Diplomatic Hit and Run

On Tues. 27 August, Anne Sacoolas, 42, a mother of three, drove out of her residence in Croughton, Northamptonshire, UK. She drove a beautiful luxury SVU Volvo XC90. As to where she was headed is not known, because a subsequent event prevented her from reaching her destination.

Soon after her Volvo gathered speed, she noticed a motorcycle coming in her direction. Strangely, it was riding on the wrong side of the road. In a civilized nation that UK is, road discipline is high, drivers are polite. Surely, the speeding bike rider must move to the other side of the road to avoid colliding with her Volvo. This chain of thoughts occurred in a few microseconds.

At that time, she didn’t know the name of the bike rider. He was a 19-year old English boy, Harry Dunn. As he came out of a curve, he noticed the big car, for some reason driving on the wrong side of the road. This was his side. The car should move to the other side, making way for him to continue without breaking. This was the last ever thought the boy had. The super sturdy Volvo killed him instantly.

Diplomatic shield  

It later transpired Anna Sacoolas was a wife of an American CIA operative. Their family had moved to the UK only three weeks before that. They lived at a US military base. After the fatal accident, from the same base, in a private plane, the family was flown back to the USA. Americans claimed Anna Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity, which meant she couldn’t be charged or prosecuted in the UK. Everyone was sorry for the tragic death of the English boy, but USA couldn’t send the Volvo driver back to the UK to face justice. USA rarely (read never) waives diplomatic immunity.

Why are diplomats immune?

Diplomatic immunity is an ancient concept. In Ramayana, the Indian epic, Seeta is kidnapped by the Sri Lankan king, Ravana. Lord Rama, Seeta’s husband, sends his emissary, Hanuman, the supermonkey to Ravana. Ravana wishes to kill him, but his advisors restrain him. Hanuman is a diplomatic guest, he must go back unharmed.

Diplomatic privilege, not immunity, benefited me when I was a student in Moscow. The Soviet postal system was notoriously slow. The State could open and read any letter, and did so fairly often. Indian embassy in Moscow had allowed us, the Indian citizens living in Moscow, to send and receive letters through the embassy’s ‘diplomatic bag’. This bag would travel both ways between Moscow and Delhi. Throughout my stay in Russia, none of my letters was ever intercepted.

Embassies, consulates and certain other premises enjoy the legal fiction of being a foreign territory. That is the reason Julian Assange could hide himself for years in central London, enjoying the diplomatic protection offered by the Ecuadorian embassy.

Such global understanding is essential when the standards of justice are different in the sending and the receiving country. An American or a European diplomat wouldn’t like to be tried in a court of Saudi Arabia or North Korea. UK and USA may appear to have similar standards, but don’t. USA has a death sentence, UK doesn’t.

Is driving on the wrong side of a road a crime?

Donald Trump offered mitigation saying Americans can be confused when driving in the UK. Trump himself has driven on the wrong side. (Though didn’t kill anyone).

I have extensively driven in Right-hand-traffic (RHT) countries (Russia, Poland), and Left-Hand-Traffic (LHT) countries (India and UK). No matter which country, you as a driver, must always be closer to the middle of the road, not to the curb. (Except in Myanmar, where traffic is like in the USA, but cars are like in the UK). Turns and roundabouts can be a nightmare. On an empty road, one can get really confused. I know at least two British gentlemen who took a clockwise turn at the roundabouts in Warsaw, one of them causing an accident. When you go from RHT to LHT, a driver needs to be extra cautious when driving. That’s the rule of Defence driving. You will be extra careful while crossing the road, why not when driving?

In Anne Sacoolas’s case, she had come to the UK only three weeks ago. It is possible she was not made aware traffic in the UK is on the other side. Or her instinct had taken over. It’s also possible her car was left-hand-drive, and not English. Whatever the reason, a 19-year old boy is dead. A victim suggests a perpetrator.

Wrong legal advice

The threat of having to go to jail is an overpowering one. When your car on the wrong side of the road has killed someone, you have no idea how the judges would interpret that act. In the UK, dangerous drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs can be imprisoned for up to 14 years. Reckless, inconsiderate driving can attract up to five years. In this case, Anne Sacoolas’ act was not intentional. Her being in the UK for three weeks was indeed a mitigating factor. Unlikely she would have gone to jail. But who wants to take that chance?

