It has been said that nation states will always fail the test of morality and ethics if they are tested on the same parameters as individuals are. Devious behavior of an individual becomes statecraft in the context of a nation. But there has to be a limit to it and it becomes dangerous for world order when America pontificates ad nauseam about spreading democracy having destroyed the institution in most countries where it today claims to be working for the restoration of democracy. The American policy in Pakistan has certainly crossed these limits and has resulted in a dangerous situation for Pakistan, its neighbors and possibly, in a backfire of sorts, for America as well.
“And as the president said yesterday, the way to honor her memory is to continue the democratic process in Pakistan”, said Condoleezza Rice after signing the condolence book at the Pakistan Embassy in Washington. As Shekhar Gupta, in his editorial in Indian Express on December 30th, points out, fledgling democratic institutions have been nipped in the bud three times by Americans – on each instance they have supported military dictators Ayub Khan, Zia-ul Haq and Pervez Musharraf. To make a statement with a straight face, like Ms. Rice did,, knowing that the audience is aware of the history, takes some gall. There is nothing personal about Ms. Rice in this who has been credited with some positive aspects of American diplomacy in the recent past.
The biggest mistake in America’s understanding of democracy is that a party of right wing economics, but with liberal social agenda, and above all willing to take dictation from them needs to be in power for success of democracy. Not recognizing Hamas’ election victory, and then going all-out with shameless intervention to bring Benazir-Musharraf axes into power in Pakistan underlines this – but the outcome in both cases also highlights inefficacy of this strategy in bring democracy. The religious right wing parties who America loathes always catch people’s fancy in times of chaos because they have a clearly defined agenda Their ideologically driven cadre isn’t as corrupt as the other parties, or not at least till it comes to power, and people feel that such parties of alliances will be a solution to chaos and corruption. Hamas in Palestine and Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) in Pakistan got popular support, largely, due to these reasons.
Does this make the whole polity communal and extremist? Evidence would suggest otherwise. Once in power these parties have to deliver, and ideology is inconsequential to meeting the needs of ‘roti, kapdaa aur makaan’ (basic needs to food, clothing and shelter – common political slogan in India and Pakistan). The gloss wears away further when ‘power corrupts’, and these party functionaries don’t look like ascetics anymore (compare the lifestyle of most BJP leaders in 1980s to their current lifestyles). After having given the chance to such parties, people realize that there isn’t much that separates the political class and normal service resumes as in any other western democracy. This brings such religious parties more to right-of-center from the previous extremist fringes, as happened with the religious right-wing movement in India in the early 1990s as well. I am sure this would happen with MMA in the two states that it governs in Pakistan. It is already a divided house as far as current national elections are concerned, with Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the President of MMA, saying earlier in December that five parties of the six-party religious alliance were supporting the move to boycott the elections and MMA Secretary General Maulana Fazlur Rehman was free to leave the alliance if he wanted to contest the polls
Unfortunately America hasn’t shown the patience for democracy to take root and a complete cycle to play out. In a country where Osama Bin Laden has 48% approval rating as per a recent poll, and more than two-thirds express dislike for America, the easiest way to discredit a leader is for America to openly support him/her. This is what has happened with Musharraf.
Moreover, in spite of all impressions created to the contrary by western media, even Benazir’s party was only marginally ahead of other parties in opinion polls with just 30% votes (PML-Q and PML-N both were between 20-25%). Even Benazir, by bequeathing her party to her husband (who in turn has handed it over to his son) through her will, has demonstrated a far more feudal than a democratic streak – so much for America’s latest democratic hope in Pakistan.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
IPL, ICL are not Club Football
"The IPL will be a franchise-model wherein corporates and sponsors will be allowed to buy and run teams. "
"The franchisee will, however, collect the gate money and the income from in-stadia advertisements, and at a later stage can list the team on the stock exchange and trade."
Just two clippings of news on the launch of Indian Premier League, BCCI's Twenty20 league, and I get goose bumps. I remember sometime back consulting firm, Deloitte had introduced the Bullfighter, a tool to detect excessive business jargon in writing. The tool would have crashed if it read through the pronouncements made by promoters of IPL and, earlier ICL.
