Right-of-Center, Please

Seething in the furnace of the French revolution, the great court of the bourbons gave the political world two everlasting terms - left and right. The nomenclature was incidental as the liberals representing the revolutionary masses sat on the left side of the king whereas the courtiers and nobles representing conservative values sat on the right. Ever since that day political parties round the world tend to fall in one of these two categories.

Left and right are terms that are very broad and can present various options ranging from far left to the far right. However parties that stuck to either extremes of the spectrum have never achieved mass appeal proved by the failure of extreme left politics as in the former USSR and extreme right politics as in Nazi Germany. Therefore most successful parties on either side have tended to come to the center leading to the proliferation of center right and center left parties.

However, in India's case owing to the diversity such classifications become very difficult to make. If anything the Congress can be described as a left-of-center party leaning more towards people centric policies. But the absence of a corresponding right-of-center party has been one of its biggest tragedies. This was an ideological space tailor made for the nationalist BJP but due to their bad company which provided it with irrelevant ideological gibberish and its own incompetence lost its way and showed up as a hard line right-wing party. Hence it ended up practicing anti-minoritism and neo-fascism and the sensible people of India rejected them outright not once but twice. The BJP now stands at the cross roads seeking directions. For the good of the nation the BJP must now realise the aspects of a strong right-of-center parthy and align itself with it.

Generally, a strong right-of-center party displays three important characteristics. One, they support a socially conservative order in society by supporting age old institutions like family, marriage etc. and shy away from 'modern' tendencies. Second, they stand for a muscular state which aggressively guards national interests internationally and takes a hard line against enemy countries. Third, they favour the market oriented approach to the economy as opposed to the pro-people policies by supporting big business which they hope will indirectly help the people.

Also the BJP can look at modern successful right-of-center parties in the west to gain inspiration and relevance. The modern right-of-center parties the world around tend to follow three prime examples. Either the Christian democrats of the various European countries or the Conservative party of UK (tories) or the Republican party in USA.

Personally i think the BJP would be better off going the way of the Christian Democrats of Europe. For just like India, 19th century Europe was deeply steeped in religion and cultural nationalism and this over time fostered a slew of extreme right parties which became overtly aggressive. Eventually, this ended up in the rise of various fascist parties around Europe - most notably in Germany and Italy - and this lead to not one but two world wars in the 20th century.

Post-World War II the right-wing parties of Europe found themselves in the same position as today's BJP - defeated and confused. This is when enlightenment dawned upon them and they morphed themselves as right-of-center parties - with strong religious and nationalistic views but tempered by past events and plain old practicality of inclusiveness and moderation. The Christian Democrats have steered Europe away from both Socialism and extreme religious bigotry and have engendered a sense of shared history and religion throughout Europe and thus have helped forge a united Europe. They are a perfect right-of-center model worth emulating the world around.

As i write this the BJP is in a huddle to discuss reasons for their defeat and chart the future course. For India's sake let's hope sanity prevails and the light of enlightenment radiates on them and we get a strong right-of-center party we deserve, the BJP we deserve.

History meets Federer

Some people are lucky enough to meet history during their life time owing to their endeavours while most others don't get this chance. However there are still fewer people for whom history itself waits for a meeting. Finally after numerous failed trysts, History finally met Roger Federer last Sunday as the latter won his record-equalling 14th grand slam and more importantly his first French Open at Roland Garros to become only the sixth man in history to win all four grand slams.

In over a hundred years of tennis only five men have won all four grand slams. The big serving American Don Budge, England's Pride Fred Perry, The genial Aussies Rod Laver and Roy Emerson and the supreme shot maker Andre Agassi. Quite naturally any man with such a rare accomplishment can argue to be claimed the greatest of all time. Ironically some of the game's greatest player's have never achieved this rare feat. Pete Sampras for example was a legend in his own right but could not lay claim to being the greatest ever as he failed to win the French Open. Sampras realised that for him the words 'Great' and 'Greatest' were in the end separated by 5 millimeters of Parisian clay!

Federer seemed to be going Sampras's way until last Sunday when he exorcised years of frustrations and winning the one slam that eluded him. Yes, critics might argue that Nadal's absence helped him but they also forget that he has been consistent on clay by reaching the French Open final 4 years in a row. Also he had beaten Nadal couple of weeks earlier in Madrid on clay , in the final. In spite of a few cribs here and there the world over has rejoiced in Federer's success which proves his popularity which he has achieved through his entertaining game. In an age of baseline belters he has plays a blissfully magical brand of tennis and turns the game to what it is always supposed to be - a game of sublime skill.

