"..I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government…..And they fell through the BJP (Clinton) administration, and the Mulayam Singh (Bush) administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to caste (guns) or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-Brahmin (anti-immigrant) sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
This is from Barrack Obama’s speech at a fund-raiser in San Fancisco. The words in parentheses are the original words of Obama which I have replaced with words that reflect the reality of UP. In the 36 years since 1972, Democratic party has been in power (President’s post) for only 12 years. It is lucky that there is a two party system in the US, and with the Iraq war and looming recession it may win the November election. There won’t be any such luck for BJP (or for that matter Congress) in UP, which is far the largest state of Indian union (no other state has even 50 Lok Sabha seats compared to the 80 from UP). And Obama’s statement above explains much of the reason for BJP’s plight in UP. Being more right of center than left, I am more worried about BJP’s fortunes than Congress, so the BJP perspective here.
Many in BJP presumably feel, after being stung by 2004 defeat, that ‘governance’ or ‘development’ does not make good policy and hence activist Hinduism (and I use it here to mean all the negatives of this movement which has many positives as well – but that’s a topic for another blogpost) is important to create a core votebank. This is where BJP needs to look at UP and listen to Obama. All this ‘core votebank’ has slipped away in UP to the extent that only one of the 5 party candidates who saved his deposit in recent bypolls is a history-sheeter who defected on the eve of the election. The Hindu votebank did not exist as it has not existed in most elections in UP during this decade.
People vote based on caste or religion when they lose faith in Government – this becomes identity politics. BJP benefited by the affirmation of religious identity in 1990s is now being hurt by the reaffirmation of caste identity. The people cannot be blamed when they did not see the neighboring primary school get teachers or District hospital provide the promised free healthcare or new jobs created. So development becomes a non-issue. As does corruption, when BJP politicians are also not seen to be any different.
So what can BJP do then to make development an issue? First get its Obama in UP. A person with charisma to make people believe that there is ‘hope’ for their fortunes to ‘change’ – it isn’t for no reason that his campaign has been called a campaign in poetry rather than prose. Before you say ‘but this isn’t America’, let me remind you that VP Singh made people ‘hope’ that there will ‘change’ in corruption in government, at a time when all of us had accepted corruption to be integral to the system. So it can happen – it requires a mascot (Obama) to carry the message (Hope and Change).
Second, to fight skepticism and create a platform for this mascot to work from, they need to leverage their peer-less grassroots cadre to provide glimpses of what is possible. Fight for the teacher appointed to the primary school to come to the school – village level workers can do it. Attempt something similar with Primary Health Centers. Once on a visit with my son to a private Clinic of a Government pediatrician in my hometown of Sultanpur, I found that most people whose daily wage would by no means be more than Rs. 50 were paying that amount to the doctor for consultation. Is that a very difficult situation for a grassroots organization to redress by creating some kind of vigilance mechanism at hospitals? Ensure that mid-day meals are provided to all children – here the starting point is zero, so anything will be an improvement - Ananth Kumar and his wife’s work in Bangalore is an amazing success story for other BJP district units to learn from (about mid-day meals as public service and way to connect with people).
To some it may sound Utopian, but achieving 5-10% success in two or three such initiatives may not be impossible. In any case it is a more achievable Utopia than BJP winning next elections in UP by working out caste combinations right in the state. A party in as hopeless a state as BJP in UP can only attempt something so unlikely. Barack Obama, ‘the black guy with a name rhyming with Osama’ had no chance of competing with the Clintons had he not campaigned for ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’. He may not even realize that only hope for a right-wing party in a BIMARU state in India, is to emulate him!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Freedom of Expression – Does it have limits depending on context? (2)
Part (2) of the Post. Part 1 Covers the issue freedom of expression restricted due to religious intolerance
It is my belief that in India intolerance of political expression is a bigger problem than anything which hurts religious sentiments. This also undermines the role of the media and weakens the democratic set-up. As I mentioned in the part (1) of this post, we have lived with what is written about Lord Ram in Kanchi. Arun Shourie’s commentaries about Islam and prophet (which include references to the age of his wives at marriage and consummation) have also survived. It can be argued, though, that many people do not even know about it. Then politicians should be credited for not having used these to create a wedge.
