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.

India and the Neo-anarchist state

A Perfect political system they say is an oxymoron. Each system brings its own positives and negatives so how does a country adopt a system. Surely such a serious thing cannot be enforced on any country and ideally a nation has to choose a system that suits its intrinsic genius, a system which allows its people to bring out their best and make it a progressive country. Which begs the question whether we in India have chosen the correct political system. And given the evidence before us we cannot say a resounding 'Yes'.Even after 60 years of Independence a third of our population is below the poverty line, communalism is rampant and the rich-poor divide is widening.

The roots of our current political system lies in the erstwhile British raj whose sole agenda was to deplete the country of its resources. This necessitated a system where power was centralised ( in British hands of course) and devolution of power was despised. Whenever the Indians protested for greater power the British threw in a few rudimentary 'power-crumbs' and continued to eat the bigger pie. This system worked wonders - for the British that is - for nearly two centuries. This hardly changed after independence with the masters replaced from the British to fellow Indians. So long as the leaders were benevolent and competent this worked fine but once their integrity faltered then the political system got infected with the cancer of corruption. Since power was centralized it pumped the malaise of corruption to each and every corner of the Indian society.Things have come to such a pass that the people have turned cynical instead of becoming angry.

Is there a way out of this quagmire? There must be. As a possible solution let me draw attention to an old idea an ideology in fact which was famous during the 19th century. This was called Anarchism. This in fact was a left-wing ideology espoused by the liberals in Europe at that time. In a nut shell it called for elimination of all compulsory government i.e. the state and stressed on self-organization. Its core idea being the assumption that humans by nature were good and were perfectly capable of governing themselves and thus a formal government was not needed. However this ideology failed because it was impractical because society is not like nature to be left on its own , it has to be regulated and managed either by individuals or by groups of them. However we in India can take some good points espoused by it and use it to our benefit, lets call this neo-anarchism. These being limiting the scope of the government and devolving power to self-organized local bodies.

Lets look at the first one. The current government with its almost complete control over the country has led to vote-bank politics, populism and political one-upmanship whereby the politicians put themselves above the country. Add to it that most of our politicians are not exactly highly educated or of high integrity it results in chaos. Also with so much heierarchy the citizen does not know who is responsible for his needs, is it the corporator, the MLA, the MP,he's confused. Its almost like everybody is responsible for nobody and each of them passes the buck to the other when any question is raised. All these factors call for limiting the governments powers and devolving it where it is used efficiently.

Limiting the scope of the government is nothing new , it has been tried successfully in the field of Indian business. Until 1991 Indian business was shackled due to the licence - permit raj which as the name suggests was centralized power where the govt of the day gives you a license to produce goods. Over the years this lead to rampant corruption. But post-1991 key business areas like IT,Telecom etc were thrown open to privet enterprise and the result is there for every one to see. Hence which ever areas where the government's power was limited progressed exponentially. Now we need to extend this principle to the general society too and restrict the influence of the government.

OK, so the scope of the government is limited but where will the power get dispersed? For this we need to make our local bodies potent and powerful. This means giving more power and money to local bodies such as municipalities and corporations. This will help in providing localized solutions to local problems hence will be more effective. For eg. if a road in any locality is not proper then i can approach the local municipality to repair it. Money accompanies power therefore these local bodies should get the loin share of our taxes so that they can take more responsibilities and heed to their citizens. The corporates could be involved in this as well, like exempting a company from giving taxes and instead make them take up some social initiatives such as funding infrastructure construction, providing books , uniforms to school children etc. In this way the various parts of the society gets to play a role in the upliftment of the society.

As things get 'localized', what will be the government's role. The government will be concerned with broader issues such as foreign relations, maintaining law and order in the country , providing for regional imbalances, providing better laws etc. These are some of the crucial things that the government can handle. As the latest financial crises in the US showed the government's role in regulating the economy is crucial. Hence the government should clearly know what it should and should not do. This will result in a state with a loosely coupled and truly federal character where the government takes care of 'global' issues whereas local bodies take care of 'local' day-to-day issues.

