Veritas Numquam Perit – Or maybe it does!!!
Pop culture has always been a big head turner and one of the many few things that transcend beyond territorial and cultural boundaries. The attention further intensifies manifold when an ugly spat turns into a serious but binge-worthy courtroom drama. Be it the RDJ on drugs charges, Sean Penn for domestic assault against his wife, or Emma Roberts for domestic abuse, everybody around the world was glued to their tv screens, ruffling through the legal articles just to ascertain their stand on the whole matter. The newest hot-potato was the $50 million defamation suit filed by the Pirates of the Caribbean fame actor Johnny Depp against his ex-wife only to be served with a counter suit from the latter for $100 million.
The news spread like wildfire particularly as Depp had already lost the libel case against a British tabloid The Sun, in Britain, that referred to the actor as a ‘wife-beater’ in 2020. The consequences of which, were immense. The actor was thrown out of his signature franchise “Pirates of the Caribbean” courtesy to the Walt Disney Studios. Depp further also had to wash his hands from exuberant endorsements. The life of the 58-year-old role turned upside down and rightfully so. It was only in 2022 that the resurrection of Johnny Depp happened after winning the case and his fandom absolutely plummeted post his victory against ‘Aquaman actor Amber Heard in the defamation suit.
So, a series of questions look for their loci in the global mainframe. What went right or wrong for either of the parties from 2020 to 2022? How did the universal opinion unanimously align with the decision of the Jury in Fairfax County Court in Virginia? Is Amber Heard really a vulture that the world believes she is or was she just not smart enough to project her views as articulately as Depp did, or is it the legal team to be blamed for? Why did Johnny Depp lose his libel suit in the UK but won in the US? And most importantly, as. both the parties are well-known, renowned celebrities who enjoy a global fan-following, was televising the case which involves plenty of greys, enough for the social, print, and digital media to influence, instigate and vilify the opinion of lay-men, a wise decision?
The Trajectory – 2020-2022
The two actors married each other in 2015 after living together since 2012. However, the couple separated 15 months later and Heard filed for divorce on 23rd May 2016. It was only on 27th May 2016 when the divorce proceedings got turned into a media spectacle as Heard made her way into the California state Court with bruises on her face, submitting a plea before the court seeking a restraining order against Depp. Heard submitted that Johnny Depp has had a history of being extremely violent and that living with him would be akin to putting herself through an unparalleled dread of being terrorized, both physically and emotionally. She also contended that there have been various episodes of domestic violence, a few of them being extremely aggravated and life-threatening.
Relying on the testimonies of Amber Heard, the California state court issued a Temporary Restraining Order against Johnny Depp and also disposed of an order requiring Depp to attend 52 weeks of anger management courses. As is the case of Civil Restraining Orders, the party against whom the order is being issued need not appear before the court during the Restraining Orders proceedings. The same happened with Depp, although subsequent hearing dates were set for Depp to be able to present his side. However, those dates never saw the light of the day as the couple reached an agreement on 16th August 2016. One of the terms of the agreement entailed that the restraining orders would be ‘dismissed with prejudice’ elucidating that the case is settled once and for all and couldn’t be brought back to the court. Furthermore, in absence of a pre-nuptial agreement between the two, Depp paid $7 million which she pledged to charity, as a part of their divorce settlement.
The Libel Suit – 2018
An article dated 27th April 2018 published in a British tabloid ‘The Sun’ written by Dan Wotton, highlighted that the famous ‘Harry Potter’ book-writer J.K. Rowling is subject to huge backlash and uproar from the “#Metoo” community against her for being fine the production company signing Johnny Depp for the then-upcoming movie “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ in 2018. The article vehemently questioned Depp’s casting ahead of domestic accusations against the very actor. The article furthermore referred the Depp as a wife-beater, assaulted, etc. based on the California State Court Proceedings.
The article’s stringent remarks were directed at Depp; the actor consequently sued the magazine for libel in June 2018. However, the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) while presiding over the matter, decided that the remarks published by the magazine were substantially true. Furthermore, the Court also found that a great majority of alleged assaults on Amber by Johnny were proved to the civil standard. The court also observed that Heard’s allegations against Depp have had a negative effect on her career as an actor and activist, taking Depp’s influence in the industry and global fan following into consideration. The Court also opined that certain excerpts of assaults were a reflection of Depp’s dominant ‘monster side’ character which inherently was psycho-symptomatic in nature. Furthermore, the court also discarded a major chunk of Depp’s evidence which rested upon Heard being a gold-digger and therefore fabricating emails, and text messages to build up a dossier to be later used as an insurance policy. However, the Court drew observation of Heard’s infamous ‘pledge’ of donating $7 million to charity and called it an act contravent to that of a gold-digger.
