Of Noam Chomsky and fallen conscience!

Raju Korti
I have taught Noam Chomsky’s theories and political ideologies to graduate and post-graduate students for years. More than once, I devoted entire sessions to his ideas, including two consecutive days of four hours each, unpacking the propaganda model he articulated in Manufacturing Consent. Between 1992 and 2002, I read Chomsky extensively, often nodding in agreement, largely because his arguments appeared benign, humane and intellectually honest. His critique of corporate media, power structures and manufactured public consent resonated deeply with anyone concerned about democracy and truth.

Chomsky & Epstein (file grab)

That long-held engagement makes what has emerged from the Epstein Files particularly unsettling.

The US Department of Justice documents have placed Chomsky among high-profile figures who maintained a sustained relationship with Jeffrey Epstein well after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution. Emails and records reveal multiple meetings in 2015 and 2016, dinners at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse with influential personalities, and even Epstein’s role in facilitating elite networking. More troubling is the revelation of a $270,000 wire transfer from an Epstein-linked account to Chomsky, which Chomsky has described as a mere technical rearrangement of funds related to his late wife’s estate.

Chomsky’s defence rests on a narrow legalistic logic. He claims that since Epstein had served his sentence, he believed the financier had a “clean slate” and could re-enter society under normal social norms. He insists their conversations were confined to intellectual subjects such as science, politics and global finance. When questioned by journalists, his initial response was an abrupt “none of your business.” He has also maintained that the money involved was not a gift but a financial restructuring.

On paper, this defence may appear tidy. In substance, it feels disturbingly hollow.

A man is often known by the company he keeps. Even if one accepts that Chomsky was not directly involved in Epstein’s monstrous crimes, the choice to sustain a close and prolonged association with a convicted sexual offender is not a neutral act. It becomes even harder to digest when that association included financial dealings and personal favours within Epstein’s elite network. The optics are bad, but more importantly, the ethical judgment is worse.

What jars is not merely the contact, but the tone of dismissal. I am not the one to sit on moral judgement but advising Epstein to ignore public outrage over exposed sex crimes, brushing off legitimate questions as intrusive, and framing the relationship as socially routine suggests a startling indifference to the gravity of Epstein’s offences. For a thinker who spent decades dissecting power, complicity and moral responsibility, this casualness feels painfully inconsistent.

There is a popular defence now circulating among Chomsky’s admirers. One, there is no photographic or explicit evidence of his involvement in sexual abuse. Two, even if his personal judgment failed, his linguistic scholarship and political contributions remain intact. On the first point, the issue is not whether Chomsky committed Epstein’s crimes, but whether maintaining close ties with such a man after his conviction was itself indefensible. On the second, while his academic work in linguistics may remain untouched, the moral authority that once amplified his political voice cannot escape the shadow now cast over it.

This is where my disillusionment truly sets in.

For many of us who studied society through language, power and ideology, Chomsky was more than a scholar. He was a conscience, a relentless critic of hypocrisy and elite corruption. To see him entangled, however indirectly, in the orbit of one of the most grotesque figures of modern scandal is a profound shock. The maxim that even gods have feet of clay suddenly feels painfully accurate.

His defence strikes me less as a principled explanation and more as an afterthought shaped by damage control. Legal innocence is not the same as moral clarity. Intellectual brilliance does not excuse ethical blindness. When a public thinker who lectured the world on justice, exploitation and accountability chooses convenience over conscience, the disappointment cuts deeper than any academic disagreement ever could.

Chomsky’s contributions to linguistics will likely endure in textbooks. But his stature as a moral and political lodestar, at least for me, has suffered harm. Preaching social ethics while maintaining comfort with a convicted predator creates a chasm between thought and conduct that no amount of intellectual nuance can bridge.

The Epstein Files have done more than expose a network of abuse. They have stripped away comforting illusions about those we placed on pedestals. In Chomsky’s case, the fall is not about criminal guilt, but about perceived moral failure. And for someone who shaped my intellectual journey for over a decade, that is perhaps the most painful revelation of all.

India-US trade deal: Certainty after prolonged suspense

Raju Korti
The heart of the deal is simple. The United States cuts its tariff on Indian goods to 18 per cent from 25 per cent. India, in turn, lowers tariffs and non-tariff barriers on American goods to near zero in selected areas. India also commits to buying more American energy, farm products, technology and coal. A major irritant linked to Russian oil has been eased.