This sort of a set up is suitable for India and will surely bring out the best in us. Here's why. There are two situations that call for a strong state involvement one where the country has a mature polity and the other where the citizens cannot self-organize themselves. The Scandinavian countries fall into the former and China for example falls into the latter category. However India fails on both counts , it does not have a mature polity and its citizens are perfectly capable of organizing themselves. Hence this calls for having a light-weight loosely-coupled state where the citizen gets to do more instead of an overpowering state.

The picture is not entirely rosy, there are some cons to this system. Localizing will also mean some local bodies will always be stronger and have more corporate support than others, contrast karnataka and mizoram for instance. In these cases the smaller/weaker bodies get left behind. This can be countered by having the government acting as a balancer whereby the smaller bodies get their due.

Its not like this system is new for India. Ancient India was based on smaller village republics with each village having its representative body ( something like a panchayath) perfectly capable of governing itself with the king at the top concerned with global events like conquests , invasions , economy etc. These village republics flourished irrespective of whatever happened at the top. Even in the modern world the US can be described as a neo-anarchist state with the states governing themselves with the centre providing a strong constitutional bedrock.

All in all going for a loosely-coupled neo-anarchist model will be better suited for India than the current centralized-state system and will help unleash the potential of her people and help India fulfill her destiny.

My God, Your God

The noted communist historian Hiren Mukherjee had said that in the last 200 years India has not produced a single outstanding atheist: the point being that religion was so ingrained in the Indian psyche that Indians cannot think outside its framework. As communal violence rears its ugly head around the country ranging from Orissa to Karnataka to Kashmir the truth in these words ring true.

Before we analyze the communal problem it should be noted that India/Indians should get credit for creating the most secular environment in the world which allows all the major religions in the world to co-exist peacefully. A similar experiment in Yugoslavia failed miserably even though it was fraction the size of India. But in spite of this what is the reason for the occasional communal flaring?

Communalism has to be analysed in three dimensions - religious, social and economic. Each of these dimensions act and react upon each other. Lets take a look at the religious dimension. There is a minute clique in each religion that has a perverse sense of religious superiority which give rise to proselytizing tendencies. Its almost like a 'My-God-Your-God' attitude that disturbs the prevalent peace. Such a fringe is sidelined normally by better-minded secular people of that religion. However when religious sentiments are incited this fringe takes control and acts as a self appointed guardian of the community and the masses sway in their direction. This is true of all communities.

Even social structure plays a role. If one community is aggrieved by the social imbalance that leads to another community progressing ahead of them it acts as a catalyst when religious sentiments are incited. Here the root cause of the social imbalance is the culprit but religion falls prey and becomes an excuse. Similar is the case with the economic disposition of communities where an essentially rich - poor problem gets a communal hue. In both these cases religion is hi-jacked by various socio-economic problems and misused. This causes communal disharmony in the society.

Among the three the religious dimension is the most crucial and dangerous. The religious dimension creates a schism which is broken open by the other two. In absence of this aspect the other two become powerless and get decoupled from religion. So if this is taken care then communalism can be greatly reduced. But how can it be done?

Its not easy as the noted historian's quote suggest religion is so ingrained in us that we cannot think beyond it. Hence a total 'ban' on religion will only aggravate the passions. A better but painstaking approach would be to inculcate the habit of treating all religions on par and thinking each one as a product of its time and an interpretation of how to lead a good life. The responsibility for doing this lies on each family as it does on the government of the day and the communities themselves. This is nothing new, India has been doing this for thousands of years.

When each one of us starts to see all religions in the same mirror then we will not succumb to any communal incitement. As Vivekananda told 'Each hindu should be a good hindu, each muslim should be a good muslim, each christian should be a good christian'. If this is followed rather than playing a 'My-God-Your-God' game peaceful times await us. Will it happen. Let's hope so.

Fantastic Five : Top Actor - Singer Pairs

Hindi Films and their songs have been an integral part of modern Indian society. Indeed they form an important glue in joining the fabric of Indian society. There is one phenomenon which is peculiar to Indian film songs which is the fact that the singer and actor emoting the song could be different persons hence giving rise to the concept of the playback singer. Though this is prevelant in other societies too its all pervasive in the Indian context. And this has always fascinated me, as to how a voice matches a face so exactly, so much so that you percieve it to be the same person. In this edition of Fantastic Five' I profile five Actor-Singer pairs which best exemplifies this fact. So here goes...