Paradoxically, by fleeing the country and going into hiding, the diplomat’s wife has incriminated herself. Her fleeing, seeking immunity and silence are deliberate. Lawyers work on technicalities, try to defend the indefensible. In cases like O.J. Simpson’s, they occasionally succeed. (If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit). But the punishment of the conscience is equally severe. It can ruin a life without going to jail.

Crime and Punishment

In Dostoevsky’s best-known novel, Crime and Punishment, a young student Raskolnikov ends up killing two old women for ideological reasons. In this 600-page book, the murders happen in the first fifty pages or so. Porfiry Petrovich, the detective investigating the murder, meets Raskolnikov, discusses a variety of issues, but never charges him.

“Who do you think has murdered the two women?” Raskolnikov asks him.

“Of course, you,” says the detective.

“Why don’t you arrest me then?” Says the shocked Raskolnikov.

“Why should I do that?” Says Porfiry. “It means wasting police and state resources, trying to collect evidence… lawyers and their fees on both sides. And at the end of it, for want of enough evidence, you may be set free. Instead, I will rely on your conscience. You will one day turn yourself in. For an intellectual like you, the punishment of the conscience is intolerable.”

Though Raskolnikov dismisses that notion as absurd, by the end of the book, he voluntarily surrenders himself to the police and confesses. I don’t know about the level of conscience of Anne Sacoolas. But she must act as per her conscience, rather than legal advice.

Justice, retribution and closure

At the time of writing this article, the parents of the dead boy plan to go to the USA, and persuade the US government to send the culprit back to the UK. She must undergo the UK judicial process, and suffer whatever verdict the judges deliver. Why are they intent on going through such a painful and expensive fight? Their son is already dead. No matter how heavy the punishment is for Anne Sacoolas, their son will not come back to life.

It seems that retribution is an integral part of justice. We all know the expression, life for life, tooth for tooth, and eye for eye. Though the parents don’t expect the lady driver to be hanged, a court adjudicating the entire mishap will offer them a sense of justice. It will offer them closure. In the USA, relatives of victims often attend the execution of the murderer. It gives them a sense of release. Similarly, Osama Bin Laden’s killing offered closure to the families of the nearly 3000 victims of the 9/11 attacks.

What should Anne Sacoolas do now?

She should come out in the open. Forget immunity, forget the lawyers. It is so easy in the age of twitter to speak directly to anyone. She should apologise for the death, admit she had panicked. Apologise for fleeing, and hiding. She should offer to meet the parents of the killed boy, and express sincere remorse. Take immunity out of the equation, and offer to return to the UK. The trial is likely to be brief, and since this was an accident rather than a deliberate act, she will likely be released with a reprimand and possibly a few months of community service in America at worst. She is a mother of three, and judges will make sure her children don’t get punished along with her. The diplomat’s family should also offer to compensate the Dunn family. For their expenses and more. In criminal cases, this is called ‘blood money’, money paid to avoid the vengeance of the injured family. Although no deliberate crime was committed, such set of actions will offer the victim’s family justice and closure. If Anne Sacoolas is lucky, the English parents may forgive her and allow her to not return to the UK. For that to happen, she must show courage, and let her conscience and not the lawyers dictate her actions.

Ravi

The Offloaded Girl

                                 

Some short stories are local, some international. This story, true to the last detail, is an international story about a local girl. Gauri Godse belonged to my community and locality. Her mother and my mother were neighbours in Lokmanya Nagar, a well known housing society in Bombay.  

In her early twenties, Gauri left for the USA. This is not unusual. Most well-educated Indians choose that country for education, then employment and finally permanent residence. Her second serious job in the US took her to Austin, Texas. She was employed as a business analyst with Freescale Semiconductor. You may not have heard this name, but USA is full of giant multinationals that are not Apple or Microsoft. Freescale was one of the pioneer semiconductor companies. It employed more than 17,000 people worldwide. It operated in nearly twenty countries. But this story is about Gauri Godse and not her employer.

After Gauri worked for six months, the company sent her on a business trip to Kuala Lumpur. As a business analyst she was responsible for the global supply chain planning. She would attend a seminar for a week along with colleagues from different countries. After Kuala Lumpur, the delegation would fly to Tianjin in China, Freescale’s major chip making location.

