Kings without Kingdom

There are no more audacious sixes over cover off the backfoot, no more scorching 'perfume balls' at batsmen's throats and no more chants of 'Knock-his-head-off-mickey' from spectators. The decline of West Indian Cricket is the greatest tragedy of modern day Cricket. The World of cricket is missing the West Indies - big time. The once triumphant Caribbean Kings who steam-rolled the best of sides are in danger of losing their Kingdom.

Cricket without the West Indies is like Football without Brazil - It simply isn't good to look at. When the West Indies played they reduced the game to what it was always meant to be - a game of supreme skill and ability. Hence this collective hurt felt around the cricketing world, for like Brazil the West Indians are the second favourite team of most cricket fans after their own teams. Their latest debacle - albeit as a second string team - to Bangladesh seems to indicate that the West Indians have reached their nadir. It cant get worse than this.However to find out the malaise infecting the West Indian team you have to delve into their past and understand their present.

Cricket came to the West Indies as a byproduct of English colonialism in the 19th century. It started out by being played by the black local 'slaves' in the sugarcane plantations owned by English masters. As opposed to other countries the West Indies were not a single nation, in fact it was a team made up of more than 10 individual nations. Each of these nations had and still continue to have distinct governments, currencies, passports etc. So the West Indies were a peculiar sporting team in this respect.

At the turn of the 20th century the West Indians had found their own style of play suiting their physical attributes of being strong and athletic. The batsman were generally hard hitting with a flair for the audacious and the bowlers had a knack of hurtling the ball at pace. The skills were there all right but needed refinement and was referred to condescendingly by the snobbish British as 'Calypso Cricket'. Basically meaning Cricket with only flair and no substance.

Also, at the time Cricket was still a white man's game and had a severe colonial tinge to it as was evident by the name of the presiding body - Imperial Cricket Council, which was a precursor of the current ICC. The West Indians were inducted as a test playing team but up until the 1950s were barred from having a black captain. Instead a white man was in charge irrespective of his playing ability.

What the above factors meant was the West Indies developed a post-colonial angst to prove the world a point that a black man can play a white man's game and beat him as well. Cricket became a part of every day West Indian life, be it in music, food or politics. Cricketers achieved the status far greater than Presidents or Prime ministers. The captain of the West Indies team was regarded almost as the President of whole of the Caribbean. Cricket in the Caribbean became a metaphor and a medium to break the colonial yoke.

This post-colonial angst was powering the West Indians to great heights and in the 50s the Empire struck back with a vengeance. The West Indians beat the English in England in 1950. With the emergence of players like Sobers, Worrel and Weekes the West Indies emerged as a leading test playing team. They played an entertaining brand of cricket but more importantly produced results. This was the tectonic shift in West Indian Cricket - Results with flair.

The passion to prove a point to the white world drove the West Indian team from strength to strength and eventually culminated in probably the greatest team ever assembled on a cricket pitch- the West Indian team of the 70s and 80s. The West Indian team almost carried a 'black man's burden' and represented black pride in the cricketing world. Every time the West Indian team beat the Englishmen a black worker slogging in the working class factories of England felt proud of himself, he walked at least a feet taller than his English employers. Such was the importance of Cricket for the West Indies. As the great West Indian cricket writer CLR James says in what should be the best sports book ever written and aptly named 'Beyond the Boundary' - 'What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?' Cricket in the West Indies couldn't have been explained better.

However with the coming of the 90s, the generation that harbored the post-colonial angst to succeed had slowly receded back and the newer generation that replaced them did not have any such angst and were comfortable with their black identity. They did not need the vehicle of Cricket to ride their ambitions. Newer, greener pastures were being opened closer home in the United States in the form of basketball and athletics and Cricket felt like a poor grandparent lying around in the house. Hence Cricket suffered and save for rare moments of glory inspired by Brian Lara or Walsh/Ambrose the Caribbean did not give the Cricketing world any reason to enjoy.

This is where things stand and it is really sad for lovers of the game. Still, whenever there is a rare moment of what could only be called 'West Indianism' like when Dwayne Smith flicks a ball over mid-wicket effortlessly for a six or when Fidel Edwards produces a toe-crushing yorker you remember the great West Indian teams of the past and their spectacular play.

Hopefully the West Indians can ignite their cricketing spark once again and find a new reason to play the game. If they do, the cricketing world will be the better for it. For no Cricket team on earth can entertain you as well as the West Indies.

Behind the Mike

The first time i saw a live cricket match was the memorable quarter final between India and Pakistan in Bangalore in 1996. In spite of the vociferous crowd what caught my attention was the deafening silence in the middle, sans the commentary i was used to while watching on the television. The players seemed to be in their own world doing their own thing and the voices i was used to were missing. No voice to enthuse me when a wicket fell or a boundary was hit, no voice to tell me the excitement that wrapped the stadium. It was then that i truly understood the role of the voice behind the mike.

Cricket more than any other sport is played between silences. A canny silence creeps between a bowler's deliveries, in between overs, in between wickets. So it presents a commentator with a good opportunity to fill in these silences with descriptions of the goings on, anecdotes of bygone days or plain old banter. For an avid viewer of the game its simply fascinating. Before the advent of the IPL which reduced commentary to buffoonery and made sane looking commentators into cheap salesmen it was and sometimes is a serious business.

Me and others of my generation in India have not been exposed to radio commentary which was and still is popular in England and Australia. Hence I sometimes regret missing out on radio as its a different and more engaging medium than television. However the flip side of being in India is that you get to witness cricket and hence television commentators from around the world.

I always thought that the Australian Channel Nine commentary crew was a benchmark in terms of bringing cricket to the television viewer. Maybe its the impact of the Kerry Packer era or the fact that Cricket is always facing stiff competition from rival sports or plain old Aussie stubbornness to succeed they have managed to be the best commentary team in the world for a long time. Two of my favourite commentators of all time are present there - Richie Benaud and Bill Lawry. Benaud is most economical in his words in an increasingly verbose profession and always seems to have the right word for the occasion. Bill Lawry on the other hand - unlike his dour batting in the 60s - is very excitable and brings a sense of occasion every time he's on air. In fact the best piece of commentary i ever heard was delivered by him along with Mike Procter in the memorable climax of the tied semifinals between Australia and South Africa in the 1999 world cup .

The English Sky Sports team over the past decade have made huge improvements. They have moved away from the dry English commentary of the past and have infused excitement. With new faces likes David Lloyd, Michael Holding and Nasser Hussein they have turned the corner and are more entertaining than ever before. Sample this years Ashes for a sneak into the Sky sports team.