1. Rajesh Khanna and Kishore Kumar
Legend goes that when Kishore kumar crooned 'Mere sapno ki rani' in Aradhana for Rajesh khanna people believed that Rajesh khanna was indeed singing it himself. That was the kind of face-to-voice rapport this pair had. No single Actor-Singer pair in hindi films before or since has been so prolific and they deserve the top billing. The number of solo hits given by this pair is endless covering all moods and situations. From the happy-go-luck 'Jai Jai Shiv Shankar' to the melancholic 'Chingari koi bhadke' this pair had everything. Their careers also coincided with that of genial RD Burman who composed hit after hit to form somewhat of a holy trinity. Though the partnership lasted for a short while during the haydays of rajesh khanna's superstardom they gave memorable hits.

2. Shammi Kapoor and Mohd. Rafi
The tough part in choosing a face for Rafi was that he sang so brilliantly for all of them, imbibing their characteristics when rendering the songs. In an era when Rafi sang for everyone and everybody - from comedians to heroes , such was his versatility, Shammi Kapoor was the one actor he had the most hits with. In fact if it was Shammi on screen it had to be Rafi behind the mike, such was their chemistry. Probably it will be a good quiz question to ask some one to sing a Shammi kappor song not sung by rafi! The songs are plentiful with personal favourites being 'Tum mujhe yun bhula na paogi' and 'Asman se aaya farishtha' among others. A truly memorable pair.

3. Raj Kapoor and Mukesh
Mukesh was the third of the triumvirate that ruled hindi film music from the 50s - 70s. And where would Raj kapoor be without Mukesh? The question can be posed the other way round too such was their combination. Indeed they shared a great off-screen rapport too. So much so that when mukesh died raj kapoor reportedly said he had lost his soul and never acted in a film thereafter. The chemistry was so strong that its hard to imagine a Raj kapoor song without mukesh. Similar to the Rajesh khanna - Kishore - RD combo Mukesh and Raj kapoor had a very successful combination with music directors Shankar-Jaikishan. Starting from 'Dum dum diga diga' to 'Jeena yaha, marna yaha' they created some ever green melodies.

4. Amitabh Bachchan and Kishore Kumar
After the Rajesh khanna era the hindi filmdom got a new superstar in Amitabh Bachchan. Kishore kumar with his natural baritone voice was the automatic choice for him. Though this pair was not as prolific a the previous combination, they gave some awesome hits. The point to be observed is how Kishore kumar adapted to Amitabh's on screen persona and sang his songs so beutifully. Though Rafi and Mukesh sang a few of Amitabh's songs kishore was the main singer for Amitabh untill his death in 1987. The songs that one recollects instantly are 'Khai ke Paan Banaras wala' and 'My name is Antony Gonzalves' and many others.

5. Salman Khan and SP Balasubramanium
This was the most unliklyest of combinations. A typical south Indian singing for a muslim pathan. It was the most disparate combination one could have come up with. But it worked. At a time when SPB was singing only for sothern exports such as Kamal Hasan and Rajnikanth music directors Ram-Lakshman took a gamble and made him sing for Salman in 'Maine Pyar Kiya'. What resulted was celuloid magic and it lasted for a better part of a decade before Salman started drifting to other singers and SPB became busy down south. But the time they lasted it looked as if they were made for each other. SOngs such as 'Dil deewana' , 'Bohoth pyar kar the hai' and 'Didi tera devar divana' spring to mind instantly and make you wonder why they are not at it nowadays.

Bharatha Bhagya Vidhatha

As one more independence day passes over, we rejoice and look back at the past 61 years with pride and a modicum of disappointment. Proud for all the achievements made and disappointment at the thought that much more could have been achieved. This independence day was made even more special by the Indian performance at the Olympics. After 28 years the world got to hear the Indian national anthem thanks to Abhinav Bindra. As I cherished the moment and went through the anthem in my mind a thought struck me.

