Outrage and Bloodthirst: Redundancy of Capital Punishment

A heinous crime occurs. The very next moment, there is outrage and rightly so. With it comes a demand – ‘Death to the criminals’ (paraphrased, could be in any form depending on the protest or the nature of the crime). This happened after the terrorist attacks in Peshawar in Pakistan (2014), the gruesome rape and murder in India in 2012, the Boston Marathon bombing 2015, etc. The crux of the argument is that the perpetrators are a threat to the society – of course, there are no grounds to challenge that and thus, executing them is going to be a deterrent against any potential offender in the future.

In terms of statistics, it might seem that the world at large is abolitionist and there are exceptions who still have this practice. As of this date, 142 countries around the world have abolished capital punishment / have it in statute but do not use it in practice (of which 106 of them have do not have it in statute). However, significantly more than 50% of world’s population still live in jurisdictions which hold on to this medieval practice – the very fact that the list includes China, India, US, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria and Bangladesh push the numbers up to 50% (adding the countries in the Arabian peninsula, Japan, etc. would take the numbers much higher). This makes the topic significant for discussion.

The concern regarding this topic is that a binary is established – that an academic or moral opposition to capital punishment is not considered, if you oppose the practice, you are pro-criminal. This binary was perfectly exploited by one of the former US presidents during a debate (re: 1992 US Presidential Election: George H.W. Bush vs Mike Dukakis). This binary is what we need to get beyond.

Note: This article is not a neutral evaluation of the ‘merits’ of both the sides, it reflects my opinion

The moral concern

Morals differ between people. Can criminals who committed the most heinous crimes be subjected to values that we agree upon as human rights? Under what circumstances can the right to life be suspended? Different value systems have different opinions on it; with places like Saudi Arabia executing people for homosexuality and places like the US reserving it for violent crimes / killing of police officers.

The most apparent and fundamental flaw of this form of punishment is the irreversible nature of the act. Apart from the fact that the there is a history of wrongful convictions and executions in the past (example: Derek Bentley, Timothy Evans in UK in the 1950s), societal values also change with time. Taking an example from France – Marie-Louise Giraud, the last woman to be guillotined in the country was convicted for performing abortions and executed in 1943. Before anyone argues that it was the period of Nazi occupation – France criminalised abortion in 1920 before revoking it in 1975 (she would have been 72 in 1975). While it was not a capital crime till the Nazi occupation, several members of the public were not opposed to it owing to religious beliefs. Today, even many of the so-called pro-life advocates do not support this to be a criminal offence, let alone being a capital crime. So, if this change of value occurs at a period of time coinciding with one’s own life – you have no chance of giving them back what they had, and normally the state issues an apology several decades later (other examples include blasphemy, ‘witchcraft’, etc.)

I believe that it is personally immoral to kill a person unless it is an act of self-defence. Imagine a psychopathic killer who holds a person hostage completely under their control and gives them a date of death. Even reading about it makes one’s blood run cold. But a death row prison is not much different if you think of it objectively, you are holding multiple people constantly under the fear that this moment could be their last. This intention to execute a person comes from the primary act of codifying vengeance and establishing a procedure to carry out revenge. Humans throughout history have been bloodthirsty and for large parts of human history, executions were public with large cheering crowds – often a spectacle than setting a deterrent (its effectiveness is addressed later).

While one could argue that people who have been convicted beyond doubt for murder or terrorism deserve it; the very risk that the cost of it is that you could potentially kill innocent people (and it has happened) makes you no different from a murderer yourself, regardless of what your intent was, every criminal has an ‘intent’. While a life without parole is also mentally agonising with a potential to traumatise a person forever, it provides a person at least a fighting chance at life if the conviction is overturned whereas the irreversible nature of capital punishment could have no justification.

The practical aspect

The case for the death penalty does prima facie seem simple – why should the taxpayers pay the living expenses of a criminal for the rest of their life, the society is better and safer without them, the family of the victims need a closure, etc. The arguments in favour are endless but the question is whether it is practical.

I would concede that the proponents of capital punishment understand the irreversible nature and as a result, the death row prisons are isolated and secure, there are multiple aspects to be established before a death row convict is executed running for several years. This adds to a huge element of cost, thereby collapsing the entire argument that capital punishment is less expensive. In US, it is estimated that a death sentence costs 18 times more than life sentence without parole (re: California). While this is a US example, the procedure is similar in almost every democracy in the world still using this practice (and thus, the costs are also going to be similar).

I often come across an argument that one needs to hasten the trials, reduce the number of appeals or some even suggest to summarily execute. But imagine, with all these extensive procedures, in the US, even in the 2000s – there have been cases of wrongful executions (re: Cameron Todd Willingham). Studies even estimate that roughly 4% ofprisoners on the death row in the US are potentially innocent (the exoneration rate at present is just under 2%). 4% might seem innocuous from a statistical perspective but these are people’s lives we are talking about and not misspent council funds.

