A disaster called Manmohan Singh

Maybe disappointment is a better word than disaster, but then again, maybe it isn't. An honest and efficient (someone who can get the work done) politician is the best any citizen can hope for. A corrupt yet efficient politician is not what people desire, but he/she would be chosen any day over an honest yet inefficient politician. Sadly, PM Dr. Manmohan Singh falls into the third category. Some people say that with Dr. Singh taking charge, personal integrity was restored in the PMO. Now that's something that is a little tough to digest because in my opinion, Atal Behari Vajpayee didn't indulge in any activities that could make one say that he tarnished the integrity of the post of the PM. Dr. Singh may be an honest man who took up the reigns at the PMO with honest intentions, but boy, did the horse run amok or what! My compendium may not encompass all the failures of Dr. Singh, but would certainly make my case. And the fact that I choose not to talk about his achievements must be seen as a reflection of the failures outweighing the positives.

As an academician, one would have hoped and even expected Dr. Singh to have backed Dr. Venugopal when he was being targeted by the health minister Ramadoss to settle a personal score. Yet the PM chose to stay mum on the issue, and interestingly, so did our president, who blindly signed the bill to have him removed, thus reaffirming her status as the Congress party's rubber stamp in Rashtrapathi Bhavan.

Again, as an academician and someone who is highly educated, one would not have expected Dr. Singh to back to reservation policy of Arjun Singh, but Dr. Singh chose to back his party rather than his principles and convictions.

On the nuclear deal, I don't think the general public fully understands the fact that we may virtually have ostracized ourselves in the world's view. It would be very difficult to see any country now think of signing a deal with our country on any issue that may require taking a brave new posture. If we are not able to ink deals with developed countries in the near future on matters pertaining to energy, technology and defense, we can expect to remain stuck in the muck for eternity. By timidly following the diktats of the communists (with whom they have no similarities) and allowing themselves to be held hostage by the reds, Manmohan Singh will always be remembered as the architect of India's worst foreign policy disaster.

Talk of terrorism, and first and foremost is the fact that Md. Afzal, who has been sentenced to death by the Supreme Court, may be pardoned because the Congress, which is always on tenterhooks and slips on it's kid gloves when it comes to dealing with Muslims and Christians, is worried it may lose out on Muslim votes in the general elections to be held next year. Add to this the faux pas of the home minister who equated Afzal's death sentence to the clemency plea of Sarabjit Singh in Pakistan, and yet, not a word from the 'turbanator' PM. In other terror related incidents, the government is yet to come out with a comprehensive policy on tackling terror, and when asked about it, they have only shown us the act of repealing POTA (all law enforcement officials will tell you that a law like POTA is a must). What is most striking is the fact that it seems as though the government repealed POTA without discussing it with the top law enforcement officials of the country. One cannot understand what the government intends to do about the security of it's citizens, although they seem to be very prompt in upgrading the security levels of politicians from Y to Z category.

India is the country of the green revolution, where from shortage of wheat we reached a stage where we could export it in bulk. Yet, this same country had to import several tonnes of wheat towards the end of last year and what was worse was the price the government paid for it (several times more than the prevailing rates). No talk about this with the Agriculture Minister by the PM.

Soon after becoming the PM, Dr. Manmohan Singh took it upon himself and chaired the group looking into the protection of our national animal, the tiger. And under his tenure as PM, we have had probably the maximum number of tigers poached and killed. The total numbers have alarmingly halved in the last 5 years, and even though the methods used to track and count the cats wasn't the best, it can be safely assumed that the numbers aren't off my much.

The PM is quick to pull the BJP up for the post-Godhra riots, but doesn't seem to even bat an eyelid when it comes to the violence carried out by the Communist cadre in Nandigram. Since the Communists are anyway pro-China, I guess playing Chinese whispers with the commies was all Manmohan Singh could think of.

The Chinese seem to have taken for granted that certain areas surrounding Sikkim (near Tibet) are virtually theirs, what with their repeated transgressions and bombardment of Indian forward observation posts. And to be honest, Mr. Prime Minister, even though I live in Bangalore, I'm scared of the Chinese and what they intend to do; and remember, just in case you tied your turban a little too tightly and it's hampering your thought process, China is a lot closer to New Delhi than it is to Bangalore (although I'm certain even their worst missile can reach us here... oh goodness gracious).

Through all these (and much more), the one good thing to have happened (for the Congress party) is the transformation of Manmohan Singh the honest bureaucrat into Manmohan Singh the politician. He has time and again shown us what a classy transformation it has been as he has time and again chosen to put his party ahead of his country. Kudos to you Dr. Singh, you've made into the big league. So unless you're actually happy with the report card presented to you (I apologise for not gift wrapping it in the best expletives I could muster), I think it's time to swap the blue turban for a real thinking cap.

Myth of the sportive Chennai crowd and other IPL stories

I am writing this entry after watching Bangalore beat Hyderabad by 5 wickets, in another thriller that finished in a flurry of sixes (B Akhil carting poor Chamara Silva over the ropes 3 times in an over to seal victory). Apart from a victory, which is always welcome considering the way Bangalore started off their campaign, what came as a pleasant surprise was the applause Bangalore received from the Hyderabad fans, and a small posse dressed in Royal Challengers colours (I'm guessing Bangalore ex-pats). Quite a contrast to the sounds that emanated from the MA Chidambaram stadium when Bangalore beat Chennai in the reverse encounter. There were no applauses (or if there were, the microphones which are pretty sensitive didn't pick them up) when Dravid was called forward during the presentations, which was probably the only time the crowd could have actually clapped because otherwise for the most part of the evening, the game was pretty drab. But like I said, the absence of applauses was almost deafening, especially considering the fact that the Chennai team received their fair share of plaudits when they beat Bangalore at the Chinnaswamy stadium, including whistles and applauses from your's truly, who was thrilled to have witnessed a game as thrilling as that in the early stages of the IPL. I must state here that although I would have liked to watch Bangalore win, all I hoped for was a GOOD game, which I got to see.