We have recited the anthem since we were kids and do so even now, but how many of us really know the meaning of the anthem or at least want to know its meaning? I was particularly struck by the line "Bharatha Bhagya Vidhaatha" in the anthem and a question rose in my mind. Who is this "Bharatha Bhagya Vidhatha" - "the dispenser of destiny" referred to by the poet. In fact he appears twice in the anthem and is said by the poet to be praised all around the country.Is he God as Tagore himself said. Is it George V - the king of England at that time - as argued by some of Tagore's critics.

I guess that's the beauty of poetry, each one can interpret it to his liking and each one may be different and correct at the same time.As I went through the anthem again with the quest of finding this 'Vidhata' I could not imagine anyone as the 'Vidhata' other than - the common man.Yes, the common man. Doesn't he guide India's destiny? Hasn't he been witness to the joys and travails of India?. Yes the most uncommon of those beings, the common man.

He does not have a face but we all see him.He doesn't have a voice but still we hear him. He does not have a presence but still we feel him. No matter what the challenge thrown at him by destiny he has carried on bravely, facing all obstacles with courage.He was present when India was enslaved, he fought for her freedom and rejoiced when she achieved it. He laid the foundations of democracy and enabled India to become the largest democracy in the world. He has endured famines and natural calamities, but still he has marched on.He was present when bombs exploded, he was victimized in the riots.He endured it all silently. He liberated the economy and carried it to new frontiers. He started the IT/Telecom revolutions which gave jobs and aspirations to millions like him. India celebrated when he won the world cup. India was made proud when he won a Gold at the Olympics.Indians were elated when he bought prestigious MNCs abroad. He has achieved success in which ever part of the world he has gone and resided in, not forgetting the homeland.As the future beckons, he is once again at the fore front to guide India's destiny. He wants to regain India her lost prestige and glory. There might be hurdles but he shall overcome them as he has done in the past.

Through thick and thin, good fortune and calamity, he has marched on guiding the destiny of India and will continue to march on in the future too. Yes, its him, he is the one who can be called the 'Bharatha Bhagya Vidhatha'- 'the dispenser of destiny'.

The Jamican Juggernaut

There is a famous legend often referred in the Caribbean. The legend goes that when the Englishman came to colonise the Caribbean islands he brought with him thousands of West African slaves and the most fiery and rebellious of the slaves were sent to inhabit what is now modern Jamaica. And this the legend says explains the propensity of the island to produce aggressive cricketers and track scorching sprinters. Starting from aggressive batsmen like George Headley ( who was called the black bradman, but Jamaicans used to refer bradman as the 'white headley'!) to fiery fast bowlers like Michael Holding to ace sprinters like Usain Bolt.

The above legend can be passed off as myth but after seeing the eye-popping performance of the Jamaican sprinters in the just concluded Beijing Olympics - where lead by the mercurial Bolt they have swept almost all sprinting medals thereby upstaging the US - its hard not to believe in the legend. Along with Michael Phelps' 8 gold medal haul and China's stupendous medal winning spree to the top the performance of the Jamaican sprinting team will be part of Olympic folklore. For someone who has been fascinated by the pure romance associated with the sporting culture of the Caribbean islands this was undoubtedly one of my high points of the Olympics.

Even though Beijing 2008 saw Jamaica win sprinting gold medals for the first time, its not like Jamaica had not produced quality sprinters before. It did produce sprinters but due to the socio-economic condition of the country most of them went to more affluent countries in search of greener pasteurs and a better life. Sample this. The brilliant but disgraced sprinter Ben Johnson hailed from Jamaica but represented Canada, Linford Christie won the 1992 100m gold for Britain even though he was born in Jamaica, Donovon Bailey won the 1996 100m gold for Canada in spite of his Jamaican upbringing. So what has changed in the last decade? I would say the attitude of the Jamaican government which has taken it upon itself by promoting athletics in the country in a big way by providing sports infrastructure and scholarships which were the two main reasons for budding athletes to immigrate to countries like the US. This is the reason why the Jamaica is able to retain promising athletes who have reaped a rich harvest of medals in the Olympics.

The 'Jamaican experiment' also has some serious lessons for India. Two in fact. One, there is no better way to produce medal winning sportsmen than providing them with good world class infrastructure. Infrastructure does not mean stadiums and facilities alone, but also 'soft infrastructure' like scholarship, monetary help etc. Two, India should concentrate on select events. Events which are more natural to Indians like those involving hand-eye coordination viz. shooting, archery,boxing etc. Once we have started excelling in these events consistently then we can concentrate on diversifying into other events. Apart from Jamaica, this approach has been followed by no less a country than China and India will do well to emulate it.