But compare this political intolerance in the two instances I have listed earlier:
1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress
The exhibition on Aurangzeb was based on facts, albeit a parochial view of facts. The intervention was by the government was not based on a public outcry but based on political expediency. DMK government was pandering to a influential supporter (Nawab of Arcot) and a votebank (muslims). Same attitude was evident when the UPA government at the center blamed the Ram Sethu affidavit by ASI on a official making it almost sound like a clerical error. It failed to stand by the affidavit which is based at least on partial evidence. This also happened when UPA felt the heat from the BJP, was afraid of being branded anti-hindu. Both these instances have nothing to do with religion but with politics. Moral of the story being that you can say anything about any religion, hurt anyone’s sentiments but the government would act only if it has electoral implications. So within the same state, no freedom of expression if it is politically convenient (Francois Gautier exhibition) and unlimited freedom with use of whatever language if it is politically convenient (Periyar statue). Intellectual dishonesty on these issues makes it even easier for the Government’s because even a layman like me knows whose freedom Praful Bidwai and Arundhati Roy will fight for (Hussain), and whose freedom BJP idealogues will fight for (Taslima Nasreen). So it leaves us with intellectuals with political agendas, but none with ‘responsible freedom of expression’ as their agenda.
This political intolerance becomes worse in more political matters. MJ Akbar’s dismissal is a case in point. It seems the UPA government was unhappy with his newspaper’s consistent stand against the government on foreign and economic policy. And Deccan Chronicle owner, Mr. Reddy’s attempts to get a Congress Rajya Sabha ticket was being hampered. So the solution was to fire the founder-editor (of Asian Age which merged with Deccan Chronicle). Counter-allegation include MJ Akbar’s attempt to get NDA backing for a Bihar Rajya Sabha seat. Even if this is true, it is immaterial. As is the fact that MJ Akbar participated in a UNPA rally a couple of days back or was Congress MP two decades back. Everyone, including all the editors, have political viewpoints – some are explicit about it others are not. This is not simply a termination of an employment contract as it is a blatantly political act of intolerance of a viewpoint. In a hypothetical situation, if we had BJP government and The Hindu had new owners who decided to fire N Ram for being left leaning, would it not amount muzzling a viewpoint? This happened during emergency and was considered an aberration. It happened with Tehelka, and we forgot about it. It has happened with another newspaper and media has not even raised the issue. Don’t LK Advani’s words about media during emergency ‘began to crawl when they were only asked to bend’ ring true at a time when no such draconian law is in place.
The situation is even worse towns and villages. The local reporters have turned into PR Agencies forwarding to their bureau’s what was dictated to them. Only the really pugnacious one’s are able to risk their lives to publish any news against powerful local politicians. Many have been bought over, in some cases in an institutional way e.g. Patrakarpuram (Journalists Colony) in Lucknow is one such exercise. This is the reason that no issues related to corruption are being fought at a local level, and only cases getting reported these days is when national media runs a ‘sting’. This is making grassroots democracy effete, when vigilance at village, tehsil and district level would have saved so much grief for so many including the Government. UPA’s guarantee card to poll success, its Employment Guarantee Scheme has failed due to corruption and Prime Minister is calling for strengthening an independent audit mechanism. Wasn’t media supposed to play this role at the local level?
Media’s reasons, though unfortunate, are understandable. With lessons from Emergency and Tehelka, they want to play safe. With the objective of ‘maximizing shareholder value’, it is not surprising that public good is compromised. That is the nature of the beast. But political parties have no compulsions – positive media coverage may boost a politician’s ego but doesn’t change electoral fortunes. Had the case been otherwise, Mayawati would not have won in UP or NDA would not have lost in 2004. The evidence from other democracies is also in line. Except for Fox News, every single news channel in the US is left leaning, but all the media together could not prevent George Bush from reelection. So the politicians have an easier solution – let media have a free run. The media, meanwhile, considering political and business reality will have to find an answer to a tougher question – how to run free?
To appreciate what freedom of political expression means, and how a politician, however powerful, needs to grin and bear an uncomfortable commentary, watch this video
Steven Colbert at White House Correspondent’s Dinner
It is my belief that in India intolerance of political expression is a bigger problem than anything which hurts religious sentiments. This also undermines the role of the media and weakens the democratic set-up. As I mentioned in the part (1) of this post, we have lived with what is written about Lord Ram in Kanchi. Arun Shourie’s commentaries about Islam and prophet (which include references to the age of his wives at marriage and consummation) have also survived. It can be argued, though, that many people do not even know about it. Then politicians should be credited for not having used these to create a wedge.