Born in the German half of Switzerland, Roger Federer had no compatriot to look upto. For all time, the only thing Switzerland produced was cuckoo clocks and Chocolates not Grand Slam winners. Martina Hingis was the first to break ground but quickly faded away after being muscled out by the William's sisters. However, Federer quickly rose in the rankings and by the beginning of the century was among a handful of youngsters waiting to take the mantle over from Sampras and Agassi. The initial break through came at the 2001 Wimbledon when he beat Sampras to end his 4 year winning streak. But it was a false dawn as the weight of expectations broke him momentarily as he was reduced to a racket thrashing frustrated young man on court.

Wimbledon 2003 changed all that, as he won his maiden grand slam and finally met his destiny. That was his coronation and it was the start of a juggernaut as he rolled all his opponents to ground winning slams left, right and centre. In fact in three separate calender years he won three grand slams, a feat never achieved before him. But all through the French Open eluded him. With the emergence of Rafael Nadal who dominated the clay courts Federer found it increasingly difficult to win in Paris losing in three straight finals to his nemesis. What more, he was creepily acquiring all his possessions.First his beloved Wimbledon crown, then his number one ranking and then his Australian Open crown. The world was talking about the end of the Federer era. However the ploys of History are strange and in an amazing twist of fate handed Federer a chance to fulfill his destiny. To Federer's credit he made use of the chance and fulfilled a long made promise - a promise made to himself and to History.

As legend goes, when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer. Probably Federer is feeling the same at the moment. Looks like a great moment to set eyes on slam number 20!

Hitting the Lines

Clay Court tennis has its own distinct charm. The slipping, the sliding, the dusting of muddy shoes, the long rallies - all this gives a distinct ring to tennis fans around the world. The red clay does not have the glamour, tradition or old world magic of its grassy cousin, however its got its own legion of fans and even quite a few players who swear by it.

Tennis is one of those unique games that still maintain a role for the playing surface. Cricket being the other such notable sport. Indeed its a welcome break from other sports whose playing surfaces bore you with their monotony. However, the love-all game does provide a whole array of playing surfaces for the fans to enjoy, ranging from the very fast Grass courts to the less faster hard courts to the slower clay courts at the other end of the spectrum. Hence the surface becomes as much part of the contest as the players themselves. The variance in surface poses the players myriad challenges to overcome and the one who succeeds on all surfaces rightfully claims to being one of the greatest of all-time.

Personally I am a big fan of the grass courts. As much attracted by its rarity and history as much as for its favour for skillful and elegant players. However watching the surfeit of Clay court tennis overtime i have come to appreciate its beauty too. Its like learning to appreciate a Vinci after witnessing a divine Michelangelo.

Clay courts offer a different challenge to the players. It offers less speed and high bounce which makes it very difficult to hit winners. Hence most attacking players usually struggle on clay as they cannot make the pace to force winners and end up with a lot of unforced errors. Also there is no easy way out of a tricky situation, for instance on grass , an attacking player when he is say 30-40 can come up with couple of big serves to get out of the hole even as his opponent is helplessly stranded. None of it will do on clay as you have to slug out relentless rallies to win most points. As someone rightly said 'Clay allows the story of a match to unfold like the plot of a good book'.

On the other hand the players who consistently hit the ball deep and who have a wide repertoire of shots gain a distinct advantage. It is also a real test of endurance and agility. In a way there is a levelling of the ground or court rather whereby both attacking and defensive players come on the same plane and the ensuing long rallies ensure a fascinating game for audiences. The recipe therefore for success on clay is consistently 'hitting the lines' at real pace. Rafael Nadal keeps doing that all the time and has since emerged as the best clay courter of his generation and arguably of all-time.

If Wimbledon is the haloed turf for grass courters , French Open is the ultimate price for any clay courter. But due to the various challenges mentioned above some of the greatest players in the game have never won at Paris in spite of many attempts. Pete Sampras is one who springs to mind instantly and the French open was the one trophy that came in between him being a great player and the greatest of all time. Well what do they say, you can't win everything.

As the red clay in Paris glows as radiant as ever and tennis superstars battle on it to be called the 'King of Clay', its time to sit back and enjoy the spectacle. Vive la Fête.