The Libel Suit – 2019
Post winning the libel suit in 2018, Amber Heard emerged as a flag-bearer of the #METOO movement and was appreciated and encouraged by society, especially women victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault. In an embodiment of a new image as a ‘feminist activist’ and an ambassador of women’s rights at the American Civil Liberties Union, Heard wrote an opinion piece in 2018 for the Washington Post. The actor, drawing attention to the #MeToo movement, highlighted that ‘women have always confronted men who are buoyed by social, economic and cultural power’. She further spoke about her own personal instances as to how she was abused from an early age and the latest infamous abuse within marital bonds.
The article was vehemently titled – “I spoke up against sexual violence- and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to Change.” Objecting to the article which was conveniently directed at Depp, the actor sued Heard for libel in March in 2019 for $50 Million. The suit was filed just to be reckoned with a counter-suit for 100$ Million by Heard. The case was listed on the docket at Virginia county where the Washington Post printing press operates.
The proceedings were televised and the globe was glued to their tv screens, and mobile phones just to have a visual input of two well-known celebrities having it at each other for the world to treat it as a weekend binger and nothing else. Everything was photographed, all of it was for the world to comment upon. From making an entrance to the screams of “Johnny, Johnny, Johnny’ to getting out and signing autographs, Depp was already a victor. Amber, on the other hand, was subject to memes made out of her testimonies to get huge backlash from varied social media accounts. It would not be wrong to say that trial was unidirectional from the very start. The overwhelming support for Depp outgrew the public mocking of Heard. Nonetheless, Johnny Depp was awarded damages worth $15 million while Heard also got compensatory damages worth of $2 million.
But the question here arises, are the vilifying and disturbing memes and round-the-clock media trials enough to hamper the course of Justice and Law? If yes, then how can a layperson trust the judiciary with its independent and uninfluenced nature intact? And if not, then how did Johnny Depp win the libel suit here in the US but not in the UK?
Why Depp lose in the UK but won in the US
While both the countries endorse the spirit of free speech and expression, the US is a bit more liberal in preserving that sentiment. Furthermore, the legal proceedings of the cases related to defamation are vastly different in both countries. A major one being, that in the UK the burden of proof lies with the defendant whilst in the US, it lies with the complainant. Hence, it naturally makes it easier for the person in the US to be dominant in proceedings and cross-examination than in the UK wherein the person on the dock is just at the mercy of the questions posed by the complainant.
Furthermore, in the UK, the plaintiff just has to show that false and defamatory statements were made but in the US, the plaintiff also has to prove an added element of actual malice. Hence, as opposed to But, the most important distinguishing factor between the two was the fact that in the UK, there was a single judge as opposed to a jury in the US. As a result, it was easier to convince a jury who were subject to access media debates and even stayed with their family at their domestic homes during the course of trial and inadvertently indulged in discussions about the case, which ideally a jury is not supposed to.
The legal team of Johnny Depp is equally to be appreciated for their strategy. They used a very common but efficient defense strategy known as ‘DARVO’ (Deny, Attack and Reverse Victim and Offender) which conveniently turned Depp into a victim and Heard the abuser by absolutely steering away the suit matter from defamation to a case of Domestic abuse and violence. Keeping a women attorney to lead the cross of Amber Heard further aided Depp’s defense. Consequently, social media was influenced. The famous #justiceforjohnnydepp hashtag received 19 billion views on Tik Tok and trended for weeks on Twitter, which drew more public attention to the trial. The polls suggested that people were more interested in the courtroom drama than the ongoing war in Ukraine or the matter of revising Abortion laws resting before the Supreme Court.
The transparency of courts is a big debate that time and again resurfaces itself for various eminent reasons. The idea was to make it accessible to the general public so that the public can get acquainted with the judicial system and befriend it for their cause. At the same time, it was to be made accountable for the system to entrust it and rectify the shortcomings if any. However, in the present case, the transparency has only backfired. It caused more headaches than it cured and this attracts the question of televising cases based on merits and parties involved. However, censoring televised court proceedings can hurt ‘equality’ sentiment; the very spine of any judicial system. Nevertheless, the judicial system needs to revisit the televising protocols when it comes to high-profile cases, as televising only seems to hurt the process of law rather than making it smooth.
