t been the same. The per capita GDP and GNI have increased at a far lesser rate.
The budget is heading towards a surplus but the government debt/GDP is at an all-time high.
The gross savings against the GDP has come down significantly over the years.
Government Investment
One of the key roles of a government is to make inter-generational investments. I have looked at some key areas which the government has been investing. The trend to note is that the previous two coalition government haven’t been making much investment in capital formation.
Trade
On the trade front, Australia is significantly dependent on China on both the imports and exports. Also, exports as a percentage of GDP are increasing over imports after a long time.
Labour
On the labour market parameters front, Australia is looking quite healthy. The employment to population ratio is fairly high. Thought the youth unemployment rate is high, it is still way below the global average. There is a good mix of people between self-employed and wages. The population who is into vulnerable employment is also low and steady.
Domestic Finance
This is one of the biggest areas of concern for Australia. I want to interpret some of the numbers here.
The household debt is at 120% of the GDP
The homeownership rate is on the decline
The dwellings are the biggest portion of a family’s wealth
The housing prices are falling overall
The household debt to disposable income is at its all-time high
The discrepancy in wealth is way higher than the discrepancy in income. The income distribution is good when compared to other OECD nations but the wealth gap is extremely concerning.
Energy
Last but not least, the percentage of energy consumed from renewable sources has stabilised since 2013. This shows a lack of movement towards alternate sources of energy.
Key risks and issues
Automation and long term risks to jobs
One of the huge risks of the present generation is the potential loss of jobs to automation. These jobs are not just ones to do with manual labour but even skilled ones like legal advice, radiology, administration and teaching. Australia is not going to be an exception to this. Some countries like the US are seeing the effect of this already.
Household debt
The household debt has reached record levels. A median income Australian family has debt which is close to three times its annual disposable income. This debt value is going to look bigger if the economy slows down. Most of this debt is mortgage and the house is the biggest asset followed by super for most Australians.
The gap between income and wealth
While income inequalities are understandable, Australia is seeing record accumulation of wealth without income levels supporting the same. This wealth disparity is going to trigger a change in social behaviours over generations. It will result in slowing down of the government revenue, increased consumption without contributing income, stagnation in production and above all social unrest.
Trade
Australia is heavily dependent on China was its trade. 36% of Australian exports and 24% of imports are with China. This is a huge risk for two main reasons.
The Chinese government is increasingly flexing its muscles and bullying nations which doesn’t agree with its terms. With Australians not keen on selling its natural resources and infrastructure to Chinese state-run companies, China will not take it lightly for long.
Australia has now inadvertently linked its progress to that of China. This is a very high-risk strategy. It is only made worse by Chinese business and government practices not as transparent as ones in the developed world.
Foreign policy
Australia’s foreign policy has always been toeing the line of the big guns. This in the past was to follow NATO guidelines. This meant Australia doesn’t have either the passive non-aligned policy of the Nordic countries or Switzerland or the aggressive drive of the United States. This is not going to work for long as very soon the US and China are going to be in different camps. With the imminent trade war between the US and China, one has to review the follower mode. Australia will be left without a policy-making parent country. The answer is not to go find a new one but to start behaving like an adult.
Clean Affordable Energy
In spite of having over 33% of the world’s Uranium deposits, Australia doesn’t have a single Nuclear Power plant. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest sources of affordable power. Solar power is good for domestic purposes but it has worse disposal problems than nuclear waste. The risks caused by nuclear power generation can definitely be mitigated lot more effectively. All said and done, the black coal still dominates the power generation in Australia.
Education & Skilling
Over 70% of the students in Australia still go to Public Schools. However, Commonwealth funding is completely disproportionate. Further, skilling in Australia happens through apprenticeships and TAFE. University fees have increased tremendously over the years.
Both parties have similar sounding policies but written slightly differently. I want to first review each of their policies and then compare their performance against the key risks.
Labour Policy
The labour policy is a combination of the policies of the left-leaning parties in other countries like the UK and reverting to some of their old policies. There is hardly a single policy which I can call out for novelty. Their policies address most of the talking points in the proverbial voter checklist.
