It was long ago, in school. I remember asking my history teacher (who was telling us how the world learnt from the failure of the League of Nations when they came together to form the United Nations) how it was possible to prevent conflict when the very people who are most likely to start a conflict were part of the decision-making body and held veto powers. I remember she said something about the naughtiest boy being made the class monitor etc.
I remember saying that I don’t believe that it will work that way. Later, I said the same thing when Modi made Yogi the CM, when Trump won the Republican party’s nomination, when Saudi Arabia was appointed to chair the IHRC, when pharma giants or media houses are asked to ‘self-police’, when China’s crushing of the Uighurs was condoned or their ingress into Indian territory was denied with a view of appeasing them, when USA’s unilateral invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was justified, when Israel’s unlawful occupation of Palestinian territory and their policy of apartheid was turned a blind eye to, or indeed when, during my school days when I was in Std VIII, the class bully was actually made monitor.
I said it then. I am still saying the same thing: Making the naughtiest boy the class monitor does. Not. Work. Period.
We need a better strategy than handing over the keys to the safe to the very person most likely to steal with the hope that somehow this will make them more responsible. Has this silly theory ever been validated through research? Matlab kuchh bhi?
