Sorry state of Political Science students in India

The recent attack on Uri army camp in India by Pakistan backed terrorists and the subsequent tension on border and news rooms led to some strange reactions from journalists, politicians and common citizens.
I will focus on the reactions of a few political science students on Twitter that left me wondering whether these young people are really learning anything. These students are currently in a master’s level course in political science. As the tension grew, these students started sending tweets asking India and Pakistan to talk (as if Pak sponsored terrorism has stopped while talks are on), extolling the virtues of mature discussion and negotiations to solve all issues (ignorance of Pakistan’s death by a thousand cuts strategy) and how the inevitable nuclear war (needless panic) will wipe away human civilization. One girl even said that Pakistan and China will join hands (plausible) to nuke India from two sides (laughable).

It was quite disappointing to see such views that betrayed no or at best little understanding of geopolitics and Indo-Pak relations and history. The unfortunate part is some of these people will join think tanks and other institutions and add to the growing tribe of peaceniks who preach to India without understanding that it takes two to tango and Pakistan’s ISI & military will not play ball with any peace driven agenda. These reactions also made it clear that these students don’t understand China beyond its strategic partnership with Pakistan and have no understanding of the issues it faces in Xinjiang and South China Sea. They can’t fathom that China’s strategy of encircling India or its investment in Gwadar is to limit India’s regional influence and not out of any love for Pakistan. So while China will flex its muscles and bail out Pakistan every now and then (like it is doing by blocking India’s bid to get the United Nations to ban Pak based JeM terrorist Masood Azhar), it is not going to wage a nuclear war at Pakistan’s behest or even back Pakistan of it launches a nuclear bomb at India because such actions will hurt its aspirations of becoming the numero uno superpower. China will never want a confrontation with the rest of the world for the sake of Pakistan. Therefore while China will play foster father to Pakistan, that doesn’t really give Pakistan a free hand to launch nuclear strikes against India without repercussions. What these students also seem to have missed is to understand why Modi has elevated engagement with Japan, Vietnam and Phillipines (All of these countries are uncomfortable with the idea of Chinese hegemony in South Asia) and the strategic importance of India developing Iran’s Chabahar port.

As students of political science, it is important that these young people understand global politics and regional power equations and tussles. Therefore, it is good if they are debating scenarios that may happen in case of a conflict between two nuclear armed neighbors as far as those scenarios factor in the ground realities and are not panic reactions. But when they start to make lofty remarks about virtues of global peace and harmony and show displeasure and disdain at politicians playing politics, one wonders if they are learning anything at all.

Modi must change Pak Policy. NOW.

Ever since Narendra Modi became prime minister in 2014, India’s Pakistan policy has been inconsistent. While the opposition has termed the government confused, I have been inclined to see the policy more favorably as it has been one of keeping the enemy guessing. However, with the attack on Indian Army camp in Uri on September 18 by Pakistan backed terrorists, it is clear that this strategy has failed to achieve whatever Modi government set out to achieve. 

Pakistan is not a country that desires peace with India. It is a failed state that desires conflict as its military pursues its ‘death by a thousand cuts‘ strategy against India. Any Indian response that seeks peace and normal relations with Pakistan is bound to fail. Therefore, twiddling its thumbs is not an option for Indian leadership. The previous Indian government led by Manmohan Singh spent ten years desiring peace with Pakistan – it refused to play cricket with the Pakistanis, submitted dossiers on involvement of its non-state and state actors in terrorist acts against India and condemning acts of aggression on its soil. By this India gained nothing and Pakistan lost nothing. And therefore status quo continued. Narendra Modi, then a PM candidate, and his party BJP talked tough about how they would have taken the fight to Pakistan. But two years into their government, the response and reactions have been no different. Modi’s outreach to the Pakistani PM has brought zilch and while supporting the cause of Balochistan’s freedom from Pakistan’s oppressive regime has been a novel move, it is clear that India can no longer treat Pakistan with kid gloves. 