Gauri’s colleagues were top class engineers. Though they were experts in chipmaking during day time, in the evening they were life-loving young men. When you are abroad on a business trip, your time entirely becomes company time. People working with you become your family. You eat three meals with them, drink with them, occasionally dance with them. Gauri, the only girl in the delegation, had bonded well with her colleagues. Days had flown quickly. On Friday night they all needed to be at the airport to fly back.

The multinational delegation was noisy when their bus reached Kuala Lumpur airport in the evening. Gauri had just about managed to pack her suitcase on time. She was still chatting with her colleagues and laughing loudly when her turn came at the airline counter. She pushed her Indian passport towards the girl, lifted the suitcase on wheels and though the company was paying for everything looked at its weight as a matter of habit. She hadn’t bought any gifts in Kuala Lumpur. Now the girl should wrap a tag around the suitcase’s handle, issue a boarding pass, show the direction in which Gauri should move; airlines the world over have become so predictable.

“Where is your Chinese visa?” The girl at the counter was flicking through the passport pages.

“Chinese visa?” Gauri said. “I live and work in the USA. I’ll be in China only for the next two days. Then I fly back to the US.”

“Your passport is Indian. You must have a visa to China.” The unsmiling girl at the counter said.

By now, Gauri’s colleagues had gathered around her. Someone mentioned a 72- hour rule.

“Yes, the 72-hour transit rule applies to certain nationalities.” The girl read from the computer. “Citizens from 51 countries are allowed to stay in China for 72 hours. But India is not included in that list.”

A senior executive from the delegation now came forward.

“Look. We are all together. Twenty-one of us. All of us work for the same company. I can vouch for this girl. We can give you a written undertaking it is our responsibility. You can see the company has booked a group ticket for all of us. If Americans can stay for 72 hours in China, she should be allowed. She is a resident in the USA.”

The airline girl handed Gauri’s passport back to her. She motioned her to remove the suitcase from the belt. Gauri’s Malaysian colleague intervened. He began talking to the airline girl in a local language. Though Gauri didn’t understand what he was saying, she could feel his anger. Everyone; Americans, Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, even Arabs had gone through smoothly. Only Gauri was stuck.

People in the queue were now complaining. They were keen to get on the flight. Suddenly, Gauri saw her suitcase at her feet. She was so tense she couldn’t properly absorb what her colleagues were saying to her. They were genuinely sorry to miss her. All of them had a wonderful time in Kuala Lumpur. A pity she couldn’t be at the Tianjin factory. But they surely would meet her again, in Texas perhaps. Suddenly all her twenty colleagues were gone.

Gauri dragged her suitcase. Between her fingers she held the blue Indian passport. At moments like this, even the most patriotic Indians wish they had some other passport, a normal passport that allows a smooth passage. The flight, not her flight anymore, was leaving on early Saturday morning. Which meant it was impossible to her to get a Chinese visa until next week. She wiped her tears, and decided to take the first available connection to Bombay. She would use the opportunity to meet her family, spend a couple of days with them. Then fly directly to the US.

*****

Gauri was fast asleep in her Bombay flat. Her fatigue, frustration and jet lag had combined to make her forget the world. Her parents’ first reaction was worry rather than happiness when they saw their daughter at the doorstep. She was not due in India until December, what happened? Gauri quickly explained she had missed her flight, and banged the Indian passport on the table. She ate very little before hitting the bed. She should have been in Beijing, her first time in China. Instead she found herself in the Bombay apartment. Once she slept, she would feel much better.

*****

It was Saturday, 8 March 2014. Gauri’s family hadn’t put the TV on earlier so that Gauri could sleep in peace. When Gauri woke up listening to her mother’s excited voice, it was late evening in Mumbai.

The TV channel was giving a Breaking News. A Malaysian flight MH 370 flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing this morning had disappeared. All its 227 passengers and 12 crew were missing.

Gauri’s suitcase stood in the corner, its lock intact. On top of the table next to it was her blue Indian passport.

Ravi 

The Dred Scott Case

Dred Scott was born a slave.  

At the end of the 18^th century, he was born in Southampton, Virginia, just 180 miles south of Washington D.C. He was an African, black, in his time openly called a Negro.

White Europeans had captured, enslaved and imported on ships millions of Africans to Europe and America. In the first quarter of the nineteenth century more than 100,000 slaves were brought to America alone. The conditions for transporting slaves on ships were abysmal. Many died before reaching the shores. The survivors spent the rest of their lives as slaves. Their children were slaves at birth, and without ever leaving America, could be slaves life-long.  

