There is no itch-guard for fingering!

Raju Korti
Of the entire complex human anatomy, it is always the big players that hog the limelight -- the heart, the liver, the pancreas, the lungs -- et al, basking in their glow. The poor little finger hardly gets the nod. Nobody even thinks of writing an ode, forget a sonnet, for the finger. No one waxes poetic about its nimble dexterity or pointed poking. Little wonder, the finger suffers from a constant itch, a rebellion against its underappreciated existence. 

A GIF image

The finger, however, has its moments in the anatomy spotlight. All it has to do with its obtrusive personality is to is to tinker and probe posteriors. Except its owner's. So here is to the "finger" that does what comes best to its owners -- fingering. A tribute to the unsung hero and warrior vying for a place in human strife!

The finger, that diminutive, restless digit, has taken upon itself -- with understandable vengeance -- to get an itch for interference. All fingers have their roles, but the finger -- the one that can't sit still -- is uniquely equipped to poke, prod and stir with an almost hypnotic insistence. It has an inbuilt radar for naughtiness, trained to find the precise spot to press for maximum effect. You know what that spot is. I call it the G-spot.      

The finger is multi-talented and versatile. It is both a tool and a weapon, subtle yet relentless, with an itch that only intensifies with each jab. It has an innate ability for an unquenchable urge, forever in search of something -- or someone -- to butt in and justify its sadistic existence. The noble art of fingering transcends languages, cultures and generations. The itch turns the tool into a weapon by those who must poke and prod to keep the world buzzing with their unsolicited guidance.

The finger is "others' envy, owner's pride." You know their types. The itch inspires them for a mental nudge that leaves others scratching from their heads to their G-spot. The Finger Masters of the universe know there is no lotion to cure the irritation caused by them. Finger is a baton that can create a symphony of interruptions. More the chaffing, the sleeker it gets. Watching everyone squirm is their (seats, where else?) cherished sport and pastime.

The finger, like the terrorist, has no religion. It can be secular, liberal and conservative.  It is high time fingering is considered an international sport. With so many ardent practitioners and compulsive competitors, it should be given an Olympic status. Finger-waggers (my coinage, before you unleash your finger at me) deserve a special place in the hall of fame. If the cosmos has any sense of humour, it will bring a cutting edge to a competition where the war will will be fought with a finger of one hand while the other is busy shielding its own backside.              

While we live in a world where Finger Maestros reign supreme, ruling not with a heavy hand but a nimble finger, we must also understand that without them, life would be just a bit too finger(ing) free. So keep fingering. Ungli salaamat toh ...... 

Here is my ode to the finger and fingering.

Oh, the noble finger, restless and bold,
Forever itching, forever cold,
Heart and brain steal all the acclaim
You poke and prod your way to fame.
You ruffle feathers, you stir the broth
A reminder to all: I am here too.

Israel's UN rebuke, a growing rift in global diplomacy!

Raju Korti
Israel's decision to bar United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres from entering the country marks a significant diplomatic confrontation. It can be interpreted as a challenge to the UN's international standing. The move has come after Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz accused Guterres of being patently biased against Israel, calling him a 'persona non grata', a serious diplomatic term that signals a complete rejection of an individual's presence or involvement.

Antonio Guterres (un.org)

Guterres has expressed concerns regarding Israel's actions in recent conflicts, calling for humanitarian considerations and cautioning about civilian casualties. In the eyes of Israeli officials, these statement are one-sided, given the broader context of the conflict with Palestinian groups. By barring Guterres, Israel is sending a strong message that it will not tolerate what it perceives as unfair scrutiny, so what even if it came from the world's purported highest diplomatic office.

The recent escalation in the Israel conflict with Iran and Palestinian groups stems from a combination of long-standing regional tensions and more immediate triggers. Iran's support for Palestinian militant groups, particularly Hamas and Islamic Jihad, through funding, arms, and training, has intensified Israel's security concerns. Additionally, Israel's expanding settlements in the West Bank, coupled with military operations in Gaza, have provoked Palestinian groups, leading to retaliatory rocket attacks. Iran's broader regional strategy. aimed at countering Israeli influence through proxy forces across the Middle East, further fuels the conflict, creating a volatile cycle of provocations and military responses. This dynamic is compounded by failed peace negotiations and deep political divisions on both sides.      