So I come back to my question, does the crowd's sportive image take a back seat when it comes to issues where blood is thicker than water (in the Bangalore-Chennai case, quite literally I might say)? Almost everyone would remember the magnanimous gesture of the Chennai crowd when Pakistan beat India in a nail-biting test match after Sachin TendulKar almost single handedly took us to victory. I wasn't expecting a similar gesture, but a round of applause when the victorious captain took the stage during the presentations was certainly called for. What surprised me equally, if not more, was an article I read by Siddhartha Vaidyanathan, an assistant editor with cricketnext.com. Now if you read the article, I won't blame you if it left you a bit perplexed. The vitriol against the Bangalore side was unmistakable, but more importantly, Siddhartha puts the blame squarely on Bangalore for Chennai's loss. He lambasted them for the pathetic batting display (which I too agree was very poor... I mean losing 4 wickets for 40 runs inside the first 10 overs... come on!!!) and makes it sound like the Chennai team lost interest in the game because of Bangalore's shoddy display with the bat. There were more kudos showered on the Chennai players than the Bangalore players, except for Kumble, so I have to assume Siddhartha is a fan of Jumbo. Although there was a mention of the fiery pace of Dale Steyn, again, he attributed the wickets of Morkel and Vidyut to their own ambitions. Somehow, I'm certain that if Morkel's hook had gone for six over backward square leg instead of into the hands of the fielder posted there, Sid would have been showering praises on the Springbok all-rounder for carting his compatriot over the top. If the game was as lackluster as he says it was (and trust me, he got that right, it was), then I don't think the reporter should have praised the Chennai bowlers, because by his own admission, the Bangalore team had batted poorly. Come on Sid, be a little more neutral at least when you strut your trade. Aren't media editors supposed to be neutral (at least pretend to be neutral)?

Cricket crowds in India can be very fickle. Yuvraj made a lame comment to the Mumbai crowd about not support his team because some of them played for India too. Yuvraj, looks like you still have a long way to go before you can be crowned Maharaj, so until then remember that in that game, Mohali played Mumbai and the fact that a player represents India is immaterial in this context. Actually, for the Kolkatta crowd, even that doesn't matter, for the communist citizens put state above country, as was very apparent when India took on South Africa in a one day game soon after Rahul Dravid was made captain, displacing Ganguly. The crowd booed Dravid, and booed the Indian team because an out-of-form Dada, who at that time was a liability to the team, was dropped. In their defence, they're communists, they'er a little kooky, so such things are part and parcel of the delusional life they lead.

One last thing Siddhartha got right was that the pitch wasn't the cause for the poor batting display. Righto, it did not hide any demons, and the crowds did not hide their emotions. They were stunned into a zombie-like trance because they lost to, of all the teams, Bangalore. Come on Chennai, Indian cricket needs your sportiveness, since the Kolkattans have lost theirs (actually they never had any, it was just the charm of the Eden Gardens all along), so don't go bonkers over a T20 game. A lot of water will pass from the Cauvery, get your act straight.

Among other positives that have emerged from the IPL is Rahul Dravid's batting. He has shown time and again why he is considered to be India's most reliable batsman. He has adjusted to the new format quite nicely, and so I hope the selectors at least consider his name for the 50 over version of the game. Of course, that would be a pipe dream, given the fact that Dhoni himself was the one responsible for Dravid's ouster from the team because he didn't want 'older players' (but why he didn't ask for Sachin to be dropped as well will remain a mystery, although I think we all know the answer to that one) and the tension between the two was visible even during the toss at the Chidambaram stadium, and Vengsarkar's dislike for Dravid. However, it's also nice to see the likes of Abhishek Nayar, Dhawal Kulkarni, Shreevats Goswami, Ashoke Dinda and Manpreet Gony shine in the limelight. But is it right to drop (or not select) a player who is playing as well as, if not better than the younger lot, just because he happens to be on the wrong side of 30? According to the thoughts that flow between the ears of our Ranchi dada, the answer seems to be, sadly, yes.

And finally, although there were a lot of shining stars and stellar performances by the younger generation, I hope against hope that they are not selected directly into the Indian senior or A teams merely based on their performances in the IPL. The IPL is should be seen more in terms of a launch pad, rather than a back door short-cut entry into the national side. Bowling 4 overs at an economy rate or 7 or 8 with a wicket or two may be fine in a 20-20, but that certainly doesn't merit a cap in the national side (or the A team for that matter). These performances ought to be considered by the state selectors and the players need to be drafted into the state Ranji teams, which is the correct route that needs to be followed. One can only hope that the selectors have their thinking caps on (wishful, I know).

Chicken & mushrooms

This post is also available on my food blog.

After a long time, I set about cooking again (when I say cooking, I mean a proper full fledged dish and not an omelet or Maggie 2 minute noodles). Chicken and mushrooms, the delight of every cook. You ought to never go wrong with these, and I didn't. I don't know what I call this dish, but I think I can safely call it chicken in mushroom sauce.

Mushroom sauce:

1 packet mushrooms
1 large onion
1 tomato
1 celery stem (optional)
Parsley or mint (for fragrance)
1 tbsp butter
2-3 tbsp flour
Milk & water
Salt & pepper to season

Wash a packet full of mushrooms thoroughly and chop them into two or three pieces each. Chop the onion and tomato into 8 pieces. Chop the parsley (needn't be fine) and the celery. Add the butter into a deep container and heat till butter melts. Add all the ingredients and add the mushroom in the end. Sweat them in the heat for a while until the onions and mushrooms are soft. Add some milk (about 300 ml) and continue stirring. After a few minutes, add the flour and continue to stir until the flour completely mixes with the mixture. Add some water (100 ml, depending on how thick you want the sauce, usually milk : water = 3 : 1) . Continue to stir and cook until a nice creamy texture appears. Remove from the heat and allow the mixture to cool. Once cooled, pour this into a mixie/blender and blend until the mixture has a nice consistency, and there are no solid bits of the mushroom or any other solid ingredient. You could also add a little cream into the mixture before blending it.

Chicken:

4 chicken breasts (boneless)
1 cup curd
1 bunch coriander leaves
1 bunch parsley/mint
1 garlic flake
1-2 green chillies
salt & pepper to season

Chop and mix the coriander, garlic, green chillies and parsley/mint. Season with salt. Add into a grinder/blender and make a fine paste of the mixture. Cut the chicken into cubes and add a little salt. Mix the paste made from the leaves with the chicken, and then add the curd and mix the chicken thoroughly. Allow to marinate for about 2.5-3 hours.

After 3 hours, add the chicken into a deep pan and start to cook. Once the chicken has cooked (after about 6 to 8 minutes, add the mushroom sauce and turn the heat to high for a few minutes. Toss in a hand full of cashew nuts after a couple of minutes, along with a few more chopped and cooked mushrooms (optional). Season with salt if required. Serve it with whatever you like to eat dishes with gravy (usually breads).

This is the mushroom sauce with chicken in it

A vegetarian version has the chicken replaced with cottage cheese and chopped mushrooms in it (pic below). If making the vegetarian version, make sure the mushrooms and cottage cheese cubes being added are already sautéed and cooked previously before adding it to the sauce.