Slavery was accepted as part of life, particularly by the slave owners. Thomas Jefferson, President of the USA (1801-1809) authored the Declaration of Independence. He was inspired by the enlightenment ideals, the sanctity of an individual. Locke and Montesquieu were his favorite philosophers. The same man was a slavemaster who owned 600 Negro slaves. After Jefferson lost his wife, he began a relationship with one of the slaves and fathered six children from her. Of course, the six children lived as slaves. When Jefferson incurred heavy debts due to a lavish lifestyle, he offered his slaves as collateral to the creditors.

Dred Scott was the property of one Peter Blow. Scott was made to work on a farm, later at a boarding house. When he was thirty, Blow sold him to Dr Emerson, a surgeon. The new slavemaster was more distasteful than the earlier one. Dred Scott tried to run away, but was captured and enslaved again.

Dr Emerson worked with the US army. He moved places, and took his slaves along with him. When they moved to Wisconsin (today’s Minnesota), Scott married Harriet Robinson, another slave. Slave marriages had no legal sanction. Harriet’s owner transferred ownership to Dr Emerson, following which she, along with her husband, became Dr Emerson’s property.

Slaves could be sold, auctioned and rented as well. At times, Dr Emerson rented the couple to his friends or colleagues while he moved to another place. Renting slaves was a profitable business. When Dr Emerson married Eliza Sanford, he brought the Scotts back. Scotts had their first child on a boat, and named her Eliza in honour of their new mistress.

After Emerson’s death, his wife rented out Scotts for three years. In 1846, Dred Scott offered her 300 Dollars, his lifelong savings, a huge sum in those days, urging her to free him and his family. Eliza Sanford rejected the request.

The Scotts then launched a case to fight for their freedom. In the nineteenth century, slavery was not legal everywhere in America. There were 19 Free states and 13 Slave states. Living in a free state for a sufficiently long time entitled a slave to be a free person. The rule was ‘once free, always free’. Freedom was irrevocable.

Dred Scott’s owners had taken his family to the Missouri territory, which was “free”. They had lived and worked there for a few years. When the owners brought them back to a slave state, the Scott family sued them. By virtue of spending years in a free state, Scott should have been a free man, his family a free family. It was a clear cut case. Based on the facts, any court could have decided the issue quickly in Scott’s favour.

It took four years for the trial to begin. During that time, the Scott family was placed in the custody of a county Sheriff. The Sheriff continued to lease out their services as slaves. The initial case was launched by Dred Scott in 1846. The US Supreme Court gave the final verdict eleven years later, on 6 March 1857.

The Supreme Court said Dred Scott, a black man, was not, and could not be a citizen of the USA. Accordingly he had no right to launch a case. The Supreme Court could discuss, consider and evaluate cases only of American citizens. The majority verdict went against the Scott family.

This is what the USA Supreme Court said: “the question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the constitution of the United States? And as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges and immunities guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? (Dred Scott, 60 U.S. 403)

We think… that black people are not included and were not intended to be included under the word “citizens” in the constitution. … they were considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them. (Dred Scott, 60 U.S. 404-05)

Now… the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution…. Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind… is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void. (Dred Scott, 60 U.S. 451-52)

In its judgment, the Supreme Court talked about the Fifth Amendment. Dred Scott and his family was their owner’s property. It was the duty of the judges to preserve the rights of the property owner.

*****

This month, the Dred Scott case was mentioned by a UK lawyer arguing against Boris Johnson’s government. Johnson, UK’s prime minister at the time of writing this article, suspended the British parliament for five weeks. This was to enable the government bulldoze its way towards Brexit, a never-ending national crisis. Technically, the UK government was within its powers. The High Court in London had chickened out and said the case was not justiciable, meaning this was a matter for the politicians and not the courts.

 Across the world, several judges think interpreting the law as their basic function. They give excessive weight to the letter, not the spirit. This is cowardice. Dred Scott fought in the US Supreme court to gain freedom, not to learn he was disqualified to launch a case. (In 2017, India’s Supreme Court denied a woman her abortion right. The foetus was diagnosed with the Down syndrome. The judges relied on the existing letter of law. Five years before that, an Indian doctor died in Ireland due to the anti-abortion laws. You can read those two cases here.)  

People go to the courts to demand justice, not interpretation of words. Judges are not dictionaries or translators. They can simply be human, and offer judgments based on what is right and what is wrong.