While the move to bar the United Nations chief is being dubbed as a bold political manoeuvre, it is not entirely unprecedented for the countries to clash with UN chiefs. However, such a direct barring of Secretary-General is very rare. I do not know if this has happened ever before. Previous instances of tension between countries and the UN leadership have typically and conventionally played out through diplomatic channels or through public criticisms, but formal bans like this?

Israel believes that this is the Secretary General who has yet to denounce the massacre and sexual atrocities committed by Hamas murderers, nor has he led any efforts to declare them a terrorist organization. "A Secretary-General who gives backing to terrorists, rapists and murderers from Hamas, Hezbollah, and now Iran -- the mothership of global terror -- will be remembered as a stain on the history of UN. Israel will continue to defend its citizens and uphold its national dignity with or without Antonio Guterres". That is as unequivocal as it can get when diplomatically worded statements leave a lot for interpretation.   

This decision has broader implications for the UN's status as an impartial global body. The Secretary-General's role is to mediate conflicts and address issues impartially, but barring him from entering Israel undermines the UN's ability to act as an unbiased peace broker. Furthermore, this could set a precedent and encourage other nations with grievances against the UN to adopt similar tactics, potentially weakening the organization's influence. The UN as it is, doesn't have much sway and has been known to be a stooge of the US, which is even more befuddling.

In the broader geopolitical context, such actions risk deepening international divisions and further complicating efforts for peace in conflict zones. I feel this could be viewed both a symbolic and practical blow to the UN's authority on the global stage. The UN holds significant authority on the world stage stage as a central forum for international diplomacy, conflict resolutions, and humanitarian efforts. It brings together 193 member states to address global challenges like peacekeeping, climate change and human rights. However, its influence is often constricted by the competing interests of its most powerful members, particularly the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) -- United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom , and France -- who wield veto power. Among these, the US has traditionally held sway due to its financial contributions, military might, and diplomatic leverage.

The pitch is queered by other P5 members like China and Russia who often challenge US influence, particularly on issues related to international security, reflecting the geopolitical power dynamics that shape the UN's capacity to act. As a result, the UN has only moral authority and a broad mandate, and its practical influence is often shaped by the interests of these global powers. 

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. 

On a tourist visa, a visitor, refugee, or asylum-seeker? What exactly?

Raju Korti
The clarification by the Government of India on Bangladesh's former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina staying in India longer than expected, once again brings into sharp focus the necessity for at least some workable protocol on the issue of refugees or asylum seekers. For the record, as it has been given to understand, Hasina's stay has been granted on visa and is not in the category of a refugee or asylum. The deposed Prime Minister is now in India along with her sister after fleeing from a chaos that has multiple dimensions to it.

Hasina, a file grab from Doordarshan.

There were reports that she might seek asylum in UK where her niece is a Labour Party member but it doesn't seem to be working out. She is now believed to be angling for the UAE or some amenable European country to provide shelter. If her safe departure is not working out in any country at the moment is because there are no refugee or asylum laws in India. The official take is that such laws have deliberately not been brought in for reasons that are not far to seek. The only exception is Dalai Lama, who enjoys his residence in India as government's policy decision.

The apprehensions are, asylum and refugee laws are a global issue, creating problems worldwide. Authorities fear that once refugee or asylum status is given, they demand rights and go to courts, creating more problems. The government's policy of allowing to stay someone in the country on a case-to-case basis, sums up the play-it-safe approach and not go in for a specific law. In India's case, it has a more serious implications given the kind of neighbours it is condemned to put up with. The UK is already ruing its decision and is contemplating of repealing the asylum law after being rocked by riots by immigrants/asylum seekers.

In my blog on September 9, 2015, I had stated that the bigger question was how should humanity deal with a crisis of plenty unleashed by wars, ethnic strife and civil warns. As the situations stands, thousands of such people cross borders to either find respite or foment trouble, and even at the governmental level, it is difficult to discern who is who. Opinions, of course, vary from case to case. From suggesting Europe and the US to step up to pleading rich Gulf countries using their enormous wealth, there is a spectrum, but international diplomacy and politics are not necessarily guided by compunctions or human conscience. 

