The weight of Existence: Finding clarity amidst crises

Raju Korti
Since reaching my mid-life, I find myself becoming increasingly philosophical, reflecting more deeply on the nature of existence and the purpose behind everything I do. The once-straightforward path of life now feels riddled with complex questions -- questions about meaning, mortality, and my place in the universe. This growing philosophical outlook has led to moments of existential crisis, where the routines and roles I had previously found comfort in seem empty and insignificant. Sometimes meaningless.

As life progresses -- if it really does -- I often feel caught in a tug-of-war between the pursuit of purpose and the overwhelming sense of life's inherent absurdity. This shift in my perspective has forced me to confront the darker aspects of existence, leaving me more cynical more than occasionally, yet more introspective. It is a mirage that I may or may not find. I do not care either ways. But in this struggle, writing has emerged as my way of processing these thoughts, providing me with a semblance of clarity and personal meaning amidst the uncertainty.

I have been thinking too much about Existentialism and Existential Crises of late. It has occured to my limited and amateur senses that Existentialism is a philosophy that confronts the very core of human existence. It asks the most unsettling of questions: Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Wittingly or unwittingly, these thoughts are shaping up my persona and psyche, often leaving me on the edge of doubt and cynicism. I have found myself grappling with existential crises more often than before -- times when life feels meaningless and every pursuit futile.

These crises have arrived in different forms. Sometimes, they creep in during moments of introspection, making me question the purpose of my actions and relationships. At other times, they have hit me like a storm when faced with the fleeting and ephemeral nature of life. The awareness of mortality has often weighed heavily on me, making it hard to find joy in the present or hope for the future. This constant questioning has made me cynical as I begin to see the futility of societal  structures, norms and the rat race we all are part of. The illusion of meaning we create to keep ourselves busy often feels like a farce.

However, despite the dark nature of these thoughts, they have also made me more self-aware. My personality has evolved into one that values authenticity over pretension. I have become more sensitive to the human condition. In a way, the struggle with meaninglessness has deepened my understanding of life's fleeting and transient nature, pushing me to seek moments of genuine connection and purpose. If you think this as the work of narcissistic mind, be it.

Writing has been my refuge, shelter and haven in their similar connotations. When the burden of these existential thoughts becomes too heavy, writing allows me to process, reflect, and sometimes even resolve them. Through (the act of) writing, I try to create my own meaning. Each word I exercise on the page serves as a reminder that while life's meaning may be subjective or elusive, I have the power to define or redefine it for myself, Writing gives me control over the chaos, making it an antidote to the existential despair I often feel. It helps me embrace the uncertainty, not as a burden but as a space for personal growth.

Amidst the questions and uncertainties, writing has become my anchor -- a way to navigate the turbulent waters of mid-life's philosophical reawakening. In each word I find meaning even when life feels meaningless. It offers me solace, a reminder that while I may not have all the answers, I have the power to create my own. Through writing, I am learning to embrace the unknown not as something to fear but as an invitation to grow, reflect and find beauty in the search itself. As I bore in one of my earlier blogs on Quantum Physics, the travel is more intriguing and rejuvenating than  the destination.                  

A mindless tactic called "mind games"

Raju Korti
In keeping with their utterly misplaced belief of "playing cricket the hard way" -- whatever that means -- Australian spinner Nathan Lyon has smugly predicted that Australians will whitewash India 5-0 in the ensuing Border-Gavaskar Trophy. Now Lyon is no soothsayer. He does what most overseas cricketers, especially the Australians have been doing doing, and pompously called as "mind games". It is an old hat that has already outlived its utility in times of high stakes cut-throatism.

A representational pic.

In the modern era of cricket, mind games have become increasingly redundant, meaningless, and largely ineffective. While psychological tactics once held value in unsettling opponents, today's professional cricketers armed with sports psychologists, data analysts and immense mental resilience, are far less susceptible to such strategies. If they can be called strategies at all.

Lyon's prediction of a 5-0 win for Australia is a classic example of mind games in a game that thrives on its so called "glorious uncertainties". The idea is to plant seeds of doubts in the opposition's mind. In this case, the ones on whose soil they come to play in an annual jamboree. Unfortunately for Lyon and his "hard playing" team-mates, India having made short work of Australia in consecutive Test series, including the famous 2020-21 victory in Australia despite a heavily depleted squad, is not going to be fazed by such comments. Players today are not only physically prepared but also mentally fortified to handle the pressures and verbal barrages that comes with high-stakes cricket.

Mind games also have this disconcerting trend of boomeranging on those who deploy them. Remember how during the 2019 Ashes Australian skipper Tim Paine famously sledged Jofra Archer trying to throw him off his game. Instead, Archer's response was swift and clinical. He produced a match-winning bowling spell that left the Australians reeling. Through their "mind games" Australia snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Just a day before, Bangladesh wicketkeeper aimed to throw the ball at Rishabh Pant's injured leg instead of the stumps. Pant gave it back to him with interest. Wasn't it the same Border-Gavaskar Trophy that after having made tall claims of routing India 4-1, Sehwag responded by saying India would thrash Australia 3-0. Which is what finally happened.