*****

Fortunately for the UK, and for the civil world, the UK supreme court headed by the strong lady Hale, delivered a unanimous verdict against the UK government. In R(Miller) vs the Prime Minister, suspending parliament was termed unlawful. The court made the suspension void.

This week’s UK Supreme Court verdict was a victory for the spirit of justice.

Ravi

Tobacco. Alcohol. Drugs. Video games. Smart phones.

70% check their phones in the morning within an hour of getting up.

56% check their phones before going to bed.

48% check their phones over the weekend.

51% constantly check their phones during vacations.

44% said they would feel very anxious and irritable if they didn’t interact with their phones within a week.

(Note: This data is from a 2012 book Sleeping with your smart phone: how to break the 24/7 habit and change the way you work by Perlow Leslie, A. By 2019, all percentages would be closer to 100%, one assumes).

World Health Organisation (WHO) has a directory of diseases called ICD – International Classification of diseases. It is used by medical practitioners around the world to diagnose conditions. In June 2019, ‘Gaming Disorder’ (the Video Game addiction) was officially added as a disease. Smart phone use is not yet part of that directory, but will be; once sufficient evidence is gathered.

I am a teenager’s parent. In this article, I will restrict myself to the smart phone addiction among minors.

Indian adolescents have one of the higher addiction rates. This is what one research paper says: Indian teens love Smart Phones. Nokia research says an average person checks the phone every 6.30 minutes. In the 20-45 age group at least 10% face smart phone-related injuries. Users complain of their backs stiffening up, developing a stoop. Their necks ache. The tendons in their thumbs hurt when they text. Tendon injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome, radiation related problems, inattention blindness and computer vision syndrome are common ailments. By discouraging kids from physical activities, smart phones can cause obesity.

Nomophobia is defined as “the fear of being without your phone”. This problem is quite common in India.

*****

In terms of their addictive power, WhatsApp, Instagram and other apps are comparable to tobacco, alcohol or drugs. Children are hooked, their ears glistening blue, their fingers working exceptionally rapidly on the keys. In my school days, when friends left the house, they went home and that was that. Now the child’s friends are in her bedroom twenty- four hours, and indeed some children communicate round the clock.  If you take the child out for lunch, the first thing he wants to know is whether the restaurant has WiFi.

Though the addiction is seen, helplessly acknowledged by parents and schools; statutory bodies have failed to act. Until 18 years of age, one can’t smoke, drink, marry, drive, vote or be responsible for a crime, but one is absolutely free to get addicted to a smart phone. As adults, if the 18+ wish to ruin their education and life, it is up to them. But minors surely need some protection. I hope the world will understand one day that smart devices can make kids dumb. Governments will need to regulate minors’ use of smart gadgets.

I am writing this article on my 15-inch laptop, and perhaps you are reading it on a big screen as well. Many children and adults now read exclusively on a phone-screen. Well written letters are becoming extinct. Articulation is restricted to a text made of dozens of characters and a set of Smileys. After writing LOL, BTW, CUL8R, hahaha, !!!!!!!!!!! for years, when the child appears for an exam paper, he is shocked to see no auto-correct 0r spell-check. Emotions are expressed not with words but emoticons.

Nobody has time for thinking, for reflection, for enjoying the small joys of life. The new posture is that of a bent human focused on the phone, oblivious to other people, trees, nature or the sky. If this continues in the same vein, one hundred years from now, humans will be born with their heads lowered.

What can be done to combat this?

I worked for several years in the tobacco industry. With research backed knowledge, I can say smoking is reduced in developed countries as a result of restrictions on where to smoke – not much else. Health warnings, anti-tobacco advertising, counseling are of little help. But the ban – in offices, in trains, at restaurants, on flights, in public places, has been the biggest contributor. In some nations, home is now the only place where one can legitimately smoke.

Similar restrictions are needed on smart phones for minors. Many schools ban use of phones on the school premises. If teenage children can be made to hand over their devices to parents (hopefully their parents are less addicted) by say 10 pm, it would bring much happiness to parents, and much sleep to children. Sleep deprivation is a recognized torture technique. Modern children have opted to inflict it upon themselves. However, taking away phones from teenagers is not an easy thing to enforce.

A better idea is to force the phone manufacturers to design phones or apps specially for the minors. Parents should be able to monitor a minor’s phone activity. After all, parents pay for the phones, not the kids.