Uri is not the first time Pakistan aided terrorists have attacked India since Modi became Prime Minister. We have seen this happen before at Gurdaspur, Udhampur, Pathankot and Pampore. If Modi wants to win a second term and preserve the ‘decisive leader’ tag his supporters have attached to him, he must walk the talk. Yes, Pakistan is a nuclear power and it will make threats that any military action, even hot pursuit of terrorists, on terror camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) will lead it to press the nuclear button. But India should realize that inaction will mean India will continue to pay the price anyway; therefore why not suffer the cost of war while making Pakistan pay as well. India is a nuclear power as well and while I do not think any limited military action against Pakistan will lead to a nuclear war, India will do well to remind Pakistani generals that any nuclear action by their country will lead to a retaliation that will wipe the nation of Jinnah from the map. There are other ways too by which India can make Pakistan pay. It can sever diplomatic relations with Pakistan, impose economic costs by taking away the MFN status it has inexplicably awarded to Pakistan and cancel the Indus Water treaty as suggested by defense analyst Mahroof Raza on Times Now. Modi government is trying hard to isolate Pakistan at global stage but it must realize that all such efforts will bear no fruits if it continues to engage with Pakistan politically and economically. Any and every action that hurts Pakistan must be pursued. 

In early days of World War II, Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler. History is witness to how that strategy failed to buy peace. Indian leadership should take a lesson from that episode. 

Asura: Tale Of The Vanquished [Book Review]

I recently had the opportunity to read an alternate take on Hindu epic Ramayana. Anand Neelakantan’s novel Asura: Tale Of The Vanquished tells the story from the perspective of Ravana, the chief antagonist of Ramayana. At 504 pages, this book is not a quick read and while it is interesting in parts, I feel better editing could have made it a slightly better read. Here is my detailed review:

The Good: The last few chapters that tell the story after Ravana’s death are the best parts of this book. Thumbs up to the author’s idea of using the narrator Bhadra as the cause of Rama’s ruin. The author has strongly attacked the caste system (well done) and his jibes at Kerala becoming God’s own Country where there is no place for man and hence people migrating to middle east, at UPA Prime Minister Manmohan Singh taking orders from a foreigner Sonia Gandhi (Vibhishana taking orders from Rama) and at PM Rajiv Gandhi justifying the violence after assassination of Indira Gandhi (India as the place where earthquake follows when a giant tree falls) beautifully capture his frustration and would also amuse those who follow Indian politics.

The Bad: The story could have been completed in half the number of pages this book has because half of the book is taken by author’s rants about superiority of South Indian culture over that of North India, rants against Brahmins, against Vishnu and the middle class. If you were thinking the writer would narrate an excellent story like Amish did in ‘The Shiva Trilogy’, you would be disappointed.

The Ugly: Very poorly written with loads of spelling errors and oft repeated phrases. The author undoubtedly has an anti-Brahmin, anti-North India bias and one sees ample evidence of that. The Devas are supposed to be uncultured and rapists yet everyone is committing rape, which is a very common theme in the book, be it Devas, Vanaras or the supremely cultured Asuras. Ravana is disgusted by black skin tone yet adores his dark skinned daughter and even rapes a dark skinned maid. This emphasis on skin color is over the top and soon becomes irritating, predictable and fails to add to the story or send a message to the readers. The whole skin tone angle is inconsistent and comes across as a forced argument.

Telling the other side of the story is a very interesting premise. But this piece of work is an opportunity lost.

The Lord of The Rings

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

As I write this, I am watching The Lord of The Rings trilogy for the umpteenth time. There is something about this story that fascinates me and I never get bored of it. It’s hard to tell what it is. May be it is the characters – I like Samwise The Brave and Gimli among the fellowship members or may be it is the vastness of the plot. Whatever it is, I have thoroughly enjoyed watching Peter Jackson’s adaptation of LOTR and its prequel The Hobbit.

While The Hobbit movie trilogy has been criticized for being longer than necessary, no such criticism can come the way of the LOTR trilogy. I am also planning to read the novel and hope it would add more to my fascination with Tolkien’s masterpiece. My father has read it twice and has already cautioned me that understanding the books in detail requires patient reading. I think given my love for the story, it might be a good idea to take notes to understand the plots, subplots and the backstory better.