But compare this political intolerance in the two instances I have listed earlier:
1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress
The exhibition on Aurangzeb was based on facts, albeit a parochial view of facts. The intervention was by the government was not based on a public outcry but based on political expediency. DMK government was pandering to a influential supporter (Nawab of Arcot) and a votebank (muslims). Same attitude was evident when the UPA government at the center blamed the Ram Sethu affidavit by ASI on a official making it almost sound like a clerical error. It failed to stand by the affidavit which is based at least on partial evidence. This also happened when UPA felt the heat from the BJP, was afraid of being branded anti-hindu. Both these instances have nothing to do with religion but with politics. Moral of the story being that you can say anything about any religion, hurt anyone’s sentiments but the government would act only if it has electoral implications. So within the same state, no freedom of expression if it is politically convenient (Francois Gautier exhibition) and unlimited freedom with use of whatever language if it is politically convenient (Periyar statue). Intellectual dishonesty on these issues makes it even easier for the Government’s because even a layman like me knows whose freedom Praful Bidwai and Arundhati Roy will fight for (Hussain), and whose freedom BJP idealogues will fight for (Taslima Nasreen). So it leaves us with intellectuals with political agendas, but none with ‘responsible freedom of expression’ as their agenda.
This political intolerance becomes worse in more political matters. MJ Akbar’s dismissal is a case in point. It seems the UPA government was unhappy with his newspaper’s consistent stand against the government on foreign and economic policy. And Deccan Chronicle owner, Mr. Reddy’s attempts to get a Congress Rajya Sabha ticket was being hampered. So the solution was to fire the founder-editor (of Asian Age which merged with Deccan Chronicle). Counter-allegation include MJ Akbar’s attempt to get NDA backing for a Bihar Rajya Sabha seat. Even if this is true, it is immaterial. As is the fact that MJ Akbar participated in a UNPA rally a couple of days back or was Congress MP two decades back. Everyone, including all the editors, have political viewpoints – some are explicit about it others are not. This is not simply a termination of an employment contract as it is a blatantly political act of intolerance of a viewpoint. In a hypothetical situation, if we had BJP government and The Hindu had new owners who decided to fire N Ram for being left leaning, would it not amount muzzling a viewpoint? This happened during emergency and was considered an aberration. It happened with Tehelka, and we forgot about it. It has happened with another newspaper and media has not even raised the issue. Don’t LK Advani’s words about media during emergency ‘began to crawl when they were only asked to bend’ ring true at a time when no such draconian law is in place.
The situation is even worse towns and villages. The local reporters have turned into PR Agencies forwarding to their bureau’s what was dictated to them. Only the really pugnacious one’s are able to risk their lives to publish any news against powerful local politicians. Many have been bought over, in some cases in an institutional way e.g. Patrakarpuram (Journalists Colony) in Lucknow is one such exercise. This is the reason that no issues related to corruption are being fought at a local level, and only cases getting reported these days is when national media runs a ‘sting’. This is making grassroots democracy effete, when vigilance at village, tehsil and district level would have saved so much grief for so many including the Government. UPA’s guarantee card to poll success, its Employment Guarantee Scheme has failed due to corruption and Prime Minister is calling for strengthening an independent audit mechanism. Wasn’t media supposed to play this role at the local level?
Media’s reasons, though unfortunate, are understandable. With lessons from Emergency and Tehelka, they want to play safe. With the objective of ‘maximizing shareholder value’, it is not surprising that public good is compromised. That is the nature of the beast. But political parties have no compulsions – positive media coverage may boost a politician’s ego but doesn’t change electoral fortunes. Had the case been otherwise, Mayawati would not have won in UP or NDA would not have lost in 2004. The evidence from other democracies is also in line. Except for Fox News, every single news channel in the US is left leaning, but all the media together could not prevent George Bush from reelection. So the politicians have an easier solution – let media have a free run. The media, meanwhile, considering political and business reality will have to find an answer to a tougher question – how to run free?
