Hope and dreams are two much abused words. Overused, oversold and perhaps exaggerated on occasions. They have this intangible quality to them that makes the hard nosed realists amongst us to treat them with their opposite feeling – cynicism. Both hope and dreams carry with them a cruel companion named reality that does not always allow them to reach their intended junctions. But hope is a foundation for action and dreams a foundation for ambitions. They are the first tentative, hazy steps in a journey called realization.

Barack Obama reached one stage of that journey today as he became the first African American to claim the Presidency, an attainment that this author had certainly not thought possible for another two decades and many of his slightly more cynical friends, during their entire lifetimes. But Obama is now at the summit of political power – and he has been propelled there by the intangibles of hope, change and dreams that we often dismiss as being out of place characters in the political drama. Across the United States, Obama, a political greenhorn in terms of his Washington experience, has performed two actions that few politicians are able to achieve – transcend barriers of identity and make people believe that they have a stake. He is not a black President, for blacks could simply have not voted him into power. He has projected himself as the American president, consistently called for an end to the bitter divides between liberal and conservatives, white and black, Democrat and Republican. By acknowledging concerns on both sides of the debate he has brought a tone of moderation into his political language. He risked his credibility amongst blacks by calling for them for being more responsible as a community and as individuals, and also staked his white votes by reminding them that the animosity of racial discrimination still haunted the poorest of America’s communities. He has won by talking to the people and not at them. Credit it to his rhetoric, ideas or just youthful energy but he has made young Americans believe that they can change the way the nation is governed by casting their ballots. It’s no surprise that his win has come on the back of large voter turnout and that many first time voters went with him. Young men and women are more perceptive to the happenings around them, more aware of their surroundings and across the world more and more cynical about their political systems and the vested interests that govern them. Obama has made them believe in the political process and that is an achievement in itself.

But make no mistakes; this is not a rout as the Electoral College vote will tell you. Obama has won a 52-47 popular vote mandate, which still reflects a nation with two halfs at odds with each other. In his book ‘The Audacity of Hope’, Obama talks of how President Bush was emboldened and gung ho after a 51-49 victory over John Kerry in 2004 and how the White House had forgotten that there was a section of America that hadn’t voted for it. In his acceptance speech, Obama talked of being a President also for those whose support he had not won; of listening to his people, particularly when they disagreed with him. He would need to live up to his word, for in a Washington now set to be ruled by Democrats, a humble and gracious President would need to engage in dialogue to overcome the bipartisanship that he mentions as disturbing in his experiences. Obama, the author, critiques how ‘we paint our faces blue and red and cheer our side and boo the other; and if takes a cheap shot or a late hit to win the game then so be it, for it seems that winning is all that matters.’ An Obama presidency will need to avoid the same pitfalls.

It would not be wrong to say that in this moment America needed an Obama as president more than he needed the seat himself; simply because of the message it sends to the world. I am not a romantic and don’t think that America’s problems will be solved in his tenure but Obama’s election signals a shift of view point in America. It signals a break from old prejudices, from hidden biases of the ‘Bradley Effect’, from the Guns, God and Gays rhetoric of the neo-right. But more importantly it symbolizes an electorate willing to choose ability over identity – the very principle of foundation of the American nation. And as the demography of the United States increasingly yields more space to the non-whites, a new generation will hopefully not be entrapped by their limited visions and dare to look beyond.

But is Obama a socialist and an uncomfortable President for India? If he succumbs to the protectionist and non-proliferation lobbies of the Democrats, then maybe but so far he has demonstrated to be his own man. In his book Obama devotes a chapter to ‘Opportunity’ and opines on big government and globalization. He mentions how ‘the conservative revolution that Ronald Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan’s central insight – that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic with Democrats more concerned with slicing the economic pie than enlarging it – contained a good deal of truth.’
He further states that ‘America can’t compete with China and India simply by cutting costs and shrinking government - unless we are willing to tolerate a drastic decline in our living standards. Nor can America compete by simply erecting trade barriers and raising minimum wage - unless we are willing to confiscate all the computers of the world. We don’t have to choose between an oppressive, government run economy and a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. Like those who came before us, we should be asking what mix of policies will lead to dynamic free market, widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility…. Let us begin with those investments that can make America more competitive in the global economy – in education, science, technology and energy independence.’