The Indian Commentary scene has also come up in the past decade with the emergence of India as a true global power with a billion eyes. Like everywhere it has been dominated by former players like Sunil Gavaskar , Ravi Shastri et al. Ironically the best Indian commentator is a non-cricketer : Harsha Bhogle. He brings a certain artistic touch to commentary and is a great user of words. It was very disappointing though to see him fooling around in the IPL all for the sake of money. Anyway that does not make him any less a commentator. The most promising voice over the past few years has been Sanjay Manjrekar. He has real potential and has joined the ESPN-Star Team recently. He is one to look out for in the coming days.

Apart from commentators from these three major countries there others whom i like. Tony Cozier of Barbados is one that comes to mind instantly. He is almost Benaud-like in his commentary and seems to be around forever and is a true representative of West Indian Cricket. Ian Smith and Jeremy Conney from New Zealand are quiet good on occasions. The South Africans Mike Proctor and Robin Jackman are good too.

However in an era where cricket has become a 'product' and the fans 'consumers' and commentators forced to belt out 'Citi moments of success' and 'DLF Maximums' I don't know how far cricket commentary will be affected by rabid commercialization. For the sake of sanity lets hope Cricket commentary will remain as it has always been and enthrall fans the world over.

The Magic that was Michael

The last quarter of the 20th century saw America usurp the rest of the world to become the most dominant country in the world. This domination was both material as well as psychological. By psychological i mean, even people thousands of miles away from American shores felt its domination. Three brands especially led to this impression of American dominance. The ace basketball star Michael Jordan who brought basketball to millions around the world, the IT giant Microsoft which revolutionised the Personal computer and Michael Jackson.

The death of pop icon Michael Jackson breaks a link America had with the rest of the world. A link that connected America and the rest of the world for four decades. No matter how unpopular America became people still acknowledged it as being the home of the greatest entertainer on earth. When MJ danced , people felt America was not such a bad place after all. He in a way took America to millions of homes around the world. He became a unit of measuring dance and entertainment.

When i heard the news it shocked me as it must have done for millions of his fans. I personally am not into Western pop music but the aura and talent of MJ broke all barriers and he was the only artist i admired and followed closely. I felt sad on his death but not too much, because a man who had lost himself was half dead anyway. So the feeling was more remorse than sadness. Like a fan said on radio that morning, it was the day Music lost its 'M'.

The death of the great is paradoxical in a way. They go away from us on a physical level but they remain immortal in our collective consciousness through their legacy. That is the reason great men are lucky as they live even after their deaths. Hence even though MJ has died he will live on because of the great legacy he has left behind. He will be a testament to the extent of talent humankind is capable of possessing.

MJ revolutionised pop music and gave a new definition to dancing. He was the ultimate entertainer who had a hold over his audience though his voice and dance steps. His dance moves - the 'moonwalk', the 'robot', the 'lean' - were trend setting and were and are being copied all over the world. Every bollywood star worth his salt has been influenced by his dancing in some way or the other.

He changed the business of the music industry by changing the way music videos were filmed. No more were they used for promotions alone but they became works of art. Anyone who witnessed his videos could sense a story in each of them, a plot with real characters who brought out the essence of the song. The jazzy, slick videos we see today are a legacy that MJ left behind. He was also a consummate performer who started the trend of world tours which thrilled his audiences the world over and which allowed him to emerge as the first truly global icon.

The life of MJ is a great mirror to the good and bad of American society. An admirable society that gives opportunity to its minority so that one among them will raise to the very top of pop culture not just in that country but the world over. A society where talent gets rewarded irrespective of which color it is. A society where an individual can dream of world fame. But it also highlights a society which is overtly seeped in materialism so much so that material pursuits overrule basic happiness. A society where family values are constantly under threat. A society which over-commercialises every aspect of existence making its people lose touch with reality. Yes his life mirrored American society, warts and all.

Even though in his later years MJ turned himself into a public joke, the world will remember him for the talent he possessed and the joy he provided to his fans the world over. The world will remember the magic that was Michael.

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.

Vox Populi

When the people of India voice their verdict, the noise is deafening and its echoes can be heard for a long time. Just as well because, sometimes "it takes a loud noise to make the deaf hear". The 2009 election verdict has been sounded by the people of India and it has made people sit up and take notice and the deaf among them too are straining their ears to hear it.

The most fascinating aspect for me of any election is the fact that among all the cacophony of politicians the masses await in silence and then on election day deliver their verdict and finally on the day of results their verdict is sounded to the politicians which finally ends their cacophony and hubris.

This year's verdict was definitely for a stable government hence the total rejection of the third front "spoilers" and a rally for stable central parties which in this case were the UPA and NDA. However as one identified this shift and geared up to take advantage the other was blinded by parochial thought and missed the opportunity. On paper both the UPA and NDA had similar things to offer - same economic, foreign and domestics policies. So why did the UPA succeed in winning the election whereas the NDA lost out?

The primary reason i feel is the approach they took in connecting to the people. The Congress spoke of equitable development and youth oriented policies on the other hand the BJP raked up communal issues (read Varun Gandhi's speech, Kandhamal, Managlore pub fiasco etc) and in a disgusting way tried to make capital on it in the elections. Though the UPA had put up a decent performance it was not spectacular, hence the BJP could have highlighted the UPA's inefficiencies and made it a political issue. But they didn't and went back to regressive identity politics. The voter rejected these regressive issues and backed the Congress's development agenda. The BJP had a similar strategy in 2004 by misusing the Gujarat riots but it failed miserably. They repeated the mistake and the people too repeated the dose and handed them defeat.

Another reason was the fact that Advani knowing that this was his last chance at the top job desperately tried to create a direct match-up with Manmohan Singh and in his desperation made unilateral personal attacks and effected a personality contest. Manmohan Singh in spite of his perceived shortcomings was largely seen as a decent man who heralded the economic resurgence of India and add to the fact that Advani's own contributions to India polity were at best dubious made it a no contest as far as the people were concerned. Also, Indians do not like a decent man humiliated in public, hence this was a major factor in turning the people away from the BJP.

Also significant was the young face projected by the Congress in the form of Rahul Gandhi who inspired the youth not least in UP where the Congress made an astonishing comeback. The BJP did not have any such young face after the octogenarian Advani. Shockingly, the youngest face projected by them as a Prime Ministerial candidate - in the middle of the campaign at that - was a mass murderer!

A tight slap was also reserved to the Left wing comrades who in their zest for their archaic ideology kept India's national interest on the line. Thankfully their deranged adventure did not work. However the Indian people watched all their shenanigans and have now given a fitting reply by reducing them to their smallest tally in decades. One more party given a lesson to learn from the people.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the winners have to be careful to stay grounded and not to gloat over their victory. Instead its a time for them to get their hands dirty in the task of taking the country ahead. The vanquished too have an obligation to learn the lessons thought by the people and gear themselves to serve the people better.