My daughter has a debit card. Last year, I gave it to her as a birthday gift when she turned 15. The Indian banking regulations allow a maximum of Rs 5000 (USD 70) spend per month on that card. Whenever my daughter withdraws cash or buys something, I get a text message on my phone detailing the transaction. If she wishes to buy something online, the one-time-password (OTP) comes to my phone. She can use the card online but not without taking me into confidence. This arrangement has worked fine. My daughter is happy she doesn’t need to ask for pocket money. I am happy she uses the card responsibly. If she wishes to avoid the parental control, she simply won’t have the debit card. Banking regulations have introduced these measures to protect minors.

The same thing can be done for smart phones - by Apple, Samsung and others. Parents should be able to switch off their minor child’s phone. Sensible parents would do this between 9-10 pm or at that time when the child should be in bed. Sensible children would accept it is part of the regulations. Parents should get the data automatically about the child’s screen time, sites accessed. Privacy is an important element in everyone’s life, including a child’s. However, when privacy can result into sleep deprivation, contact with strangers, numb fingers, failing vision, stiff back and obesity; it’s time to do something about it. 

Certain apps offering those functions exist. But due to lack of government regulations, they can’t be enforced.

Children below 18 are entitled to privacy. But a smart phone is like a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of whiskey. Enjoyable but poses dangers for health. The phone and app makers can take the first step of self-regulation by introducing phones designed for minors.

Ravi

Intelligence and expertise

This week, I read Looking for miss Sargam by Shubha Mudgal. She is a well known singer. This is her first book of fiction, a collection of short stories mainly of misadventures from the world of music. When reading the book, what struck me was the quality of the author’s intelligence. I could sense if not pinpoint intelligence evident through minute observations, non-biting satire, and her turn of phrase.

This article is not a review of that book, but a discussion on what intelligence is. It is not an easy term to define; even intelligent people have struggled to offer precise definitions. Intelligence can be felt. I infrequently come across books where I feel the author’s intelligence. It doesn’t necessarily mean the book is great. But it is delightful to see intelligence spread across the pages. I develop a closer bond to the author. I become confident I will see flashes of intelligence in the remaining pages. It is rare for an author to spray intelligence over the first few pages, to lose it later.

Here I would like to split intelligence into two categories. Profession-specific and overall. I will call the profession-related intelligence as “expertise”. Expertise is often confused with intelligence. It is unfortunate I will have to illustrate my point with names. Names of public figures. When something is hard to define, it is better understood through description and examples.

I will begin with Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar, two cricketing icons from India. One after the other, they dominated Indian cricket for nearly four decades. Equally exciting for spectators and statisticians, stadium stands are named after them in their lifetime.

Sunil Gavaskar has continued his association with cricket. He is perhaps the best TV commentator in terms of the insights he offers. It is not easy to offer fresh insights for nearly twenty years in a particular sport.

Most Indian cricketers, certainly those from Bombay, rush to him to check the contracts they wish to sign with sponsors. Gavaskar is not a trained lawyer, but he is trusted more to scrutinize a contract and give suggestions for improving it.

Since he was a young cricketer, stories were heard as to how he lingered at the airport after arriving from a tour abroad. If the plane landed at 11 pm, he would wait at the airport for more than an hour before passing immigration. This allowed him to be technically abroad for another day, taking him closer to the non-resident status that legitimately saved taxes on his earnings. His company reportedly delegates newspaper column writing to other cricketers. A lion’s share of those earnings goes to Gavaskar. For this year’s world cup in the UK, his company had offered expensive packages that included tickets to the semi-finals and final, along with guest houses. Well-to-do Indian fans bought those hassle-free packages. Sunil Gavaskar is everywhere, delivering lectures, inventing new projects, writing books, tweeting sharp observations, chairing technical committees, thinking about cricket all the time.

His stature was endorsed by the Supreme Court of India. When BCCI, India’s cricket body was in a mess, the Supreme Court sua sponte appointed Gavaskar as BCCI’s president, an incredibly unusual step by the court.

Though his activities revolve around cricket, Sunil Gavaskar’s intelligence is an all-pervasive intelligence. He is intelligent on the cricket field, and off it. If he was not a cricketer, he would have still succeeded in life, in some other field. The quality of his intelligence can be felt when you hear him, meet him or read what he writes.