These to me are hardly the words of a socialist, much less a protectionist. Obama has displayed an understanding of Pakistan and its equation with India and Afghanistan. It will be up to South Block to appraise the latest US President of Indian concerns and apprehensions. The world’s largest democracy should be able to hold its own irrespective of any White House occupant. Will he be a friend of India? Given Obama’s respect for democracy, dialogue, tolerance and natural justice, I can stick my neck out and say a confident yes.

Barack Obama has talked about the need for a ‘deliberative democracy’, to understand ‘that we must talk and reach common understandings precisely because all of us are imperfect and can never act with the certainty that God is on our side; and yet at time we must act nonetheless, as if we are certain, protected from error only by providence.’

The world awaits Barack Obama…..Hope and Dreams wait in the shadows, packing their bags for a journey ahead.

|

I was at the Ferozshah Kotla last Saturday as India tried their mighty best to let Michael Clarke and Australia to escape with a draw in the third test. The crowd, frustrated after the string of dropped catches, was pleading for a quick end to the Aussie innings and the only bowler on the field who seemed capable to them of doing that was Virendra Sehwag. But Anil Kumble was his usual stubborn self and in another display of perseverance kept bowling continuously from one end after tea. Amit Mishra was at the other end and seeing no sign of their beloved Sehwag the chanting for a change started in the stands. But it was a strange kind of chanting. It was more an entreaty, a pleading request to an elder brother to kindly pass the ball to his younger one. ‘Kumble bhai’, went the leader of the chant, ‘please yaar…samajh yaar, Viru ko de yaar please’. In my almost two decades of watching cricket, I have heard people comment in varied hues on different Indian cricketers. Most of them have been lauded on their successes and mercilessly beaten down on their failures. Even the great Sachin Tendulkar, while growing above the game for most Indian fans, has not been spared of accusations of batting selfishly for his hundreds and failing to perform in fourth innings of test matches. One man who has been spared of all accusations and critiques by the general public has been the quiet and hardworking Anil Kumble. Cricket journalists and ex players may have questioned his ability to spin the ball (stupidly in my opinion, when there was already a precedent of a fast and zipping leg spinner taking more than 200 test wickets in Chandrasekhar) but for the average Indian cricket fan on the street Anil Kumble has been a synonym for trust and reliance. Dravid may have lost his form, Ganguly may have been erratic, Sachin may have compromised belligerence for quiet run gathering but Kumble was still the same as he started out – economical, at the batsman and accurate. To understand the importance of Kumble you have to turn the clock back to mid and late 90s. Before Harbhajan burst on the scene and Indian cricket enjoyed a diversity of pace bowling riches, Kumble was both a stock and strike bowler for his captain. After the opposition’s opening batsmen had laid into Srinath and Prasad, both Azhar and Tendulkar would invariably turn to Kumble. On innumerable occasions, Kumble was the man Indian captains looked towards for blunting the impact of the likes of Jayasuriya, Aravinda De Silva, Saeed Anwar, Aamir Sohail and Adam Gilchrist. Coming on within the first 15 overs with field restrictions, Kumble relished the challenge and would immediately plug the flow of runs. While the other Indian bowlers would have economy rates of tending towards or in excess of 5 an over, Jumbo would walk away with a dignified number of 3 an over against his name. In many games his spell was the difference between a total of 280-290 and a chaseable 250 (remember this was mid to late 90s, before the 300 + chase became an achievable rather than an unlikely possibility).