Hits
Skilling – Investment in apprenticeship, TAFE
Space research
Manufacturing jobs
Infrastructure Investment
Naplan Review
Review of the free trade agreements
Misses
No standing on foreign policy apart from obeying Chinese government
No policy to address the housing crash/correction
The clean energy plan is extremely naive
The plans don’t add up economically. Asking multi-national to pay fair share is alone not going to contribute to the costs
Pandering to multi-culturalism – Chinese education, money transfer etc
No clamping on outsourcing
Liberal Policy
The liberal policy is a self-glorification attempt. It is a combination of moderate policies which the voter wants and not talking about their policies which the voter don’t want to understand. There is again nothing new in their policies.
Hits
Scare tactic against Labour
Border protection
Plans for regional areas
First home buyer support
Crime protection
Misses
No substantial policy except incrementing the current one
Free trade advocacy
Lack of strong policies for leadership in the Pacific region
Free ride for corporations
No clamping on outsourcing
Performance
The next step is to review if the policy handles the risks outlined.
Risk/Issue
Labour
Liberal
Choice
Automation and long term risks to jobs
They have policies for reskilling, especially in the energy sector. There is no acknowledgement of the job losses due to automation or creation of newer sectors.
They haven’t even thought of the issue.
Labour
Household debt
Hasn’t even bothered. If they want the bubble to burst, then they need to have policies which address the impact
Their new homeowner policy might sound attractive but is going to increase the gravity of this issue.
Neither
The gap between income and wealth
None
None
Neither
Trade
There is a slight focus on the renegotiation of trade agreements but no mention of how they are going to get it through.
Continued focus on free trade is going to backfire on Australia.
Slightly Labour
Foreign Policy
There is a mention of diversification but the rest of the policies fall flat in this regard.
There is a mention of derisking by improving the relationship with India but that is still not substantial.
Slightly Liberal
Clean Affordable Energy
Their renewable policy is definitely well written but I am still sceptical on this being affordable. The lack of discussion on nuclear is still appalling.
None.
Labour
Education & Skilling
Their policy to fund schools better, review Naplan and support for the public schools is definitely good.
Their policy to improve TAFE, and create university fund is a good path forward.
There is no quality plan in this regard. The liberal policy is to continue the current policy.
Labour
To conclude, the labour party is proposing a plan which doesn’t tie up economically and the liberal party is proposing a plan which doesn’t change anything. Both of them are engaging in a fearmongering tactic. Between a plan which is depressingly status-quo from the liberals and another one which is thoughtlessly naive from the labour the choice for the Australians is hard. The economy is growing globally so no government can take credit for this. Even after factoring in my biases, I will still advocate voting for labour to ensure there is an investment into key sectors which will result in intergenerational progress. I am definitely sceptical if they can turn their policies into action but there aren’t any more data points at the moment. A voter has to vote on policy.
The elections for the representatives of the 17th Lok Sabha or the lower house of the Indian Parliament is underway. The Indian parliament election is one of unprecedented scale as over 900 million people are eligible to vote. It is a load test to any electoral process. As with most elections, emotions are running high, polarisation is immense and everyone is projecting a doomsday result if the other party gets elected. As a person who truly hates both the parties, I find it extremely laughable. There will be no significant difference in outcome irrespective of which party comes to power. I will explain the reasons during the course of this blog.
The two coalitions
There are two major coalitions which are fighting the elections. One is the incumbent National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by Bharathiya Janatha Party (BJP) and the other one is the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) led by Indian National Congress (INC). I want to table a brief introduction about both these coalitions.
Name
National Democratic Alliance (NDA)
United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
Main Party
Bharathiya Janatha Party (BJP)
Indian National Congress (INC).