Speaking of backstory, I recently came to know about a third book from JRR Tolkien on the middle earth – The Silmarillion. The events in this book precede the events described in The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings and describe in detail the different kind of species we encounter in the latter two books and the history of the chief antagonist Sauron.

When I first saw the LOTR trilogy, I was left a bit confused not only by what was happening in the story but also by the title. My mind wasn’t ready to accept the idea that the most powerful ring was actually answering to the evil. This was before I understood the context and realized what the famous words at the start of this post meant. The confusion, of course, only arose because these two lines are actually part of a rhyme of lore describing the history of the Rings of Power.

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

Those who have not read the book and are still confused by the plot or fail to appreciate why the ring owes its allegiance to Sauron, here’s a simple explanation. The Dark Lord Sauron aided the Elves in forging the Rings of Power. He did this while hiding his malafide intentions and pretending to be helping them in good faith. However, Sauron then also forged the One Ring for himself in the fires of Mount Doom in order to control the other rings. Since the other rings were quite powerful themselves, Sauron put a lot of his own power in the One Ring in order to exercise influence over the other rings. This made Sauron dependent on One Ring and left him weak without it. Since One Ring contained Sauron’s power, it was actually a part of the Dark Lord and therefore answered only to him.

The novel became an instant hit when it was published in the mid 1950s. The various layers in the plot and the fascinating back story is the reason why it continues to fascinate many of us even today. There are indeed some fans of the book who read the complete trilogy every year. Hopefully, I would join their ranks someday soon.

Why I switched to Android

I bought my first Apple device in February 2011. It was an iPhone 4. As a first time smartphone user, I was excited by the possibilities and became a heavy user soon. Even as android gained popularity and became the dominant mobile operating system, I was firmly entrenched in the apple ecosystem and with more and more fragmentation on the Android side and with concerns about malware on android devices on the rise , I thought I would never move out of the iOS camp. But here I am typing this post on an android phone. So what changed?

This was my fourth year with my iPhone 4 and the device had started feeling sluggish. Typing on the device was painful and was not going to improve without upgrading to iOS 8. But Apple’s latest operating system was not going to come to iPhone 4. All said and done, it was time to consider the new iPhone 6 for me.

Ever since iOS 8 was announced, I was excited since the new features like third party keyboards was exactly what I was looking for. However things changed quickly when the actual hardware was announced. You see while there is no denying that iPhone 6 will break records and earn a lot of money for Cupertino, I was disappointed by two aspects. One was the protruding camera at the back of the phones. More importantly, I was put off by Apple’s decision to eliminate the 32 GB model instead of making it the entry level option instead of the 16 GB one. It symbolized greed over customer experience as was soon evident when users upgrading from previous OS versions found that the increased size of the download left hardly any free storage on their 16 GB device. The major reason why storage matters to me is that given the premium pricing of iPhones, I typically plan to use the new device for four years before replacing it and if the device has little free storage at the time of purchase, it is natural to expect the situation to deteriorate over the next three years.

Since my four year old device was still functioning fine as a phone, I also considered buying an iPad. But the latest iPads revealed earlier this month repeated the storage folly Apple committed with iPhone. The 16 GB remains the entry level option while the 32 GB option had been dropped. This same storage space issue also meant investing in an year old device at a slightly lesser price didn’t seem to be the best use of my money either. Having exhausted all my options to get my hands on an iOS 8 device, I started exploring Android options and soon narrowed down on the latest Moto G.

The latest Moto G costs INR 13,000 only and going by the reviews will definitely be a fine device for at least two years. I won’t go into a review here but so far I have enjoyed my first 7 days with it. Taking screenshots isn’t easy and one hopes Motorola had thought of a better way that pressing power and volume down button together. But other than this, the stock Android serves me well. Yes, Android lacks the all round polish of iOS but this is not glaring and one hardly feels it in normal day to day use. Considering that you pay one-fourth the price of an iPhone 6 for Moto G, there’s hardly a case for complaining. The built in storage is 16 GB but there is an option to add a microSD card and this phone also supports OTG USB drives. All in all a neat package. And the icing on the cake is that Moto G will receive the upgrade to Android Lollipop – the latest version of the operating system and the eye catching & flat Material Design UI.