I don't mind jargon, and am honest enough to admit spewing some every now and then. But here the whole premise is flawed, and begets from misplaced notion of power that some of the marketing ilk, including Lalit Modi of BCCI have. And since most of them refer to European club football in general and English Premiership in particular as their model, it would be worthwhile to examine similarities if any.
The franchise of English (or Spanish or Italian) football clubs was not created by a marketing guru - it was created by their fans. Chelsea has learnt it the hard way, when with all the big name footballers in the world, and best marketing talent at its disposal, it couldn't fill 25,000 seats for a Champions League match, a number that fills in White Hart Lane every second week for Premiership one and a half times over. Chelsea has more money at its disposal than IPL franchises can dream of. On the contrary, Newcastle has been in financial doldrums, and hasn't won anything worthwhile but it is the one of the biggest football clubs in England.
Barcelona doesn't have a shirt sponsor, and Real Madrid isn't listed on a stock exchange. Barcelona team wears UNICEF logo on its shirt and that's why it is 'més que un club' (More than a Club). Each of these clubs have a history longer than that of BCCI, and have a strong socio-cultural dimension to them. Barcelona is about the Catalan identity and demand for a separate nation, Celtic-Rangers rivalry in Scotland has more than Catholic-Protestant undercurrents, Inter and AC Milan developed their rivalry as the clubs of 'bauscia' (nouveau riche) and 'casciavit' (literally screwdrivers, representing working class). Ask Modi and Subhash Chandra to go and buy this history, heritage and rivalry through franchises and stock exchanges. Even if they didn't leave this country and learnt from the history of their sport in their country, they would realise branded franchises cant even match the following and passion associated with Delhi-Mumbai Ranji trophy matches in 80s, or Karnataka against either of these in 70s.
One marketing expert on a TV program, while expressing disappointment about India's performance in the world cup and its impact on marketing investments of corporates, welcomed this leagues with the belief that now cricket will become a evergreen marketing opportunity. The lady was mistaken. Cricket is an evergreen marketing opportunity because 'Team India' is a franchise which will have a following despite ups and downs in its performance and whether it is marketed by any marketing wiz kid or not. Within six months of the world cup we have been through the success in England in test matches, a close one-day series, Twenty20 triumph and the disaster in one-dayers against the Aussies. The fans have celebrated wins and cursed, they have idolised Tendulkar one day and wanted him dropped from the team the next day, Karthik has moved from being a hero to a nimcompoop - the feelings are always extreme and there's never any detachment. And this is what captures the defines Club Football in Europe - irrational, extreme emotions of fans, but unwavering loyalty. Every Liverpool fan would be chanting 'You'll never walk alone' once he is in the stadium, completely in unison, but as much out of tune as an Indian fan shouting 'Jeetega Bhai jeetega..'. It makes sense to stregthen the only franchise that exists in Cricket, 'India' rather than creating some artifical ones - this isnt jingoism, but simple marketing commonsense based on available 'case studies'
"The franchisee will, however, collect the gate money and the income from in-stadia advertisements, and at a later stage can list the team on the stock exchange and trade."
Just two clippings of news on the launch of Indian Premier League, BCCI's Twenty20 league, and I get goose bumps. I remember sometime back consulting firm, Deloitte had introduced the Bullfighter, a tool to detect excessive business jargon in writing. The tool would have crashed if it read through the pronouncements made by promoters of IPL and, earlier ICL.
I don't mind jargon, and am honest enough to admit spewing some every now and then. But here the whole premise is flawed, and begets from misplaced notion of power that some of the marketing ilk, including Lalit Modi of BCCI have. And since most of them refer to European club football in general and English Premiership in particular as their model, it would be worthwhile to examine similarities if any.
The franchise of English (or Spanish or Italian) football clubs was not created by a marketing guru - it was created by their fans. Chelsea has learnt it the hard way, when with all the big name footballers in the world, and best marketing talent at its disposal, it couldn't fill 25,000 seats for a Champions League match, a number that fills in White Hart Lane every second week for Premiership one and a half times over. Chelsea has more money at its disposal than IPL franchises can dream of. On the contrary, Newcastle has been in financial doldrums, and hasn't won anything worthwhile but it is the one of the biggest football clubs in England.