The Wizard of Oz

The bowler at the top of his mark has donned the sun scream like a war paint. He twitches his flannels a bit , giving the keeper some hint. He keeps tweaking the ball in his hand as if giving it practice before he hurls it at the batsman. He starts his bowling run up - no its just a walk, he gathers himself at the bowling crease , the shoulders rotate like a catapult and finally the wrist cast a spell on the ball which loops in the air landing outside the batsman's leg stump. The batsman turns to counter the spin, but the ball knows better, it beats his defence and turns viciously missing the off-stump by a whisker, the keeper moves swiftly to collect the ball and lets out a war cry that resonates around the ground - 'Bowled Shane!!'. Shane Keith Warne has bowled his first delivery of the morning. Phew. Now get ready for the second ball of a mesmerizing 30-over spell from the Wizard of Oz.

Shane Warne along with Brian Lara are two of the most charismatic cricketer's of our time. He was rated as one of the top five cricketers of the century no less (as some experts jokingly put it, he might still have a shot at the title for this century too!) and at the time of retiring was the highest wicket taker in test cricket and took a whopping 1001 international wickets. But statistics tell only the half truth, they do not tell us the way those wickets were taken, how they inspired his team and thrilled the cricket lovers around the world.

At the start of his career Shane Warne found the art he practised almost extinct. The previous decades of relentless fast bowling mainly by the great West Indian sides of the 70s and 80s had rendered leg spinners unfashionable, a liability even. The leg spinner they said inherently lacked control and consistency which frustrated captains. In stead captains went for the fast bowlers or for spin went back to the good old off-spinners who lacked the leg-spinner's subtlety and variations but made up through consistency. Shane Warne changed all that. This leg spinner could turn the ball a mile , had the variations and more importantly had the consistency. Above all he had personality, his sheer body language could get people out. All these ingredients made Warne almost a force of nature which no one could resist. The best illustration of this was the fact that after Warne burst on to the scene all the fast bowling clinics in Australia started running empty as every kid in Australia was snapping his wrists trying to do a Shane Warne!

Warne was more than a cricketer, he was an aura. He spun the ball a mile , he drifted it and made it bounce and turn sharply. But more than that he used to get the batsman out in the mind. Ask the numerous English and South African players who owe their demises to him, he just psyched them out before bowling a ball. However for all his triumphs, he came unstuck against the Indian batsman time and again, you could attribute that to the fact that he bowled to the Indians when he had undergone major surgeries. Though he redeemed his reputation in the 2004 series, the failure against Indian batsman remain a singular black spot on his career.

There are very few people who change the face of the game they play. Pele in Football, Ayertan Senna in F1 or Rod Laver in Tennis. Similarly Warne changed the face of cricket by bringing Leg spin back into focus, he made it de rigueur so that youngsters around the world got inspired to take up the art. The art though did not become easier it just became more attractive. Like other people around the world I became a part of the Shane Warne fan club after seeing his magic on the field. I keenly followed his cricket right from his early exploits in England, the ball of the century, winning the 1999 world cup in England and until his final bow in early 2007. I personally thought that his best period was between 1993 and 1998, his shoulder was strong, he bowled all the variations - leg spin, googly, top spinner and even the flipper. However during his last few years he showed another dimension to him, like the master who discovers the art of simplicity towards the end of his life he was at his most simplest but as effective as ever. All through i admired his skill and hoped to watch him up close some time.

My wish was realised in the winter of 2004 when the Australian team played a test match in Bangalore. I was there and more importantly Warne was there and the first delivery i saw him bowl he got a wicket, VVS Laxman LBW. It was an amazing co-incidence. As much disappointed as i was some part of me was happy that Warne took the wicket. It was always like that when Australia played India, I hoped Warne took a five-wicket haul but India eventually won!

As Warne retired in 2007 the world thought it had seen all he had to offer. They were wrong. The IPL proved otherwise. It showed the side that the world had not seen before , that of a Captain. The way he went about making an underdog team that had no business aspiring to be among the big boys run away with the trophy was just amazing. He was the only reason to watch an otherwise over-hyped and over-commercialized tournament. He proved the primacy of cricketing instinct over the prevalent high-tech mode that cricket had got into with laptops and all. He also proved once and for all the theory of cricket experts had whispered all along that he along with Keith Miller was the best captain Australia never had.

Probably , we will appreciate the true worth of Warne after he's gone and like the generation that saw Bradman we will tell the people around us then that we were the lucky people who saw the great Shane Warne bowl.

The Profession of Politics

Politics has never been a noble profession. Politicians as a class have always been despised , ridiculed and sniggered at. Even to this day no school boy aspires to become a politician. The educated middle classes - except in the case of our freedom struggle - have generally kept out of politics and views it as a dirty business. Even the great epic Mahabharatha at the end of a Pyrrhic victory abhorred the profession of politics.

No, do not imagine the crooked politician of your locality while reading this - the negative perception cuts across eras and countries. If you were to open the newspapers of days gone by for instance, you will notice that the leaders we revere today were also jeered upon exactly as it is today. Even the great Abraham Lincoln was not spared as some critics at the time shockingly called him a despot even as we now consider him as the ideal democrat! The point is that we have always tended to view politicians in a negative light. So why this almost inherent negative attitude towards politics and politicians?

We tend to see politics as just another profession - just like the ones each of us have - and tend to judge the politician by the same rules of ethics and morality that we associate with our own professions. This is the starting point of the mistake because politics is really an entirely different kind of 'indulgence', very different from mine and your professions. Let me explain.

Firstly, politics really at it core stripped of all the perceptions is a profession where one selflessly executes the power bestowed on him for the betterment of the society. But this is a huge burden to carry as man is inherently a selfish being thinking only about himself. If a common man is given such powers his natural instinct will be to misuse it in his favour, its human nature and politics demands us to suppress that instinct. Hence when we judge the profession of politics we forget the onerous task assigned to it and fail to empathise with it in the first place and view it critically.

Secondly, politics has to answer all the tough questions in our society most of which divide the society down the middle. These of not comfortable questions like 'who is your favourite actor?' , 'what food do you like?', in fact be it reservations, religious issues , nuclear proliferation or minority rights all the tough questions fall on the politician who will become unpopular which ever way he tends to bend. Hence the political questions of the day and our views on them tend to color our perception of politics and results in politics being despised.

Thirdly, politics unlike other professions is a zero-sum game. Unlike in our professions where you invariably get another chance or post, there is just a limited number of positions, only one vacancy for the post of Prime Minister for example so either you get it or don't , there is no middle way. Hence politics tends to side step idealism in favour of practicality and when we judge this behaviour against our steadfast idealism when it comes to morality and ethics we become angry at the politician's lack of them. We use our yardstick to judge them which makes us despise them even more. This does not mean we discount professional ethics entirely when judging politicians but we need to flavour it with a tinge of practicality too.