To appreciate what freedom of political expression means, and how a politician, however powerful, needs to grin and bear an uncomfortable commentary, watch this video
Steven Colbert at White House Correspondent’s Dinner
Freedom of Expression – Does it have limits depending on the context? (1)
Two incidents happened recently which, while central to the argument about freedom of expression, did not manage to make headlines or initiate a necessary debate about Freedom of Expression:
1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress
Compare these with the hue and cry over Prophet Mohammad’s cartoons by Danish Cartoonist and MF Hussain’s self-imposed exile in relation of his painting Hindu Goddesses in the nude. If debate about freedom of expression takes place when public property is damaged and hooligans take charge then mainstream media and intellectuals are certainly abdicating responsibility. Is is also because some expressions should be defended but others not? Who decides that? On what basis? Does media respond only to controversies as it is linked to TRPs and political expressions (Aurangzeb exhibition and MJ Akbar issue) are not as controversial as those about religion/religious symbols?
Prima facie it appears important to separate the political and religious issues related to freedom of expression. While both are interlinked many a times, towards seeking some of these answers I would prefer to deconstruct and separate the two.
First the expressions linked to religious issues/symbols. Let me hypothesize. It is a rudimentary argument, and will never achieve consensus but may lead to a healthy debate. I believe that ‘freedom of expression’ cannot be a right without limits. There would some expressions which would test these limits. In such cases a cost-benefit analysis, not of money but of individual and social good, should determine which side of the boundary that expression falls. What would this cost-benefit analysis be? Let me try some such issues.
Anything which is a scientific or historical fact or viewpoint, howsoever arguable, is within limits even if it causes public disturbance (cost), because it would stall the process of learning and evolution (benefit). Copernicus’ contention about revolution of earth around the sun falls in this category. So is the recent debate in India about Lord Ram being a historical figure or mythological character. In both these cases the side being accused of hurting sentiments (and by extension creating unrest (cost)), have some scientific evidence to stand on. You can argue with them but not shut them up. For me Bill Maher’s (liberal commentator and host of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO) repeated expression of Old Testament being a book Jewish folk tales would fall in this category as well. Thankfully, even in the Bible-belt of the US, he has not received death threats, yet! In all such cases, it is the duty of the state to protect the ‘right to freedom of expression’. If such expressions are muzzled, our future generations would not know better than we do – as we know better than our ancestors about so many things in the world.
So what about paintings by Hussain and Prophet’s cartoons? What public good do they serve? What scientific evidence are they based on? Fine, a painting is not a science but a piece of art. What does it endeavor to achieve (benefit) that the cost (compromising peace and harmony) should be accepted? Why should it endeavor to achieve anything at all? Ideally there should be tolerance of such expressions as well, and that is what should be propagated and hoped for in the long-term. But in the short-term state should not be held responsible to protect the right of such an expression, ignoring the costs. Intellectuals can debate and probably that is only way a climate of greater tolerance would be created. You can create a caricature of Christ in many western European countries and it will not create any unrest. Bill Maher himself pokes fun at Christ and still continues to host a popular TV show.
There are some expressions that I am more ambivalent about. Expressions on the base of a Periyar statue in Kanchipuram which are insulting towards Lord Ram, are one such example. The phrases used are in bad taste and if you were to say same thing about the Prophet it woukd certainly invite a death warrant! But it is expression of anger as part of a movement against Brahminical hegemony which brought about a social change in Tamil Nadu. Cost-benefit? I throw my hands up. I have no idea!
1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress
Compare these with the hue and cry over Prophet Mohammad’s cartoons by Danish Cartoonist and MF Hussain’s self-imposed exile in relation of his painting Hindu Goddesses in the nude. If debate about freedom of expression takes place when public property is damaged and hooligans take charge then mainstream media and intellectuals are certainly abdicating responsibility. Is is also because some expressions should be defended but others not? Who decides that? On what basis? Does media respond only to controversies as it is linked to TRPs and political expressions (Aurangzeb exhibition and MJ Akbar issue) are not as controversial as those about religion/religious symbols?
Prima facie it appears important to separate the political and religious issues related to freedom of expression. While both are interlinked many a times, towards seeking some of these answers I would prefer to deconstruct and separate the two.
First the expressions linked to religious issues/symbols. Let me hypothesize. It is a rudimentary argument, and will never achieve consensus but may lead to a healthy debate. I believe that ‘freedom of expression’ cannot be a right without limits. There would some expressions which would test these limits. In such cases a cost-benefit analysis, not of money but of individual and social good, should determine which side of the boundary that expression falls. What would this cost-benefit analysis be? Let me try some such issues.