To further the pro-capital punishment agenda, often a ‘pro-victim’ stance is played. It is perfectly reasonable for the victim and their families to be worried that the criminal might harm the surviving members. It is also valid for them to be outraged when the criminal is leading a normal life in the society notwithstanding their actions and thus, is perfectly reasonable to expect the institutions to act. However – does the act of executing the criminal provide a sense of closure? It perhaps might to some of them, everyone has different feelings, but we must note that a study found higher levels of mental satisfaction in cases of life without parole than capital punishment. One can question the study or the location as it is US based (link to the study here) – but people and human psychology is similar around the world. But what must be noted is that the very act of prosecution demanding capital punishment is rare – does that mean that the victims of gruesome crimes where the convict was not put to death do not have a sense of closure? Considering the trauma, they perhaps never will, but there is no evidence suggesting that death provides that, and this argument is primarily used only to further a pro-capital punishment agenda by the proponents than a concern for the victim.

The final argument is one of it being a deterrent. If you look at the map below (red and orange being the ones who still use the death penalty), it is evident as to where crimes are more as it is often a combination of socio-economic factors than the fear of punishment. Death sentence by itself is a combination of socio economic factors as Saudi Arabia, known for its public executions of locals and foreigners alike, is known for executing people from poorer African and Asian countries but not from wealthy European countries or the US. Studies also indicate that US states that repealed the death penalty (like New York) – there has been a reduction of murder rates as compared to states that use the penalty. Of course, correlation does not imply causation but that is sufficient to sabotage the proposition that death penalty improves order and crime.

Status of Capital Punishment by Country

A funny write-up on public executions by the 19^th century writer Charles Dickens – where he urged to stop the practice and instead make the execution private was because thieves and hooligans took the opportunity and displayed violent behaviour. Ironic that the very act that is supposed to act as a deterrent is the spot for crime scenes (refer here to read Dickens’ letter).

The legal concern

In most democracies, innocence is presumed until guilty and the judiciary is prudent, meaning, if in a group of five people, four of them are surely guilty and one is surely innocent but the prosecution is unable to establish who is guilty or innocent – it is not possible to sentence all five of them for ‘greater good’ and 80% accuracy.

Similarly, the systems that we have developed are flawed – ultimately, we are human, and flaws are inherent in any legal system. However, under this system, there is no possibility of subsequent correction and the moment we accept ‘collateral damage’, we are opening a can of worms. The moment there is mandate to judicially murder a person, it is inevitable that there is going to be a margin of error and one cannot be discussing margins of ‘error’ when it comes to killing an innocent person.

It is also possible that the judges do not have all the evidence at the time of sentencing and with the evidence available at the time, the conviction might seem reasonable. However, the history of posthumous exonerations has cited otherwise. It is true that every criminal has a story – for instance, Indonesia has the death penalty for drug trafficking and one of the death row prisoners at the moment is a 64-year-old woman from the UK. While she pleaded guilty, she claimed that she did it because her family was under threat from the ones who sent her on the mission had she refused. While it is possible that the story maybe fabricated by her counsel, but if future investigation into these claims reveal them to be true, you have carried no justice (re: Lindsay Sandiford).

A lot of executions are more to do with politics than being practical, it is often used by politicians to appear ‘tough’ and appeal to the bloodthirsty instincts, which people enjoyed two centuries ago, and see no reason why these cannot be exploited for political gains. Rise of politicians like Joko Widodo (Indonesia) and Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines) provide testimony to this exploitation.

Conclusion

It is evident that there is no reason to continue following a medieval practice – it is only a means to satisfy people’s temporary outrage and bloodthirsty instincts. With no visible benefit, the cost is huge. Life sentence without parole is established to be more effective in terms of handling violent criminals and I am sure everyone will agree that it is also a more humane solution. It is practical to demand a reform of systems within and address the root causes for reducing crime, rather than advocating a killing spree, which achieves nothing.

The simple English idiom to sum up this discussion on capital punishment is 'Don't throw the baby out with the bath water'.

Have a nice day,
Andy

Discrimination, denial and #BlackLivesMatter

The killing of a 46-year-old black man – George Floyd in Minneapolis has sparked protests across the United States and the world at large. It brings into question the police brutality, discrimination faced by people at an institutional level (direct / subtle) or in the society. The protests have sparked strong reactions from those who back the protests and otherwise – both on social media and in the real world.

While the incident that sparked the global movement took place in the United States, no society in the world is free from discriminatory behaviour today. A dominant group often consciously or sub-consciously engage in discriminatory acts; in this context, I would say that the soft power that the US asserts is being used well by other countries in the world – to make people conscious of their acts of discrimination. (how long would this soft power last is a question if the disaster of Trump being a two term president becomes a reality)

I would like to flag off right now that this article is not an ‘academic’ work citing research papers, but is going to focus more on observations and my personal opinions (I would try my best to substantiate sources for some of the contents in the article – refer to the footnotes).