As for now, its time to sit back, enjoy and applaud the performance of Jamaica and hope we do something similar in the future.

The European Game

Brazil can claim to produce the best footballers in the business and Africa can lay claim to produce the most raw talents but Europe still remains the epicenter of the 'Beautiful game' and its financial hub. As Euro 2008 gets underway, it’s a good time to look at Football's impact on Europe and indeed Europe's impact on the game.

The game was invented by who else - the British, again - and it spread far and wide across the world. It spread not only among the British colonies but also other nations too. This differentiates Football from another British invention - Cricket. Cricket was essentially a game meant for the bourgeois elite as proved by the ‘Gentlemen’s game’ coinage and hence did not capture popular imagination and it came to represent ‘Colonial Britishness’. In contrast Football developed as a worker's pastime and became more famous in the industrial towns of Britain. This is proved by the fact that most EPL clubs were formed by worker's guilds and unions mostly in industrial towns like Manchester and Liverpool. The short length of the game also suited the worker’s as their hectic work hours gave them limited time to play/follow games. Gradually Football began to develop an identity independent of Britain which allowed it to enter and flourish in non-British countries all over the world and through those countries throught the world.


The beauty of Football in Europe is the fact that each country that has taken to the game has given a distinct shape and flavor to it. Hence the type of football played by each country reflects the national character of that country. Take for example Germany, the 'efficient', ‘methodical’ and 'industrious' people they are is reflected in their play which has a great amount of discipline, mental toughness and efficiency. Similarly Spain, Portugal and Netherlands play an attractive brand of football which involves taking risks and going for broke which epitomizes their free-spirited cavalier approach to life as reflected by their world explorations undertaken during the late 15th century. Italy on the other hand plays a conservative 'defend and counter-attack' kind of football with more emphasis given to brilliance and improvisation which directly reflects its national character of promoting art and aesthetics thereby producing brilliant artists and musicians.

Another interesting aspect is the impact Football has on the socio-politics of these countries. Since the end of WWII, much of Europe has been in peace and age old animosities and rivalries have been laid to rest. But much of that old rivalry still exists on the football pitch. England and France have long ceased quarrelling over the colonies but theirs is one of the fiercest rivalries on the football pitch. Similar is the case between France and Germany whose rivalry ran almost as a thread through much of European history. This is indeed the case with many of the European nations. Hence for good or for worse the football pitch has become a virtual battleground for the players and people of nations involved in competitions such as the world cup and the European championships. So Anfield and Nou Camp are the 'battlefields' of today's Europe and not Waterloo and Normandy!

So the next time you watch a football match involving France , Germany or Italy, do remember that there is more to it than just being a ‘beautiful game’.

The Bird's Nest

China like India is a nation of contrasts; grappling with its dualities - of communism and capitalism, freedom and control, past and present - it can be loathsome and enchanting all at the same time. Nothing represents the opportunity and danger that grips modern China better than the new 'Bird's Nest' Olympic stadium in Beijing. Built on a not too modest budget of 500 million dollars and enmeshed in 34 KMs of steel it is a marvel of engineering. As the Communist party wants, its been portrayed to represent the return of China as a true blue world power. An elegant eagle taking flight into the world from its nest, as it were. But unwittingly it also represents a hornet's nest with lots of problems just waiting to happen.

For the past 25 years China is performing a miracle never seen before in human history. A constant rate of growth of upwards of 8% for 25 years, the kind of growth Japan witnessed in the post-WWII years. This phenomenal growth has enabled China to lift 400 million people out of poverty - a population more than the size of the US which is unparalleled anywhere in the world at any point in time. It has probably the largest reserve of US dollars (last estimates pin it at 3 trillion). The cities of shanghai and hong kong are a buzzword in world financial circles and are growing at a furious pace and will compete with first world financial hubs like New York and London soon. The infrastructure too has taken a huge leap forward with good roads and telecommunication facilities, the crowning glory being the biggest dam in the world (Three gorges dam) and the Railroad between Beijing and Lhasa. The Chinese space program too is gaining momentum as it became the third country after the US and USSR to put a man in space. What more Beijing is hosting the Olympics later this year and could well top the medals tally. Also the real estate boom has made China the largest construction site in the world gobbling up half of the world's cement and cranes! It’s a list of head-spinning achievements.