So there you have it. The full story of how a loyal iPhone user felt compelled to switch to Android because Apple for some reason has developed an aversion to 32 GB.

The importance of having multiple interests

Every man (and woman) should have interests in a multitude of areas. I am interested in politics, both international and domestic, consumer technology, sports such as tennis, cricket and the various events at Olympics, history, geography and travel.

Many people I know are interested in only a few things that are of immediate concern to them. When I was a student, many of my peers focused so much on their books that they had neither the time nor the inclination to read the newspaper. And then the same people ran from pillar to post asking others how to prepare for group discussions and interviews when the placement season arrived. Even today I know a lot of people who are one – dimensional when it comes to interests. Apart from cricket that most in India follow, many people would struggle to strike a conversation with anyone beyond one or two topics. So if you are into stocks and follow cricket and happen to meet someone who works in Technology and doesn’t like cricket, the conversation gets muted after just a few minutes. Weather in India is hardly the ice-breaker it is in United Kingdom.

Thankfully, my varied interests help me fuel my passion for reading and writing. It helps me strike and maintain conversations. If you are interested in learning about different things, it not just makes you more informed but also improves your social stock. If your wife isn’t your best friend or doesn’t share the same interests, you can always avoid boredom or loneliness by immersing yourselves in your long list of interests and passions.

That’s what I do.

Lee-Hesh Controversy: What Ails Indian Tennis?

London Olympics is barely a few months away and instead of focusing its efforts on trying to win a gold medal, Indian Tennis is embroiled in a new controversy. Leander Paes (39), the most successful Indian tennis player ever and the top ranked doubles player for India wants to partner either Mahesh Bhupathi (38), another legend and power center of tennis in the country or Rohan Bopanna (32). The problem stems from the fact that both Bhupathi and Bopanna want to partner each other and not Paes. Paes does not want to partner younger players like Yuki Bhambri (19) or Vishnu Vardhan (24).

The All India Tennis Association (AITA) is also to blame. It can send two teams to Olympics and that will surely not decrease our chances of getting a medal. But it has ruled out the option and insists on sending one team with Paes as one of the players. Paes has threatened to pull out from Olympics if Bhupathi or Bopanna are not made to partner him.

The two team option would be the best with AITA sending a young player with Paes despite his protests. If that doesn’t work out, Paes should be allowed to pull out and Bhupathi-Bopanna should go in the interest of Indian tennis. But AITA, being the wise sports body it is, is having none of that.

What is even more regrettable is that online forums are filled with user comments siding with either Leander Paes or Mahesh Bhupathi and calling each other names. I believe Leander and Mahesh has done a great service to Indian tennis and nobody who doesn’t know the truth should question the commitment and nationalism of these players and call them selfish. The best we can do is speculate about the motivations and what could have gone wrong and form our own opinions. These opinions may be far from truth until unless the true story comes out.

The first question that then beckons is why nobody wants to partner Leander Paes. These pointers might help a reader form an idea. It, however, needs to be mentioned here that these are mostly rumors and grapevine and what exactly happened may never be fully known.

• Grapevine has it that Paes contrived to keep Bhupathi out of the squad for the Davis Cup tie against Uzbekistan and succeeded.
• It is rumoured that Paes tried to convince Bopanna to partner him even when he was playing actively with Bhupathi in 2011. Bhupathi has termed it an act of back-stabbing. Paes’ father has said that Leander broke up his partnership with Bhupathi because he wanted a younger player with fresh legs.
• Another rumour is that Paes gave a tongue-lashing to Bopanna after they lost the doubles game in Uzbekistan and this didn’t go down well with Rohan.
• It is alleged that as Davis Cup captain, Leander Paes ruled with an iron fist and AITA gave him a free hand to decide who will play what game. In 2008, four players – Prakash Amritraj, Bopanna, Bhupathi and Karan Rastogi revolted against Paes’ captaincy and wrote to the AITA that they will not play Davis Cup ties if Paes was the captain. Prakash Amritraj had this to say about Leander’s captaincy – “This man has taken the joy away from playing the Davis Cup,”
• Firstpost.com in an article had this to say about Leander – If you speak to officials or former tennis players, they will tell you in no uncertain terms that Leander Paes is selfish. They will tell you that with Paes — the arguments begin with him and end with him; no one else has a chance to participate.