Social media – hashtags

The rise of social media has enabled us all to have the feeling of being an activist. Initially it meant writing on social media on an issue you feel strongly about. Then came Twitter with its hashtags where desperation to make an issue ‘trending’ began. The same is visible in Black Lives Matter – where to express support, a random tweet with a hashtag or an Instagram post with a black background (and the hashtag) gives you the satisfaction that you have done something towards emancipating the oppressed but in reality, all it does is pollute the hashtag from people seeking genuine information or opinions on the subject.

I fell victim to this myself – where I made a ‘chain story’ on the Instagram page of this blog but eventually felt that if I claim writing to be a passion of mine – the least I can do is write on it.

Social media hashtags do not make one an activist – write on the issue along with the hashtag, read on the issue and in your own personal lives – eliminate your sub-conscious acts of discrimination and challenge those in your circles who engage in such acts.

The situation in the United States and around the world

If there is something that I acknowledge without engaging in modesty, is that I am politically aware – of the situation where I live and around the world at large. Across the world – people have been oppressed for centuries by means of race, class, ethnicity, caste, etc. These were sometimes at an institutional level and sometimes, practices that have existed in the society because of existing prejudices for centuries or authority from other sources (eg. Religion).

It is true that the murder of George Floyd is not the only case in the US where the police have acted brutally against a member of one group nor is US the only country which has this problem. However, considering the soft power that United States holds, an event in the US sparks reactions across the world and it is a good opportunity to use this moment to raise awareness on prejudice, institutional discrimination and recognising privileges that individuals have (including you and I). Where I live now had a similar case of custodial death of a black man (re: Adama Traoré – refer notes) which sparked massive protests then, protests after the acquittal of the police officers and now, after the George Floyd incident.

Talking of privileges, today the differences in wealth between white and black communities in the US is such that an average black household income is only 1/10^th of an average white household (refer article in notes). While one could defend it by saying that it so happens that it emerged that way based on individual abilities – which might have been true if opportunities available to every individual was fair.

However, equal rights are a recent concept (at best a century in Europe, less than that in US and other parts of the world) and wealth multiplies based on your existing assets. For centuries, a group of people in the society were more equal than the rest, owned property and have passed on this wealth (wealth often earned by exploiting the less equal people, on the basis of slavery, colonial subordination, ethnicity, etc.). Thus, at the time when every person got equal rights – the people who were ‘more equal’ still held the institutions, wealth and power leading to indirect suppression of the people. To this day, inheritances could explain almost 23% of the wealth gap between blacks and whites in the US (refer article in notes).

Talking of institutions, the difference in treatment is apparent, when a senior politician – Michael Gove, currently a minister UK could brag about having taken cocaine in the past. His supporters say that he was young, this happened long ago, and he has not committed any ‘crime’ since then. But for the same drug related offences, several years old with no subsequent criminal records to follow up, UK has had a history of deporting people to countries where the deportees have no contact (refer article in notes).

In the US, it is known that schools in black dominated neighbourhoods have less funding on average (refer article in notes). These poor schools leading to low academic attainment feeds baseless stereotypes on how blacks are unemployable and hence resort to crime. This stereotype is acted upon by other institutions such as the police, often leading to disproportionately higher detentions / wrongful indictments of black people than others

I could go on about institutional discrimination around the world – but that is precisely the objective of the protests and the voices that it is to raise awareness, at an individual level, an institutional level and ultimately to the state and the world at large.

Passive / sub-conscious acts of discrimination

We have created a binary when it comes to discrimination – that it is bad people discriminate and good people do not. As a result, any discussion on potential discriminatory behaviour becomes questioning the person’s moral character – leading to defensive and finally, being in complete denial of the whole situation.

It is often perceived that racists are those in Ku Klux Klan, members of neo Nazi parties openly spouting their ideas (or any supremacist organisations which I find across countries, like India, Malaysia, etc.). Thus, it is easy to overlook passive or subtle acts of discrimination which has a large impact.

I am going to make some generalisations here, people in general have cordial relations with based on social standing, and more often than not, colleagues are not discriminated against on this basis of colour / ethnicity at an individual level. But the dominant group tends to see these people as ‘exceptions to the rule’ rather than being the norm.

