Kejriwal2.0 and Modi2.0 - Two sides of the same coin

If you look around the Indian political landscape, you will realize that the top 2 problems confronting India are:

1.India has been following a policy of tokenism and selective appeasement (based on caste, religion, etc).

2. Corruption is another problem that has become a significantly serious challenge for the country.

 
Of course, this is not to say that these are the only 2 challenges the country faces, but these are fundamental issues which are holding the country back. You could link poverty, rapes, crimes, lawlessness, etc to one or both of these fundamental problems.

Clearly, in order to progress we need a resolution mechanism. And any resolution mechanism needs a leader to drive the changes. Driving such changes needs strong determination from the leader, tough decisions need to be taken which are in the larger interests of the people and not necessarily for a certain section of people. People must be able to identify the leader with solution to the problem.

India does not need to look too far. For we do have two leaders, who are so different personalities and with different backgrounds, but each one is identified with the two issues being discussed here.

Narendra Modi2.0 signifies inclusive development, which is devoid of any tokenism or selective appeasement. His brand of development represents growth for all sections of society, as his election plank has demonstrated. Gujarat 2012 elections did not boast of any religion or caste based promises, but Modi2.0 spoke just about development, future growth and was very aspirational, which appealed to all stratas of society. The rich see new investment potentials, the middle class see new job opportunities or support functions. The poor see newer avenues of income. The farmer sees promise in farming and his produce more returns. Common people see government machinery working for them. Modi2.0 is another promise for inclusive development, a paradigm different from traditional tokenism and appeasement, which has led us nowhere. Modi2.0 has come to symbolize inclusive development.

Now, let us talk about problem # 2. In today’s world, corruption is no longer equivalent to exchange of bribes. Corruption has become much more complex and beyond comprehension of common people. Which ordinary person could ever figure out the corrupt practices in involved in 2G or Coalgate. A corrupt government can alter policies to favor a business house (of course, in exchange for money) or not grant permits to another business house to reduce competition for a favored party. The one name that instantly comes to mind as someone who has become the antithesis of corruption and corrupt practices is Kejriwal2.0. Not only he (and his team) successfully exposed several scams, but also made them visible so a common person can make some sense of the corrupt practice involved. While people may not fully comprehend the corrupt practices involved, they at least understand that their is a quantum of money that the exchequer lost, which could have put for economic welfare. Indeed. Kejriwal2.0 has become synonymous with the honesty incarnate who can destroy the corrupt and bring the lost money back.

Reality is we need both problem solvers to take the country forward. We need collective leadership which not only honestly counters corruption, but also propagates inclusive development, not reservations or quotas or freebies which make no economic sense. 

Both Kejriwal2.0 and Modi2.0 are the two sides of the same coin.

 

The 4Ws of Rape

The 4Ws of Rape

The events following the Delhi rape have refused to subside; there is anger, passion, emotion, and though unfortunate, some theatrics. This blog analyses the Rape along four dimensions and discusses policies, preventative measures, etc that are important in this context..

The What of Rape

Different countries define rape differently
. There has to be consensus built on the definition of rape and the definition must be extended to include sexual assault. No such assault is minor since the intent of the hunter is criminal. In general, any physical or verbal contact without consent must be included in the ambit of rape. Often times, the victims are ridiculed; such ridicule must also be part of the offense.

 

The Why of Rape

There are 3 typical categories of rape:

(i)            Rape of minors and seniors: The perpetrators are psychopaths and are mentally deranged

(ii)           Random rapes, where the perpetrator randomly picks up a victim. There can be 2 potential reasons for such rapes - perpetrators are either obnoxiously drunk and want to have "fun" or they have a long history of hatred for the "type" that they find the victims represent.

(iii)          Acquaintance Rapes, where the victim and the perpetrator know each other or at least have some acquaintance. The motive behind such crimes may be display of power, authority or revenge.    

The When of Rape

This pertains to reporting of the incident. Often times, such cases are not reported, either by the victims themselves or the police don’t record them to avoid the "hassle". As a society, we must empathise the victims and have such cases reported at the earliest. A victim must never be ridiculed for "inviting" rape, since no one wants to be raped. As pointed out earlier, a ridicule must also be criminally charged.

Given the nature of the crimes, investigators and police must be specially trained to handle such cases. Time is crucial here. Justice delayed is justice denied- such agencies must work to deliver results in a timely fashion.

The Who of Rape

There are very few rehabilitation centers for the victims. Rape is a mental trauma for the victims and they need help and support from people near them. Family and friends must be available to support them. The police and other concerned agencies must demonstrate genuine concern.  As for the perpetrators, rape is equivalent to a murder, since in both cases, the aggression demonstrated is of the worst kind. The highest form of punishment as ordained by the country laws must be reserved for the perpetrators. 

While rape crimes can never be completely eradicated from the society, there are multiple proactive steps taken to reduce them, increase awareness about rapes, parents need to educate their kids about rape and make it  a less taboo subject make victims socially acceptable, and strengthen the laws so that the perpetrators can be punished at the highest level.    

London to Ahmedabad in 11 years

In October, 2012, the UK announced that it was ending the no-touch policy with Indian state Gujarat after 11 long years. Since the religious riots in Gujarat in 2001, the UK had not had any diplomatic relations with the government of Gujarat, until Oct 2012, when James Bevan, the British high Commissioner met Narendra Modi. While this immediately changed political equations in India making Modi less communal and thrilled all Modi supporters, nobody paid any attention to the boycott itself, or the need for the boycott. And why, if the boycott was really needed, did it take a decade to recall it?

Without going into the political significance (if any) of this entire event, let us just talk about the two core issues here: One, the legality of the boycott and 2, the ethics behind the recall. 

1.    The boycott was basically of the CM Modi for his alleged role in the religious violence in 2001. However, immediately after, in 2002, Modi won the state elections in a democratic election process, an election process that was organized by the Election Commission, which is impartial and has defined rules and procedures. The very fact that the Indian Constitution allowed Modi to contest elections and the fact that the people of the Indian state democratically elected Modi is significant proof that neither the Indian state nor the Indian people deemed Modi to be directly involved in the riots, in anyway. Therefore, any external nation has no authority to take a decision on Modi and label him to be involved in the riots. In other words, the boycott was illegal and without any basis. If the UK did decide to go ahead with the boycott, it was sheer disregard for the Indian government and the Indian democracy.

2.    Let us for a minute, assume that the boycott by UK was legal, then why did the UK decide to call it off? The nature of the sins in 2001 and 2012 still remain the same. If Modi was really involved, as alleged, then he should have met the same fate as other perpetrators of crime, have in the world elsewhere. This change of heart was obviously because of the loss to UK business in a place as vibrant as Gujarat. You see, business interests stand above any type of sin, however, horrifying they might be. The recall of the ban, if it was legal, in the first place was completely unethical.    

On both counts, the UK has lost. Rather than acting as a mature country, the UK has demonstrated that foreign policies related to India are made in haste and pure business interests drive decisions rather than humanity and ethics.