Defense Cess – The Need or The Want of Need
With the Finance Ministry coming down heavily on the Fifteenth Financial Commission on the latter’s suggestion for creating a ‘Defense Modernization Fund’, the question pesters the general public at large as to whether a separate defense cess is really required. Seemingly, the capital needs of the Indian military do not seem to be a problematic scheme. It rather appears to envisage a separately structured funding program in furtherance of enabling the Indian military to work in a more well-ordered manner.
WHY THE FUSS?
The root of every operative that there is, is guided by the procedure laid under the Indian Constitution. Hence, a casual read of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution elucidates the responsibilities between the Union and the States. Subjects such as defense, and foreign affairs are on the Union list while responsibilities like public order, healthcare, etc. fall under the purview of the State List. The third list, i.e., the Concurrent List is a unique, centralizing feature adopted from the British Raj, that embodies the fundamentals of federalism. The list has both State and Union play a role with powers tilting towards the latter. It was due to this provision only that the government brought in the farm laws. However, while a large section of funds and resources rests with the Union in New Delhi, expenditure of those funds is at the behest of different States, the taxes of which is collected by New Delhi. Hence, the Financial Commission of today now distributes the revenue collected by the Centre to various States and therefore, supervises the financial commitments of the States and the Union.
Now, the problem with the creation of a special fund – in this case for ‘defense’- creates a special third category along with Union and State. Theoretically, the Finance Commission therefore will inadvertently split monies between Union, State, and the Defense Fund. It is interesting to note that the defense is a subject already under the Union List and therefore, the creation of a third category would only cause stress for States to give up funds for defense. Now much like the game of dominoes, if one separate fund is created, many other demands for the creation of special pockets for every governance function would surface, which would unnecessarily create disruption of the flow of funds to the subjects in either of the lists and therefore would go far beyond the provisions prescribed under the Seventh Schedule in the Constitution. Hence the downpour of the Financial Ministry on the 15th Financial Commission for the reasons that setting up a separate fund for a function that is already covered under the Union’s List is against good parliamentary practice is perfectly valid.
While the Finance Ministry may have rebuffed the request to create a different fund for Defense, it is however significant to understand how such a report was allowed to be tabled before the ministry in the first place. NK Singh, the chairman of the 15th Finance Commission, when posed with similar questions, contended that as per the legal opinion he received, the defense was a “shared responsibility of the Union and the states”. Defense is explicitly mentioned as the subject under Union List and the closest thing that resembles an iota of Defense is ‘Public Order’ which falls under the State List. In no way whatsoever, can anyone with the caliber and prudence as that of NK Singh can conclude that Defense is a shared subject. Furthermore, he also remarked that Finance Commission transcends the classification in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which is simply an inexplicable argument. Finance Commission is in no way empowered to transcend any part of the Indian Constitution, especially something as critical as the Seventh Schedule.
Another interesting aspect here is the branding of the ‘defense’ fund as cess. Tax and Cess are two different contributions to State welfare. While Tax is already existing in the form of GST and Income Tax, a cess is imposed as an additional tax besides the existing tax (Tax on Tax). Now while the former is kept in the Consolidated Fund of India CFI for the government to use it for any purposes it deems fit, the latter, though also kept in the CFI, can be used by the government after due appropriation from Parliament for ‘specified purpose’. Now, what rebranding of ‘general tax’ as ‘cess’ does is that it brings any revenue generated through cess under the ambit of ‘specified purpose’ resulting in states sharing any of that revenue. Statistically, cesses and surcharges that were around 10% in 2010-11 are almost doubled in the year 2021 figuring around 19.9%. This increase in cesses and surcharges is shrinking the divisive pool between State and Union, leaving States bleeding out to dry. Therefore, to have a defense cess under the ‘specified purpose’ funds would only hurt the States of the Country as the gap between State and Union’s resources would further increase.
THE NEED OR THE WANT OF NEED?
The Union in 2019, empowered the Finance Commission with additional Terms of Reference to enable it to make a suggestion on how to create the fund. Defense Ministry further stressed on the need to increase focus on national security and warranted states to share the financial burden of maintaining and upgrading the security apparatus, including buying weapons from global suppliers, etc. Defense Ministry urged that subjects like Terrorism, insurgency, and securing national borders should be recognized as a shared responsibility for the Union and States, rather than leaving it just for the Union to take care of. The demand though extremely urgent goes beyond the nexus of the Constitution. Furthermore, the 10th Finance Commission also laid down the principle that cess and surcharge should be temporary and rare.