Optionally, instead of adding the chicken into the deep pan and mixing the chicken with the mushroom sauce, you can coat the chicken in the mushroom sauce after mixing it in the curd and coriander paste and after marinating it for 3 hours, you can skewer it on a barbecue and use the mushroom sauce as a dip for the skewered chicken. Bon appetit.

An irrepairable loss

Late in the evening on March 17th, 2008, Dr. K Taranath Shetty received a call informing him that his name had been cleared by the Prime Minister's Office for the post of Director of NAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council). He was in Goa with his friends from his Ph.D days to meet Prof Gaitonde, their teacher and guide who had guided them during their Ph.D. That night, after having spent the whole day with his teacher and later having received the information of his appointment over the phone that he would be the next Director of NAAC, he had told one of his friend, "Suresh, today is the happiest day of my life". The next morning, Dr. Shetty had a massive heart attack and passed away. He was 59 (but looked 45 and never dyed his hair).

What's shocking to me was the fact that he had no risk factors at all. He was a vegetarian for the past 18 years, he didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't have cholesterol, no BP, no hypertension, triglycerides were perfect, used to wake up at 4:30 AM each day and exercise for an hour, used to run up the stairs to his second floor office two steps at a time and wouldn't be breathless when he reached the top, his family has no history of heart ailments, his father lived till 90 and mother till 103, 5 out of his 6 siblings are still alive (he was the youngest of 7, and his eldest brother died at 74 almost ten years ago). He used to say "Longevity is in my genes, so I'll live to see my children grow".

It's going to take a long time to get used to the fact that India lost arguably it's best clinical biochemist and I lost my father so suddenly. The wound is so severe that it's scab is going to be peeled off several times, over and over again as I am beginning to experience it first hand. I'll miss you papa, we all will.

Awards overdue

It was a shame that the UPA government did not confer a Bharat Ratna this year (again), making it the seventh year in running that the award hasn't been given. In my opinion, and the opinion of several like-minded, smart individuals, the award HAS to be given to Sri R K Laxman. Nothing more needs to be said about it.















As far as knighthood and the Nobel go, I can't think of anyone other than Prof Richard Dawkins of Oxford University (who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University) for his work in evolutionary biology and his endeavour to make science, and evolution and Darwinian natural selection in particular, easy to understand, and he has now become the face of the atheist movement.

Even if the establishment takes forever to confer at least the knighthood on you, in my eyes, and the eyes of many, you already are a knight, Sir Richard, and we the humble, the rational and the humane, salute thee.

To stand or not to stand

Another Republic Day, and again, as always, I was glued to the TV set watching the parade with awe and a little lump in my throat (I always wanted to join the Army, but an injury to my leg prevented me from doing so). What was different this time around was the a woman commander-in-chief took the salute at the parade (and she saluted pretty well, I must say, compared to some of the lame ducks we had before, like Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma). As always, as soon as the Prez unfurled the national flag, the national anthem played and as always, I stood, in spite of being in the comfort of my living room. No big deal I thought, the constitution requires me to do it, and just as it gives me a lot of freedom, this little deed it asks of me was such a trivial matter I didn't even think of it as a deed.

The following week I was watching 'We the people' on NDTV, where the topic for discussion revolved around what actually constituted insult and/or disrespect to the country's symbols. It arose from the controversy generated by Sania Mirza (she's making this a habit now), who happened to keep her feet on a table next to the national flag which was on the table. Inevitably, some extremely jobless petitioner happened to notice this and filed a suit in a local court against her. The discussion on the show later moved away from this and questioned the need to stand during the hoisting of the national flag and singing of the national anthem. I had never really thought about this, as to whether we actually show disrespect to the country by sitting down during the hoisting of the national flag or singing of the national anthem. To me, it seemed (and still does) that a rule in the constitution was there for a purpose and wasn't meant to be broken, plain and simple. Well, I guess not, at least not anymore.

There happens to be a large section of our urban, semi urban and political population, who seem very comfortable using the phrase 'my right', extremely chummy with the idea of bandying about their 'rights', without really understanding that the rights a citizen enjoys in a country is but in fact something that the country has provided them with, a tribute to the country and hence demands that the person shows respect and gratitude to the country and it's symbols (in this case the flag and the anthem). Sure, the national flag and anthem would not make a sad face if you didn't stand up, and they wouldn't even let you know about it in private, but isn't that besides the point.

A prime argument the 'opposition to standing' crowd cite is that just because some bureaucrat mentioned it while framing the constitution doesn't mean we actually need to do it to show respect. Huh? Well, then after you finish reading this article, when you hit the road, starting driving on the right side of the road (like in the USA) because why should you drive on the left side just because the British introduced the system in India. Seriously, at times, arguments are made for the sake of putting up an argument (and invariably this ends up in showing the person as a complete fool).

Ask any of our soldiers who guard our borders in the extreme heat of Rajasthan or the frigid heights of Siachen and they'll tell you that the flag and the anthem mean a lot to them, and not standing up during a flag hoisting or rendition of the national anthem is an insult to the sacrifice made by them to protect these symbols. Ask them if they would want every Indian to stand during the national anthem and you will get a unanimous reply in the affirmative. If as a nation we cannot heed to this simple, selfless request from the men and women who guard our country's frontiers with their lives, a request that doesn't take more than a minute from us (no money, no taxes, no blood), what kind of a society are we? Do it, if not for the sake of the nation, for the sake of those who guard us and make it possible for you to go about clamoring that you have the right not to stand. Let's not bring in politics or religion or any other mundane excuse we can find which is quite clearly just for the sake of opposing the system (which seems to have become a fashionable way to get noticed). For once, put a leash on your tongue when it comes to jabbering about about your rights, and stand up the next time the national anthem is played, even if it's on TV.

The return of macaca

In case you're wondering what macaca means, it is the genus name of the macaque monkey (the common monkey) and comes from the Bantu word makako, meaning monkey. If you're wondering what's this leading towards, then let's take a trip back to Aug 11, 2006, in Virginia, where Republican senator George Felix Allen was hoping to get re-elected over the democrat candidate Jim Webb. During one of his speeches, Allen looked at a student of Indian origin and called out to him as "macaca, or whatever his name is", in spite of knowing the student's name (S R Sidharth). The word macaca is considered as a racial slur and not surprisingly, Allen lost the upcoming election to Webb. So along with the two 'N' words that are used to racially insult people of African ancestry, macaca too is considered a racial abuse on par with the 'N' words and hence is banned from being used.

I'm guessing that by now you know what I'm going to be talking about here but before that, there are a few new definitions that I'd like to introduce you to, so that you get a sense of what to expect later.