Barcelona doesn't have a shirt sponsor, and Real Madrid isn't listed on a stock exchange. Barcelona team wears UNICEF logo on its shirt and that's why it is 'més que un club' (More than a Club). Each of these clubs have a history longer than that of BCCI, and have a strong socio-cultural dimension to them. Barcelona is about the Catalan identity and demand for a separate nation, Celtic-Rangers rivalry in Scotland has more than Catholic-Protestant undercurrents, Inter and AC Milan developed their rivalry as the clubs of 'bauscia' (nouveau riche) and 'casciavit' (literally screwdrivers, representing working class). Ask Modi and Subhash Chandra to go and buy this history, heritage and rivalry through franchises and stock exchanges. Even if they didn't leave this country and learnt from the history of their sport in their country, they would realise branded franchises cant even match the following and passion associated with Delhi-Mumbai Ranji trophy matches in 80s, or Karnataka against either of these in 70s.
One marketing expert on a TV program, while expressing disappointment about India's performance in the world cup and its impact on marketing investments of corporates, welcomed this leagues with the belief that now cricket will become a evergreen marketing opportunity. The lady was mistaken. Cricket is an evergreen marketing opportunity because 'Team India' is a franchise which will have a following despite ups and downs in its performance and whether it is marketed by any marketing wiz kid or not. Within six months of the world cup we have been through the success in England in test matches, a close one-day series, Twenty20 triumph and the disaster in one-dayers against the Aussies. The fans have celebrated wins and cursed, they have idolised Tendulkar one day and wanted him dropped from the team the next day, Karthik has moved from being a hero to a nimcompoop - the feelings are always extreme and there's never any detachment. And this is what captures the defines Club Football in Europe - irrational, extreme emotions of fans, but unwavering loyalty. Every Liverpool fan would be chanting 'You'll never walk alone' once he is in the stadium, completely in unison, but as much out of tune as an Indian fan shouting 'Jeetega Bhai jeetega..'. It makes sense to stregthen the only franchise that exists in Cricket, 'India' rather than creating some artifical ones - this isnt jingoism, but simple marketing commonsense based on available 'case studies'
Monday, September 24, 2007
ICC World Twenty20, Religion and myth-busting
Myth 1: This is a World Cup: ICC has clarified that this is ICC World Twenty20 and NOT a World Cup. There is only one World cup in cricket, held every four years and Australia are the current champions. ICC World Twenty20 is a biennial event replacing ICC Champions Trophy, so Indian media would do well not to proclaim the team as 'World Cup Winners' to sell more copies (or catch more eyeballs). TOI even goes to the extent of saying Patahn brothers playing in a final is third such instance in a World Cup final after Chappel and Wuagh brothers. Please! We have won the tournament so there is a reason to celebrate, and moreso because this team showed a spirit which we dont associate with our team, but this just doesnt make this tournament more important than it is - how dismissive would we have been if had been knocked out early (actually our cricket board had been dismissive of it, was almost forced itnoTwenty20 by ICC)? So how come a tournament become 'THE World Cup' just because we won it?
Myth 2: Matches are won in heaven or by religions: "In 1992 Pakistan won the World Cup in the holy month of Ramadan after beating New Zealand in the semi-final" was Shoaib's pre-match statement expecting the repeat of the same in finals in Wanderers on Monday. Then after the match followed it up with another howler "First of all I want to say something over here. I want to thank you back home Pakistan and where the Muslim lives all over the world."
I dont know the ways of the almighty, but if he had to be one someone's side based on his religious affilitations, then he would/should be on the side of two brothers who were born to a muezzin father and grew up in a mosque compound - Irfan and Yousuf - at least empirical evidence suggests so as one of them was man-of-the-match and other chipped in with a quickfire 15 and a very economical over, all critical in the context of the match. I will be delighted if divine interventions decided cricket matches, as in India we will be hedged against supremacy of one divine path against other. We will have enough numbers from all beliefs praying for His intervention, so whether Lord or Allah or Ganesha intervenes, we will always win!