Lastly, as the saying goes 'we get the politicians we deserve'. Hence, the politicians a society gets is a reflection of the good and bad of the society itself. For instance, a caste-based society will get politicians who play the caste card and on the other hand a society which has implemented gender rights will get a polity that is equal in terms of gender. Hence instead of blaming the politicians we should reflect upon the current state of our society and try to correct it, which in turn will have a ripple effect and give us better politicians.

The above arguments may give an impression of being sympathetic to the crooked politicians. But its not, all forms of malfeasance should be exposed and punished and its imperative for the politician to do his duty and strive for the betterment of the society. However - in this age of politician-bashing - it is just an attempt to really understand the broader profession of politics and show the side that evades us so that we do not become cynical about it and view it in a more positive light.

Slipping into Action

Few things in cricket are as compelling and graceful to watch as watching a great slip fielder in action. He may not be called into duty every ball. In fact he may be kept out of action for an entire day even, only to leap into motion when the ball heads towards him trying its best to evade its way through. Maybe that's the beauty of it all, the wait makes the catch - if taken - all the more enjoyable.

Couple of weeks ago one of cricket's little known records - most catches by an outfielder - fell to Rahul Dravid. His record breaking catch was typical of the trade too as he just got his fingers underneath the ball to complete the catch millimeters from the ground. He may not be the best slip fielder ever but his sheer persistence and longevity in the position has enabled him to capture the record. The record gives followers of the game a great excuse to celebrate the lesser known art of slip fielding.

Jonty Rhodes and One day cricket may have made the 'Point' fielding position a glamorous one what with his athletic displays but according to me the toughest place to field is the Slips. So much so that it has given rise to the cricketing aphorism that 'there is nothing called an easy slip catch'! This fact gets reinforced when one sees a test match especially on seamer friendly conditions. Here the 'Slips' are the bowler's best friend as he tries to latch onto whatever his bowler-friend might have strived to induce. In fact there is no great team in the history of the game which does not have a great slip squadron. Be it the great Australian sides of the 40s or the fierce West Indians of the 80s or for that matter the Australians of the last decade. Even the current successful Indian team has great slips fieldsmen. All great teams have great Slips.

The uniqueness of the position is due to the fact that it is a position to which the ball just flies off the bat giving the fielder very little time to react to it. Add to it the fact that the ball generally comes at very awkward heights ranging from above the head to just inches from the ground. One more reason is the fact that the position has super-specializations too, for fielding at first slip requires a different technique from the one needed for the second slip which is again different from the other slips. Add to it the fact that fielding in slips for the spinners is an entirely different proposition makes slips a very challenging position indeed. Slip catching has been mostly a preserve of the batsmen who are adept at concentrating for long periods of time and have quick reflexes which are key ingredients for a slips fielder.

There have been a lot of slip fieldsmen i have liked over the years. But clearly the best has to be Mark Waugh whose record Dravid broke. He was good with fielding for the fast bowlers and also to Warne. His concentration powers, soft hands and great anticipation made him an all time great in the slips. This catch here shows why he is rated as the best ever. I also liked Mark Taylor who was just great while fielding for Warne. Warne himself was a great slips fielder proving to be an exception in a largely batsman dominated fielding postion. India too has produced great slips fielders. Sunil Gavaskar was great at slips apart from raking up the runs. My favourite though was Azharuddin who was just inspiring in that position right through the nineties producing some remarkable catches. In the current Indian side Dravid and Laxman are fantastic and have contributed to Indian victories especially overseas.

With increasing ODI and T20 matches and also the flattening of pitches around the world has forced the slips to be confined to a mere guest role for the first few overs of the matches. Sill every now and then the slip fielders provide great viewing for the lovers of the game whenever they slip into action on the field.

'Dilli Dur Ast'

Delhi has a way of treating her rulers. Sometimes she pampers them with unbridled power and on others she plunges them to the depths of despair by taking that power away. Either way she is endlessly fascinating to the wishful ruler who wants to woo her. The rulers used to be kings and queens in bygone times and now it is the wily politician who bids her with endless zest.

As the election season dawns upon us it is just as well that we take a closer look at it. This election season has been interesting to say the least. We have yet again seen the unabashed power hungriness of the political parties proving again that power comes before and after everything. They have also proved that there are no permanent friends and enemies in politics as erstwhile opponents who could not stand each other find themselves in each other's arms now.

The dramatis personae in this years election act are the UPA and NDA. According to me, for the first time since both these entities came to exist they look very similar to each other. Both have drank from the glass of power and know its sweetness and bitterness , so neither can claim the moral high ground and attack the other for misuse of power. Both have similar economic outlooks. Both have similar Foreign affairs policies. Both have gone back to geriatric leaderships after paying lip service to the concept of 'youth in politics'.

Remarkably, for a country obsessed with individual charisma this election campaign is devoid of any particular individual charm. I guess it is true of our political setup in general. Manmohan Singh seems to have converted to a politician finally - reluctantly of course - but lacks the charm of a real demagogue and LK Advani looks like the grand patriarch looking to fight his last war again failing to enthuse his countrymen like say a Vajpayee did. The young politicians seems to have been ignored completely and confined to TV debates. Hence there is no one to catch the public's , imagination which is really sad especially after watching Obama winning the Presidency.

What sets this election season different to the one in 2004 is the fact that unlike 2004 which had two distinct entities (UPA and NDA) the 2009 campaign has seen the entry of the 'Third front'. Is it good or bad, I'm not sure. My personal feeling is that it may lead to a bout of political instability that was witnessed in the mid-nineties. It remains to be seen whether the the hotch-potch third front emerges as the king maker (maybe the king even!) or disintegrate to prop up the other two fronts to form the government.

What is most interesting is the way Prime ministerial aspirants have sprung up from nowhere. Every regional satrap with a clutch full of MPs it seems aspires for the top job. Again it reminds of the mid-nineties. However in the mid-nineties the claims and counter claims happened after the election but now its happening before it.

What is an election season without a deranged hate speech or two. This time this 'honour' was done by Varun Gandhi who insulted the century old Nehru-Gandhi family legacy by making despicable communal utterances. The BJP did not cover themselves in much glory by tacitly backing him. Hope the people of this country who watched all this will teach a lesson to him and the people behind him. As of now he is the new Modi and like the man he is being compared to he seems to enjoy the notoriety.

As the election season gallops through the Indian summer all the parties are claiming that victory will be theirs and Delhi is within their sight. But alas Delhi will not fall into their arms so easily and the road to reach her is long and tedious. Their eagerness to reach Delhi reminds me of a famous Delhi legend concerning the sultan Ghiasuddin Tughlaq.