In the last six months and since breaking up with Bhupathi in 2011, Leander has not played with an Indian partner on the tennis circuit. Since the start of 2012, Bhupathi and Bopanna have played together with an eye on the Olympics. Therefore, the second question is why AITA is so adamantly supporting Paes’ demand to be paired up with Bhupathi or Bopanna.

The answer is not clear though there are rumours that AITA doesn’t like Bhupathi much because his company, GloboSports, organized a few ATP and WTA events in India and managed to get players like Martina Navratilova, Serena Williams, Martina Hingis and Mary Pierce without AITA playing any significant role in those tournaments.

In light of these rumours, facts and arguments, following questions remain open for Indian tennis fans to ponder over and decide what is it that ails Indian tennis?

• Doubles is all about coordination and camaraderie. Why doesn’t a sports body like AITA get it?
• Bopanna gave up a successful partnership with Pakistani player Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi to partner Mahesh and prepare for Olympics. Is AITA justified in trying to thwart his Olympic dreams?
• If India can send two teams based on individual (Paes is ranked 7th individual doubles ranking) and team rankings (Bhupathi-Bopanna are ranked 7th as a team), why is AITA insisting on just one? Wouldn’t the probability of winning a medal increase with more teams representing India?
• If Leander wanted a younger player with fresh legs, what is stopping him to partner Yuki or Vishnu?
• If Leander was so concerned about his chances in Olympics, why is not playing with an Indian player on the ATP circuit?
• Just because he is the highest ranked Indian, does Leander have a right to jeopardize someone else’s dreams by demanding that they break-up with their playing partner? Is he not responsible for striking a partnership himself with players who are willing to play alongside him?
• Are we and the AITA fair in expecting Bhupathi and Bopanna to be available to partner Paes whenever he wants it while Leander is free to dump them when it serves his interest?
• On 7th June 2012, Mahesh Bhupathi and Sania Mirza won the French Open mixed doubles. But AITA wants Sania to partner Leander at Olympics. Why?

Both Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi are legends as far as Indian tennis go. Get angry, ridicule their arguments and form your opinions if you may but don’t get abusive towards the men who have given their lives to the sports. Whatever they do now and in future, they deserve respect for the laurels they have brought to India and Indian tennis in the past.

References:

http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_what-makes-leander-paes-such-an-outcast_1703737 

http://www.firstpost.com/sports/olympics-2012-why-nobody-wants-to-play-with-leander-paes-345305.html 

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-19/london-olympics/32316617_1_leander-paes-mahesh-bhupathi-rohan-bopanna

http://www.rediff.com/sports/2008/feb/24davis.htm

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/aita-wants-to-pair-sania-leander-for-olympics/266208-5-22.html

 

First published on Reader’s Quotient on June 21, 2012

http://readersquotient.com/columns/lee-hesh-controversy-what-ails-indian-tennis

How Mainstream Media Lost its Credibility

In a democratic system, public opinion is the built-in check and balance that ensures that the three pillars of democracy – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial do what they are supposed to do and not start misusing the system for serving their own ends. In India, like in almost every other nation where media is free to praise and criticize these three pillars of democracy, media has played a crucial role in shaping public opinion. It is for this reason that media has been called the fourth pillar of democracy.

The fourth pillar justified the faith put in it by the citizens when it took up issues that had made a mockery of our justice system as a result of botched up police investigations – the Nitish Katara murder case and the Jessica Lal murder case to name a few. Media’s activism despite criticism from legislative and executive quarters was brushed aside by the public which found a hope in it for fighting the corrupt, inefficient system. Liberalization and growth of the Cable TV led to a mushrooming of private news channels and news anchors and journalists presenting the news became known faces with almost celebrity like following. The age of 24X7 news was here and the masses could not tire of consuming the never ending analyses, talk shows and special reports emanating from news channels which were unbiased voices and not a propaganda tool of the government or some entrenched political party. Or so we thought.