This manifests when people consciously / sub-consciously prefer people from the dominant group; be it to hire a person for a job, renting out property, etc. In France, a government study found that seven major companies, including Air France and Renault – were less likely to hire someone with an Arab sounding name even if they had all the required competences for the job (refer link in the notes – document in French). Similar studies have been conducted in US and the UK yielding similar results. The same could be said for renting property where minorities often have difficulty in finding a house for rent – in Europe, for instance, 15% own 70% of the property, meaning a select group have abnormal power to segregate communities (these inequalities are more in other parts of the world). In India, where such inequalities are more, often have caste / religion-based restrictions when it comes to renting out property.

Such passive acts are true in education as well, and in India – a study found that on average, teachers gave significantly lower grades to lower-caste students when they knew the names of students and the grades were higher when the identities of the students was kept anonymous. This behaviour was observed also among teachers from the so-called lower castes. (source: Poor Economics by Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo – Nobel laureates for Economics in 2019)

The issue here is that any person who were making the decisions that provided data points for these studies are likely to refuse that they are racist / display discriminatory behaviour and would start justifying or normalising their actions (including myself). Typical examples of it include – this is banter, I chose what was appropriate and not out of prejudice, etc. It might be true to the extent that most of them were not intending to act with prejudice and might reject such ideas on the outside, but the society has conditioned us to act in a certain manner and these sub conscious acts are what requires urgent attention from everyone.

Diversionary tactics

Whenever these topics are brought up, we are always diverted. The first is the nonsensical ‘all lives matter’ argument. Please note, I fully agree with the statement, it is the use of the statement as an argument / the counter that I consider nonsensical. To start with, if you stand for a cause, it does not mean that you inevitably are against every other cause. While all lives indeed matter, when one set of lives are systemically discriminated against that their mere survival is a challenge; clearly, the statement all lives matter is not true – black lives clearly do not seem to matter in the United States (and discriminated communities in other countries around the world). To those who scream all lives matter, if you believe in this statement, it gives you all the more reason to march in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement or similar movements fighting for the rights of discriminated groups in your respective regions.

Black Lives Matter has been a largely peaceful protest across the world but nonetheless, in a freely assembled protest, it is impossible to monitor every participant – though the same argument does not hold for an institutionally organised police force or governments. However, instances of violence are not what the opponents of protest detest, rather seem like they were waiting for them to happen so that they can invalidate the protest, the injustices to discriminated communities, inter alia. ‘What about the looting, what about the damage to property’ is a standard argument to divert all your attention from the elephant in the room (note that all of these groups tend to glorify the French Revolution where all of these and more happened).

I was avoiding political references to the extent possible, but I cannot help but bring in, that in all these countries, the right wing and the conservative politicians are most resistant to any discussion on race or discrimination. I can even understand where these sentiments emerge, be it in US, France, UK, Germany, Italy, India – these groups talk of a ‘glorious past’ which they wish to bring back. In US, the great periods that Trump refers to are those where civil rights were denied, the founding days till the mid-19^th Century when slavery was legal (with the southern economy built on slavery); in France, UK or Italy – the days the far-right refer to are those glory days created by exploitation of colonies; in India, these glory days are when the upper classes had complete command over the lower classes and built their wealth by exploiting them, etc. One cannot invoke glory days and ignore the inglorious acts of those days – reject this classic diversionary tactic of the conservatives.

There are several other diversionary tactics that I have seen being employed – where the dominant class claim to be victims of affirmative action – though research in the US suggests that the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action were white women (refer notes section). The other tactics include whataboutery – a strange argument that any injustice against a black person (or the discriminated group in the region) is normal because of a similar incident against the powerful class. Yes, the injustice against any person matters, but the underlying point here is that the discrimination against one group is significantly higher than any other group – it exposes a systemic bias which needs to be exposed.

What should we do?

First, recognise your privilege if you are privileged. We all love to believe that we are self-made, and we made it through in life despite all our struggles. Sure, even the privileged have their own struggles – for instance, if you never had to worry about your next meal, your family not depending on supplemental income you could potentially bring, had access to school and higher education – with availability of credit to support your goals, you are privileged. There is nothing wrong in privileged but at the same time, there is no shame in acknowledging it either – it helps us recognise that we have had a head start on this race and provides us with sufficient empathy to provide similar privileges to people around us who lack them.

Next, recognise that consciously or sub-consciously, you might have indulged in discriminatory behaviour. Whenever a person points it out to you, listen to them completely – we often lack an understanding of their personal experience or their historical struggles; owing to which something that seems innocuous might have been profoundly offensive. Then introspect and if you identify any automated behaviour within yourself, work on correcting yourself.

Then, challenge the people around you when they indulge in discriminatory behaviour – both in terms of language or action. These should not be normalised as banter or a joke or ‘their thinking is in line with their times’. It is not easy, and you might not succeed, not immediately anyway. I have tried to confront and it never ended well, but that is not going to stop me, and at every given opportunity, I would challenge the people around me and if you wish to do the same, focus on what happens at home and your circles. If your circles are not that diverse, try to engage with more people to get a glimpse of a multitude of experiences (during better times, hopefully after a vaccine is invented – in any case, I do not expect anti-vaxxers to have gotten this far in this post of mine).

