Maria Konnikova, a world-reknown Harvard psychologist and writer, explores what it takes to have a mind capable of matching the fictional detective/genius Sherlock Holmes in her novel: Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes.
If you’re unfamiliar with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s…
Kejriwal telling the politician should live like a common man is an oxymoron.
How can an elected representative, one who is representing 10000 people, be equal to 1 person? He, by popular vote, is equal to 10,000 people and is so bigger than a common man.
A politician should live like a politician.
And here’s how Kejriwal should have done it.
He should have accepted the government bungalow. He should have accepted the police protection too. And he should probably have asked for more people as his personal assistants. You know why? To set the following up.
Kejriwal will live in the bungalow allotted to him. He will sleep for 6-7 hours. But people can come to his bungalow and be seated at the living room, to meet him. They will be security checked by the securities (for securing Kejriwal’s life). And then, they will be given paper and pen (and a writer, if they’re illiterate) to write down what they’ve come for.
When Kejriwal wakes up, he gets those forms (collected by a personal assistant)
While he’s having breakfast he goes through the forms, and decides which ones can be immediately solved, which ones should be, who should be kept waiting, and who shouldn’t be.
Accordingly, after breakfast, he meets all the people waiting for him in the living room, and disposes them off.
After that he can leave for office in his bicycle or something (because I assume the government bungalow would be close to his office). But the personal assistants at his bungalow will continue collecting requests from people who visit his bungalow. In essence, his bungalow will be a part public property, part lokpal, part house.
But Kejriwal has other plans, I suppose. Anyhow, I don’t see why he should have wasted that Bungalow, he could at least have used it to house people who need his help.
Here’s what my response would be if I were Sonia Gandhi, to the 18 conditions put forth by AAP.
- Stop VIP culture in Delhi: Okay, the red beacon can be taken away, but how can you not have security officers for political leaders? Wait for Kejriwal himself getting a death threat. And bungalows, there is no point in not living in one if there is one built already.
- Pass Jan Lokpal Bill without modifications: Participating in elections must have taught you something about electoral democracy, or that is what we thought. You can’t black mail political parties and make them pass whatever clauses you put into a bill. If you want a bill of your own, get a majority in the Parliament.
- Swaraj in Delhi: Of course, you can implement all the goodness of our decentralized governing systems.
- Making Delhi a state: Impossible! Did you know that Delhi is the capital of India too? You can’t have the national capital under a state government’s control.
- Electricity audits: Do it, man! If you can implement it without appointing guards for your own security, well and good.
- Slower electric meters: Expected more from you. You don’t need a new law to be introduced to make sure the meters are working fine.
- Water: Dude, you’re getting creepy. You can do whatever you want in executing these ideas. You don’t need opposition parties’ support and all. In fact you were yourself doing these even without political control by being a pressure group. Just keep doing the good work.
- Slums: Same as above.
Rest of it is too much Hindi I can’t understand. Basically, AAP is asking Congress and BJP hypothetical questions, which I personally think is never going to be answered in real life.
The following article is written upon the premise that the accusations made on Tarun Tejpal will turn out to be true. I don’t believe in (social) media trial. Anyhow, reading this article will make Tarun Tejpal more comfortable than other abuses hurled at him.
I didn’t feel like this when the emails first broke out. But now, I am feeling sympathy for Tarun Tejpal. Somewhere deep in my mind, I believe people are being opportunistic in blaming him. That we’re crushing the fallen. Everyone feels righteous in bashing Tejpal for whatever he has done in the past. Nobody finds anything wrong in labelling him the worst person in India right now.
I believe Tarun Tejpal is being punished more than what he deserves.
If this was 2012, what Tejpal did, wouldn’t even be called rape. Only penetration by the penis was considered rape in the past, but now even fingers count.
The new laws on sexual harassment was arguably a naive response to the protests that happened in Delhi. It expanded the definition and maximized the punishment without considering the demerits.
And as of now, I don’t think there are any precedents set by the judiciary in dealing with different kinds of rapes.
The problem with all that is simple. According to the current law, what Tejpal did would be considered equivalent to what all the rapists have been doing to all the poor victims throughout India.
But how do we know Tejpal did intend to rape the victim? What if he was only trying to seduce her?
My argument is not that Tejpal didn’t do any wrong. My argument is that he didn’t wrong as much as other rapists have.
To justify, here’s what English courts say
"there are, broadly, three dimensions to consider in assessing the gravity of an individual offence of rape. The first is the degree of harm to the victim; the second is the level of culpability of the offender; and the third is the level of risk posed by the offender to society."
Do we have any such classification of rapes in India? If Tarun was in England, what category of rape would this have come under?
This part is more philosophical than practical.
Why do we consider rape as an offence graver than corruption, intimidation, or religious atrocities?
When a government officer’s life is threatened and he’s made to do things he isn’t supposed to be doing, isn’t he being violated? Doesn’t that scare last a life time?
When you’re made to pay bribe for something that you deserve free, isn’t someone exerting their authority on you and violating your principles of equality?
And, what makes rape so much different from consensual sex? The only difference between rape and consensual sex is consent. (Yes, I know this sentence is very very wrong when applied to a majority of rape cases. But, in seduction-went-wrong cases like Tejpal’s, I believe this sentence holds true)
When I’m made to pay bribe against my will or “without my consent”, am I not being “raped”?
But the society considers rape differently. The society is scared of rape. It ostracises rape victims. Doesn’t that reveal something wrong with our views of sexuality?
I think yahoo is doing at least some things right by refurbishing their email service, and making tumblr and flickr better.
One of it essentially is that this app which I’m now using to post, makes you feel like posting something even when you don’t have anything to :p (like this one)