Legend says that the Delhi sultan was not best pleased with the famous Sufi saint Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya who was also a resident of Delhi as he suspected him of breaking his monopoly over the public. Matters reached a head one day while the sultan was away on one of his conquests in the countryside and he vowed to kill the Sufi saint as soon as he reached Delhi. On hearing this the saint calmly sent a one line reply to the sultan in Persian that read 'Dilli Dur Ast' or, 'Delhi is still far' meaning that the sultan had to be in Delhi to wield his powers. Call it premonition or a curse the sultan never reached Delhi to fulfill his vow as he was killed on route as a pavilion erected in his honour caved in and crushed him. People concluded that setting sights on Delhi and reaching her are two entirely different propositions!

So as the suitors for Delhi brace up to make their advances they will do well to focus on the real issues and suppress their celebrations lest they forget Delhi is still very far.

Little drops of dew

Perspective is a strange friend. It arrives at the most unexpected hour. It makes us see the same situation in a myriad different ways. It laughs at our concept of absoluteness and teaches us that everything around us is relative to the view taken by us.

Hence, even though our situation remains unchanged we can change our perception of it by changing our perspective. Of late, as i have been musing over the way we perceive our lives and are leading it, made me realize that we need to change our perspective on our lives and see it in a different light.

In this trying and demanding world of ours we as people have got into a strange way of leading our lives. Everybody is driven by goals, objectives and deadlines. The simple joys of everyday existence like spending time with our family and friends, spending time with oneself has been discarded in favour of achieving ever higher goals. The height of these goals sometimes dwarf our own being. Slowly our lives have become checklists of 'achievables' and 'wants' and we strain our mind and muscle to achieve them. It is as though in our eternal wait for the heavy rains we have forgotten to enjoy and appreciate the simple joys provided by the little drops of dew that greet us every morning.

We will do well to change our perspective and focus more on the little things in life because if we do that we will start to enjoy our lives and lead fuller and happier lives. It is not to say that we should not go after bigger goals. We should definitely aspire for them but we should not give them exaggerated importance and make them our be all and end alls.

When we are at the twilight of our life, more than how much we achieved we will remember how much we enjoyed the little moments of our life. Let us start to enjoy the little drops of dew and wait patiently for the rains to come.

Firdaus

"Agar firdaus bar roo-e zameen ast, Hameen ast-o hameen ast-o hameen ast"

"If there is a paradise on earth, It is this, it is this, it is this"

Thus exclaimed the great 13th century Persian poet Amir Khusro when he saw Kashmir for the first time. He was so smitten by the pristine beauty of the place that he called it firdaus - the paradise promised by God in the hereafter. I sometimes wonder what the great poet might have said if he saw the valley now with all the unrest and bloodshed surrounding the incomparable beauty. It proves again that in the contradictory world we live in beauty sometimes goes hand in hand with the beast of war and terror.

At the time of partition Kashmir was in the unenviable position of being at the crossroad of India and Pakistan - both Geographical and Ideological. For Kashmir shared borders with both the countries and hence both eyed it as a potential part of their respective countries when they come into being. Pakistan thought it natural that Kashmir being a Muslim majority state will fall into its lap whereas India being secular thought that religion will in no way come in the way of the merger of Kashmir as the Kashmiris were culturally closer to India and mostly sympathetic to India in any case.

When partition eventually came, as the king dilly-dallied about joining either union the Pakistan-inspired tribesman (Kabalis) launched an offensive to capture Kashmir. By the time the king finally relented to India and the army pushed the Kabalis back Pakistan had gained control of the hilly northern half (POK) and India the rest including the all important valley. Ever since then both India and Pakistan have treated Kashmir as a fiefdom to be protected. This status-quo remained - even after two wars over it - until Pakistan decided on a covert war by training misguided Kashmiri youth who were disillusioned with India and encouraging armed insurgency into the valley with the cry of 'azadi'. This is how things stood in the 90s and since then the Kashmiris have been disillusioned with Pakistan as they have realized that instead of alleviating their problems the Pakistanis have used them as pawns to checkmate India.

As last year's protests over the Amaranth shrine row proved the people in the valley are angry with India and need answers. Some people in the Indian media have suggested that India consider letting go of Kashmir as it has become a liability. However any such move will in my opinion will be disastrous as it will hurt India's secular image as the world will turn around and say that 'India cannot manage its minorities'. Also it will give grist to the right-wing parties to target the minorities accusing them of never been able to reconcile and live with the majority community. Hence any proposal of a Kashmir secession has to be shelved. So what is the solution to this problem which has grown to such a proportion that it is hurting both India and Pakistan's progress. Both sides have to make compromises in their frozen stands. India for its part has to tackle it in two ways.

Firstly, since war is not an option with a nuclear Pakistan, it has to make peace with Pakistan by proposing to make the LOC as an international border thereby letting go of the northern areas to Pakistan an area on which India does not assert control anyway. The northern areas anyway have more Punjabi influence than Kashmiri and hence letting go of that area will not compromise on Indo-Kashmiri cultural tie. The more crucial Kashmir valley with all its business and cultural centers will still be with India. Its a worthy compromise as it will change the hideous status-quo and also the fact that India will gain more than it will loose.

Secondly, India will have to provide Kashmiris a share of its economic prosperity. I always believe that most social problems have an economic solution. For an economically satisfied person will never take up arms and put his and his family's life in jeopardy. Only the man who has nothing to lose takes up violence against the state. Hence India will have to encourage foreign investment in Kashmir and also encourage tourism so as to make Kashmir an economically progressive state. India for example , can set up an annual Davos-style 'Indian Economic Forum' in Kashmir to enable Indian businessman to network which will no doubt encourage tourism and change Kashmir's international image as well. Such initiatives will go a long way in healing old wounds and bringing Kashmir into the Indian mainstream.

However, will things change for the better or worse or will they remain the same is for time to ponder and answer. We can only hope that the lost paradise is regained.

Return of the Conquistadors

The conquistadors are back. No, I am not talking about the 15th century Spanish world conquering explorers. The ones i am referring to are Spanish alright but they are conquering the various sports around the world. Since last year Spain has had a remarkable success in the sporting arena which has forced the world to sit up and take notice. The Spanish resurgence can be seen every time Rafael Nadal rips a forehand cross-court across his hapless opponent, it can be seen when a Spanish mid-fielder makes a pin-point through ball to his forward, its evident when Fernando Alonso zooms past the chequered flag.

For a country whose national sport is Bull fighting, the Spaniards have a remarkable sporting culture. They have been active in most sports, but the last year saw unprecedented Spanish success. Rafael Nadal won the French and Wimbledon titles, Spain also won the Davis cup, Carlos Sastre won the Tour de France, the football team won the the Euros, the hockey team won a silver at the Olympics and Sergio Garcia and Fernando Alonso were constant threats in Golf and Motor sport respectively. Though the performance of individuals can be attributed to individual talent and its nurturing what surprises me is the performance of its teams. This can be analysed by taking a look at the Spanish national football team as football is Spain's favourite sport and will provide the deepest insight.