Union has always been seen complaining about limited resources and funds and yet does not shy away from spending money on subjects concerning the State List. Cribbing about not having enough money to fund its core function of defense and catering to the electoral compulsions by spending money on state subjects – Union has only made things difficult for itself and confusing for the public at large. A demand from the Home Ministry for a seed corpus of Rs. 50,000 crores to be carved out of dues from States for Central Armed Forces deployment is simply a result of the Union being derelict in its responsibilities. The constitutional remit of defense is often sidelined during elections and therefore, it is natural for the union to have a dry state of funds to cater to its core duty. It is therefore the job of the Finance Commission to stop the political drivers in their path and prevent populist rhetoric from influencing devolution. Instead, the Commission seems to be a puppet of the Union, to say the least.
Sports beyond Cricket
A fanatic obsession with one wing of thought or expression is detrimental for other notions to find their locus-standi.
India is a Cricket-loving nation and has been once since time immemorial. The land of agriculture finally got its glorified version of gilli-danda when the British Sailors set their course towards India in the 18th century. Since then, India has never looked back and has enjoyed tremendous success both domestically and internationally. Having set up stupendous milestones in the sport, the Indian Cricket Board, BCCI, has even superseded the International Cricket Council, in terms of worth and financial play. Indian Cricket has further produced many superstars of the game, which are no less than Gods for the Indian Public. However, this unidirectional growth and unilateral development have only fuelled the pockets of agencies associated with Cricket. The over-involvement of Indians with cricket has never let other sports grow at a similar pace and scale. Even the course of Women Cricket is also a lukewarm tea for Indian watchers and hence no populous media coverage and satellite rights are awarded to Women Cricket, keeping it just sufficiently afloat.
In this time and age, where even mobile games are considered as E-sports and have their own sets of enthusiasts and fanciers, organizing and participating in virtual tournaments, Cricket cannot stay as the epicenter of Indian Sports. The management, organizing committees, students of sports, and most importantly, Indian sports watchers need to look past the Cricket-lens and open their arms for sports beyond Cricket to thrive in the Indian circuit. It is not just the investing agencies and handling committees who should be blamed for the misfortune of other sports. It is the people of India who have given Step-Motherly treatment to our national game – Hockey or forced many athletes to sell their Olympic medals and carry out menial jobs. Upliftment or improvement, be it cinema, politics or sports is a Quid-pro-Quo game. If people are not interested in watching a certain sport, then the cause of private investors and government bodies to whole-heartedly invest in the sport would simply cease and vice-versa.
With the new blood of millennials looking for options beyond cricket even just for the sake of virality, shores for other sports have opened. Beginning with the commercialized Kabaddi league and domestic soccer leagues, the satellite viewership and even the number of stadium spectators have grown. 2016 marked a significant year with respect to non-cricket sports as it observed a sharp rise in Kabaddi sponsorship alone. But how is it that Cricket, a widely known and accessible market with domestic leagues running beyond a decade and housing international brands, is no longer a go-to option for the market to captivate the audience? Is the population’s hunger for virality in viewership sports the only reason for the growth in non-cricket sports or is there something more?
Non-Cricket Sports – A new chapter in Indian Sports
The sheer need for virality cannot be the only reason for non-cricket sports to stem up. India has always been a cricket-loving nation and that sentiment is intact at its core. But it would not be wrong to state that there has been an evident paradigm shift in viewership taste, brands and sponsorers approach, and even State recognitions. According to the data published by Broadcast Audience Research Council, BARC, in 2018, though cricket was the most watched sport in the country, football has gained popularity with a 50 percent rise in viewership. Regional channels have further facilitated the reach of non-cricket sports to a wider audience. FIFA World Cup 2018 was aired in Malayalam and Bangla, giving it a major surge in the football-loving linguistic states. Furthermore, it has also been the surge of digital games especially FIFA, that has encouraged youngsters to dwell more into the sport whilst enjoying the immersive experience.
The overdose of cricket has also tested the patience of the public. IPL which is fairly one of the most celebrated domestic cricket leagues in the world, also irked the audience when it ran for almost 3 months in its last edition. However, it is just not the audience and sports enthusiasts that were tested. Each year with the new IPL edition around the corner, the tournament challenges brands to push the envelope. Slogans are changed, the packaging is revised; the need to create an overall new identity never ends. Whilst the core of IPL always strives to give the feeling of being one with all of India with its ever-changing slogans and taglines, it’s ultimately the game and its long schedule that inadvertently becomes too much to bear.