Bucknor: n. adj. 1. A condition that affects your hearing where you don't seem to be able to perceive the obvious.
2. Alternately, when the eye-ear coordination fails to detect the differences between sounds and movements made by moving objects.
3. Informal: A euphemism for foot-in-mouth syndrome

Benson: n. adj. 1. A condition characterised by the complete meltdown of the core of the human cerebral cortex, resulting in dependence on others, especially those with no credibility whatsoever, for your decision making.
2. Informal: An evolved form of bucknor.

Note: Benson and Bucknor needn't always occur together, but when they do, the resulting condition is usually extremely painful to bear to those in the surroundings who have to deal with those symptomatic of Benson and Bucknor.

Ponting: n. 1. Any of the unique bipeds found on the Tasmanian island that are extremely short-tempered and claim to be of impeccable integrity but cannot substantiate the same with actions or deeds.

Oxenford: n. 1. A unique biped from the Australian mainland that seems to enjoy good batting displays and hates to see a good cricketing batting innings come to an end.

Clarke: n. 1. A lesser evolved species of the lark, that seems to have mutated before it got its feathers and ended up with the characteristics of a young canine (hence the nickname pup). The unique aspect of this species is that it claims to be of unquestionable integrity while displaying a complete lack of understanding of the word integrity when it comes to its own actions or deeds (also see Ponting). Symptoms of Bucknor are almost always displayed.

Symonds: n. 1. A lesser evolved but larger cousin of the monkey that doesn't have a tail, which has led some anthropologists to conclude that this could be an hitherto unknown ape and could well be the missing link that we've been looking for. These creatures are found in the Australian mainland and are extremely sensitive to words that emanate from sub-continental tourists, while not having any qualms about using those words on others. These creatures seem to enjoy a certain kind of protection provided by Pontings and Clarkes, which includes claiming to hear words that were not said by tourists.

Now that that's out of the way, let's see what can be made of the malarkey of a certain Australian called Andrew Symonds.

As mentioned above, the only words that are considered as racial slurs that either term people as slaves or question their parents are the two 'N' words and macaca, neither of which seem to be used by Harbhajan Singh on Andrew Symonds. If Harbhajan did use the word 'monkey' (and there doesn't seem to be any proof that he did), is he to be charged under the racism clause just because Andrew Symonds doesn't like that word? Agreed, if at all the word were to used, especially on a person of African or Caribbean ancestry (as is Symonds), it could only be to tease the target person's appearance, and so the person can draw an inference that his race is being made fun of, unless, like in India, it's used to describe the peculiar behaviour of certain people if it involves antics or theatrics of any kind. On a parallel, since when did Symmo become the authority on what words constitute racial slurs and what don't? If the reason is that the word monkey questions the origins of a person, then are the Aussies forgetting (or do they not know) that the words they happily use on touring sides that suggest that the person has come out from the genitalia of a female dog, or the rectal region of an donkey, or the origins of their fathers is unknown, also question the origins of the person they're targeting and hence the entire team can be charged with racism? I guess not, because after the Sydney test match, it's become evident that logic is something that the Australians are a little slow to come to terms with (ask third umpire Oxenford).

Initially, I was a bit surprised to see the amount of air time this issue was give by all the news channels in India, but whatever their reasons were for it, it certainly deserved it. Maybe what the media lacked in their coverage was the fact that calling someone a racist is not something that should be limited to the punishment meted out by the ICC, but if someone is found guilty of racism, he or she must be thrown into jail, which raises the question: would the Aussies charge Harbhajan outside of the game? Clearly the answer is no, because they don't have the evidence to support it and hearsay and one mans word against another's is not legally admissible. So how did Mike Proctor, a cricketer par excellence, who unfortunately had his career curtailed due to the 22 year apartheid ban on South Africa, find Harbhajan guilty? No one questions the fact that Mr. Proctor wouldn't know what racism is, but did he go by the evidence (or the lack of it) or his gut feeling?

From the Sydney episode, it's clear that the Aussies can't take what they dish out to the opposition, but what really came to the fore was the subtle but tell tale difference: the difference between not wanting to lose and being a sore loser. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which category the Aussies come under.

And on a lighter note, spot 6 differences between the two photographs below.

Muzzled media?...Democracy...surely you're joking!

Well, well, well, Das Munshi is at it again. First he shoots his mouth off by saying that every sports channel covering an event that involves India must share the feed to DD, then he comes out to express his 'shock' (oh, so sad) on the verdict against the son of a late, former Congress party man, and now the self-proclaimed soccer daddy of India plans to throw the final ace up his sleeve (or up some other dark recess) in which he's drawn up a plan that will effectively knock down one of the pillars of Indian democracy - the media.

The proposed bill, which has provisions such as programmes that will be rated with a 'U', 'A', or a 'U/A' and appropriate time slots will be provided for them to be aired based on the ratings, sting operations can be carried out only if it's in the best interest of the public and cannot be done on ongoing cases and investigations and if it has to be carried out, permission must be sought from the person(s) they wish to carry out the sting against. Was Das Munshi high when he came up with this?What's the point of the sting if the 'point' is being blunted? It's like asking the teacher for the questions of the exam saying "we'll study for the exam, but you please give us the questions".

The bill also has provisions to enable an officer of the govt to review the content of what will be telecast, and if he/she feels that the criticism is harsh, it can be edited. Whatever happened to free and fair media? This would effectively eliminate the free part of it, as the media wouldn't be free to operate on it's own without interference, and it wouldn't be fair because the content put out would be in accordance to what the govt wishes for us to hear, a la North Korea or the former Soviet Union.

I guess someone forgot to refresh the memory of the govt about the early part of the 20th century in Germany and Italy where rulers like Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin had done the same thing and it was termed as fascism. But then again, since Sonia Gandhi's father was an ardent fascist & a supporter of Mussolini, it shouldn't surprise us that his daughter's party is behaving in this manner (the apple doesn't fall far from the tree). If this is step one of the grand fascist revival plan, then the steps to follow are to suspend elections and bring in one party rule and switch back to communism (or give it a fancy name called socialism) and rename our country from the Democratic Republic of India to the Union of Indian Socialist Republics. The iron curtain will come up again, this time in a new geographical location with newer comrades.

Munna turns out to be a bhai after all

At last, the trial for the worst terrorist act in this country has come to an end with Sanjay Dutt's sentencing sealing the proceedings. Many are arguing that the verdict was too harsh, but hey, since when did justice and sympathy for the convict go hand in hand? It's not as if the case against Sanjay Dutt was circumstantial; it was proven beyond doubt and Mr. Dutt himself pleaded guilty to the charges, so isn't this now much ado about nothing?