Spain is probably the only western European country which is beset by separatist movements and this is reflected in their disunited national football teams. The most visible movement is that of the Catalan people followed by the Basque separatist movement. These internal problems have historically weakened Spanish nationalism and this is reflected in their football teams also. On the flip-side owing to the internal strife the domestic football scene is one of the best and fiercely fought and followed. Hence the Spaniards were more interested in settling internal scores, say when Barcelona - a catalan club - beats Real Madrid rather than on the international performance of the national team. At its worst a Spanish player would not pass the ball to another player because he was a Catalan! Hence in spite of having arguably the best domestic league in the world and very good players the Spaniards were perennial underachievers in international competitions.

However all this seems to have changed or changing and Spain is more and more at peace with itself, with the various dissident regions bartering peace for autonomy. This is reflecting in its football and other teams which have forgotten old factions and started to perform and win international competitions. Moreover they are winning by playing an entertaining game which is a hallmark of Spanish sport.

Hence the Spanish sport resurgence is another proof that national cohesion and unity are pre-requisites for international success in arenas ranging from diplomacy to sports. A nation at peace with itself usually succeeds.

The Man behind the Mahatma

It is the ultimate disservice the living could do to the dead. Great people when they are alive strive for the betterment of not only their country but the entire world and leave a legacy behind so as to be carried forward and remembered even after their death. But sadly, after their death most people - in the garb of reverence - instead of carrying their legacy forward try their best to bury the great man in books, photo frames, currency notes and what not, making sure his voice never gets heard to the world outside. The great man's life is turned into a legend - of fiction as it were - and future generations view the great man as though he never belonged to the real world and pay false homage to his deeds forgetting the essence of the man and what he really meant and stood for.

Over the years i feel we - in India especially - are doing the same disservice to the father of our nation Mahatma Gandhi. Few like to take an objective look at his life and works and understand what he spoke and some even go as far as discrediting him with whatever he achieved and worse blaming him for our ills and inadequacies. The aim of this post is to objectively assess the Mahatma and look at his contribution to the nation. Its not a defence for the Mahatma, as he needs no defence and moreover i am not in the least qualified for defending.

A lot has been said about the Mahatma-inspired non-violent struggle of India. What was the need for it, couldn't we all have taken up guns? Lets look at the relative powers of the Indians and British during the 20th century. A hundred years of British exploitation and Indian disunity had led to India becoming for the first time a vassal state of Britain whereby India's dependence on Britain stretched from governance, defence, till industry and law & Order. More over India unlike countries like Germany, France or Afghanistan lacked a real 'war culture'. This is proved by the fact that India never attacked another country. So, the picture the nationalists got was that of an emasculated India with no real army or a war-culture up against a global super power Britain which controlled most of world trade and was a superior military power as well. If you go by a certain section of the public who insist that India should have gone for armed resistance , then it would have been down right suicidal as India would have been blown away in no time. Though we had armed revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh they did not achieve more than 'irritating' the British for a few days and were never able to sustain their resistance for a long duration. And India could not sit quietly without resisting. The answer was provided by the Mahatma - Non-violent resistance.

Did it work? It did at several levels. Firstly, it pressurised Britain to initially accept the freedom struggle and later to grant basic rights and eventually to concede freedom. It took time in getting results owing more to our disunity and lack of focus than the failure of the movement. A student getting low marks does not mean the subject is bad. Also, Gandhi in following the non-violent path was furthering the great legacy of Indians before him like Buddha, Ashoka and Akbar who called for conciliation instead of conflict, peace instead of war and who wanted India to be a 'moral super power'. Gandhi's Non-violent struggle enabled India to continue to be a moral super power and garnered international support which as history proves was of great help later on. Also the fact that we attained freedom through non-violent means meant that their was relative peace in the country which enabled the mushrooming of Industries and institutes of learning which proved to be the foundations of our development in the post-independence era.

India's freedom struggle was a classical case of the means used for achieving the end being as important as the end itself. Take for example third-world countries like us who attained freedom by violent means - China , most of the African countries and even Pakistan. The violent streak in the people of these countries was prevalent even after they were free. Hence when ever an issue cropped up in their society instead of discussing and debating they again took course to violent means. Hence we see sustained periods of violence in these countries even after they became free and to this day. India on the other hand was the only country to achieve freedom through peaceful means. This helped in tackling conflicts in Indian society post-independence. Take for instance the secessionist movements in the south or north-east, the mandal and mandir agitations, terrorism in Punjab and Kashmir. In a lesser country each of these conflicts could have led to violence and maybe partition. But India owing to Gandhi's peaceful lessons used debate and conciliation instead to avert disaster and to retain unity. Hence it becomes a catch-22 situation and the Mahatma never gets enough credit because the people cannot see the disasters he averted as his legacy had prevented them from happening in the first place!

The Mahatma apart from being a freedom fighter was also a social reformer. Fighting centuries of social discrimination against the lower castes he espoused their cause and eventually gave them respect and a place in the society. It was he who enabled people like Ambedkar to come up with radical social reforms. Without Gandhi's backing and creation of awareness these reforms would never have got through. The measure of his success can be got from the fact that it has taken India only a hundred years to at least partially correct centuries of exploitation. Exploitation still occurs albeit sporadically but Gandhi's touch enabled that there was a change in the mind-set of the people and people acknowledged that all Indians are equal and all need the same opportunities to succeed. This in the long run could be the real achievement of Gandhi.

Lastly, the Mahatma makes the Indian feel couple of feet taller in the world's eyes. That is so rare in today's world. So even when we had/have poverty and other problems the world views us with respect. The Mahatma is commemorated by every country in the world and his ideals have been taken up by people as diverse as Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Dalai Lama and even Barrack Obama who in turn have become aspirational figures for their countries. When they acknowledge Gandhi it makes every Indian proud. When the UN recognizes October 2 as the international day of non-violence, it makes us proud. When his statue is unveiled in most cities of the world it makes us proud. When a world mired in war and hatred hangs onto Gandhi for support and guidance it makes us proud. How many Chinese can feel the same way about Mao or how many Pakistanis can feel the same about Jinnah? We must not take the Mahatma for granted.

Hence it is up to each Indian to recognize the man behind the Mahatma and treat him not just as a figure from history but also a mindful person whose ideals must be adapted to the present times and practised. It is up to us to disinter the Mahatma from history books and bank notes and understand him and his teachings and strive to further his legacy of peace and non-violence.