Cricket naturally triggers a visceral attachment for Indians, and sports like kabaddi, football, and wrestling comes with a more local, rural, and community feel. Cricket being a mass sport disguisedly invites brands and sponsors to move over to localized sports to advertise their products on. For instance, a brand that sells ghee would naturally prefer a more local sport instead of a mass sport to fix its banners on. Retrospectively, it would also sit well with the viewers to have a bulked-up wrestler have a generous amount of ghee instead of a lean cricketer. Furthermore, sports like Kabaddi, an Indian-homed and nurtured sport that has conducted international world cups on Indian soil, facilitate a different kind of connection to the rural side of the country. People in rural areas may fancy a glamorous Virat Kohli hitting an absolutely scintillating cover drive, but they surely would worship a different kind of athleticism – raw, earthy, and contrastingly opposite to ‘cosmopolitan’. Rural backing to a sport and players is a significant aspect and is one of the many reasons that it catapulted, MS Dhoni, a nobody from Ranchi to superstardom as a large sect of people in India found him more relative.
Social media has further added another platform for non-cricket players to amplify their stories and incidents and give their admirers a chance to see a humane side of them beyond sports. CRED, a credit card bill payment platform, immediately captured the glory of Olympic Medal- winner Neeraj Chopra and made a popular ad that was widely well received. People got to see a more funny, humane, and relatable side of the player that aided CRED as well as the player in great reception from the public.
Non-cricket sports are still a tough nut to crack. Numerous instances depict that a sport other than cricket is only celebrated when a player wins a medal or if the country wins. Instances where Para-athletics were not provided with shabby flats and dysfunctional toilets at the 15th National Para-Athletic Championships, or numerous bronze medal players selling their laurels and working as domestic helps for their bread and butter, hurts the conscience and raise critical questions against the management. Broadcasters and brads are yet not completely ‘in it to win it’ mode. But the experimental phase of non-cricket sports is critical for the growth of India in sports in its entirety.
Dubious Donation Causes Controversy: Prince Charles’ Charity under Scrutiny
According to The Sunday Times, the patriarch of the vast and prosperous Saudi family, Bakr bin Laden, and his brother Shafiq donated money to the Prince of Wales’ Charitable Fund in 2013. They are both half-brothers of the deceased US special forces agent who served as the al-Qaida head and planner of the September 11 attacks on the US and was murdered in Pakistan in 2011. According to the newspaper, Charles and Bakr met in 2013 in London and decided that Charles should receive the present. It said that advisors had advised the heir to the throne not to accept the donation, citing unknown sources.
The gift was given to the Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund (PWCF), which distributes funds to non-profit organisations with UK registrations to carry out projects within the UK, the Commonwealth, and beyond. PWCF had convinced Clarence House that “thorough due diligence” had been done, and the trustees were in charge of deciding whether or not to accept the funds, according to Clarence House. Any attempt to portray it differently is untrue, it reportedly informed the BBC. Additionally, Clarence House stated that it disagreed with some statements made in the newspaper report.
Nothing has been illegal or against the law. The donation was approved after all necessary checks were made and even the Foreign Office was consulted.
Then why is this a Global Headline?
The family of Bin Laden disowned him in 1994, and there is no evidence that his half-brothers were involved in his actions. According to a source from the Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund, Osama Bin Laden’s “sins of the father” should not prevent other members of the family from making a donation. which is reasonable.
The name of Bin Laden is completely benign to millions of Saudis. It will always be linked to the 9/11 terror attacks of 2001 in the West and a large portion of the rest of the world. However, in Saudi Arabia, it is synonymous with the Jeddah-based building company that, by royal mandate, used newly discovered oil revenue to create mosques, palaces, and other structures. The family was not originally from Saudi Arabia; rather, they were from the Hadhramaut region of southern Yemen, which has given rise to many of Jeddah’s most prosperous and successful entrepreneurial families.
Osama, one of the founders of the company’s numerous sons, was long regarded as the “black sheep of the family” and immigrated from Yemen in the early 20th century. He fought alongside the CIA and Pakistan during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s since he spent a significant portion of that decade there assisting the mujahideen. However, by the 1990s, he had turned into a militant Islamic fundamentalist, and in 1994, his family disowned him. Then Osama Bin Laden initially relocated to Sudan and then shortly thereafter to Afghanistan. What followed is history.