Leader
Narendra Modi
Rahul Gandhi
Last election performance (272 needed for a majority)
282 seats
44 seats
How followers see the leader
Protector of the Hindus
Only hope to develop India
Strong leader
Youth Icon
Secular leader
Will help create a progressive India
From a family of leaders
How opponents see the leader
Against non-Hindus
Against lower castes
Hasn’t made any progress
Against poor
Will destroy the Indian secular fabric
Has created an environment of distrust, division and hatred
Authoritarian
An idiot who has no new ideas
The only qualification is that he is from the Nehru-Gandhi family
Will bring India’s development to a standstill
Useless
My view of their leader
A good orator especially in Hindi
Extremely cunning statesman
Turns blind eye to Hindu fundamentalism
Has surrounded himself with smart people
Is incapable of having an intelligent conversation
Turns blind eye to non-Hindu fundamentalism
As far as the corruption and number of criminal cases go, both these parties are exactly the same. So, there isn’t much difference there.
Key performance
I want to look at some key performance indicators. I want to look at this in terms of the party in power and the resultant impact. I do not want to assess the validity of the parameters or the absolute performance of the country. I want to measure the performance relative to the party in power. The data for these have come from the World Bank, OECD and Indian government sites.
From
To
Coalition(Party)
19-Mar-98
22-May-04
NDA (BJP)
22-May-04
26-May-14
UPA (INC)
26-May-14
till date
NDA (BJP)
Financial Indicators
The GDP of India has been constantly rising since 1998. The growth rate though has been up and down. In a mixed economy dependent on both exports and huge internal consumption, a balance of inflation and geopolitical reasons will impact short term growth rate. What is also significant is that the debt/GDP ratio has been coming down since 2002. The Ten years of UPA and 6 years of BJP have had no impact on these financial indicators.
Economic indicators
I have got three main indicators of the economic health of a country. They are savings, distribution and investment. Here is the reason I have these indicators.
Savings: Does this country have enough assets to handle emergency situations?
Distribution: Has the economic model resulted in the growth of the whole population?
Investment: What is the focus on future generation?
Based on these, there is again very little difference between the parties with a reserve and income inequality. There is however a big difference as far as investment in infrastructure is concerned. The NDA government led by Modi has made a lot of investment in their tenure.
Social & Environment indicators
The next set of indicators are to do with social and environmental performance. The population is important as there is no point if the population grows faster than the GDP.
The population of India has been rising constantly for decades now. Through the number has been steadily increasing, the rate has been falling. The next one if the emissions caused. The CO2 emissions number in India has also increased over the period although the per capita emission has almost been constant.
The last one I want to highlight is violence against women. I do not have a trend chart for this but a comparison against most other nations show where India stands in this regard.
Domestic Considerations
The NDA under BJP is claimed to be against minorities, stifling them of their freedom and instigating riots. The UPA under INC is accused of being soft on terror and crime. The statistics give a completely different picture. The number of incidents, deaths and injuries due to communal violence has almost been constant over the last 13 years. The fatalities to civilians have also seen a downward trend since 1998.
The number of people with criminal cases is almost the same in both parties. India Today magazine published the statistics on candidates who have criminal cases against them.
Other developmental policies
There are definitely some policies enacted by each government which focuses on development. Those policies would have benefitted a community or a region. Again each party has its set of feathers in their cap. The net effect of these is still the same.
Foreign Policy Considerations
The next item to consider is the difference in foreign policy. I want to split the foreign policy into zones.
The United States of America: No significant change. India continues to toe the line which the United States wants them. From Manmohan Singh to Narendra Modi, no one wants to disturb the peaceful settlement of abject surrender.
China: No significant change. India continues the tensed relationship with China. Apart from the odd Doklam issue and rejection to join the OROB bandwagon, India has hardly been able to have any influence on China.
Rest of BRICS: No change.
Pakistan: Both Narendra Modi and Manmohan Singh have tried to better relationship with Pakistan and both have ended not taking the relationship forward. The issue with the relationship continues to be volatile.
Middle East: One good aspect which has happened in the last 5 years is the improving relationship with Isreal. Other than the relationship has been one which ignores all the human rights violations for the sake of oil.
Iran: I can only find India’s relationship with Iran humorous. India has always had a good relationship with Iran. However, India hasn’t been able to capitalise it by setting up the oil and gas pipeline which they always wanted. Primarily, India doesn’t want to annoy the USA by publicly using its proximity to Iran.