Myth3: These players are good enough to replace Big 3 in other forms of cricket: There is a clamour for replacing the big-three with the yougsters who played this Twenty20 tournament. People forget that Uthappa was a big flop in the World Cup and Gambhir has had enough chances in test cricket as well as ODIs with success only against weaker teams. Sachin, Saurav and Dravid were 3 of top 4 run-corers for India in England. Let's look at rest of the Twenty20 team. Sehwag was inconsistent in this tournament as well, and anyway he, Yuvraj (183 ODIs), Irfan (73 ODIs, 25 Tests) and Harbhajan (157 ODIs, 57 Tests) are part of old establishment and not new. So who are these new players who will bring the dawn of Indian cricket? RP Singh was most consistent Indian bowler on England tour as well, and while he has grown in stature, his find cant be attributed to Twenty20. Rohit Sharma could be only find of this tournament, who with his technique and temparament, has the potential to do well in longer versions of the game and can challenge the big-three (and not to forget Laxam, who in my books should be on the team sheet before Saurav in a test match).
Tonking sixes off hapless bowlers with 3 overs to go and no fear of man or God, is a different proposition to walking in to bat at the WACA with team 3 down for 20-something the first morning of a test match, with four days and two sessions to play. Let us celebrate the spirit of this team, the fact that Indians can field well if they want to, and that we have a captain who will now have the confidence and authority to deal with all kinds of egos on his own terms, and the fact that we had a few uplifiting evenings. And then prepare for the reality of the Boxing Day at MCC.
Myth 2: Matches are won in heaven or by religions: "In 1992 Pakistan won the World Cup in the holy month of Ramadan after beating New Zealand in the semi-final" was Shoaib's pre-match statement expecting the repeat of the same in finals in Wanderers on Monday. Then after the match followed it up with another howler "First of all I want to say something over here. I want to thank you back home Pakistan and where the Muslim lives all over the world."
I dont know the ways of the almighty, but if he had to be one someone's side based on his religious affilitations, then he would/should be on the side of two brothers who were born to a muezzin father and grew up in a mosque compound - Irfan and Yousuf - at least empirical evidence suggests so as one of them was man-of-the-match and other chipped in with a quickfire 15 and a very economical over, all critical in the context of the match. I will be delighted if divine interventions decided cricket matches, as in India we will be hedged against supremacy of one divine path against other. We will have enough numbers from all beliefs praying for His intervention, so whether Lord or Allah or Ganesha intervenes, we will always win!
Myth3: These players are good enough to replace Big 3 in other forms of cricket: There is a clamour for replacing the big-three with the yougsters who played this Twenty20 tournament. People forget that Uthappa was a big flop in the World Cup and Gambhir has had enough chances in test cricket as well as ODIs with success only against weaker teams. Sachin, Saurav and Dravid were 3 of top 4 run-corers for India in England. Let's look at rest of the Twenty20 team. Sehwag was inconsistent in this tournament as well, and anyway he, Yuvraj (183 ODIs), Irfan (73 ODIs, 25 Tests) and Harbhajan (157 ODIs, 57 Tests) are part of old establishment and not new. So who are these new players who will bring the dawn of Indian cricket? RP Singh was most consistent Indian bowler on England tour as well, and while he has grown in stature, his find cant be attributed to Twenty20. Rohit Sharma could be only find of this tournament, who with his technique and temparament, has the potential to do well in longer versions of the game and can challenge the big-three (and not to forget Laxam, who in my books should be on the team sheet before Saurav in a test match).
Tonking sixes off hapless bowlers with 3 overs to go and no fear of man or God, is a different proposition to walking in to bat at the WACA with team 3 down for 20-something the first morning of a test match, with four days and two sessions to play. Let us celebrate the spirit of this team, the fact that Indians can field well if they want to, and that we have a captain who will now have the confidence and authority to deal with all kinds of egos on his own terms, and the fact that we had a few uplifiting evenings. And then prepare for the reality of the Boxing Day at MCC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