The Past and the Present

As I slip into my solitude and retreat into myself , a multitude of thoughts run over me and i scramble frantically to handle them. The time around me rushes ahead at a furious pace as if in a hurry to catch a missing train. It speeds along, taking me with it. It does not take a break, neither does it give me one, it cannons along as if to fulfill a preordained appointment. In a bat of an eyelid days become weeks, weeks become months, months become years and i realize that i have come a long way and i look behind in awe at the distance travelled and sometimes fail to recognize my image in the past. As I realise how fast time flies by I ponder over the past , the present and how they get connected. What is this Past? How is it related to the present? What does it signify? These are some of the questions that get hurled at my ignorant mind to ponder.

The past gives rise to the present and the future runs from this present and together all three are inexplicably intertwined. Past actions and their consequences reflect on our state in the present and the actions of the present reflect in our future. We remember the past, experience the present and look forward to the future. Together they form the three edges of life's triangle.

In experiencing the present we sometimes forget the past and give no heed to it, as if indulging in the newly arrived guest ignoring your old parent. But still the past clings onto you like a good friend, there at every one of your beck and call, not changing a bit, ever the same. Whereas the present is a wily foe changing colours like a chameleon, slipping out of your grasp, always keeping you guessing.

We romanticize the past and praise it in Utopian terms. But didn't you curse that same past when you experienced it? Why does it look so rosy and perfect now? Maybe the present holds aloft a crystal clear mirror which shows up all the bad that exists in and around you and you curse it. In contrast, the past is like the shadow you cast , you only see a beautiful outline of yours, ignoring all your warts, inconruencies and miseries and so you fall in love with it. Probably that's why the past appears more attractive than it actually was when experienced. Hence we idealize the past and curse the present and say that everything was perfect in the past. The truth however is that we tend to ignore the ills of the past and remember only the good. The past is in our control and we see in it what we want to see. The mind plays tricks and we fall for it.

Whatever be the case, we all love to love the past. Sometimes the day-to-day drudgery of life becomes mundane and the present loses some of its dynamicity and lustre and i look back to the bygone past and get immersed in past events like in a trance and they in turn blow life into the dull present which again becomes lively.

Hooked On!

What is your most memorable moment of the 1983 world cup? Is it the sight of Kapil Dev catching Viv Richards or the sight of last man Michael Holding getting out? Let me tell you mine. My abiding moment of that match is that of Mohinder Amarnath hooking a menacing Andy Roberts bouncer into the crowd. 'What a shot' - I exclaimed as the ball sailed over the fine leg boundary for a six and i was well and truly 'hooked' onto the game.

The hook shot has always been one of my favourite cricketing shots ever since i started following cricket. It is not the sole favourite though - the cover drive on one knee , the wristy leg side clip and the straight drive are others in that list. However there is something about a fast disappearing entity that fascinates the human mind. Maybe the feeling that it is not going to last increases its beauty in the eye of its beholder and the mind tries to absorb as much of it as possible. The hook shot in cricket belongs to the same class. Hence this affinity towards it.

There is no shot in cricket which is as beautiful to watch or requires as much courage to execute as the hook shot. It requires the batsman to be technically sound and to be perfectly balanced. It also needs a lot of courage to not only stand up to the fast man's bouncer but to hit the ball convincingly too. A small mistake might result in you getting out or getting your jaw dislodged.

The beauty of Cricket apart from the obvious sublime skills on display, is the multi-layered aspect of it. The actual game played between the two sides forms the main battle which in turn includes various small fascinating battles. One such battle is that of a great batsman against a genuine fast bowler who strains his muscle and mind to get rid of him. The fast bowler's greatest weapon is the bouncer , it is used not only to get the batsman out but also to mentally defeat the batsman. So often we have seen that a batsman after facing a barrage of bouncers gets out softly by nicking it to the keeper or slips. This is because he is mentally so battered by the bouncers that he loses his concentration and focus. In the face of this bouncer menace the only weapon the batsman has is to pull out his hook shot which tells the bowler that even he is keen to battle him and defeat him as well. That is the power of the shot.

The shot was in fact invented by the great West Indian batsman Rohan Kanhai who realised in true West Indian spirit that the best way to defend against relentless fast bowling is to attack it. In hind sight such an audacious shot could only have been invented by a West Indian as no other country epitomised the attacking, instinctive way of playing the game as the west indies. And over the years they produced some of the best hookers in the game with the likes of Sobers, Richards, Lloyd and Greenidge. India too had some great hookers in the 80s like Amarnath and Kapil Dev.

However the modern batsman, pampered with an overdose of one-day cricket and now Twenty20 is reluctant to play the hook. Instead he is satisfied with slog-sweeping over mid-wicket or smashing the ball over the bowler's head as they are less risky and provide the needed result. In today's result oriented world that is what counts. The fact that wickets around the world have slowed down and genuine fast bowling having become rare has reduced the frequency of the shot. Slower wickets mean that batsman no longer are pinned to the crease and can advance down the ground to fast bowlers as well. The absence of quality fast bowling renders the shot useless as you can take on the bowlers using less risky shots like the drive or pull.

What ever be its current disposition it is a shot i really enjoy watching and hope that more and more modern day batsman execute it with panache.

Requiem for a Failed State

"Pakistan is an International migraine". This statement is not mine, its not that of the Indian government, instead its that of former US secretary of state Madeline Albright. Its a perceptive statement coming from a country that till recently considered Pakistan its ally. But alas truth has its own way of playing hide and seek and unravelling itself at the most unintended hour.Hence thanks to the Pak-inspired Mumbai 26/11 terrorist attacks the truth that India has always known has hit the world. Pakistan is a Failed state which cannot stop its people from turning terrorists and attacking the world, and no one can argue against it now. Pakistan is the new 'enfant terrible' of the world.

The Mumbai 26/11 tragedy and its causes and repercussions have been debated and discussed ad nauseam and I don't want to flog the dead horse again. Instead what we can do is understand the psychology of the source nation of this terror and try to find out why it has become what it has become - a failed state. The unfortunate aspect about the failed Pakistani state is that it's not only hurting Pakistan but also the rest of the world including India, it has become like a time bomb which can explode anytime along with the rest of the world.

The origin of this 'failure' can be traced back to the origins of the state of Pakistan itself. In a way both India and Pakistan were both Ideas as opposed to concrete states. However India was an Idea of cohesiveness whereas Pakistan was an idea of divisiveness. India said 'unity in diversity', Pakistan said 'unity in homogeneity'. Hence Pakistan as an idea was always hollow - destined for failure - and India as an idea however difficult to realize was solid. Pakistan came about not because of a righteous struggle but by the vices and machinations of one man - Jinnah. Pakistan you can say was like an old man's mistress, she was looked after as long as the old man was alive and derided and abused by his family when he was dead. So the Pakistan that Jinnah managed to cut out of India triumphed only in its formation and plunged towards destruction when he was gone. Jinnah's Pakistan led to the killing of millions of people and till today millions of people suffer because of the Pakistan he formed. According to me Jinnah along with Hitler ranks among the most notorious villains in history who has the blood of millions of people on his hand. Pakistan is a classic case of what happens to the world when a lunatic is given a free-hand.