There always were people who did not like the way the private channels sensationalized every story to make it an exclusive. But for every such critic, there were hundreds who hero-worshipped their award winning journalists who were always willing to travel to war zones and rugged terrains to get that exclusive story as it unfolded. It all seemed to be working out fine when something disruptive happened: the rise of social media.

As Facebook and more notably Twitter became popular in India, each and every word that was spoken by these journalists came under greater than ever scrutiny. People discussed them online on twitter and even questioned and criticized those who were previously considered unchallenged demi-gods of public opinion. The result of this has been shocking and a revelation. More and more people are realizing that their favorite journalists of old times are not unbiased, neutral voices but men and women with their own agendas who use their platform to shape the discussion or analysis in a way that suits a particular party or political ideology.

Hence, it makes for an interesting observation:

1. When we see shock on the face of an award winning journalist the moment Allahabad High Court grants a verdict in favor of the Hindus in the Ayodhya dispute case. As she repeatedly asks the Hindu community to be large-hearted and share the land with the Muslims, we wonder if her reaction had been the same if the verdict went in favor of the other party.
2. When journalists, who go ad-nauseam about freedom of expression of a painter who repeatedly painted Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the nude and about the freedom of speech of a writer-turned activist who never lets go an opportunity to speak against India, themselves initiate proceedings against bloggers who criticize them or their reporting
3. When a lady journalist calls twitter users supporting rights and privileges of the majority Hindu community as ‘Internet Hindus’
4. When journalists who worry about religious sentiments of the minorities when it comes to certain cartoons in a Danish newspaper have no hesitation in calling Lord Ram, worshipped by Hindus across the world, a divine encroacher
5. When journalists who dub leaders trying to work up the coalition numbers as ‘brokers’ or ‘fixers’ are themselves caught on tape fixing cabinet positions and the only excuse they have is that it was an error of judgment. And while resignations are sought from anybody and everybody not belonging to the grand old party, such journalists continue to hold their positions
6. When the picture of a 42 year old politician, who happens to belong to the most powerful political dynasty of India, is morphed with those of cricket players and fans after India wins a match against arch-rivals Pakistan in the World Cup and the caption says “Yes, We Did”, we wonder if it is independent journalism or sycophancy at its best.
7. When the pretty lady from the network famous for notices and threats to opposing voices keeps bringing in Samjhauta express blasts whenever Mumbai terror attacks and Islamic fundamentalism are discussed
8. When news channels demand resignation of a CM based on charges contained in a Lokayukta report but question the CAG for its report accusing a powerful CM belonging to another party and refrain from asking for resignation because everybody is innocent till proven guilty
9. When the journalists who didn’t think twice about reporting and speculating on Apple chief Steve Jobs’ medical condition are preaching decency and privacy when the High Command of the oldest political party of India has taken ill.

The reaction of these journalists to differing views and criticism goes totally against the rational image they had cultivated before social media arrived on the scene. Criticize their stand and you would be called a troll, a right-wing hatemonger or at the minimum a moron. Sometimes, if you are arguing with their supporters, these journalists tend to jump in and would then ask you to learn some decency or take your poison elsewhere. In fact, there has been an instant where a lady journalist was found cheering her supporters when they hurled some profanities at another lady who has been quite vocal in her criticism of the said journalist. So much for women empowerment and respect for women!

People all across the world have their biases. Journalists are no different. It is perhaps better to openly declare one’s political allegiance than play up the charade of being an independent news agency. News networks in USA openly back one political party over the other. It would be better if Indian news channels and media houses start doing that. It would save their journalists lot of criticism which they cop up for pretending that they present an unbiased, neutral and factual account of what’s happening in the country minute by minute. Thanks to twitter and other forms of social media, it is no longer easy to make fool of your audience. Mainstream media in India must wake up to this reality that they cannot fool all the people all the time, By continuing to try, the only thing they are going to achieve is to further dent their already punctured credibility.