South East Asia: No change
Europe: No change
Social Considerations
Secularism
India has no truly secular party. They have castist parties and religious parties. The only difference is which religion do they support. It is evident when you see the candidate from each party in a locality. It is always based on caste and religion.
Free Speech and Tolerance
There is no party in India which is tolerant and advocates free speech. From INC, BJP to the Communist parties, all of them have an extremist wing. They attack civilians and journalists who oppose them.
Journalistic freedom
While there have been claims of journalists being attacked during the BJP tenure, it is not unique to only one party. All parties have done that. The biggest attack on individual and journalistic freedom was the emergency period carried out by the INC government under Indira Gandhi. There were TV stations ransacked by the so-called secular, tolerant parties in different parts of the country. Journalists who have exposed corruption have always been attacked.
Conclusion
To conclude, in spite of the polarisation, there will be no significant difference between a Rahul Gandhi led UPA government and a Narendra Modi led NDA government. Both parties will do what benefits them and pander to their base. They have already created a system when nothing can significantly change. So, Indians can relax. It is not doomsday yet.
In the previous part, I shared the details of the grooming gangs in Pollachi. This racket has been running with the patronage and participation of people across political parties. However, in the aftermath of all these allegations, there are two unfortunately predictable social reactions.
The girls are being blamed for not being modest enough. So, parents have taken control into their own hands by ordering curfew for their daughters.
The marriage market has blacklisted girls from the Pollachi region.
When a society equates culture to more protection, reduction of liberties for just one gender then there is nothing that is going to significantly change. I look at this in a very simple fashion.
Any two individuals have the right to engage in a consensual sexual relationship. When they do that it is a covenant between the two. There is no need for society to be involved unless they are impacted (eg. Extra marital relationships which the spouses don’t agree). Also, when one of the two breaks it by exposing the act without the permission of the other or threatens to do that then it should be a non-bailable offence.
The reality is people are going to have sexual relationships as it is innate to human desires. It is a function of hormones & opportunity. The issue of the force and lack of consent which makes the action reprehensible. This is where the law should come into the picture.
Two Key points to consider
The Rape Culture is pervasive
If one wants to look at the culture of rape, the NCRB data which only shows reported cases is a good indication. Surprisingly when I started digging into the government records, there is no statistics after 2016. So, I have to analyse with 2016 data. The average for reporting cases seems to be around 10 for a population of 100,000. Though one rape is one too many, it can easily be dismissed as statistically insignificant. Let us break this down.
Population set size: 100,000
Approximate Number of Women @47% which is the India average): 47,000
Number of people within the age group of (15-55) 59% approx: 27,730
The probability of a person getting raped (assuming one person is not raped more than once) during that period: 1.5%
Now with a probability of 1.5% of a woman getting raped during her life and reporting the same, one has to acknowledge the culture of rape. Again, I have to stress this is only reported cases. Most of them go unreported as people are scared of social repercussions.
What is worse in this is the conviction rate for rapes are extremely low. This is not to say the rape didn’t happen but mostly that people who have been convicted were able to get away as there is no evidence.
Kailash Satyarthi, the child rights activist and Nobel peace prize winner has been working in this area for a few years now. According to his organisation, one in five girl child between the ages 5 and 9 have been sexually abused at least one. Most of them by people whom they know like family members, friends and school staff. If this doesn’t show the abuse of women is cultural then I am not sure what does. What is worse even when there is an abuse, the victims are almost always discriminated. She is the symbol of shame to the society. If the society is ashamed of what happened inside her birth canal, I suggest they chop off the organ which they think will go in. The extinction of such people is not such a bad option.
There are two cultures which claim to be pro-women from its origin, one is Islam and the other one his Hinduism. There is a reason they have to keep mentioning this everywhere. It is a coverup for their guilt. Muslim apologists always mention their prophet has given rights to women. Who is he to give rights? Hindu apologists point out the goddesses in their religion as a testimony to the rights of women. It is not mentioned that even the female gods are subservient to their husbands in their stories. This is probably like how Brahmin women were considered superior in the hierarchy to the men from other lower castes.
Power buys justice
It doesn’t matter whether there is a law criminalising dangerous actions, power will definitely buy justice. There are three forms of power in India or for that matter globally.