(Pic representational)

Both sides can claim a win. India gains immediate relief for its exporters. Sectors like textiles, engineering goods, chemicals and light manufacturing become more competitive in the US market. This matters at a time when global demand is weak and margins are thin.

The United States gains wider access to the Indian market. American energy firms, agri exporters and technology companies benefit. The deal also pushes India to reduce dependence on Russian oil, which aligns with Washington’s larger geopolitical goal.

In the short term, some Indian producers who face American competition may feel pressure. On the US side, domestic lobbies that dislike tariff cuts will grumble. But no major group takes a direct hit.

For India, the biggest gain is certainty. Exporters now know the tariff they face. That helps planning and pricing. The deal also signals that India is no longer stuck in trade disputes but is willing to cut deals with large partners.

Another gain is timing. This comes just after the agreement with the European Union. Together, these deals place India more firmly in global supply chains.

The US secures a stronger economic partnership with India. It also nudges India away from Russian oil without public confrontation. American exporters gain access to a large and growing market. Politically, Washington shows it can still strike bilateral deals that serve strategic goals.

The biggest irritant was energy. India’s purchase of Russian oil had drawn sharp US tariffs. This was the real tug of war. India blinked first here, though softly. It did not abandon energy security. It agreed to diversify supplies over time. The US responded by removing the extra penalty and cutting the base tariff.

Other irritants like digital taxes and market access have not vanished. They have been parked for later rounds. That itself is progress.

For the Indian economy, the effect will be gradual. Exports should get a lift. Investor confidence improves. The signal matters more than the exact tariff cut.

For stock markets, sentiment is the key word. Indian markets have been volatile for months. This deal reduces one big uncertainty. That is why futures reacted sharply. It does not guarantee a bull run, but it creates a firmer floor.

Export oriented stocks, energy logistics and manufacturing could benefit first. The wider market will follow only if earnings improve.

This deal is not the end. It is a base camp. More negotiations will follow on services, digital trade and deeper tariff cuts. If managed well, this could lead to a broader economic partnership rather than a narrow trade pact.

And for a piddly investor like me, who puts in two peanuts hoping for half a peanut, the lesson is simple. Big deals do not make you rich overnight. But they quietly improve the odds. In the stock market, that itself is no small comfort.

Our fond fascination for conspiracy theories!

Raju Korti
As expected, within hours of Ajit Pawar’s death in a plane crash near Baramati, conspiracy theories took flight faster than the ill-fated aircraft ever did. Social media sleuths, WhatsApp uncles, Telegram experts and part-time analysts all swung into action, confidently suggesting sabotage and dark hints about rivals, allies and especially leaders from his own Mahayuti camp. The official word, including that from his own uncle Sharad Pawar, that it was a clear accident was promptly treated as a minor inconvenience.

Plane wreckage site (file grab)

We Indians have a special fondness for conspiracies. We see them where there are none and miss them where they might actually exist. Nothing sells quite like a conspiracy theory. It comes with intrigue, suspense and the delicious thrill of believing that one knows something that others do not. For a sizeable section of suspicious minds, nothing ever just happens. Accidents, politics, office promotions, breakups, health scares, even bad tea at a wedding must have a hidden hand behind them.

This mindset does not discriminate. The moon landing was staged. The earth is flat. Covid-19 was manufactured. Vaccines are part of a population control plan. Climate change is a scam. Doomsday is always around the corner and the Holocaust, for some, needs fresh questioning. As if the world is incapable of producing an open and shut case.

India, of course, has its own well stocked conspiracy cupboard. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Lal Bahadur Shastri. Dr Homi Bhabha. Sanjay Gandhi. Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. General Bipin Rawat. The list is long and endlessly recycled. These theories thrive on familiar fuel. Government secrecy over classified files. Contradictory reports. Missing bodies. Inconclusive post-mortems. Silence where people expect drama.

In Netaji’s case, stories of survival and secret lives in distant lands refuse to die. Shastri’s sudden death in Tashkent sparked poisoning theories that still simmer. General Bipin Rawat’s helicopter crash in 2021 was quickly repackaged as foul play despite official investigations calling it an accident. Powerful leaders, it seems, are not allowed ordinary endings.

At a psychological level, conspiracy theories serve a purpose. They help people make sense of a frightening and complex world. They restore a sense of control. They offer the comfort of feeling special, informed and part of a knowing tribe. They turn vague anxieties into neat narratives with villains and motives, no matter how imaginary.