Anything which is a scientific or historical fact or viewpoint, howsoever arguable, is within limits even if it causes public disturbance (cost), because it would stall the process of learning and evolution (benefit). Copernicus’ contention about revolution of earth around the sun falls in this category. So is the recent debate in India about Lord Ram being a historical figure or mythological character. In both these cases the side being accused of hurting sentiments (and by extension creating unrest (cost)), have some scientific evidence to stand on. You can argue with them but not shut them up. For me Bill Maher’s (liberal commentator and host of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO) repeated expression of Old Testament being a book Jewish folk tales would fall in this category as well. Thankfully, even in the Bible-belt of the US, he has not received death threats, yet! In all such cases, it is the duty of the state to protect the ‘right to freedom of expression’. If such expressions are muzzled, our future generations would not know better than we do – as we know better than our ancestors about so many things in the world.
So what about paintings by Hussain and Prophet’s cartoons? What public good do they serve? What scientific evidence are they based on? Fine, a painting is not a science but a piece of art. What does it endeavor to achieve (benefit) that the cost (compromising peace and harmony) should be accepted? Why should it endeavor to achieve anything at all? Ideally there should be tolerance of such expressions as well, and that is what should be propagated and hoped for in the long-term. But in the short-term state should not be held responsible to protect the right of such an expression, ignoring the costs. Intellectuals can debate and probably that is only way a climate of greater tolerance would be created. You can create a caricature of Christ in many western European countries and it will not create any unrest. Bill Maher himself pokes fun at Christ and still continues to host a popular TV show.
There are some expressions that I am more ambivalent about. Expressions on the base of a Periyar statue in Kanchipuram which are insulting towards Lord Ram, are one such example. The phrases used are in bad taste and if you were to say same thing about the Prophet it woukd certainly invite a death warrant! But it is expression of anger as part of a movement against Brahminical hegemony which brought about a social change in Tamil Nadu. Cost-benefit? I throw my hands up. I have no idea!
Monday, January 7, 2008
Harbhajan guilty of racial abuse – Ignorance raises the temperature
1. Did Harbhajan call, Andrew Symonds a ‘monkey’ at Sydney?
2. Did Harbhajan call Andrew Symonds a ‘monkey’ at Mumbai and thereafter apologize?
3. Was it clarified to the Indian team the word ‘monkey’ would be considered a racial abuse?
4. Is Harbhajan guilty of racist abuse?
5. Is the punishment meted out to Harbhajan justified?
Too many questions and as many passionate answers on the web. But are there enough voices of sanity? Questions 1, 2 and 3 are questions of fact and there cannot be a debate about them. Now if I take the Ricky Ponting’s version on these facts, then Harbhajan is guilty of ‘using a phrase the second time after he was told that the specific phrase is offensive in nature, moreso when directed at Andrew Symonds’. This is boorish behaviour and has no place on the field of cricket. Hence, IF the facts mentioned by Ricky Ponting are right, then the punishment is justified.
Boorish behavior on cricket field by likes of Harbhajan and Sreesanth, and Andre Nel, and many in this Australian team should not be tolerated and it should be dealt with strongly and on that ground Harbhajan has no defense. Slater should have been banned for his altercation with Dravid and so should Mcgrath for taking matters too far with Sarwan. ‘Sledging is part of cricket’ is non-sense which if a necessary trait would have made Kapil Dev and Sachin Tendulkar and Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh and Adam Gilchrist refreshment peddlers in the stands rather than stalwarts on the ground.Yes, it is important to have characters on the ground as it is important to have them in the society, but we dont tolerate miscreants in the society for this reason, do we?