To state that he has already suffered all these years and hence should be let off is a crime in itself. What about those who were victims of the 93 blasts, aren't they still suffering the after effects of it, don't they still have to go through all the red tape our bureaucracy throws up in front of them for their compensation, etc? In what way exactly has Sanjay Duttt suffered apart from having to attend the trial whenever it was scheduled? He's been in the thick of things in Bollywood, rolling out some memorable hits during the past 14 years, which somehow doesn't come across as 'suffering'.

Is plain repentance enough to atone for the sin? Would the hue and cry raised over the verdict been the same if the accused wasn't a celebrity? The answer to both is an emphatic no and we all know that when you have powerful and/or well known friends, this sort of backlash from the rich and famous is but obvious. Even the I&B minister, Mr. Priya Ranjan Das Munshi came out against the verdict in milder words, but again, it begs to be asked, would the Congress led government have done this if Sanjay's father, the late Sunil Dutt, wasn't an ardent Congressman and his sister Priya, a sitting Congress MP? My guess is if his family members had affiliations with other political parties, the government would have parroted the line of 'law taking it's own course and nothing must come in the way of justice'.

So at the end of the day (actually, the end of 14 years), dear Munna turned out to be a bhai after all, and congratulations to judge Kode for not getting swayed by public sentiments and altering his judgement. Hats off to you, my good sir, may we have many more like you.

7 wonders...mmmuaah

What is prompting me to write this is not the fact that I'm angry or sad (I couldn't care less), but the fact that I recently read a blog of a friends friend, which had an article by Gloria Steinem titled 'If men could menstruate', and basically went about the usual ranting and raving about how men try to claim to be superior to women no matter what (even if it was the men who menstruated). It was a nice read, made me smile but also drove home the point that even women are diseased by the 'generalising' factor; generalising all men to be alike and painting all of us with the same brush.

Now I'm not a sexist pig, and I don't give a rat's ass who goes around with whom and does whatever he or she wants to, but what on Earth was Bipasha Basu doing with Christiano Ronaldo, and vice versa? Had it been John Abraham snuggling up with some hot chick, women everywhere would have gone berserk, painting all men with that dirty brush they so often use on men by calling us 'cheaters' who cannot control the penile urges that so often seem to 'control' all our actions. Now that actually leaves one question pending...what was Ronaldo doing with Bipasha? Isn't he supposedly paired up with some hot British chick? Oh that's right, she's British, how stupid of me. They couldn't get any more boring than listening to the leaders of the Congress party hail Pratibha Patil.

Anyway, what interested me the most was that Bips stated something like that it's been taken out of context. Honey, what context has it been taken out of? Oh let me guess, you were kissing Ronaldo out of joy that the Taj Mahal had made it to the final 7, right? Or were you kissing him because you were in that stage in your relationship with John where you're actually allowed to kiss other men? I'm actually not very good at guessing, so I'll leave it at 2 guesses. I just hope there aren't any arrest warrants out for Christiano.

And now Bangalore is sullied

I just hope, for the sake of my dear city Bangalore and it's lovely citizens, that the 3 Muslims held on charges of the UK terror plot, turn out to be innocent. Although the connection between the person held in Australia and his cousins held in UK is still under a cloud, for the 2 in the UK things don't look too good. I mean, how does one explain what he was doing in a car full of explosives that rammed into the airport entrance of Glasgow airport and suffered 90% burns, I don't know, but I do know this: he seems pretty guilty at the moment, and this should once and for all shatter the illusion that people get involved in terror acts due to poverty and poor socio-economic status.

Groups like the Al-Qaeda are full of affluent, well-to-do, prominent, upper-middle class working people and so the hitherto stereotype of a bearded cleric with blazing eyes will have to be trashes into the dustbin. I'm not presupposing that the accused are members of any terror group, but I'm also not absolving them of the charges because of the reason in the first paragraph and also, a lot of today's religious fundamentalists tend to act on their own without any actual instructions from any higher-ups. Oh how I wish they turn out to be innocent, and this turns out to be a big misunderstanding, because Bangalore is still India's knowledge center, and will forever be, but what people do with the knowledge they acquire here, cannot be held against this wonderful city and it's citizens, some of whom still wish for it to return to the yesteryears as being a Pensioners Paradise. Come on Bangaloreans, let's butt-kick any more of these whackos from our city, lest our city moves from the global IT map to the global terror map.

What's it gonna be lady?

Just what doesn't Pratibha Patil get? Why is she reminding me of George W. Bush? From one blooper to another, this lady just cannot get things right. First the purdah controversy, then the accusations from a bank of defaulting on loans to the tune of 7+ crores, opening banks that have gone into the red and taken off with peoples savings, followed by accusations of shielding her brother accused of murder, and now she can speak with the dead!!! Speak with the dead! Imagine what the Congress and the Left would have done if someone from the Right wing had come up with some such revelation. They'd have come out all guns blazing against the 'medieval beliefs of the Draconian right wingers (read BJP)' and how they're trying to marginalise the minorities, etc etc etc.

Mrs Patil, if you really want to be President, please keep your mouth shut until the elections are over, because we are already aghast that a rank outsider like you has been chosen because of your loyalty to the Gandhi family over other competent politicians (although personally I'm against politicians becoming President). Even if you do get elected as President, I will never accord you with the respect you deserve, and I will not refer to you as President Pratibha Patil, but only Mrs Patil, not because I'm against women and against a woman becoming President, but because I'm against anyone who wags their tail in front of their masters to get a better and/or bigger biscuit.

I hope, for the sake of the post, the Presidency, she can come clean on the accusations of the loans and shielding her brother in a murder case, or else, as the cliché goes, 'this happens in India only' will be on the uprise once again.

Purdah, Presidents and what not

So, the presidential race hots up and once again with the Congress party, we see loyalty taking precedence over competence. A Gandhi family loyalist gets her name picked from the fracas of the process of nomination, and the reason the pricks in government and their commie cronies give us is because she's a woman and this would be an historic moment in Indian history, and whats more she's a 'simple' woman, covers her head and so epitomises what is best in Indian women.

Who the hell are they kidding? We all know the post of President, the highest office in the land, although a political appointment, must be executed without bias, but by selecting a virtually unknown person, a known loyalist to the family and overwhelming her with joy, they just ensured that they have a stooge at Raisina who will sign their bills without causing an embarrassment and without telling them what is moral and what is not.

So ladies, if you think that this is an historic moment, please think again, in an unbiased way, because in the name of feminism, this government is using this lady as a pawn, yes, a pawn, to achieve their sadistic ends, which is to fuck the middle class even more and consolidate their Muslim vote-bank by allowing illegals from Bangladesh to enter and settle down, changing the demography of the north-east of the country, not to mention increase the security risks.