The problem is that the line between information and misinformation is now paper thin. Rumour and theory are no longer cautious cousins. They are loud, reckless twins. The media’s appetite for conspiracy is understandable. It attracts eyeballs and outrage. But the real responsibility lies with people. Applying the mind is still an option, even if it is no longer fashionable.

Sometimes, a crash is just a crash. And accepting that may be the hardest conspiracy to swallow. 

India’s biggest trade bet with Europe

Raju Korti
The India EU free trade agreement is being rightly described as a mega deal, not just for its size but for its strategic depth. At its core, an FTA is a simple idea. Countries agree to lower or remove taxes on each other’s goods and services so trade becomes cheaper, smoother and more predictable. What makes this agreement exceptional is its scope. Nearly all Indian exports to the EU will now enter with zero or near-zero tariffs, while India has opened its market wider to Europe than it ever has to any other partner.

For India, the tariff story is central. Today, Indian exporters often lose competitiveness in Europe because their products attract duties that rival suppliers do not face. With 99.5 percent of Indian export items seeing tariffs eliminated by the EU, sectors such as textiles, leather, engineering goods, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and processed foods get an immediate price advantage. In simple terms, Indian products become cheaper on European shelves without cutting margins. This directly improves export earnings and supports jobs.

On the import side, India has agreed to gradually lower tariffs on European goods, including sensitive areas like automobiles, machinery and high-end agri products. Car tariffs, for instance, will fall in stages from extremely high levels to much lower ones over several years. This phased approach matters. It gives Indian industry time to adjust, upgrade technology and become more competitive rather than facing a sudden shock. Cheaper and better-quality machinery and components will also reduce production costs for Indian manufacturers.

The broader economic impact lies in investment and supply chains. European companies are not just looking to sell to India but to manufacture here. With stable rules, tariff certainty and strong intellectual property protection, India becomes a more reliable base for global production. This fits neatly with India’s own goals of expanding manufacturing, integrating with global value chains and moving up the technology ladder.

Services and intellectual property are another quiet but crucial gain. India has long strengths in IT, finance, professional services and maritime services. Better access to the EU services market can help Indian firms scale globally. Stronger IP rules, often seen as favouring advanced economies, also help Indian innovators by protecting their ideas and brands abroad.

The agreement also reflects geopolitical realities. Europe is consciously reducing its dependence on both the US and China. India, with its large market and steady growth, is an obvious partner. For India, the deal signals credibility. Concluding the most ambitious FTA in its history tells global investors that India is open, predictable and willing to play by clear rules.

The US angle is equally important. Washington has traditionally preferred bilateral trade arrangements driven by strategic leverage rather than comprehensive FTAs. India and the US have no full-fledged FTA, partly due to disagreements on tariffs, market access and regulatory standards. In that sense, the India EU deal subtly shifts the balance. It shows India can strike deep trade agreements without aligning fully with US trade preferences. At the same time, it may push the US to rethink its trade engagement with India to avoid being edged out in a key market.

Looking ahead, this FTA is not an end but a roadmap. Its success will depend on implementation. Indian exporters must meet strict European standards on quality, safety and sustainability. Domestic industries must use the transition period to become more competitive rather than protectionist. If managed well, the deal can double trade volumes, deepen industrial capability and anchor India more firmly in the global economy.

In the long run, the India EU FTA positions India as a serious, rules-based trading power. It marks a shift from cautious openness to confident engagement. That may well be its most lasting significance.

Fury unfiltered: Outbursts, egos, and collateral damage

Raju Korti
When anger becomes a habit and not an emotion, it turns people into time-bombs. You can try to stay calm but beware the blast radius. The murder in Mumbai's suburban train and a Bengaluru couple’s deadly road rage, triggered by a minor brush with a delivery agent not long time back, -- not to speak of many such incidents -- has me dissecting the anatomy of fury.

If there’s one tribe, I go out of my way to avoid, it is the human volcanoes. The rage-prone, short-fused, loudmouths who erupt at the faintest provocation. You can sense them before they strike: stiff shoulders, restless limbs, darting eyes, and a snarl waiting to detonate. They rage at colleagues, terrorise subordinates, bully family, and pick fights with neighbours. What ignites them? Sometimes nothing at all. It is as if fury is their fuel, their fallback, their way of being. And you, the unlucky bystander, are expected to dodge the shrapnel of their barbed words and clenched fists. The Malad train stabbing fits this pattern disturbingly well, an eruption born out of a moment that demanded nothing more than patience.

