Acharya Prashant responds to a question about a recent accident in Pune where a 17-year-old boy, the son of a rich man, killed two IT employees while driving a Porsche worth five crore rupees at a speed of over 200 km/h. The questioner notes the lenient punishment—bail within 15 hours, 15 days with traffic police, and writing a 300-word essay—was due to him being four months short of 18, and asks at what age a person in India is considered responsible for their actions. Acharya Prashant begins by stating that the age of 18 is an imaginary concept, not a hard line derived from any solid scientific or mathematical principle, but rather a social consensus. He argues that the time has come to reconsider this age, especially in criminal cases, as deeming an 18-year-old a minor is not wise from a crime perspective. He points out a contradiction in the legal system: while a 17.5-year-old who commits murder is considered a minor, a 14-year-old girl who is pregnant is considered mature enough to become a mother, with courts sometimes denying abortion. He questions this disparity, asserting that an 18-year-old is fully an adult and mature. If they are not, he asks, then who gave them the right to even touch a car? He further analyzes the incident as a clash between privilege and merit. The victims were IT professionals who likely earned their position through hard work, while the perpetrator is a 'nawabzada' (a prince) who received a five-crore car simply by birth. This, he claims, is a modern caste system where resources are in the hands of those with a 'baap' (father) rather than those with excellence. He describes the scene as 'privilege running over merit on the road.' He notes that those who earn their vehicles through their own sweat and blood would never drive so recklessly. The speaker also observes that in today's society, people with no merit—be it through superstition or thuggery—often hold positions of power, while those with merit, like the IAS officers who study for years, end up as their secretaries. Addressing parents, Acharya Prashant advises them to leave as little capital as possible for their children. He urges them to invest in their children's upbringing and education but not to hand over unearned wealth, as it makes the child rot from within. A child with self-respect and dignity would refuse unearned money, and if they don't, it reflects poorly on their upbringing. He suggests that if parents want to help their children financially, they should offer it as a loan, even an interest-free one, to foster a healthy relationship. He concludes by stating that in a society where crows eat pearls and swans peck at husks, and where resources are in the hands of the undeserving, such tragedies are inevitable.