The Case for Capital Punishment

Ever since Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab, the sole surviving terrorist captured during the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai has been sentenced to death, the intellectuals and human rights groups have once again found reason to talk about how humanity would benefit from abolishing the death penalty.  Some have argued that if death penalty is abolished and the culprits given an opportunity to reform themselves into civilized citizens, it would be a victory for our democratic and humanitarian values.

Before I present my arguments supporting capital punishment, let me present some facts about the death penalty (source: Wikipedia).

• Currently only 58 nations actively practice it, with 95 countries abolishing it (the remainder having not used it for 10 years or allowing it only in exceptional circumstances such as wartime)
• Over 60% of the world’s population lives in countries where executions take place and this includes the People’s Republic of China, India, United States and Indonesia
• In a poll completed by Gallup in October 2008, 64% of Americans supported the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, while 30% were against and 5% did not have an opinion
• Roughly six in 10 tell Gallup they do not believe capital punishment deters murder and majorities believe at least one innocent person has been executed in the past five years.

In India, the judiciary has said that death penalty be awarded only in the rarest of the rare case. The human rights groups are evidently not happy even with this and want total abolition. I support the rarest of the rare clause as it is a directive to the courts that they need to be cautious about awarding a death sentence. However, everyone would agree that ‘rarest of the rare’ is a very loosely defined term and what constitutes rare is known to no one. I support the death penalty for crimes like terrorist acts, murder and rape.

Terrorist acts are the simplest of all because they are an act against the entire nation. For murders, revenge killings can be considered cases where the court may want to understand the motive and circumstances behind the crime. But in case of murders committed for robbery, honour killings – the decision should always be in favor of capital punishment. This is because the victim had done nothing to ‘deserve’ such an end and it was the greed or narrow mindedness of the accused which led him/her to commit the crime. Case in point being a murder committed in Borivali, Mumbai a few years back where robbers hanged a small child so that nobody could report anything to the police. What is the use of trying to reform such criminals? Or the honour killings – where one person orders the killing of a couple who fell in love?

I believe our laws against rape don’t take into account the emotional trauma the victim suffers for life. As opposed to a murder, where the victim dies once, a rape victim has to live through the trauma every day and at the same time handle the social stigma that comes with it. Rape irrespective of whether the motive was revenge or pure lust is a crime where death penalty is the best punishment. Nothing justifies it and I would not want to run the risk of getting more women raped by giving the perverts a chance at reform.

Some would argue that what if an innocent gets punished and loses his life? Looking at our judicial system where it takes years to close a case, one is reasonable to assume that the judge would have sufficient evidence before he takes the call. Moreover, rather than opposing the death penalty for fear of punishing innocents, judicial reforms are required to ensure crimes are reported, victims and witnesses are protected and police does its duty. Another check against injustice is the provision of mercy petition before the President of India.

There is an economic angle also. What Kasab did was available for all to see using the CCTV footage. Why did we have such a long trial? When the evidence was there, why did we waste so much money trying to prove something which was proved from day one? Does it make sense if we don’t trust the footage of the CCTV cameras that we ourselves put up? India needs money to take care of its population and the creaking infrastructure. I am now afraid to board a local train, go to malls and cinemas or to crowded markets. Yet it is my tax money which is being used to feed the same persons who instilled this fear in me. What about my human rights?

Finally, there is the lame argument that capital punishment will not deter criminals and terrorists. I agree. It will not. We will continue to have terrorist attacks, murders and all other crimes. But what makes our intellectuals believe that reforming criminals will curb violence in future. If we set Kasab free, will it move LeT to tears and make them disband their jihad against India? No. A big no.

Hence, I argue that India should stick to capital punishment and define the ‘rare’ clause more comprehensively to include rape, murder, honour killings and terrorist attacks in its ambit. It may not make us any safer but it will at least give some relief to the victims when they know that those who wronged them are not roaming freely outside some reform centre waiting for their next unsuspecting victim.

A slightly different version of this article was first published in e-magazine Reader’s Quotient on May 17, 2010

http://readersquotient.com/2010/05/17/the-case-for-capital-punishment-2/

J&K: Does India need a New Approach?