(Pic representational)

Anger is a tricky emotion. At its mildest, it is a frown. At its worst, it’s a hurricane that knocks down relationships, jobs, and reputations. Biologically, it is a rush. Adrenaline surges, blood pressure spikes, heart races, fists clench. But when that rage is constant, chronic, and unchecked, it becomes corrosive. I am no shrink, but I have seen enough to know that most angry people aren’t really angry at you. They are wrestling their own demons: unhealed wounds, control issues, deep-seated insecurities. Add to this job frustration, financial insecurity, collapsing careers, failed relationships, loneliness, social comparison, unfulfilled ambition, substance abuse, and the quiet shame of perceived failure in life. The pent-up frustration often finds release not in words, but in fury, sometimes spilling into crimes like the one on that railway platform.

I used to think age mellows people, makes them less reactive and more reflective. I was wrong. Some grow old without ever growing up. I have had my share of angry episodes too. Who hasn’t? But over time, I have learned that letting fury speak for you is a one-way ticket to regret. One vicious outburst can wipe out years of goodwill. Sure, you may apologise later, but trust once broken doesn’t glue back easily. The damage is often irreparable. Sometimes, the only choice is to walk away. Let them stew in their own bile. They don’t deserve front-row seats in your life. Sadly, the young lecturer in Malad never got that choice.

What angers us may be circumstantial, but how we respond is deeply personal. You can’t always escape the triggers. Maybe it’s a toxic boss, a manipulative partner, or just the unbearable traffic. Or a crowded train, or a congested road, like in Bengaluru where a couple’s road rage ended in murder after a minor altercation. But you can choose to disarm your reaction. Meditation helps. So does physical activity. Even a ten-second pause before you lash out can save the moment. And let’s not pretend that bottled-up anger is any nobler. It ferments into bitterness and blindsides you at the worst time. Vent it, but wisely. Scream into a pillow if you must, not at a person.

What fascinates me is the psychology behind chronic anger. It often stems from a fragile ego, from people who believe the world owes them, who see disagreement as threat and discomfort as injustice. They externalise everything. Blame others, control environments, resist introspection. They see patience as weakness and ambiguity as failure. I call them the emotionally entitled. And anger is their armour. Problem is, no one wants to hug a cactus.

In the end, managing anger is less about self-help and more about self-respect. It's about recognising that no matter the trigger, you are accountable for the impact. Yes, anger is human. But left unbridled, it hijacks your dignity, relationships, and peace of mind. Perhaps it is time anger management stopped being an afterthought and became part of everyday learning, taught at homes, reinforced in educational institutions, acknowledged at workplaces, and addressed in public spaces where pressures collide. So, control anger before it controls you. Easier said than done, but try we must. And the counsellor in me comes to the fore as moderator. No small mercy that.

Mates & checkmates on the Gaza chess board!

Raju Korti
When I first examined the Board of Peace proposal, I saw an idea that reflects both ambition and unresolved tension. At its core, the board is meant to shepherd Gaza’s fragile ceasefire into a durable peace by overseeing disarmament of Hamas, reconstruction of civil society, establishment of governance structures, and deployment of an international security force. The United Nations Security Council endorsed a temporary mandate for it through 2027, but the initiative is clearly shaped in the image of its chief architect, President Donald Trump, who will chair the board and call many of the shots.

The first question that jumps out is simple: who supports this effort and why? Countries like Hungary and Vietnam have already accepted invitations to serve as founding members, while others such as Argentina, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Canada, Turkey, Jordan and Albania are reported to have been invited and, in some cases, have indicated participation. India has received an invitation as well and will decide after internal consultation. The fact that invitations have gone out to about 60 nations, including Greece, Pakistan, and Cyprus, shows the US desire to present this as a wide, inclusive undertaking.

At the same time, several major players have expressed reservations or declined outright. France, under President Emmanuel Macron, has declined the invitation, voicing concerns that the board’s charter goes beyond a Gaza focus and could undercut the United Nations’ role in global peace architecture. Other traditional US allies in Europe are “weighing” their positions carefully, with Germany consulting EU partners before committing. The United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil and others have been invited but are studying the proposal and its implications before signalling full support.

In this unfolding geography of support and hesitation, the stakes for each country vary. For the United States, the board is not just about ending violence in Gaza; it is an attempt to reshape multilateral peace efforts around a new institutional form that places Washington, and Trump in particular, at its centre. Critics argue that this could weaken the UN’s traditional peace-making role because the board’s powers and wide mandate appear to extend beyond just Gaza.