Sachin Tendulkar, India’s biggest batting god, is a cricketing genius as well. He owns more records, fame, wealth and recognition than Gavaksar. But his intelligence is a profession-related intelligence. He is super-intelligent, a genius, when holding a bat in his hand. Out of a cricket field, retired from the game, he is simply an ordinary ex-cricketer as far as intelligence goes. This is not to demean him. He is a decent bloke, respectable, smart, smiling, pleasant, modest, and immensely likeable. But the quality of intelligence seen in Sunny Gavaskar is absent in Tendulkar.

Amitabh Bachchan is another example of an intelligent person. This is not only about expertise. In fact, there are several actors superior to Bachchan as far as acting goes. But Bachchan, like Gavaskar, shines with an all-round intelligence. Maybe it can be called a glint in the brain.

I had the fortune of briefly working with Amitabh Bachchan on an Indo-Russian film called Ajooba. I was working as the Russian interpreter. One morning, I found myself alone with him on the sets. He was super-punctual and so was I. A few skulls were lying on the set. They would be used in a scene that day. Having nothing to do, we were strolling on the set. Amitabh was picking the skulls up, observing them. He picked up the smallest one and said with a straight face, “this must be Dimple Kapadia’s.” This was not just humour. I felt only an intelligent man could conceive such a comment. (Dimple Kapadia, the film’s leading lady had absolutely stunning looks, and brains that came nowhere close).  

Rajesh Khanna or Aamir Khan became superstars. But their intelligence is clearly exclusively related to their professions.

When any person practices a profession for sufficiently long time, he develops insights; he becomes a master of that subject. This is expertise, not to be mistaken for intelligence. In India, getting into the top medical or engineering universities is diabolically cutthroat. Less than the top one percent qualifies for the super-competitive exams. Despite that, I have met several doctors and IIT (Indian Institute of technology) graduates who are positively unintelligent. They can skillfully conduct bypass surgeries or develop software for running of the city metro, but outside their expertise area, they can have a fairly low IQ.

Many Olympic gold winners or Grand slam winners in tennis may have little or no intelligence. Even brain sports may have nothing to do with intelligence.

I have been privileged to meet seven Chess World Champions. For a brief period, I worked with Gary Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov. Viswanathan Anand is a friend. In terms of intellect, I would rank Anand at the top, followed by Kasparov. Karpov gets the bottom place. A genius at the chess board, I found him fairly dumb otherwise. Dumb is rather a strong word for a World Chess Champion, but when you hear Karpov ramble, that’s the first word that comes to mind. Karpov’s intelligence is purely chess related.

My judgment is, of course, subjective. It is likely to offend the fans of Tendulkar, Aamir Khan or Karpov. Because people usually confuse expertise and intelligence. There is no shame in not being intelligent, just like there is no shame in not being good-looking or tall. Short or ugly people more easily accept their shortness or ugliness because they can check it in the mirror. Mirrors don’t exist for intelligence.

What can be done with this information? Or is it simply an intellectual exercise? Well, if you are a recruiter, you may want to check if a person is truly intelligent or simply a subject expert. In today’s world where technology changes rapidly, you need people who can adapt themselves well. Intelligent people can adapt more easily to change. One reason why Sunil Gavaskar and Amitabh Bachchan, both in their seventies, had such lengthy varied careers is that they have been reinventing themselves all the time.

When you wish to find a life partner, you may be better off looking for intelligence rather than expertise. Subject expertise (dermatology or chemical engineering) is fairly useless in making a marriage successful.

Companies and individuals must keep an eye for intelligent people. They are usually good company, because you can discuss everything and anything with them. One doesn’t need to be intelligent to recognize intelligence, but it helps.

Ravi

The Brexit Soap Opera: how will it end?

Let me take out all the clutter – referendums, extensions, backstop, Theresa May, elections, Boris Johnson, court cases, proroguing parliament – and reason logically to deduce how the Brexit soap opera would end.   

Remain in the European Union   

The British government is allowed to revoke the Brexit decision any time. It can be done in five minutes. EU will be happy, business world will be happy, 48% of the British voters will be happy; Pound will bounce up, the bad dream finally over. How likely is this to happen?

Unlikely.

Parliament, business circles and media, perhaps judiciary, may support revoking Brexit. But directly (referendum) or indirectly (general election), the final decision will be taken by the British voters. In 2016, more people voted to leave than to remain. In May 2019, the European Parliament elections in the UK were won by the Brexit party. This hard Eurosceptic party won more seats than Tory and Labour combined. True, this was not a domestic election. But the British voters have sent their message.