If he lived with one albatross around his neck, it was that of not being able to take wickets on foreign shores. He responded in the only way he knew best – through hard work and perseverance of effort. Over the years he shortened his run up, raised his jump to exploit his height for bounce and added a crafty googly and a turning leg spinner to his repertoire. He buried the ‘non-performer at overseas tag’ with two sterling displays – the first in Australia in the winter of 2003 where he was the most successful Indian bowler (24 wickets from 3 tests at 29 runs apiece) and in Pakistan in the historic tour of 2004 (15 wickets from 3 tests at 25 apiece). And yet, despite his limitations, Kumble perhaps like his spinning counterpart Muralitharan remained a solo match winner for India for a long duration. His impeccable record at home underscores his importance again in a period when pace bowling had not yet started winning games for the country. He needed no certificates from the media boxes – there were ample batsmen to vouch for his trouble making abilities. None more so than Stephen Waugh, no less a persevering batsman himself. He credited Kumble with being at the bat all the time with each and every delivery. And every word of that appreciation was true. You only had to watch him bowl that first delivery to Hayden at the Kotla in the second innings to realize that Waugh wasn’t exaggerating. A fizzing leg spinner that was in line with the stumps and almost sneaked through to trap the batsman in front.

Anil Kumble retires like few Indian cricketers have in recent memory – with hardly any qualifications in his record and mutual respect and admiration from everyone around him. He retires an achiever all right but without any pretensions. He retires a team man to the core, his place safely reserved in history as the best to ever hold that red cherry in his hand with an India cap on.

I had planned on writing a farewell for Sourav Ganguly at the end of series after he had played his last test innings. Anil Kumble’s retirement now demands a packaged farewell for both. Not that Ganguly’s achievements are any less diminishing in Indian cricket. Statistics will tell you that he has been the most successful Indian captain. India’s results and style of cricket in the 21st century will tell you that he has undisputedly been the best Indian captain. You cannot even give Ganguly the gift of being ‘at the right place at the right time.’ If anything, he took over Indian cricket when it was at its lowest trough, post the match fixing saga. Sourav not only had to deliver results but also restore credibility, and the second task, as any incumbent politician will tell you can be quite a daunting one. Ganguly’s contribution lies not just in bringing a sense of ‘in your face’ confidence in the way India conducted themselves in the field (he staked his personal reputation on this by frequently getting into arguments with opposition captains and match referees) but also in the way he nurtured a talented crop of youngsters who shall take over the torch from his generation. Harbhajan would surely have been a Sikh migrant sitting in the US today had Sourav not insisted on his inclusion in 2001 and Yuvraj, Zaheer and Dhoni all made their debuts under him.

In the midst of all this appreciation of his captaincy, one almost forgets that Sourav was a tremendously talented one day batsmen. He formed the most successful opening pair with Tendulkar and brought the similar aggression to his batting by frequently hitting bowlers over infield to get India going. His test innings of Lord’s and Brisbane are frequently cited but he also dug deep and bailed India out of trouble during the series in South Africa in 2006 and England in the following year. To say that Sourav Ganguly reflected the ‘New India’ is to overstate a cliché, but he definitely changed the way India shaped up towards other teams in the cricketing world. His tenure marked Indian cricket matching its performance on the field with its clout in the money stakes. He took an India languishing near the bottom and left it sniffing the soil of the top. As he retires, Sourav may well thank Dravid and Laxman for that incredible day at the Eden Gardens in 2001 which changed the fortunes of his captaincy. Had India lost that game and the series with it, Sourav whose off field activities liaisons were being reported daily by the media would not have carried on at the helm much longer and Indian cricket would perhaps have not seen the rise which that ‘come from the dead’ victory over Australia propelled.

Shakespeare depicts King Henry V of England exhorting his soldiers at the Battle of Agincourt by stating that whosoever shed his blood in battle would be his brother that day and together their army would constitute a ‘Band of Brothers’. Sourav Ganguly created a merry band of his own, one that effectively changed the standing of his Indian team in the cricketing battlefields that they took to.

|