Now on to the other controversy, the wannabe-to-be President, Mrs. Patil, made a remark about the origin of the purdah and attributed it to the Mughal invasion. OK, so the future Indian president doesn't know about Indian history, or she thought she knew, but was obviously wrong. But what was shocking if not amusing was the statement made by Amar Singh; he said "it's wrong to call the Mughals as aggressors". Er, excuse me, but weren't the Mughals the ones who came to erstwhile Hindustan, raided, looted and plundered the wealth, raped women and killed innocents and desecrate places of worship? Isn't that a sign of aggression? Usually when a blow job is given, it's done in private, not in public, so I'm pretty amazed that Amar Singh would resort to administer a blow job on his Muslim chums in the hope of garnering some more nuts in his jockeys, but then again, to say what he said clearly shows the lack of nuts in his jocks, so I guess I can say that I understand.

To wind up, this presidential election is not about empowering women, this is about showing that loyalty scores over competence, the President is nothing more than a puppet and the government is its puppeteer and at the end of the day, purdah or no purdah, let's hope we have a person at Rashtrapathi Bhavan who has the good wishes of the people of this country, and not it's politicians.

Everything that i missed thus far

Holy crap, it's been a long, long time since my thoughts hit the blog world, and a lot of water seems to have passed under the bridge. The American soldiers are still getting blown to bits in Iraq, Bush is continually under fire at home and abroad while his stooges in the churches of America and the Fox News network have increased their support to him. And I thought only George Bush was stupid!

Closer home, Rahul Gandhi shot his mouth off while campaigning in UP about the independence struggle and the 1971 war. I actually don't blame him for getting the facts completely wrong. For those who aren't aware of what he said, he basically said, or made it sound like his family members were solely responsible for India's independence and also for thwarting Pakistan during the 1971 war. Like I said, I don't blame him because it must be hard for someone to learn his history from family members and not textbooks and, as many of us later do, through authenticated works by various historians. I mean, I guess he had sessions with his grandmother, Indira Gandhi (who had her sessions with her father, Nehru). That must have been a really boring history class!

Amar Singh and Mulayam Singh would have to leave their fiefdom and hand it over to the sorceress, Mayawati, who will soon make it a dalit haven and unleash her scourge against the tyrannical upper castes. Soon, we're going to see a ot more statues of Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram, and probably have multi-crore birthday bashes for Mayawati, sposored by a party that claims to represent the poorest and most down-trodden community in independent India. Makes me wanna cry. Sniff, sniff, sob.

Cricket, and we finally managed to win a match, against Bangladesh, when it looked like we were about to lose (like it matters now!).

Cops in India seem to have had a nice long session of target practice on innocents (while, not exactly, Sohrabuddin was a criminal after all). Seems like now criminals better start praying that there IS evidence of whatever crime they are charged of because that way, they have a better chance of beating the courts and getting free, but if there's no evidence, like the saying goes, pop goes the weasel. Ask Alister Pereira. He ran over 7 people on a footpath in Mumbai in a drunken state, and was sentenced, for 6 months!!! These criminals just aren't smart enough these days.

Until some other bloopers come up, my next article will be the most damning of all. It's going to target, that's right, target religion and the concept of God.

Please burn Sachin's effigy

Another cricketing defeat and another violent and raged reaction by our cricket crazy junta, the only difference this time around was the loss was at cricket’s showpiece event, the world cup, and the loss was at the hands of one of the minnows, Bangladesh. In the past too, pathetic performances were greeted with brick-bats and the defeats were attributed to the endorsements and TV commercials that the cricketers were part of. But seriously, what has endorsements and commercials got to do with on-field performances? Sure, they get plenty of money from them so one may be incline to think that that would result in complacency on the field and a ‘don’t care’ attitude, but given the nature of our public, I seriously doubt that would be the case, and only a fool would try to reason out with our enraged public, especially with the lack of proactive response from the police.

Sachin

What amazes me after every such defeat is that not once is Sachin Tendulkar, the so called ‘little master’, or ‘maestro’, or ‘God’ ever talked about. The fall guys always happen to be Dravid, Sehwag, and more recently Dhoni. Never once have I seen the public burning effigies of Sachin, or maybe the media (which claims to be neutral) just doesn’t show those images because they don’t like show images of Sachin being blamed for any debacle. Let’s consider the aftermath of the recent past. Dhoni’s house under construction was vandalized, Kaif’s house was stoned after his failure at South Africa, Dravid and Chappell’s effigies were burnt by the black sheep spectators of Indian cricket (Bengalis), etc. But never once was Sachin a target or recipient of such treatment, or, as I said, never was it shown. I have a simple one worded question: why? Sachin hasn’t had a single match winning performance for more than a year, and even his 50+ scores haven’t been special, but a supplement to the team score. The sooner we end this romanticism with Sachin, the better it would be. At present, he is nothing but dead weight in the team, blocking the entry of younger blood into the team and needs to be dropped from the team and asked to play Ranji cricket to get a few knocks under his belt (a la Ganguly). Yes, you heard me tight, HE NEEDS TO BE DROPPED! It ain’t taboo to say so, and I’m not afraid to say it. Ajay Jadeja said the stupidest thing on NDTV when he said that “world over the best players are pushed up the order, but we (Indian team) bring in the best players when the situation is difficult”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t your best players supposed to help get you out of difficult situations? Isn’t that why they are called ‘best’? To cap all the crap about Sachin, there's talk about him replacing Dravid as the captain. I don't think there could any move that would be more disastrous for Indian cricket than this. Sachin is not, and I repeat, NOT a good captain. He is an extraordianry player, but not a good captain, and the sooner the selectors recognise this, the better. All great players needn't be good captains, as is the case with Sachin. I hope common sense prevails and Sachin rejects the captaincy and suggests that Dravid be retained as captain.