Political
Financial
Religious
I want to give some examples of this.
Akash Ambani: The spoilt son of the wealthiest Indian Mukesh Ambani rammed his Aston Martin into an Audi which then went on to hit a Hyundai. The women driving the Audi reported that the Aston Martin was driven by Akash Ambani. The day after the accident a long term Reliance employee surrendered to the police taking responsibility.
Salman Khan: Another spoilt brat who continues to get away with serious crimes. He has been arrested for the below reasons.
Illegal possession of arms
Killing endangered species
Ramming his car into a platform and killing a person and injuring a few more
Manu Sharma: Again the spoilt son of a politician. His father was a member of the Parliament. Manu Sharma shot Jessica Lal a bartender for refusing to serve him liquor after the business hours. He was originally acquitted but was later sentenced after a huge public uproar.
SPS Rathore: SPS Rathore was an Inspector General of Police. He molested a teenage girl who was playing Tennis. He later harassed her continuously from going public with her allegations.
Jayendra Saraswathi: Jayendra Saraswathi was a pontiff and head of the Kanchi Matt. He has accusations of money laundering, murder and sexual assault. In spite of all this, he was acquitted without any charge.
Aseemanand: Aseemanand is an Indian monk. He was charged in the bombings of Ajmer dargah, Mecca Masjid, and the Samjhauta Express. He originally confessed to doing this and also called out RSS involvement in extremism. After all this, he retracted his statements and has since been acquitted.
A plausible solution
Regulation against recording & distribution of videos and photos
Any person who commits the below acts should be punished with a minimum of 7 years rigorous imprisonment with the option to extend it by another 7 years. In the case of the victim being minors, the punishment should be a minimum of 14 years with at least 5 years in solitary confinement.
Revenge porn: Releasing recording of a sexual act without the permission of all the people involved
Recording: Recording of a sexual or intimate act without the consent of the individuals
Distribution: Circulation of videos or photos of a sexual or intimate act of private individuals without their consent unless it is done for legal or reporting purposes. The exception is a recording of any public event or artworks including photo shoots, theatre and movies.
Special squad to handle gang crimes against women
India doesn’t need anti-Romeo squads which go after couples or the people showing their affection in public. What India needs is squads which are vigilant about atrocities against women and children in both the real world and digital. The squads shouldn’t go after sex workers and consensual sex. They should go after human trafficking, forced prostitution and abuses. These squads should be tasked to come up with an operating model to percolate the benefits to every society or community.
Elimination of right to choose your lawyer for rape cases
Many accused get away because of the lawyers they are able to engage. There is a marked difference in quality between the public prosecutors and notorious high profile lawyers hired to defend the accused rapists. I advocate abolishing the right to choose a lawyer in case of cases of sexual abuse or homicide. Notorious lawyers like Ram Jethmalani have made a living defending criminals successfully. The accused have to be randomly picked a lawyer from the group of advocates to defend them.
I also advocate limiting the fees of lawyers in criminal cases. One can get any lawyer for civil cases but criminal cases should be controlled by the government. Justice should not be available for purchase.
A public register of Sex Offenders
The Government has to create a public list of sexual offenders. This should include accused, convicted and acquitted. The list of sexual offenders along with their photo and present location should be made public. Most sex offenders are repeat and it is important to highlight the same. The public has the right to protect themselves.
Victims need to feel love and empowerment
One of the key drivers for the fears around sexual assault is the fear of finding a partner. It is extremely common for Indian men to think of a girl abused as inferior. This despicable behaviour has to change. Men have to show love and care to the victims. They are not in any way responsible for the pain they have undergone. So, these women have to be empowered to make their life choices. They have to feel the love in their life again. That doesn’t mean that they need a partner in life but they should not be denied the option of having one if they so wish.
While I do feel that these are all plausible solutions, I don’t think anything is going to change. One might find rare cases of decency but the majority are happy with the status quo. The outpour of anger is strictly a manifestation of the need to project an image of decency. Every individual who wants to punish the victim also finds the need to escape punishment as small as it may be when they do commit it.
Demystifying a skeptic's world 