The state of Pakistan has been plagued by a confusion of ideas. This it owes to its 'father' Jinnah. All along Jinnah had espoused for a Muslim homeland sighting the reason that they were different from the rest of India. He created a communal divide so intense that the citizens of the yet to be formed Pakistan were expecting their new homeland to be an Islamic state like Saudi Arabia. But in a dramatic U-turn the father of Pakistan on the eve of its independence proclaimed that Pakistan will be a secular state!. This plunged the young nation into an ideological abyss. If Pakistan was a secular state then what was the need to separate from India which itself was secular? If it separated from India on communal lines why did not Jinnah proclaim it to be an Islamic state? This confusion is still at the heart of the Pakistani state.

This confusion continued with the nature of government in Pakistan. Jinnah being a lawyer was in the favour of a republican democracy. However what he did not consider was the fact that he had used the numerical strength and of his army (the erstwhile Punjab and Pathan regiments) as a pressure tactic against the British, who needed the army for the ongoing second World war. This arm-twisting worked and the British willingly granted Jinnah's Pakistan despite Indian opposition in the bloody partition endgame. However post-independence the Pakistani army came back for its pound of the flesh and forcefully got it too. There after the struggle for power between the civilian democratic government and the Army has continued to this day at the expense of the state's development. Jinnah brought the army out of the barracks and no one in Pakistan has been able to put them back. What do they say, what goes around , come around!

The Pakistani Army and its protege' the ISI in turn to safeguard their powers used India as a bogey nation and created an India-centric society which did not think beyond India - not even its development. After repeated defeats in conventional warfare the Army decided to "bleed India through a thousand cuts" by starting cross-border terrorism. They with CIA help and Saudi money started the ugly spectre of Jihad in the world and gave the world the ugly word of terrorism. India cried hoarse at Pakistan's connivance in world terror, but no one bought it. This terrorism that was fed by the Pakistan state for three decades is now biting the very hand it fed on. Hence we have the fake mournings of the Pakistan state that "it is a victim of terrorism". Let them ask themselves who encouraged these terrorists in the first place. Was it not them? The fact is that the chickens have come home to roost, and roost they will.

It's a time to mourn a Failed Pakistani state and also a time to solve a pressing international problem. The most important step is to make the weak civilian democratic government powerful, the idea being that a strong government will put the army back in the barracks and eliminate all rogue elements in them as well as the ISI. This will cut out the oxygen supplied to the terrorist organizations which can then be be eliminated by international forces. For the civilian government to become powerful it needs the full co-operation of the international community including India.

India for its part will do well to strengthen its internal security and intelligence so that it can counter any terrorist attack from outside as well as inside. India can also think of organizing state-formed assassination units - on the lines of the Israeli 'Mossad' which was formed to eliminate Palestinian terrorists - which will hunt down and eliminate these terrorist organizations operating out of POK.

But for all this to happen the Pakistani state and its people have to wake up from their state of denial and realize the mistakes they have committed in the last 60 years and form a resolve to end extremism in their society for the good of their country as well as those in the rest of the world. If they do not wake up and put their house in order then the rest of the world which has woken up now will do it for them. And that will not be a pleasant experience for Pakistan.

The Audacity of Hope

The year must have been 1998. I was sitting in front of the Television watching a film called 'Deep Impact', which was a mundane film where America once again saves the world - from a comet this time. But what caught my attention was that the role of the American president was played by Morgan Freeman - a black man. I started wondering whether such a thing could happen in real life. Can a black man in spite of his color and America's history become their president. Can Martin Luther King's dream of seeing the black man treated as an equal to the white man be realised?

Come January next year all the above questions will be laid to rest as Barrack Hussein Obama takes oath as the 44th and most importantly the first African-American president of the United states of America. The 'dream' that Martin Luther King Jr foresaw 40 years ago will strut onto the pristine premises of Capitol hall and take the solemn oath. It is a fantastic achievement and what amazes the world is the rapid pace at which Obama has captured the top job. Also amazing is the number of obstacles crossed by Obama in the process - a first time senator with limited foreign policy exposure , a black man at that, a man having a Muslim parentage at that. The obstacles were many but he conquered them all to become Mr. President.

Achievements of this magnitude are not to the sole credit of the individual. The society that creates the atmosphere that enables the achievement also deserves as much credit. As much as a charmer as Obama is he would not have succeeded in the past when America was neither ready nor aspired for a black president. This was a society which refused voting rights to the black man untill the 1960s and considered slavery legal almost a 100 years after its formation and even fought a civil war over it. The American society has changed furtively to embrace pluralism and diversity. The black man who was forever seen as a rogue , a labourer is being now seen as the person to lead the nation. The American society needs to be congratulated on the change. Obama's rise is as much an endorsement of the man as that of the progressive American society. This is not to take away anything from Obama who put in his all to win the presidency and truly deserved it.

The difference between Obama and the previous 'black' contenders for the job is very interesting and discerning. The other contenders were the rabble-rousers who always concentrated on the bad state of the blacks and how 'white' America oppressed them, they spoke with an almost rebellious mentality and thought of themselves as victims. Unlike them Obama dint see through this victim-tinted glass and instead spoke about the opportunities that were ahead of them. He spoke not only for a small clique of people but for the entire nation. He engendered a pan-american identity by raising national issues.

This has a lesson for India, especially for Indian politicians who claim to espouse the cause of the minorities and dalits. Similar to Obama they have to speak about the larger nation and national problems instead of harping about the state their communities. In this way they get a wider audience and increase their chances of attaining power which once attained can be used to uplift their people as well as the rest.

Obama, being a shrewd politician and also a man of letters intelligently, named his autobiography - The Audacity of Hope. It is a quite brilliant title as it managed to capture the essence of the man and attach with him the word 'Hope'. 'Hope' is a much needed commodity in today's America, struggling with an impeding economic recession, a losing war and a tarnished image abroad. Amidst the prevailing gloom someone holding aloft the torch of hope seemed attractive and hence Obama became the torchbearer of hope. It has also raised expectations about Obama and he will be having one of the toughest challenges of any American president in recent years. He is confronted with a problem whose magnitude can only be matched by that faced by Franklin Roosevelt who went on to face those problems boldly and become one of the best American president's ever.

The mark of a real leader they say is to leave a legacy which is in a better state than it was when he inherited it. As America and the world braces up for an Obama presidency, only time will tell what legacy he will leave behind and whether the world will be better or worse for it. Obama will do well to emulate Roosevelt and prove that hope indeed can be audacious.