Dravid and Chappell

So yeah, the captain and the coach are usually the fall guys, but should they really be chastised for this debacle? Dravid has accepted full responsibility for the debacle, which I’d like to point out that no previous captain has admitted to, but should he and Chappell be made the scapegoats? There are a number of people who are against Chappell because he is a foreigner and because he was the reason Ganguly was dropped for a while and stripped of his captaincy, but seriously, the way the team played, I don’t think even an Indian coach would have been of any help. What surprises me the most was when Kris Srikkanth made this comment on CNN-IBN (sacking Chappell coz he’s a foreigner), or when Jadeja made his comment, what the hell were the perpetually brain-dead TV anchors doing? Couldn’t they have questioned the wisdom of such statements? Navjot Sidhu wants Dravid out because he feels Dravid wasn’t and isn’t a motivating captain! I don’t know Sidhu personally, nor do I know Dravid or any of the current team members, but I think it’s easy to say that Dravid is the best captain we have right now, and his calmness is often mistaken for a sign of passiveness, one that lacks aggression, which, Mr. Sidhu, I’m afraid you are guilty of. I don’t think stripping your shirt on the Lords’ balcony should be viewed as being aggressive and motivating – it was, as we say, ‘losing it’. The Bongs (the black sheep – Bengalis) want Dravid and Chappell out because they think he (Dravid) was handed something that ought not to have left Ganguly ‘fiefdom’ (the captaincy) and Chappell was the cause for it. Speaking of Greg, I think the way he handled the media after the loss to Sri Lanka was extremely good and professional, and I think it’s his professionalism that we Indians have a problem with. I mean what’s wrong is saying that a question is inflammatory when it is – calling a spade a spade? Asking him if heads ought to roll at the top is nothing but inflammatory – that question ought to be asked to Vengsarkar, not Chappell.

Endorsements

One of the prime reasons being attributed to the failure at the world cup is the number of advertisements the cricketers are part of. Common sense ought to prevail over here while making such comments because I fail to see how something done at the time when they are not in the nets practicing could affect their performance so dramatically on the field. All the commercials are shot during the free time that the cricketers have, and come on, if you're telling me they aren't entitled to have a social life, then you go get a life. If that were the case, Azharuddin should have been removed long before he was because his messy divorce with his first wife and subsequent affair with Sangeetha Bijlani leading up to his marriage was sure to affect his game, Sachin ought to have been dropped after his father passed away since his father was such an inspiration to him, etc. One theory is that with the amount of money the cricketers make through endorsements, they really wouldn't care about the money they get for playing, and hence, neglect their game. Going by the reactions of the public in the subcontinent, I don't think any sane cricketer would think of taking such a chance, much less implement it.

The end?

Sacking the coach and replacing the captain would be nothing but a reactionary measure, and as medical practitioners would say “it’s a case of treating the symptom, not the cause”. Although viewing things objectively has never been a virtue the Indian cricket fan had or for that matter most Indians, if we do, then I think it would be fairly ominous that the defeats were a result of a collective batting failure on 2 days, that’s all. No nonsense about a foreign coach, or a de-motivating captain or any of that mumbo-jumbo.

Now you see me, now you don't

Another cricket match, and again we have the telecast controversy over whether the feed should be shared with DD or not. What the hell is the matter with our cricket board (well, technically, there was nothing right for a long time, but I just had to make that comment) ? Don't they realise that by screwing around with the telecast rights, they're screwing around with the viewership for the game? I don't think this a ploy to get more people to come to the stadiums to watch the game, because at present in India, the stadiums are packed with people for any international match, what with people sleeping outside the stadiums to get tickets.

What's most shocking about this entire episode is the reaction and comments made by the politicians, especially the information & broadcasting minister Priya Ranjan Das Munshi. The nut case goes on the say that the BCCI has no rights to not let DD telecast the match because watching cricket is his right. So? How can the state machinery bully the private players into sharing their feed, for which they shell out hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars? What kind of a democratic institution do we have in place? Zee Sports, Neo Sports, et al, I pity thee. Then again, I don't. I might be found guilty of taking sides with those who violate the rights of the cricket loving junta, who inspite of paying the highest to telecast matches, end up on the losing side.

Going gaga over NRIs

Every year on January 12th, the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas is celebrated with great fan-fare and the Prime Minister kicks of the celebrations to mark the day Gandhiji returned to India from South Africa with a speech full of praise for the NRI and PIO community and for all that has been done by them for the country, directly and indirectly. And then unfailingly, there is always a mention of "more needs to be done" and "don't forget your responsibility towards your country". It really baffles me to see such shameless acts of begging, especially since we are a nation of a billion plus people and need to look first within before we reach out for help from a few who for reasons personal to them, or their ancestors, left the shores of our country in search of greener pastures or were forcefully taken away to distant lands.

To me, it seems just plain wrong to go about asking those who have made it big abroad to contribute to the nation-building process just becasue they are rich. I mean what right do we have to ask anyone for that matter to quite literally 'pay-up' by playing the patriotic card? If they want to, they'll do it out of their own free will, and they are doing so, so this cheap attempt of using the patriotic card is an example of how we have degraded ourselves to the levels of beggers, resorting to emotional tricks rather than give the NRIs a proper reason to invest in and help in the development of our country.

When Gandhiji returned to India from South Africa on the 12th of January, 1915, for all practical purposes, he could have been mistaken for an 'NRI' despite having left for South Africa to defend a client there. Having returned to India, he plunged into the freedom struggle and soon had the masses thronging to catch a glimpse of him during his several protest rallies and speeches. The Indians had found the answer to one of the greatest problems in someone who came from abroad. This mentality still seems to persist, in spite of the fact that we are no longer the slaves we were till 1947. Having said that, now I do believe that our minds and actions have become slaves to years of bad goverance and dependence on others to solve our problems. It really wouldn't matter even if the entire NRI community pumped in all their money, we seem to be headed in only one direction, and the currents are just too strong to turn back. God forbid I should be right.

What ails Indian media today?

I haven't blogged in a long time, owing to a sudden increase in work and poor health in the recent past. But I couldn't have chosen a more appropriate time to make a comeback with a topic that I have wanted to write about in a long, long time.

Let's be honest, spreading news now seems to have become a game, a gimmick of sorts to see whose news would linger longer in the minds of the public, like the taste of a good meal. 'News' isn't want drives today's media, TRP ratings do; the truth isn't what is being pursued, sensationalism is; matters of national concern aren't given enough space & time, matters of personal interest are. I'm not a journalist and so don't know what are the dos and don'ts taught to journalists today (if something like that is taught at all), but what I just mentioned come from pure common sense.

Last year, in 2005, (or early 2006, I can't quite recollect), I thought NDTV reached a new low when Swathi Maheshwari visited the home of an Indian truck driver who was kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq and thrust a microphone in front of his wailing mother asking her 'how she feels?'. How the hell was she expected to feel when the sole bread winner of her family was taken captive with a good chance of him being paraded in front of a camera and have his head lopped off? Personal opinion, and I'm sure there are many who agree with me on this, but that was one of the most despicable things to do by anyone, let alone a journalist. The appreciable part was that it was the news channel that was relaying information about the captives to the family rather than the Ministry of External Affairs. This, however, didn't give them the right to take a camera into their houses in their hour of grief. And their explanation of "sharing the family's grief with the rest of the country" was as lousy an excuse as any.