Now that we have set aside the issue of Harbhajan’s behaviour and the punishment, we can focus on (4), which in my view is far more complex. I believe there is substance in the argument that Indians do not understand racism or its symbols as it is appreciated in the west. Not until I started following European football and all the related issues and gossip, did I know about ‘monkey chants’ and their racial connotation. My wife has traveled all over the world, and has lived in Europe, and till last evening she did not know that calling someone a ‘monkey’ would be considered a racial abuse – in India we have a ‘Monkey God’ who is worshipped everywhere and many temples are havens for monkeys who are lovingly fed by devotees! You can jump to call her ignorant, but so would I term more than half a trillion people in the world who wouldn’t know that calling someone ‘Chamaar’ is casteist which can land you in jail in India under a non-bailable offence. India hasn’t been witness to ‘racism’ as the west hasn’t known ‘casteism’. Indian has not been associated with or witness to (a) Slavery, other than Indians themselves having been taken to Caribbean, Malaysia, Phiji etc. as farm labourers (b) Holocaust or (c) immigrant population taking over land and resources from aborginines, as we are the aborigines of our land1. Call us ignorant again, but no Indian would understand the stigma or (in some countries) legal implications of being a ‘holocaust denier’. Since these are three ethnic groups which form the target of most race related issues in the west (and forgive me for clubbing Australia with the west), most Indians lack an appreciation of what comprises racism in the western context. I did a dipstick among half a dozen Indians with post-graduate degree, but those who haven’t traveled abroad – not one knew that calling an African American a ‘Negro’ is racist. You call them ignorant, and I will again give you the ‘Chamaar’ example. Why talk about common man, when even Aussie media has shown complete ignorance of the subject? Andrew Stevensen in Sydeny Morning Herald has written an article about caste as a factor in Indian team composition – while his hypotheses and postulations can be debated – he has got his facts completely wrong. He calls RP Singh a Brahmin (upper caste) while he is Kshatriya, and says Dhoni is from a lower caste while the fact is that Dhoni is from the same caste as RP Singh. – though Dhoni lives in Jharkhand, he comes from Uttarakhand which has amongst the highest percentage of ‘upper class’ population in the country. There more factual errors, which provide enough proof that Mr. Stevensen wouldn’t even know who could be the target of a casteist jibe which could land you in the jail! This ignorance is not only limited to caste (which many Indian commentators with urban backgrounds don’t understand any better) but even regions. David Sygall in the same newspaper quotes an Indian journalist to explain how Harbhajan’s attitude is linked to his being from north without realizing that the enfant terrible in Indian cricket for last eighteen months is Sreesant, a south Indian. So much for complete lack of understanding even amongst journalists, so why act so incredulous when it is mentioned that Indians do not understand racism as Australians do.
Most bloggers have linked the Harbhajan issue to crowd behavior in Mumbai where members of the public were caught on camera making ‘monkey gestures’. I believe that Indian crowd behaviour at many ODIs is appaling that is because most of them are there for a false sense of patriotism rather than any appreciation of cricket. These are people who wouldn’t be at a cricket match if India was not playing and would not be at a match if it wasn’t a Twenty20 or an ODI. SCG had 30,000 in attendance even on week days, and most Indian grounds don’t manage even half that number during test matches which to my mind is benchmark of cricket appreciation. Such hooligans in involved in Mumbai incident should be punished severely, as they are no 'cricket lovers' – they are ‘cricket dumb’ who don’t know the difference between a googly and Chinaman; make Yuvraj and Dhoni bigger cricketers than VVS Laxman – just idiots but no racists. Ask any West Indian team that has visited India? If none of them have faced racist abuse then Andrew Symonds and Australian team need to introspect before making such accusations. Some Aussies say that since they dominate world cricket, hence this different attitude towards them – but so did West Indies during 70s and 80s and they were almost all men of colour (maybe with the exception of Lary Gomes), but did not face such crowd behavior.
1 All Dravidians are certainly the original inhabitants of this land, and many historians argue that even Aryans are.
2. Did Harbhajan call Andrew Symonds a ‘monkey’ at Mumbai and thereafter apologize?
3. Was it clarified to the Indian team the word ‘monkey’ would be considered a racial abuse?
4. Is Harbhajan guilty of racist abuse?
5. Is the punishment meted out to Harbhajan justified?
Too many questions and as many passionate answers on the web. But are there enough voices of sanity? Questions 1, 2 and 3 are questions of fact and there cannot be a debate about them. Now if I take the Ricky Ponting’s version on these facts, then Harbhajan is guilty of ‘using a phrase the second time after he was told that the specific phrase is offensive in nature, moreso when directed at Andrew Symonds’. This is boorish behaviour and has no place on the field of cricket. Hence, IF the facts mentioned by Ricky Ponting are right, then the punishment is justified.
Boorish behavior on cricket field by likes of Harbhajan and Sreesanth, and Andre Nel, and many in this Australian team should not be tolerated and it should be dealt with strongly and on that ground Harbhajan has no defense. Slater should have been banned for his altercation with Dravid and so should Mcgrath for taking matters too far with Sarwan. ‘Sledging is part of cricket’ is non-sense which if a necessary trait would have made Kapil Dev and Sachin Tendulkar and Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh and Adam Gilchrist refreshment peddlers in the stands rather than stalwarts on the ground.Yes, it is important to have characters on the ground as it is important to have them in the society, but we dont tolerate miscreants in the society for this reason, do we?