Finally, try to get experiences through arts, music or literature from other groups / cultures to understand their experiences. Being a reader, I did a check on my own lists, works I have read from writers of colour or discriminated background in their place of origin is very low; of course, I have read writer like James Baldwin on this very specific subject but not for mainstream fiction. I have not read a single work that has originated from Africa – these are aspects I need to improve on my own reading lists.

A recommendation if you have the time and courage – participate in protests and always raise your voice for a fairer society.

All these are applicable to me, and in all likelihood, to you the reader as well.

Conclusion

Discrimination is present since time immemorial, for multiple reasons. Are we better than before? Of course. In fact, we live in perhaps the most emancipated era in known human history. But is this enough? Certainly not, we are still far away from reaching the fair society that we all thrive to achieve. But the fight must go on, the death of George Floyd or anyone else who died in the face of discrimination should not be in vain – play to your strengths; if you like to write, make films, talk to people, or just listen, do all of those and bring awareness to everyone in your circles to counter discrimination across the world.

Have a nice day,
Andy

 

Notes:

1.       Mortd’Adama Traoré : une nouvelle contre-expertise met en cause les gendarmes (Le monde : Death of Adama Traoré – article in French)

2.       The power of protest and the legacy of George Floyd (The Economist: wealth disparity in the United States)

3.       The black-white wealth gap is unchanged after half a century (The Economist: wealth gaps from inheritance)

4.       Michael Gove admits to taking cocaine on 'several occasions' (The Guardian)

5.       Jamaica deportation: Home Office flight leaves UK despite court ruling (BBC: ‘many of those who were scheduled to be deported had committed non-violent, one-time drugs offences’ –David Lammy MP)

6.       NON-WHITE SCHOOL DISTRICTS GET $23 BILLION LESS FUNDING THAN WHITE ONES (Pacific Standard)

7.       Discrimination dans le recrutement des grandes entreprises (French Government study : Translation : Discrimination in the recruitment process of large companies)

A euphemism for outright stalking

There is a term that is thrown around freely and loosely by recruitment consultants, which is networking. Let’s take the root of the conjugated word – network – it is always associated with something that is positive and thus, when they say, ‘you must network’, it invariably has a positive vibe to it and the persons listening are intrigued by what the speaker or the counsellor has to say.

It sounds very good when they throw in positive words like – ‘givers gain in the network’ (a way of saying quid pro quo) and how larger your network, the more your chances of finding a job. While I agree that it is good to have a large network of people – I have been a beneficiary of it myself wherein I always have someone to consult when in doubt over a topic I do not possess the expertise.

However, my bone of contention is hardly over the act of having a network and rather, over the manner in which you are advised to proceed with acquiring this network. A point is to be noted here is that I am talking only from the context of recruitment.

To start with, there is the website LinkedIn, a social networking site for professionals. I have had a LinkedIn account myself for nearly nine years and people in my networks included people from my personal relationships, school, university or workplace and that was that. I observed a change in around 2015 where I started getting requests from random people whom I have never met before, the chance of meeting them in the foreseeable future being remote, and the only common aspect being that we might be in a similar profession or possess the same qualification. Sometimes, it might be an aspirant and this observation was not isolated, a few of my colleagues also remarked that ‘LinkedIn is getting annoying, I am getting multiple requests from complete strangers’.

Little did I realise back then that this was a result of ‘network with professionals’ advice from consultants. Again, adding strangers, sending messages to a stranger is not something that I fundamentally object so long as the stranger has consented to receiving them (I take the acceptance of the connection request to be approval for receiving messages from the connection). After all, it is the same as meeting strangers at a party and striking up a conversation.

The common advice to jobseekers is to expand network and message as many people as possible. If the intention behind this is to only seek first hand insights on working in the place / profession where you wish to work, it is fantastic! However, you are suggested this as a means to overcome two aspects to a job search – to become aware of jobs that were never published or known OR to circumvent a rejection of your earlier application made through the website.

It is well known that a lot of their filtering of CVs is done by algorithms and thus, most rejections are not the result of human decision making whereas if you make your credentials known to a person working within, they might overlook the system and still offer an interview.

Again, all this sounds fine and there seems nothing prima facie wrong about it. However, it is an issue when you are often told that the reason why you are yet to land a job is because you have not networked enough. What needs to be understood here is that chatting up random people is not everyone’s cup of tea, it is probably an introvert’s nightmare whereas the person might be very comfortable to fill up forms over and over again in a portal.

I understand that certain jobs require an extroverted personality and an introvert cannot demand equality in such circumstances; however, if the same is demanded in jobs which does not require much of outside interaction, that is where the playing field is no longer level and candidates are no longer tested for their competencies but rather, merely based on whom they know and whom they have talked to before.