As the issue of refugees or asylum seekers escalates into a profound global crisis, it accentuates the intricate interplay or geopolitical, economic and human factors, which means nations are in a state of perpetual dilemma of dealing with it. As conflicts, persecution and environmental disasters force millions to flee their homes, the international community faces mounting pressure to address the issue. The international response varies significantly, ranging from open-door policies to restrictive measures. This disparity not only highlights the uneven distribution of responsibility but also underscores the challenges of creating a cohesive, effective global strategy for refugee management. 

The ramifications of the refugee crisis extends far beyond immediate humanitarian concerns. Economically, countries hosting large refugee influx grapple with the costs of providing food and shelter, healthcare and education. This puts an untold burden on the state's coffers and infrastructural resources although there is an argument that refugees can contribute positively to the economy through labour and entrepreneurship. Above all, politically, the influx of refugees fuels debates about national security, cultural identity, and immigration policy, often leading to heightened tensions and polarizations within the societies.     

It is obvious that on a broader scale, the international legal framework designed to protect refugees faces significant strains. This is evident from the fact that the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol establishing essential principles for refugee protection, has suffered from inconsistent implementation. Most countries find it tricky to adhere to these standards in the midst of popular sentiments and political pressures. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR) stands hampered because of limited resources and the complex realities of modern displacement.

India has learnt its lesson, thanks to Bangladesh that fragmented from Pakistan in 1971 when lakhs of refugees spilled across to India ostensibly to escape Pakistan Prime Minister Bhutto's tyranny. India accommodated them all as guests in a humanitarian gesture. The irony of this all is the country India helped liberate is itself in throes of uncertainty. The refugee issue is now more of a security issue.

The teams are the same but the players are different and the pitch even more queered. A result is anybody's guess. Hasina is just a spot in that unpredictable pitch.

Existential crisis, an eternally tangled knot

Raju Korti
Caught in the throes of existential contemplation, I have been wading through a murky fog of uncertainty in recent years. People call it existential crisis triggered by life's trials and tribulations. I call it so because it is a period of profound doubt and confusion about the meaning, purpose and value of one's life. In my case, it stems from two outcomes of life's trials -- errors and tribulations. Each worse than the other.

Long bouts with philosophical introspection tell me that this is a feeling of alienation -- a feeling of empty distance and non-belonging. This feeling of "otherness", of being like everyone else around, is characterized by anxiety, loneliness, boredom, meaninglessness and absurdity. Most people understand it as the Hamlet's contemplation of "to be or not to be" as life suddenly holds no meaning with the attendant detachment towards very existence. I feel like isolated or am out of place. Not a philosopher by any stretch, I do not now if it is a vibe or a defect. What felt like solitude initially now turns out to be alienation.

Some people tell me this is absolutely normal and that the feeling of detachment is not a disease but actually a blessing in disguise. In my limited wisdom, I am not qualified to comment or decide about that in my perpetual confusion. What I know for sure is I do not feel connected with most of the people I meet in life. It is a trait that is commonly misunderstood as ego or self-image. In all probability, my disconnection results from the dissatisfaction with what my life is. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how it ought to be, either!

A psychologist has given an interesting perspective. He believes this is my inner guidance leading me to what my body and soul needs. Getting away from people sometimes gives you time and space to realign yourself. I do not know how that can happen but am inclined to think that my sense of detachment has arisen from two factors. When you don't feel you are being heard or matter, or have an experience that prevents you from involving yourself. I am amazed by the inherent contrast that existentialism owes its very existence to trials, errors and tribulations. "Who am I" or "What am I" are questions that render everything else in life almost meaningless.

I do not know if I am one of those who find themselves drifting towards a state of detachment and meaninglessness. Trials and tribulations spare no one. I have had personal struggles, professional setbacks and a constant flow of unforeseen obstacles. I would be lying if I said these all tested my resilience or pushed my boundaries. I preferred to run away from them, the adversities never bringing in their wake even an iota of empathy. 

The more I introspect on them, the deeper I am mired by existential questions. I doubt anyone, deeply submerged in today's material, worldly and consumerist mindset, would have the time and inclination to be bothered but life is a great leveller. I am sure one day, they would be as clueless, feel as meaningless and live in a vacuum as I do now. 

The only bottom line to life is it has to go on. For, life itself is detached. Once you make peace with the fact that it is just a mosaic of moments where you dance between grasping the present and letting go of the past, you either become a philosopher or a practical consumerist. I am neither, and hence the existential question of "to be or not to be"!