Now that we have set aside the issue of Harbhajan’s behaviour and the punishment, we can focus on (4), which in my view is far more complex. I believe there is substance in the argument that Indians do not understand racism or its symbols as it is appreciated in the west. Not until I started following European football and all the related issues and gossip, did I know about ‘monkey chants’ and their racial connotation. My wife has traveled all over the world, and has lived in Europe, and till last evening she did not know that calling someone a ‘monkey’ would be considered a racial abuse – in India we have a ‘Monkey God’ who is worshipped everywhere and many temples are havens for monkeys who are lovingly fed by devotees! You can jump to call her ignorant, but so would I term more than half a trillion people in the world who wouldn’t know that calling someone ‘Chamaar’ is casteist which can land you in jail in India under a non-bailable offence. India hasn’t been witness to ‘racism’ as the west hasn’t known ‘casteism’. Indian has not been associated with or witness to (a) Slavery, other than Indians themselves having been taken to Caribbean, Malaysia, Phiji etc. as farm labourers (b) Holocaust or (c) immigrant population taking over land and resources from aborginines, as we are the aborigines of our land1. Call us ignorant again, but no Indian would understand the stigma or (in some countries) legal implications of being a ‘holocaust denier’. Since these are three ethnic groups which form the target of most race related issues in the west (and forgive me for clubbing Australia with the west), most Indians lack an appreciation of what comprises racism in the western context. I did a dipstick among half a dozen Indians with post-graduate degree, but those who haven’t traveled abroad – not one knew that calling an African American a ‘Negro’ is racist. You call them ignorant, and I will again give you the ‘Chamaar’ example. Why talk about common man, when even Aussie media has shown complete ignorance of the subject? Andrew Stevensen in Sydeny Morning Herald has written an article about caste as a factor in Indian team composition – while his hypotheses and postulations can be debated – he has got his facts completely wrong. He calls RP Singh a Brahmin (upper caste) while he is Kshatriya, and says Dhoni is from a lower caste while the fact is that Dhoni is from the same caste as RP Singh. – though Dhoni lives in Jharkhand, he comes from Uttarakhand which has amongst the highest percentage of ‘upper class’ population in the country. There more factual errors, which provide enough proof that Mr. Stevensen wouldn’t even know who could be the target of a casteist jibe which could land you in the jail! This ignorance is not only limited to caste (which many Indian commentators with urban backgrounds don’t understand any better) but even regions. David Sygall in the same newspaper quotes an Indian journalist to explain how Harbhajan’s attitude is linked to his being from north without realizing that the enfant terrible in Indian cricket for last eighteen months is Sreesant, a south Indian. So much for complete lack of understanding even amongst journalists, so why act so incredulous when it is mentioned that Indians do not understand racism as Australians do.
Most bloggers have linked the Harbhajan issue to crowd behavior in Mumbai where members of the public were caught on camera making ‘monkey gestures’. I believe that Indian crowd behaviour at many ODIs is appaling that is because most of them are there for a false sense of patriotism rather than any appreciation of cricket. These are people who wouldn’t be at a cricket match if India was not playing and would not be at a match if it wasn’t a Twenty20 or an ODI. SCG had 30,000 in attendance even on week days, and most Indian grounds don’t manage even half that number during test matches which to my mind is benchmark of cricket appreciation. Such hooligans in involved in Mumbai incident should be punished severely, as they are no 'cricket lovers' – they are ‘cricket dumb’ who don’t know the difference between a googly and Chinaman; make Yuvraj and Dhoni bigger cricketers than VVS Laxman – just idiots but no racists. Ask any West Indian team that has visited India? If none of them have faced racist abuse then Andrew Symonds and Australian team need to introspect before making such accusations. Some Aussies say that since they dominate world cricket, hence this different attitude towards them – but so did West Indies during 70s and 80s and they were almost all men of colour (maybe with the exception of Lary Gomes), but did not face such crowd behavior.
1 All Dravidians are certainly the original inhabitants of this land, and many historians argue that even Aryans are.
Monday, December 31, 2007
The Hypocrisy of Evangelizing Democracy
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.
“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.
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)