For India, an invitation represents diplomatic balancing: New Delhi can engage in an initiative aimed at peace and reconstruction while navigating its own ties with key partners. India’s strategic interest in the Middle East, including energy and diaspora concerns, means participation could bolster its global profile if handled carefully. Russia’s reaction is more cautious; Moscow has acknowledged it has received an invitation and is assessing the “nuances” of the proposal, mindful of its own geopolitical rivalry with the U.S. and its war in Ukraine.

The position of Israel, arguably the most directly affected state, is complicated and perhaps the most telling. On one level, Israel’s government was invited to be part of the board. Yet the response from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been critical, particularly of the board’s composition, which includes countries like Turkey and Qatar that Israel views with deep suspicion. Netanyahu emphasised that this initiative was not coordinated with Israel and runs contrary to its policy positions. At home, hardline figures like the finance minister have rejected the board outright, favouring military action against Hamas instead.

This is where Israel’s misgivings with the United States emerge most vividly. The two allies, long aligned on security issues, are at odds about the role of third-party international actors in Gaza’s future. While the U.S. pushes a multilateral reconstruction and oversight mechanism, Israel fears that such a board could dilute its security prerogatives and legitimacy in the eyes of Arab and Muslim states. Publicly, the U.S. underscores the board’s peace goals; privately, Israeli leaders have signalled discomfort with external actors who have historically supported Hamas or are hostile to Israeli strategic interests.

Beyond these headline dynamics, there are deeper peripheral issues that any serious analysis must acknowledge. First, the board’s financing model, which reportedly offers permanent membership in return for contributions of at least $1 billion, raises concerns about equity and influence. Wealthier states could dominate decision-making, while poorer countries may be relegated to short terms with limited impact. Second, the absence of Palestinian representatives in initial governance discussions, according to some reports, fuels criticism that the board risks making decisions about Gaza without adequately involving those whom its decisions will affect most. Finally, the very context in which this board arises, a fragile ceasefire amid ongoing humanitarian crisis, means that any institutional body will be tested by the realities on the ground: food insecurity, displacement, fractured governance, and deep mistrust among the parties.

So what holds out for this proposed peace board? Its strength lies in its ambition to combine political, security and reconstruction efforts in a single forum. If widely supported and well-funded, it could offer a coherent platform to coordinate ceasefire enforcement, peacebuilding and economic recovery in Gaza.

But workability remains uncertain. The divergent interests of participating states, the burden of financing, the lack of clarity on its legal authority vis-à-vis the United Nations, and the unresolved tension between Israel and key members all pose real challenges. Participation from polarised actors like Pakistan and Turkey may complicate consensus, even as invitations to states like India and Canada indicate broad diplomatic interest.

In the final analysis, the Board of Peace sits at the intersection of aspiration and realpolitik. It embodies the desire for a new approach to conflict resolution in one of the most intractable disputes of our time. Yet its future will be determined less by its lofty goals and more by the willingness of major powers to reconcile their strategic calculations with the urgent needs of the people in Gaza. 

लोकांची न संपणारी क्रूर चेष्टा

राजू कोर्ती   
लोकशाही म्हणजे लोकांची सत्ता, असे आपण अजूनही अभिमानाने उच्चारतो. पण आरसा समोर धरला तर दिसते ती सत्तेची नाही, तर लोकांच्या हतबलतेची विदारक कहाणी. ज्यांच्या नावावर सत्ता उभी आहे, तेच लोक आज सर्वात जास्त फसवले जात आहेत, हे कटू सत्य स्वीकारायला आपण तयार नाही. ही चेष्टा साधी नाही, ही क्रूर चेष्टा आहे.

ह्यांचे आमदार त्यांच्या संपर्कात, त्यांचे खासदार ह्यांच्या संपर्कात, नगरसेवकांची फोन डायरी म्हणजे सत्तेची अदलाबदल करणारे चलन झाले आहे. प्रत्येक पाऊल राजकीय खेळीच असायला हवे का? माणूस म्हणून, विचारधारा म्हणून, तत्त्व म्हणून काहीच उरले नाही का? मग ज्याला तुम्ही कालपर्यंत छातीठोकपणे आयडिओलॉजी म्हणत होता, ती आज इतक्या सहजपणे कशी विसरता येते? आणि त्याहून धक्कादायक म्हणजे, ती विसरलेली गोष्ट लोकांसमोर निर्लज्जपणे कशी मिरवता येते?