Our security forces (armed forces and police) and the nation's security gets the least coverage by the media, although national security should be of interest to everyone national. Terrorism in Kashmir is given it's fair share in the news, and I'm not complaining about that. But how much of news time or print space is given to such stories? The only time these make the headlines are when the number of killed exceeds 10 or so, else it takes at most a little over a minute on the 9 o'clock news or a narrow coulmn in the papers. Why is it that only when the number of those killed exceeds a certain 'magic figure' does the media decide to give more importance to the story? Is the loss of life of one jawan or officer of our security forces not as important as the loss of several of his or her comrades? And even when these incidents are reported, they are not followed up until the next major incident.

More recently, Sanjay Dutt's verdict in the 1993 Bombay blasts came out and for the entire week, the only thing that was running was Sanju bhaiyya's friends, well wishers and sister thanking God, and saying things like 'he's a nice guy', 'no one should have to go through what he has undergone', etc. Was the entire country that desperate to know what his family and friends thought at him not being branded a terrorist by the courts at the cost of what was happening to soldiers like Major Pitambare of the 3 Paras, who gave up his life while eliminating the HuMs topmost leader in the valley? This story was given a few dying seconds at the end of the 9 o'clock news and the papers next day had a narrow column mentioning it. A few seconds on TV and a piece in the paper on 1 day. Is that how much we value the freedom and democracy that our men in uniform unselfishly lay their lives for? Is this the message the media wishes to portray?

The other thing I've noticed is the media has turned from presenting the facts to presenting their opinion. In a nation like ours, where majority live by the news they hear, without bothering to form an opinion of their own based on facts, the media, knowingly or unknowingly, have started started encroaching into a territory that ought not to be transgressed. Everyone has the right to form their own opinion based on the facts presented, but the media seems to have taken it a step further and taken upon itself the role of 'opinion former', so now our democratic minds have that much less to do. This is one (dis)service we could gladly do without.

The media (electronic) in this case went out of their way in a never seen before show of solidarity for the retrial of Manu Sharma, accused in the Jessica Lall murder case. I'm still wondering where that solidarity went when it came to fighting alongside the families of the security personnel who lost their lives during the attack on Parliament, who are opposing the clemency plea of Mohammad Afzal, the person convicted of providing logistical support and accepting money, thereby endangering the security of the country and waging war against the state. I'm guessing it's partly due to our mentality towards our security forces. We think that they are there to die for the country and so when they do, no big deal. however, models like Jessica Lall are people we relate better to since she came from an upper middle class family, like most of us. So at the end of the day, the media has give this story a quiet burial. And surprisingly, there was no 'opinion' presented by the media on this.

The media has for long has claimed that they are targeted most of the times and are made to look like the bad guys. With all that they do, did they expect any better? By no means am I painting all journalists with the same brush, but it's not too hard to see what kind of journalists and what brand of journalism is under fire here. Our country operates with 3 arms- the Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislature; I just hope the media doesn't become an extension of one of these arms, or a fourth arm itself.

more as they come.

A flight less ordinary

I recently read in the papers that a certain gentleman named B N Shukla had filed a petition in 1995 in the High Court against the subsidy provided to Indian Muslims for the Haj. I was shocked to hear that this petition came up for hearing after 11 years, but was extremely pleased to hear the Allahabad HC rule that the subsidies should be stopped.

Ours being a secular country, one would have thought that all religions should be given equal respect and importance, opportunities and benefits. I find it hard to believe that only Muslims are beneficieries of such subsidies for pilgrimages, while Sikhs going to the Nankana Sahib in Lahore or Hindus on pilgrimage to Kailash and Mansarovar are not extended such privileges (of course, now I know it's nothing more than vote bank politics). What's even more astounding is the fact that India is the only country that offers such subsidies; no other nation, not even Islamic nations offer such subsidies. The primary, and probably the only, reason why Islamic nations do not offer such subsidies is because according to Islam, that would be unislamic, for no Muslim should be indebted to anyone to undertake the Haj (I'm not quite sure about the wordings of the religious decree, but it means that no one should take help of any kind for the Haj-they ought to manage on their own). Why then do we have a Haj committee run by Muslims, who believe in living life as per the holy Quran, who believe in the shariat and the triple-talaq, warmly embracing this gimmick by the government?

This brings to mind an old saying: when it comes to money, everyone is of the same religion!

Reverse swing: The white side of cricket

Well, well, well, Darrell Hair is at it again; and again it's the 'brown bastards' (also known as Asians from the sub-continent in the civilised world) who are at the receiving end. What happened during the final test at the Oval was nothing short of a disgrace to this great game that most members of the commonwealth love. Let's be honest, both parties involved were wrong - one for taking matters too far too soon (Pak team) and the other for being too stubborn and acting out of pride (Hair).

Darrell Hair seems to be a magnet for controversy - be it because of his literal interpretation of the law and lack of common sense or the fact that he's an Aussie and we all know that Aussies are a bunch of stubborn bastards (no offence meant). The Pakistani team was guilty of not coming out to the field when they were expected to. Staying in the dressing rooms to register their protest - they could have gone to field and not started bowling, which would have been a far more effective option! Hair on the other hand, suspecting the ball to have been tampered with, should have produced proof. No proof, no charge, it's that simple, be it cricket or in society. In the end, the affair boiled down to who was involved, and unfortunately, both parties involved weren't the ones who could think rationally at the given moment.

During the 1979-80 tour of New Zealand, the West Indies team under Clive Lloyd were recipients of terrible umpiring decisions, and in the second test, they chose to register their protest by staying in the dressing room. When asked by the NZ cricket board chairman, Llloyd is said to have replied "We came here to play cricket; what's happeneing out there is not cricket!". The matter was resolved and the game continued inspite of the delay caused by the Windies team. Different people, different actions, different outcome.

Remember Mike Denness handing over suspended sentences to half the Indian team during the tour of South Africa? When Shaun Pollock appealed and kicked the turf out of anger, that didn't matter to him. When Kallis was seen running his fingers to remove the mud stuck on the seam, he wasn't pulled up. However, the Denness' and Hairs of the cricketing world are on the decline and hopefully their breed would soon be part of folklore, but a folklore that would be best forgotten.

The ICC, in a statement following the Oval fiasco and the Pakistani team's statement that they don't want Hair officiating in any test matches they play in, said that no team has the right to decide who they want or don't want to be standing as umpires in their games. Fair enough, they think that would be placing a team above the game. In that case, I'd like the ICC to explain to me why the yallow Darrell Hair to exempt himself from going and officiating in games played in Zimbabwe. Surely, if a team cannot be above the game, can an individual? White world hegemony or 'brown bastard' paranoia?