However, did Prince Charles or anyone in his inner circle truly believe that accepting money from the Bin Ladens was a wise idea? Or did they believe it was acceptable as long as it remained private? Because it was always going to look terrible once it was made public, regardless of how many checks were made and procedures were followed.
Prince Charles’ charity and his gifts have previously been the subject of scrutiny. Allegations of criminal activity connected to past gifts from other wealthy businessmen have shaken non-profit organisations founded by the heir to the UK throne.
As part of three monetary donations totalling over £2.5 million, it was revealed last month that Prince Charles got a suitcase containing one million euros in cash from a former Qatari prime minister. At the time, Clarence House claimed that all legal procedures had been followed and that the sheikh’s donations had been immediately forwarded to one of the prince’s organisations. Later, the Charity Commission made the decision not to look into the donation.
The Metropolitan Police launched a probe after allegations that the charity gave a Saudi national honours assistance in February. The prince “had no knowledge of the claimed promise of honours or British citizenship on the basis of donation to his charity,” according to Clarence House.
Voters ultimately decide who becomes a minister or a member of the British Parliament. The Royal Family draws its status and power from a different source—from the public’s general belief that, on the whole, they are a credit to the nation. Does a gift from the Bin Laden family fit into this type of royalty, even how far removed it may be from their son’s heinous deeds?
Conflict, COVID and Climate Crisis: Major Risks of our Time
Conflict, COVID and Climate Crisis: Major Risks of our Time
‘If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it’s most likely to be a highly infectious virus rather than a war. Not missiles but microbes……’ words spoken by Bill Gates in 2015 at Ted Talks proved true, especially in the wake of the COVID pandemic that brought the world to a stand-still. Killing millions of people within two years with tons of collateral damage in areas of health, economy, national security, etc. has shaken the world to its core. But is it just the microbes over missiles that are going to cause mayhem, or a combined effort of both, catalyzed with cyber-catastrophe? The current Russia-Ukraine conflict, Taliban take-over in Afghanistan, the Worst Emergency crisis in Sri Lanka, and the never-ending Israel-Palestine war – these all point towards intensified armed-conflict chaos around the world. On the other hand, the worsening climate crisis is further aching the world manifold. The Australian Wildfires in 2020, East Africa droughts in 2011, 2017 and 2019, regular cloud bursts, and the melting of icebergs in Antarctica are a few of many natural disasters that beg for climate action. But the newest addition to the list of challenges for survival is cyber-warfare. During COVID lockdown, even large-scale businesses and industries moved online for their survival. This transition was never expected to be as sudden as it did during these troubled times. As a result, the move was made out of fear and fright rather than undergoing due diligence which is the general practice when shoring a business from stores to wires. Hence, the threats of cyber-attacks and other associated risks have further escalated. The increased threats required improved IT security thereby leading to a substantial number of corporate entities signing up for consultancies that offer digital dependency in business processes. This even led to a sharp increase of $20 Billion in the cyber-insurance sector between 2020-2025, which is almost triple to what it was. The market is anticipated to grow even more strongly with the additional momentum gained from digitalization. Munich Re, an insurance company that provides coverage for cyber risks has experienced meteoric growth in this sector gaining a share of 10% of the total market, making it one of the world’s leading insurers.
The Doomsday clock is stuck at 100 seconds to midnight. The world seems to be inching towards a civilization-ending apocalypse. Rising conflict, worsening climate change, and never-ending microbe attacks have the world hanging by a very thin thread of hope, perseverance, of resilience. While a larger section of the world wants to live in a world free of war, the power concentration sadly is inversely proportional to the mammoth population. Even a minimalistic endeavor of having a healthy family, working just enough to put food on the table and have access to quality education for children, seems bleak. But is it really the end or is it just a prolonged halt looking forward to an update?
The World Economic Forum has stressed ongoing and upcoming challenges created by cyber fraudsters, climate change, and space technology. As per the Global Risks Report, 2022 released on January 11, cyber security and space technology were listed as the most emerging risk sectors for the global economy followed by the existing pandemic. Cyberthreats are in no way a particular-sector-centric threat. It has the potential to affect entire civilizations as we live in a time where there is absolutely no connection-deficit. Everyone is connected with everything and vice-versa. And hence, cyber threats are growing faster than society’s ability to effectively prevent and manage them. The rise of cryptocurrencies has given birth to a new breed of online dacoits, resulting in an increased number of malware and ransomware attacks.