While one could say – this is the system, accept it and be a part of it; it is easier said than done. Let us take a situation, there are tickets for a show high on demand and there is a counter selling tickets, with ten tickets remaining, ten people are in the queue; another group enters through the back entrance since they know the event manager and get the last ten tickets – fundamentally, got ahead of the queue at the cost of those who were already there. One could argue that it is the event manager’s choice as to whom they need to let in and whom to sell it to. However, in this case, most of us would agree that it was not normal and it was unfair on the people already in the queue. But then, what would be your reaction if I say that if these ten in the queue were really keen, they should have tried to somehow find the event manager on Facebook, befriend the person and got the tickets and that it was their fault that they were not proactive enough to get the tickets. Much as I played the devil’s advocate in this statement, I find the logic completely ridiculous.

However, that is exactly what we are doing right now, and the consultants and head-hunters from all across the board are trying to normalise this situation. I have even heard suggestions like, ‘if they don’t respond to your mail, try to find a directory where they have disclosed their phone number and call them’ – that is something that I find blatantly unethical and the extent to which this is being normalised is shocking.

In a way, I feel that the terms networking, cold e-mail are euphemisms created because if you say ‘stalk someone online, find out about them, get all details and get into conversation’, sounds less appealing and attractive than saying ‘network with people online and get into a conversation’ even though both of them are prima facie the same.

The situation here is not normal and it leads us to a situation where the networks generated are no longer with altruistic motives (which is normally the case) which could lead to pecuniary relationships but rather, in this case, we are clearly going in seeking for something with ulterior motives, with no real intention to build a network and probably not give a second thought about the person with whom we had a conversation unless we had got we had wanted (I can’t paint everybody with the same brush but I can certainly speak for the average).

To conclude, I would say that this system seems to have been unconditionally accepted and since I am not on the other side, I cannot offer solutions but the very fact that I am raising my voice calling this out to be not normal (hoping more join the bandwagon), perhaps it could trigger the thought and the situation could be better in the future.

Have a nice day,
Andy

Shores of Time

The next step, took his legs, a virulent flash,

The blinding pain, encompassed his gaze within

Spinning around, dancing in zeal, a gash

Flowing red, viscous from when it was thin;

The sight down, he saw, the glassy stone,

Jagged and rigid, unyielding and brazen

For the harm, saw it no reason to moan,

Weathered was it, to cut unaware men.

Strewn across, the undulating scene of stones,

Hindered around, he looked for harmless ways,

The prickly tops, surmounting the archaic cones,

More cuts, the hurt, thoughts for him to faze,

A gust of wind, a vortex violent, arose atop

The obstinate surface, now the seeming bullets clash

Tumultuously, the serene chaos, the dance lop,

Rain unto, now withered into dunes they mash.

In waning amazement, upon a healed foot, walks

He, dune after dune, raises and falls.

With a dune beneath, a figure with locks

Wild, untethered, frail stands he, distraught with galls.

The wraith of sand, the ethereal ancient beast

Wise and timeless, calls him upon,

To him, offers the wise, a luscious feast

Of time, into which, he was now born.

Asks he thus, “Ancient one, upon the lands

Gaze I, unbeknownst to me, for what I should see.

The sands I feel, warm though slip through my hands,

The truth of these shores, learn I through thee.”

The wraith, wordless, engulfed his thoughts,

View the far distances, through which he shall see

His time, the stream which blooms and which rots

Into expanses, time flows, ceased to be free.

“The stream meanders, untouched and pristine,

Not a grain, not the stones, not the shores pour

Into, pulling away, or muddling its sheen

None within, or around, calming its mighty roar.

Dawns in me, of the ceaseless flow, devout, infinite,

Pouring itself into the void, mysterious and dark.

Though grandiose, what story am I to knit

When my senses, is now but a lark?”

Stared into the abyss, the wraith, unbound

By words, dripping through it, without a thought,

His thoughts, the pressing words, a heaping mound,

Prodding the wraith, answers to it wrought.

A wave, tall, drowns the shores, the stream,

The man fluid, now flowing calm and serene,

Teases him visions, the astral story of time.

The waters from where begotten, him to ween,

Where from, where to, to him it to mime.

A past, unearthed, sees he his life.

To him, his past, a period forgotten since,

Memories of time, unfettered, a melodious fife,

Like the water, contained in, cannot rinse.

A present, unearthed, sees he his self.

To him, the present, a mirror upon which,

Reflects he, projecting a giant, a dwarf and an elf,

All he, his dreams, lustrous and rich.

A future, unearthed, sees he a dark void.

To him, the future, featureless and grey,

Sees he none, what he yearns, what to avoid,

The fife of his past, sees, at the end of his fray.