Can UK really revoke Brexit after three years filled with hate and bitterness? No. The national ego is unlikely to permit cancelling of Brexit.

Staying in the EU, though the best option, is unlikely to happen. The question then is what form does Britain’s exit take?

Sacrifice Northern Ireland

The next best choice is to allow Northern Ireland to be in EU commercially, but part of UK politically. This will be a clean break for the island of Great Britain. The border will be in the Irish Sea, making customs and checks easy. Irish border remains open, potential violence is avoided.

After Brexit, it is a mathematical impossibility for Northern Ireland to be part of the UK and EU at the same time, as far as free movement is concerned. Can the UK sacrifice Northern Ireland and accept borders in the Irish Sea?

Unlikely.

No country likes to voluntarily give up land, even for commercial purposes. The Unionist sentiment in Northern Ireland is high. They are opposed to being treated differently than the rest of the UK. In theory, at the Irish Sea checkpoint, a man from Belfast coming to Great Britain will need to show his passport. His luggage can be scrutinized by customs, manned by his fellow citizens. Goods and services in Northern Ireland will have different prices and standards than in the rest of the UK. In effect, the Irish Sea border will be an international border, with residents of Northern Ireland de facto foreigners.

Will English and Irish people be able to move freely as before (Common Travel Area)? No, they won’t. EU’s four freedoms of movement: people, goods, services, capital are a single bundled package. A country can opt for all four or none. EU can’t compromise, because Brexited UK can’t have more privileges than EU’s member states. Once Brexit happens, people will need to pass border controls just as goods.

Could UK opt for continuing with all four freedoms? The Norway model? No, because then the whole purpose of Brexit is lost. Unchecked migration of the Europeans is what Brexit wanted to attack in the first place.

Since the four freedoms are inseparable, and since UK is unwilling to sacrifice Northern Ireland, a deal with European Union is not possible no matter who the prime minister is and how many extensions are requested.

Brexit without a deal is, therefore, the only logical option.

Smugglers’ paradise  

Once a no-deal Brexit happens, EU will have no option but to erect an international border in Ireland. With the more than 200 crossing points, some of them going through houses and farms, guarding the 500 km border will be a nightmare. With different regulatory regimes and taxes on the two sides, smuggling will flourish. The island of Ireland will become a smugglers’ paradise.

Worse, the Troubles may be reborn. Violence will begin again, bombs will inevitably start exploding. Helmeted army will be installed at checkpoints.

Eventually, the people in Northern Ireland will get sick and exercise the right given to them by the Good Friday agreement. They will vote to leave the United Kingdom. This is the only way to stop violence and smuggling. They will realize it is better to be part of a 500 million strong market, than a 60 million market in chaos.

No-deal Brexit logically will lead to Northern Ireland opting out of the UK.

If they are allowed, why not we?  

Either following Northern Ireland’s exit or before that Scotland will opt to leave the UK through another referendum.

Northern Ireland and Scotland are the only two significant regions annexed by the British Empire which still belong to the British. If Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the UK, Scotland would like to be on par. It is unlikely that Northern Ireland will leave UK and Scotland can tolerate being inside. Scotland’s leaving would create a new international border between Scotland and England. Goods and passports will be checked when travelling from London to Edinburgh.

Northern Ireland leaving the UK will be accompanied by Scotland leaving the UK.

At the end of this logical process, United Kingdom will be a nation made of England and Wales. It will be a small, economically shrunk, insignificant nation, but totally independent.

Summary:

Staying in the UK is the best option, unlikely to happen, because more voters want to leave than remain. 2019 Brexit party success confirms this.

Sacrificing Northern Ireland is the next best option, unlikely to happen, because no country likes to lose land. EU doesn’t compromise on four freedoms of movement. Without sacrificing Northern Ireland, a deal with EU is not possible.

Following a no-deal Brexit, Ireland will become a smugglers’ paradise and the Troubles will start all over again. Northern Ireland will get sick and leave the EU.

Pointing at Northern Ireland leaving, Scotland will leave through a referendum.

United Kingdom will become a tiny independent nation made of England and Wales.

As to whether this process will take five years or fifty years is unknown. Logic dictates this to be an inevitable direction.

Ravi