What can be done?
It is a race. A race between what trumps what. Ever since the lockdown around the world has been lifted, inter-state wars and conflicts have dominated the attention of decision-makers. Needless to say, the pandemic is by no means over. Similarly, the climate-associated risks are piling up and it remains the largest and most complex existential challenge of our time that warrants unparalleled action. Evidently, vaccination is on roll and has proved to be effective against the invisible enemy, and hence one needs to understand the gravity of 7 million deaths where air pollution has been a major contributor. A heating world, in general, is detrimental to human health and thus, significant obstruction to a thriving society. While a total of 110 countries are now monitoring the quality of air their population breathes, it’s simply not enough. The deterrent theory of removing factories and industries and adapting the primitive way of living is also impossible, especially in the urbanized world. Hence preserving nature and also concentrating on all-around economic development seems oxymoronic and ironical.
But, technological advancements during the wake of COVID have hinted that if ideas are shared and transcended beyond boundaries, there is hope. A simple instance of Tesla championing the sector of electric automobiles has prompted even a developing country like India to work in the furtherance of completely replacing fossil fuels with an alternative transformative source thereby resulting in an increase in electric vehicle production. A hybrid power strategy is inadvertently the need of the hour today. But how much does a country like India which promises a good mix of bright sun and wind along its coasts, requires resources to make the shift to Net Zero. Setting up hybrid power plants is also cost efficient as the plants share common equipment, electronics, and storage, as a dedicated hybrid plant can work round-the-clock with only sporadic recourse to storage.
The aforementioned mechanism is just one facet of a multi-dimensional resolution that the world warrants. The national leaders of countries can no longer lament and find nonchalant advisory bodies to pin their blames act. Furthermore, the citizens are also to be self-monitored. Citizens cannot resort to unveiling a red carpet for a government that completely negates the existence of climate change and cyber security. Rather, the citizens are to hold the constitutional entities accountable, answerable, and liable for negligence and poor performance.
Peace underpins all that is good in our society. But with each passing day, a realization of sorts that ‘peace’ is in short supply, resurfaces itself. The horrors of Covid have shown the world, that no matter how technologically advanced, monetarily rich, and systematically sustainable it looks, it is as vulnerable as one can be. The only upside that one can perceive from the horrifying pandemic, is that the loss of millions of lives and trillion dollars have only waken up the world from its deep slumber. Digitalization and globalization may have brought the world close, but the shrunk world is failing to realize that, with great inter-connectedness comes great interdependencies. And thus, the multi-dimensional crisis is not an individual but collective responsibility.
China’s President Xi Jinping looks secure for another Term in the Office
China’s President Xi Jinping looks secure for another Term in the Office
No one seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.
The world seems to be stuck in a spiraling conflict of Civil Rights vs. Unfettered Power. While a larger chunk of the global population sides with equal distribution of civil rights and liberty, countries like China, North Korea, and Russia see themselves on the other side of the orbit. China is one of the biggest global players in the world with respect to its population, human resources, and diversified economy. However, the country has faced severe backlash ever since the COVID-19 inception in 2020. One can easily presume that the pandemic has forever solidified the global perspective against the Red Dragon, however, it would be just as defensible to put forth that, the perspective now is out of sheer guilt, frustration and looking for someone to pin the blame at. Nevertheless, China walks away with anything you throw at it. Any sector, any walk of life, any policy – China always seems to function outside the ambit of what’s permissible in the world. But is China really a ferocious fire-breathing Dragon or just a flat-track bully or is it just sheer calculated governance?
COVID is not the first time that China has faced massive uproar from the globe. The debacles at Tiananmen Square or the Genocide of minorities at Uyghurs or even the geopolitical expansionism cornering Taiwan are just to name a few. But how is it that mammoth protests have never fetched any result or progress whatsoever? It cannot be just limited to military force or armed neutralization. The prowess of counterpoising the intense protests and wide backlash lies in the hands of China’s leadership, currently President Xi Jinping. Having assumed office in 2012 as the President of the People’s Republic of China with the vision of ‘rebranding and rejuvenating the Chinese Nation’ Xi Jinping is said to be the most prominent political leader in China’s history. Xi Jinping is currently looking confident about enjoying another term in office ahead of the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, this year.