Blinks, focuses, stands the wraith, as before,

Puzzles he, “Know I not, of the truths foretold,

I saw, the visions, moments of my lore.

The latter lore, told me of my start,

My tunes, my days, my nights and my ways.

My living, of which some are sweet, bitter and tart,

Blinding once, my lore felt devoid of rays.

Ignorant, felt I, darkened and blotted by

The palette, where upon, laid the colours mine,

Thought I to vigour, not that they’d wry.

Making unseen, the tails that the heads dine.”

Asked he again, “The cycle of time profound

Realized I, and yet, I stand, devour

The tail, as the head. I acquiesce unbound,

And am still solid, should dissolve like the hour.”

Still unhinged, he sought his fate, looked on

Still, the wraith, into the meandering stream.

Gone, without a trace, like the dusk from one dawn,

Befuddling him, unable to let out even a faint scream.

A blurring sight, cleared into the known,

The rocks, stones, rigid through time, weathered.

Within the rocks, the sands had grown,

Unmoving and quiet, not even the wind heard.

“My hurt felt I, upon the bloody graze,

Never the warmth, once the sanded shores,

Each bend, each trough and each peak a maze

Flowing through time, with their infinite doors.”

The next step, took his legs, a virulent flash,

The blinding pain, encompassed his gaze within

Quietened and calm, healing in zeal, a gash

Flowing red, yet the pleasure and pain was akin.

  - Victor Van Volkner



Background of the poem
This poem, to me, represents how we, as humans, view the trials and tribulations of life. While we realise that time flows only in one direction, we don't often see it in that direction. Often clinging onto the past, the veritable dramas that unfold in our lives are all that we see, ignoring the happier moments that define who we are, in equal proportion to the more dramatic moments. This is about such a man, who is shown that his time includes both of these, and he needs to learn to take both with equal zeal and see the best of both. I'll hope that this intention of mine reaches someone reading the poem. 

The Olivenza Dispute

The red dot near Badajoz is the location of Olivenza

People outside of Iberia and rest of Western Europe probably misunderstand the smaller of these countries as also a part of the larger country. These two countries are extremely friendly and often, are seen exchanging twelve points to each other in Eurovision Song Contests. However, little does anyone know that they have a territorial dispute running for over two centuries. The two countries in question here are Spain and Portugal and the territory in question here is the Spanish town of Olivenza in the Spanish community of Extremadura.

Note: Throughout the article, I shall be using the Spanish name / spelling ‘Olivenza’ rather than the Portuguese ‘Olivença’ because as of today, it is Spanish territory. I don't lean towards the Spanish position, but I merely prefer using the de facto position.

History of Olivenza: A town which kept switching hands

I had the timeline handwritten to add a personal touch, please zoom the image for better viewing

While it was a Portuguese settlement in 12^th Century, the town was quickly taken by the Spanish Moors in 1189 and came under Muslim rule. This was retaken in 1278 by the conquest by Castille and Leon (later on Spain) during their long Reconquista.

However, two decades later, Portugal regained the territory through the Treaty of Alcañices in exchange for peace with Castille. Post that, the Portuguese fortified the town and have signed several treaties with the Kingdom of Spain, including the Treaty of Lisbon in the 17^th century reaffirming the border between the countries.

This continued till Spain invaded Portugal in 1801 with French support and occupied Olivenza. Post the Franco-Spanish treaty, Portugal was forced into the Treaty of Badajoz which handed over Olivenza back to Spain.

This position exists till date wherein, Spain claims sovereignty over Olivenza by virtue of the Treaty of Badajoz.

Portuguese counter-claim

Portugal, till date, has never officially recognized Spanish sovereignty over Olivenza.

Portugal unilaterally revoked the Treaty of Badajoz during the Napoleonic Wars as they accused Spain of violating the peace treaty, thus, declaring the same void.

Post the defeat of the Napoleon and Portugal being part of the winning British alliance, in the Congress of Vienna, Portugal successfully included a clause wherein:

‘winning countries are to endeavour with the mightiest conciliatory effort to return Olivenza to Portuguese authority.’

However, Spain interprets this clause as being optional and has never acted upon the same.

Olivenza of today

Olivenza is a town with barely 12,000 people living as of today. Spanish is the most dominant language in the town, considering:

·       Teaching in Portuguese was banned since the takeover in 1805.

·       Spanish was made the sole official language for all documents of the council.

·       Spanish was aggressively imposed during the regime of General Francisco Franco in all the regions of Spain ever where Castillian was not the dominant language and Olivenza was no exception.

·       Elapse of time; they have been a part of Spain for over 2 centuries that many of the current generation are not said to associate themselves with Portugal.