All these look a far cry from the days of the 'Great leap forward' and 'cultural revolution' when China blinded by Maoist ideology fought with itself and came to the brink of a civil war. However the phenomenal changes over the past 30 years cannot mask the dangers that lurk within. In spite of the rapid economic progress there has been negligible political progress with China still being a Totalitarian state. Both the press and the judiciary are emasculated and serve as extensions of the communist party. If an unreformed China takes over the leadership of the world beating the US - as is predicted - it will bring to fore a moral dilemma. How can the leader of the world, itself being a despot deal with similar oppressive regimes. If China's condonement of Sudan's oppression in Darfur is anything to go by then there is a potential moral vacuum if China comes to head the world. However imperfect the western powers are they are essentially 'democracies' which did not pose any such moral dilemma. It remains to be seen whether China remains a communist despot or reform itself and assimilate into the world power system like Japan.

There are gross violation of human rights with large number of dissenters and political enemies rounded up for capital punishment. Protests of any kind are prohibited and the government still equates protests - however valid they may be - to treason. The media including the internet and mobile text messages are strictly censored and news paper editors are still afraid to criticize the government. In effect, the People's Republic is afraid of its own people. In spite of the capitalistic slant over the years China still does not trust private entrepreneurship and hence there are very few world class Chinese companies unlike India which keeps on adding companies every passing year. Also, the rapid pace of growth has led to severe environmental damages with the cities being some of the most polluted in the world. In fact its tough to get a clear blue sky in Beijing even during summer.


The recipe for China's growth can be explained thus. State-directed banks collecting (or is it forcing?) massive savings from the people and directing them to massive manufacturing projects, under valuing its currency and using cheap labor to the projects and thus become a 'manufacturer for the world' of sorts and reaping profits and foreign capital. This looks fine on paper and actually has worked in the past 30 years BUT there is a chance for the picture to turn ugly. How long can China in spite of the cheap labor keep exporting insane amounts of goods to the World? What if the foreign capital stops flowing in, what if the phenomenal savings rate drops since the banks pay interest occasionally and rarely repay the entire debt, what if the middle class revolts against the establishment for more political freedom, what if undervaluing the currency hits crucial imports. All these are things that could go horribly wrong however slim the chances of them actually happening may be.

Contrast this with India. Though the rate of growth could be slow and rapid progress is tough the fundamentals seem to be right. A vibrant democracy - however imperfect it may be, an open press, democratic Institutions, an impartial judiciary etc. All these ensure that even though India's steps are slow but they are definitely surer. Of course there are lots of things India could borrow from China like thrust on infrastructure, efficiency in enforcing policies etc, however all these do not require major systemic changes. China's problems are more systemic in nature and will involve a complete socio-political upheaval and historically too China has shown a penchant for such upheavals and revolutions. As a leading sociologist pointed out, China will always require a revolution every 100 years to completely change the existing system and make a complete break from the past.

All this said the engine of growth in China chugs along making the whole world sit up in fear and anticipation. Only time will tell what becomes of the Bird's nest that is China - emergence of an elegant eagle flapping its wings or a hornet's nest.

Fool's Paradise

The first thing that came to my mind as i saw Brendon McCullum hitting the hapless bowlers around the ground in the IPL's opening encounter was "Its just not Cricket". The half-baked cricket on view was really depressing and a far cry from the subtleties offered by the purest forms of the game. The cricket was nothing short of third-rate garbage dished out to an ever hungry public adorned by bollywood stars with a garnishing of semi-nude cheerlgirls. The whole atmosphere smacked of commercialization and represented the BCCI's version of the fool's paradise.