Xi Jinping’s journey 2012-Present
Following his father’s purge during the Cultural Revolution 1966-1976, Jinping joined the CCP and worked as a local party secretary. Climbing through the political ladder milestone after milestone, Xi Jinping soon rose to political fame courtesy of his efficiency and credibility as a political thinker and strategist. Jinping was made the governor of Fujian from 1999 to 2002. Later he further assumed the office as governor and Party Secretary of Zhejiang from 2002 to 2007. He subsequently joined the Politburo Standing Committee and served as the first secretary of the Central Secretariat and was vouched as the successor of Hu Jintao, the then President of China. In 2008, Xi was appointed as the Vice President of China and eventually assumed the President’s office in 2012.
Jinping envisioned making China a major power on the world stage which certainly has stood the test of time. Today, China has an economy that is on its course to surpassing the U.S,’s in the next decade or so. With the economic expansion, China, under Jinping’s leadership, also boasts of housing the third largest armed forces in the world. To exert its geopolitical dominion, China has also hugely invested in infrastructure projects around the world. However, despite enormous achievements and unparalleled scope of work, many political analysts, thinkers, and time-keepers have characterized him as a dictator or an authoritarian leader, citing an increase in censorship and mass surveillance in the state. Human Rights Watchers around the globe have always scrutinized the leader but have had no substantial effect on the latter. Instead, Xi Jinping following the traditions of Mao Zedong abolished the two-term limit for the president. Evidently, that only points in the direction of Jinping looking forward to anointing himself again as the President of PRC.
Is Jinping the ‘president for life’ of China
On his first international trip since COVID-19 to Hong Kong, Xi Jinping projected his confidence in assuming the office for another term. Furthermore, he also has the blessing of the Congress as he was unanimously chosen to delegate to the ruling party’s 20th meet in April 2022. While there have been new changes within the appointments in the administerial frame, the key changes in the constitution and inadvertent confidence in his character only points to China’s leader continuing in power. Furthermore, Xi’s proteges make up the majority of the CCP’s Standing Committee and hence inner political or ideological disturbances which naturally result in a “No-Confidence Motion’ seems quite improbable. While there have been speculations of pushback from veteran Zhu Rongji, the impact would remain limited. The only important rivals that could have risen at the same level as Jinping and his allies were the Tuanpai, who rose to prominence under the former Presidentship of Hu Jintao. But the Tuanpai stars were effectively sidelined from front-line Chinese politics during Xi’s first two terms.
With little to no possible competition to stop Xi in his path to another term, Jinping is likely to optimize his plans in his next term as President. China, after facing massive domestic and international disruptions and sanctions since the pandemic, would hope to strengthen its economy. The country has already achieved an ambitious target of 5.5% of economic growth despite pandemic-related lockdowns, disruptions in manufacturing, and limited consumer spending in the first half of the year. Furthermore, the Russia-Ukraine war also added to the challenge with the price of commodities plummeting through the roof. Xi is currently working and would hope to continue to work in furtherance of mending and improving the country’s relations and trade ties with Russia, irrespective of the sanctions imposed by the US and the UK.
China’s system of governance does not have an elaborate election structure like that of India. There is no ‘dance on the tunes of Democracy’. The members hold a Congress every five years to decide their leaders and policies for the next tenure. There are promotions and elevations of political personalities to move up the ladder and participate in Congress’s idea of nation-building and that is about it. The inclusion is systemized but restrictive in nature as there is no accountability or answerability to anyone but to the superior leaders. So, along with this restrictive nature that is already in place, Jinping’s decision of removing the term limit is likely to take China back to the turbulent, 27-year, one-man rule of Mao Zedong. While Zedong’s tradition was put to a stop by former leader Deng Xiaoping who introduced a system for an orderly succession in the 1980s, Jinping’s ‘historical resolution’ has not met with a reckoning force yet. Xi is set to pass the recommended retirement age of 68 in June and will likely stay at the core, dominating Chinese politics until his dying breath.
Technology5 months ago
Climate Crisis; Cries Asia
Archives1 year ago
5 reasons why Bollywood has a monopoly over the Indian Music Industry
Archives2 years ago
Anime and mental health
Technology1 year ago
Xiaomi now has a new logo that’s similar to its old logo
Polity2 years ago
Ruby Bridges and her take on the Black Lives Matter Movement
Defence8 months ago
A cruel birth of Bangladesh by Archer K Blood: Book Review
Polity2 years ago
Is it really ok to ask someone, who they voted for?
Archives2 years ago
The Indian Sign Language, the journey throughout, the wins, the losses and a long way to go