In a time where professional athletes are more attuned to the mental aspects of the game relying on mind games to gain advantage seems futile and counter-productive. Performance on the field now decisively overshadows attempts to rattle opponents through psychological warfare.

The proliferation of media and social platforms has diluted the impact of mind games. What was once a controlled tactic, exchanged within the confines of press conferences or the field is now quickly dissected and debunked by even half an analyst, commentator or fans online. Players often themselves respond with humour or dismissive gestures on social media further reducing the sting of such poor ploys. In this eco-system, actions on the field dominate the narrative, leaving verbal jabs more as fleeting distractions rather than strategic tools. Today's cricketers are trained to focus solely on performance, making mind games an outdated and ineffective practice. The ridicule that the team subjects itself to is the proverbial insult to the injury.

Forget sportsman's spirit. Rubbing a competitive rival the wrong way could potentially backfire. Moral of the story: Don't shoot off with your mouth. Let your game do all the talking.

India won't hand over Hasina on a platter!

Raju Korti
This is for the naysayers who have already started writing the epitaph of deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina and are arguing about her possible extradition back to Bangladesh as India's "diplomatic failure." The entire premise is based on the so called efficacy of an extradition treaty between two countries. Extradition treaties are good on paper but many countries use them selectively, not feeling under any obligation to honour them. I have doubts whether the present dispensation in New Delhi will be inclined to go by the rule book.

Hasina: A Wikipedia grab

Declaring Sheikh Hasina's stay in India and the possibility of her extradition as a "diplomatic failure" is premature and overlooks the complexities and expediencies of the ground realities. The circumstances surrounding her exile are fluid with numerous legal, political and humanitarian factors at play. I think India's decision-making process might be guided by careful consideration of regional stability, international law, and bilateral relations rather than by immediate pressure.

Prematurely labelling this situation as a failure is akin to writing an epitaph before all avenues have been explored. Diplomatic efforts are often known to require time, negotiation, and strategic patience, and India has a range of options to address this sensitive issue without compromising its stand on the global stage. If by any chance India does not honour the extradition treaty with Bangladesh, it will not be the first to dishonour the treaty. Nor will it be the last. Bigger and powerful countries do not have an exactly unblemished record in honouring extradition treaties. If the obligations of extradition treaty were to be fulfilled in toto without any extraneous considerations, India would have got its share of the culpable long time back. 

There is no doubt that India's situation regarding Sheikh Hasina's potential extradition presents a delicate diplomatic challenge but it need not be labelled a "diplomatic failure". India has a range of strategic options to navigate this scenario while maintaining its diplomatic integrity. With a man like S Jaishankar at the helm of foreign ministry, there is no way India will hand over Hasina to Bangladesh on a platter. 

To begin with, India might emphasize its commitment to human rights and international law. Before laughing this off, cynics will do well to realize that many countries are hypocritical about human rights and the efficacy of international law. They are just red herrings. By highlighting concerns about the fairness of any trial Sheikh Hasina might face in Bangladesh, India could argue that extradition would be  premature and unjust. This approach also allows India to position itself as a protector of democratic values and human rights which can resonate with the international community. It will also amount to speaking the same pompous language that Washington speaks. In doing so, India could avoid the perception of failing diplomatically by reframing the situation as one where moral principles guide its decision (not necessarily always policy).    

Secondly, India can leverage its role as a regional stabilizer. India has long been seen as a key player in maintaining stability in South Asia. In the present context, it could argue that Hasina's safety is crucial for regional peace, and any hasty decision could destabilize the region. Bangladesh itself is in throes of instability although an interim government is in place. The tenuousness of such governments is often under question going by past records. By positioning itself as a guardian of regional stability, India can rationalize a more cautious and prudent approach to the situation, sidestepping accusations of diplomatic failure.

Thirdly, India can engage in quiet diplomacy. By working behind the scenes with both Bangladeshi authorities and international partners, India can seek a resolution that satisfies all parties without publicly appearing to capitulate. Quiet diplomacy allows India to secure a breather and explore compromises such as seeking assurances from Bangladesh regarding the treatment of Hasina, thereby preserving the sanctity of its diplomatic standing.

Lastly, India can use international forums to delay any decision, buying time to negotiate a more favourable outcome. By seeking multilateral support, India can shift the narrative from one of potential failure to one of measured, responsible diplomacy. 

The crudest method would be to dishonour the treaty blatantly. Most of them, as they are, have some leeway. Extradition treaties are followed more in breach than practice. Having one is as good or as bad as having no extradition treaty. Who cares? That is the sum and substance of international law.