With Spain and Portugal both being part of the European Union and the Eurozone, there is practically no practical difference for the residents of Olivenza; even for those who wish to identify themselves as Portuguese as when they cross into Elvas (bordering Portuguese town), there is no hard border and they use the same currency. Only difference is that their taxes go to Madrid instead of Lisbon. Elvas and Olivenza are sister cities as of today and there is a bridge connecting the two paid for by the Portuguese government.

However, the two countries, are still quite sensitive about what the territory. When the former Prime Minister of Portugal, Pinheiro de Azevedo visited Olivenza in 1981, the Spanish responded by sending their Guardia (police force) to prevent any potential trouble caused by Portuguese nationalists in the town.

While rest of Spain is hardly aware of there being a dispute over Olivenza, the Portuguese in general are said to be becoming more conscious of the dispute. As recently as 2010, the Portuguese street names in Olivenza that were forcibly changed have now returned. A few residents of Olivenza who applied for Portuguese citizenship have now acquired the nationality. Going by the trends, it can’t be said as to what would be the situation in a few years from now.

The case of Olivenza is very similar to the case of Nice between France and Italy (which was ceded to France by Italy by means of treaty in exchange for French recognition of unified Italy); just that Italy does not dispute French sovereignty over the same. However, with Portugal never officially ending the dispute, one could never know what could be the situation in the future.

Conclusion

My personal opinion on such matters always is that there is no point in prolonging this dispute considering it is 2 centuries old, the Portuguese minority is not persecuted and is free to use their language and that Spain and Portugal are two very friendly neighbours. However, leaving my personal opinions aside, this is unlikely to be a burning issue till European Union exists and both the states remain members. Nonetheless, it is a very interesting case which I have always found it very interesting to read about.

Have a nice day,
Andy

Plagues of Humanity

The coloured yonder, blots from afar a wail,

A visage of marvel, spotted out dark,

Leading a road to the parts which pale,

Nestling beneath foliage, the infant, hurting and stark,

Dancing around the nest, in blissful ignorant glee,

Creatures hideous, shaming unabashedly, even the ugly,

Playing a dirge, for even the birds, animals, life to flee,

Pricking the innocent, bleeding it snugly.

A creature close, bites upon the nape, gnarls, 

Off with the child, in pursuit the others,

Into an edifice, adorns it, crosses and stars enthrals

From Zion, drop indulgent, faith induced feathers

Permanence of which, unbeknownst to it, imbibes the child,

By providence, its birth, to the cross, star, moon or sun,

The infinite sands, each grain upon, echoes no in mild,

Deities, snatching from the abstract, from which none run.

The nape, another creature, inherits now to bleed,

From the crosses, sprouts the anteroom, inscribed paper,

Fables for posterity, mythical rules into, they feed,

Who is a king, cyclical lives profound, who the leper.

To the innocent, stories, supposed values, ingrained

Each paper, a brick to the edifice, bolstering the height,

The mind, a prison, each fable the bars framed,

A library, the members, foundations for the upheaving might.

The nape, another creature, accepts now to bleed,

 Excerpts of the texts, read between the lines,

To perform acts, to endear with water or reed,

In absentia, the fears of condemned, upon, the ritual dines,

Words with meaning, now archaic, followed unknown,

Once told for sanity, now told to the blind, 

Stagnant, incorrigible, in spite of the times flown,

Commanding obedience, boundaries for the mind.

The nape, another creature, leads not to bleed,

Practices of the yore, descending from the kings, 

Elevation of the sophisticated, plebeians wherein to weed,

Marks of humans, violation of other kingdoms, their links.

Once done, twice repeated, forever they live,

To the innocent, taught it a rule, for it to break

Others of innocence, a cardinal sin they give,

The spirit, once shone, succumbed now, to the fake.

The nape, another creature, passed now to bleed,

The graveyard, etched upon stones, humanity,

Its deeds, misdeeds, highs and conquering its need,

Mistakes for victors, richness of learning, for others, vanity,

Within wailing, is it taught, the tales of heroes, 

Villains, martyrs and empires, all human, 

A glorified past, vast lands torn, endless rows,

Cares it not, to create its history, will be done.

The nape, another creature, pulls now to bleed,

A cellar, brimming with gems, bones and gold,

Though menacing, the creature, its efforts bewilder greed,

Knows not the child, the treasures which unfold,

Relentless, the creature, plagues the innocence till grown,

The glitters of the Earth, familiar now, a little less

Shine and allure, the want of which leaves forlorn,

Innocence into desire, for its life, it to digress.

The wailing worse, darkening the bright day,

Splattered blood, upon it, the creatures cherish,

Vapours red, calling upon more, to the innocence fray,

Clinging onto it, infecting the world, the relish.

The creatures, the plagues, brazen and bold,

Never to be expunged, else the innocent flourish,

Knowing of religion, texts, past and gold,

Nonetheless, not enraptured the creatures, its wish.

   - Victor Van Volkner