मी माझ्या ४५ वर्षाच्या कारकीर्दीत अनेक स्तरावरच्या निवडणुका आणि शेकडो राजकीय घडामोडी कव्हर केल्या पण इतकी दारुण अवस्था कधीच बघितली नाही. पंचेचाळीस वर्षे निवडणुका, सत्तांतर, उठाठेव पाहिल्यानंतर हे स्पष्ट झाले आहे की राजकारणात चांगले आणि वाईट लोक सगळ्याच पक्षांत होते आणि आहेत. पण पूर्वी किमान मनाची तरी लाज होती. शब्दांना किंमत होती. आज ती लाजही संपली आहे. आता फक्त सोयीची तत्त्वे आणि गरजेपुरती विचारधारा. कमरेचेच नव्हे तर डोक्यालाही गुंडाळायचे सोडून दिले आहे. गुंडाळायचे असते ते फक्त लोकांना.

लोकप्रतिनिधी नावाचा शब्दच आता विनोद ठरतो आहे. ज्याला आपण मत देतो, तो दुसऱ्याच दिवशी आपल्याला कवडीमोल समजून पूर्णपणे विरोधी विचारधारेच्या पक्षात प्रवेश करतो. ह्याला ‘राजकीय चाल’, ‘रणनीती’, ‘खेळी’ असे गोंडस शब्द लावले जातात. प्रत्यक्षात ही उघड गद्दारी असते, पण तिच्यावर शब्दांचा मुलामा चढवून लोकांच्या डोळ्यात धूळफेक केली जाते. पक्ष गेले खड्ड्यात, विचारधारा गेली खड्ड्यात. उरते ते फक्त सत्ता.

आणि मग तयार होते दुचाकी, तीनचाकी, कधी ट्रकभर बहुमताचे सरकार. लोकांची कामे करणे हा त्यांचा उद्देश नसतोच. सगळी ऊर्जा, सगळी तथाकथित हुशारी सत्ता टिकवून ठेवण्यात खर्ची घातली जाते. सामान्य माणसाचे प्रश्न, त्याचे दुःख, त्याची घुसमट ही फक्त निवडणुकीपुरती घोषणाबाजी. मतदान झाल्यावर लोक म्हणजे ओझे.

ज्यांच्या शब्दकोशात प्रामाणिकपणा खिजगणतीतही नाही, तेच लोक मोठ्या आवाजात लोकांना मतदानाचे धडे देतात. “लोकशाही मजबूत करा” असे सांगतात. पण लोकांची जबाबदारी फक्त त्यांच्या तुंबड्या भरण्याची आहे का? त्यांच्या निर्लज्ज थेरांचे प्रेक्षक बनण्याची आहे का? लोकशाही हा शब्दच इतका झिजला आहे की तो उच्चारताना उपहास वाटतो.

या सगळ्यात सर्वात मोठा मूर्ख कोण ठरतो? तो मूर्ख म्हणजे आपण. आतल्या गोटात काय शिजते आहे, हे जाणून घेण्याचीही गरज न वाटणारा, सगळे गिळून टाकणारा, आणि तरीही दर पाच वर्षांनी आशेने उभा राहणारा सामान्य नागरिक. दुर्दैव असे की बहुसंख्य लोकांना आपण फसवले जातोय, हेही कळत नाही. आणि ज्यांना कळते, ते मतदानापासून दूर का जातात, याचे उत्तर सत्ताधाऱ्यांना जाणून घ्यायची इच्छाच नसते.

हे विदारक दृश्य कधी बदलेल? की आपण फक्त आशेवर जगायचे आणि आशेवरच मरायचे? प्रश्न विचारणारा माणूस आज संशयास्पद ठरतो, आणि निर्लज्जपणाला शहाणपणाचे लेबल लावले जाते. ही लोकशाहीची शोकांतिका नाही, तर लोकांच्या संयमाची परीक्षा आहे.

जोपर्यंत लोक स्वतःला फक्त मतदार नव्हे तर नागरिक समजणार नाहीत, तोपर्यंत ही क्रूर चेष्टा थांबणार नाही. सत्तेच्या खुर्च्या बदलतील, चेहरे बदलतील, पक्ष बदलतील. बदलणार नाही ती लोकांची हतबलता. आणि हीच या सगळ्याची सर्वात मोठी, सर्वात भीषण शोकांतिका आहे.