The most depressing part of the IPL is that it has been espoused by those very people who are responsible for running the game in this country viz. BCCI. It would have been understandable if some private businessman like Subhash chandra had come up with it, arguing that he had commercial interests rather than the game at heart. But the BCCI which is responsible for promoting the game in this country has turned it into a thamasha by over-commercializing the game. Let's not be fooled into thinking that the BCCI did it out of love for the game, they did this as a knee-jerk reaction to offset Zee's ICL and also to make a quick buck in the process, caring a damn for the health of the game. If they really wanted to improve Indian cricket they should have improved the stadiums - which are among the worst in the world, improved the grassroots cricket, improved the training and coaching facilities for the senior team. Instead the board went ahead and trivialized the game by selling it off to private enterprises which do not have any interest in the game apart from making money and building brand equity.

I'm not against the Twenty20 format per se. It is a decent format to popularize the game in countries where the game does not have a presence. Its exposure in established markets will lead to devaluation of the purest for m of cricket viz. Test cricket. Test cricket is the soul of the game and it needs to be preserved not destroyed by ventures such as IPL. T20 is like a dessert and Test cricket is the main course , IPL attempts to feed the public with only the dessert and forgetting the main course. So thanks to our administrators T20 which should have been played in nascent markets like USA and Canada are being played in already established markets like India where the game does not need any more popularizing.

The whole argument that the IPL will improve Indian cricket is very hollow. Since when did T20 start producing good quality fast bowlers, great batsman and great spinners. If anything IPL will kill the bowlers out of existence, slip catching will become a thing of the past, and spinners a rarity. It needs good first-class cricket to produce good quality cricketers. T20 will produce only sloggers and defensive bowlers.

And lesser said about the cheergirls the better. The cricket field has some sanctity and it has to be maintained at any cost, and the sight of semi-nude cheergirls is not a bright idea to maintain sanctity. Its not the fault of the cheergirls, they are of course doing their job. The fault lies with the BCCI which has acted shamelessly by behaving like a bar owner in having the cheergirls dancing around in stadiums. is might not be a big deal for US-educated americanized people in the board like Lalit Modi but for Indians and the lovers of the game its blasphemous.

Finally, the worst thing about the IPL is actually the fact that it might actually succeed. The masses love it ( at least till now), the television loves it , the BCCI is raking in the moolah, the franchises are building brand equity, so there is a real danger that the it might succeed. But for the sake of the lovers of the game lets hope its a fantastic failure.

Private rights Vs. Public welfare

As India and China barge into the future and become topics of discussion in bien-pensant circles, it pits two ideologies against each other. No, I'm not talking about Capitalism and Communism. China, Post-Deng Xiaoping has abandoned the road of communism and switched to the freeway of capitalism and can now probably claim to be as capitalistic as the US. The Chinese comrades wave the red flag even as they eat a McDonald's burger.The battle of the ideologies I'm referring to is the conflict between Private rights and Public welfare.

India being essentially a democracy almost always errs on the side of preserving private rights i.e safeguarding the interest of the individual. Take Narmada bachao andolan for example. The coming of the dam will benefit lakhs of farmers in the dry bed of saurashtra at the cost of a few thousand villagers who lose their villages as a result of the dam. In this case the government has tacitly sided the andolan protesters and has stalled the construction of the dam. This is a classic instance of the government going out of its way to safeguard private rights at the cost of public welfare.

A plethora of such instances can be found in India. It could be the building of the Bangalore International airport where it took 20 years for the government to acquire land or the reluctance of the finance ministry in doing away with costly/uneconomic food and fertilizer subsidies, India always tries to put the individual's rights above anything else.

Contrast this with China. The Three gorges dam being constructed across the mighty Yangtze river will ease the annual flooding of the catchment area as well as provide essential power to the ever-hungry Chinese economy ,but it would come at a cost - a huge displacement of over 3 million villagers. But China IS willing to bear this cost knowing fully well the huge benefits the dam will bring. This attitude is demonstrated in almost all government policy which in turn lead to better roads, better water, better road/air connectivity and a huge amount of social welfare in general as decisions are taken without hesitation and considering only public welfare in mind.In effect China abandons individual rights in favor of social welfare.

I'm not trying to justify one over the other since China's human rights record is as dismal as our infrastructure. But instead we could take the undoubted positives present in the Chinese system and compromise to an acceptable level individual rights when it necessitates public welfare. In a perfect world public welfare will happen in unison with preservation of individual rights, but alas our's is a very imperfect world.