For the last several weeks, we have heard and read about the recent unrest in the Kashmir Valley. People like me have had bitter exchanges with kashmiris who want an independent state and view India as an evil force. When I reflect on the things I have heard from separatists and Kashmiri Pandits who have been victims of an ethnic cleansing operation hardly anybody talks about, I feel India’s approach to J&K has been wrong all the time.

Let us first fix the blame. The mess we are in can be blamed on Congress and especially the Nehru regime. And to some extent on our constitution which through Article 370 gave Kashmir a special status. The special status awarded to Kashmiris have worked against India in 2 ways Firstly, it had led Kashmir to believe that they are NOT India. Secondly, it has helped them ignore the plight of Kashmiri Pandits. When Pandits who were Hindus were driven out by Islamic militancy in the late 80s, the separatist leaders sat through the brutality. Now, if you talk about rehabilitating the displaced Pandits back, the same separatists say that this is a conspiracy by India to change the demographic of the region.

I wish the issue here was devoid of any religion angle but unfortunately it isn’t. If it were, the kashmiri youth, Muslim of course, would have supported the return of Kashmiri pandits. During my heated exchanges on twitter with Kashmiris who were very keen on painting a negative picture of the Indian Army and the state, whenever I brought up the issue of Kashmiri Pandits rehabilitation, the conversation would use to go quiet and would resume only if the topic was human rights and independence. My frustration and anger at Kashmir stems from the fact that it expects all the favours from India but still doesn’t want any association to India. Kashmiris come to Delhi and speak against India in the country’s capital. We let them do it in the name of freedom of speech and because the constitution has made them special. And then they go back and bad-mouth us on the internet. They need to look left and right – at China and Pakistan and decide which country treats dissidents with such respect.

As much as I would want the Article 370 to be repealed, it won’t happen with the current state of national politics where different parties cannot unite even on issues of national interests. However, even with this constraint, there is scope for a change in strategy which can help India strengthen its support in those parts of J&K which are not anti-India.

Let’s leave out the area of J&K which is currently under the illegal occupation of Pakistan and China. There are 3 major regions in the state of Jammu and Kashmir – the Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh. It is unfortunate that we in India often forget about Jammu and Ladakh in the midst of the constant trouble in Kashmir. These are the often overlooked areas of the state and these regions are definitely not anti-India. But that should not lead us to believe that we can take them for granted.

So, here is my strategy. Change the constitution if you have to but carve 3 states out of J&K – The Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh. Work at war footing to build democratic structures in Jammu and Ladakh, invest heavily in Education and Infrastructure and prioritize the improvement of living standards in these two regions. Let the misguided separatists in Kashmir Valley look at their neighbours with awe. Let us not forget that it’s Kashmir which is the disputed part, not Jammu and Ladakh. Kashmir issue should not be allowed to prevent the other parts from developing. If we are able to do this, we can be reasonably assured that even if there is a plebiscite in these two regions, India is going to win.

The other thing that I fail to understand is why India is blocking Pakistani TV channels in Kashmir. Let’s not fear that these channels will brainwash kashmiri population against India as even without these channels, the kashmiri public behaves like a stooge of Pakistan. So, allow TV channels from Pakistan including the ones which show the wonderful quality of life in that part of the world. That will tell our Kashmiri friends what awaits them on the other side of the border. And finally to tackle the useless chant of independence which Kashmir won’t be able to sustain even if it gets it with Pakistan and China lurking in the shadows, India should make it clear to Hurriyat, other separatist factions and the people of Kashmir that they should not expect any military, development or economic aid from India. Why should they expect any assistance from us when their agenda has been India bashing all this time and when India is the devil incarnate for them?

I am sure this strategy cannot make us any worse than what we currently are. The heaven on Earth is in Jammu and Ladakh; not in a terrorist infested Kashmir valley. Let’s reward those who will stay loyal to us rather than running after the ones who will stab us in the back.

First published in e-magazine Reader’s Quotient on October 26, 2010

http://readersquotient.com/2010/10/26/jk-does-india-need-a-new-approach/