It is almost with a shaky set of hands that I commence to write these words. The very idea of reviewing Ayn Rand’s magnum opus ‘Atlas Shrugged’ (AS) is a bit daunting. Not just because of its scale (1084 pages in paperback and as Wikipedia informs me, at 6.45 lac words, one of the longest pieces of literature ever penned) but also because of the various spheres of human life it encompasses. From love to ethics to morality to religion to politics, Rand touches all and presents a unique (if somewhat utopian on occasions) point of view across. At twenty fours years of age and as someone who does not claim to have seen everything there is to see, think and judge upon in this world, I feel somewhat inadequate in forming a scholarly assessment on AS. But if there one thing that Rand would have hated her readers to have done, it was to blindly follow what she had written. And as John Galt says, the question is ‘to think or not to think’. To do justice to Rand would be to think and express an opinion. And so here it follows.

So what is the theme of the book? In two words – volitional consciousness. Two words that John Galt, the hero of the novel and Rand’s idea of the perfect man never fails to emphasize. Man’s existence on this planet says Rand is driven by the exercise of his choices, choices which are not forced upon him but which are followed and acted upon by a process of rational selection. If man’s ego was the ‘Fountainhead’ of humanity’s progress then it is the exercise of his mind that drives this progressive ego. Rational self-interest, according to Rand, must not be confused with selfishness. Yes, our choices must be driven primarily on the basis of what is good for us, but where Rand differs is in the dynamic of the choice that she defines. An objective choice is one which involves an equal trade off between the two parties involved in the decision. A sub-optimal choice which benefits or enriches one at the cost of another falls beyond the circumference of rationality and must be out rightly rejected. Trade, believes Rand, forms the basis or must form the basis of human actions. One must not gain at the expense of another (for that amounts to looting – the possession of someone’s asset by force - or amounts to mooching – beseeching someone to benefit another under a moral obligation while at the same time deriding the person who carries the weight of this obligation); a relationship must be formed as per Rand on the basis of an exchange. What one seeks the other must have in him or her to give.

Rand’s moral philosophy rests on three foundational pillars – pillars which form the backbone of this novel. These are the three primary principles of the Aristotle school of philosophy – existence, identity and consciousness. An object or a state exists; to deny existence is to deny identity and consequently reality. A is A, something that Galt never forgets to remind us. No matter how so ever you may wish A will not be B. And the moment it moves from being an A to being a B, it assumes a completely different identity altogether. It must not possess any remnants of A. It is now distinctly B. And thus to drive home the point of there being only two sides – things are either Black or White (Either/Or – another foundation of Aristotle’s philosophy). There are no greys, says Rand. And this fact of existence and identity drives towards the third pillar of consciousness. A man must be conscious to gain and understand the state of existence around him. And it is this consciousness, this awareness of reality that forces him to make his own choices. Consciousness being the faculty of perceiving what exists and thus making rational choices on the basis of living tangible factors of existence. It often reminds me of the famous quality I once read being attributed to a great statesman – the ability to see things as they are and not as you wish them to be.

It is a single quality that distinguishes Rand’s characters in the book. Rand divides them into two halves (Black and White….) – one set are the creators – people who create value, who bring innovation, who drive the commercial economy and sustenance of the society by the strength of their mind. Their innovations, efforts and drive generating greater benefits for those to whom they sell their products. These industrialists and scientists, as Rand shows them, are the torch bearers of rational self interest. Men and women who act because they want to act in that manner, because their mind makes them believe that it is only by acting in that manner that they are sustaining themselves. Thus, you have a Dagny Taggart (Rand’s heroine in the novel) and other industrialists like Hank Rearden and Ellis Wyatt who act in a certain manner only because it sustains their own self interest and those of their businesses. Rand’s point eventually boils down to this – innovations and inventions eventually move out of the hands of the thinkers to that of the industrialist who then applies them to mass production which through a domino effect creates value for the society as a whole. This forms the crux of Rand’s economic philosophy. AS could well serve as a manifesto for laizzez faire capitalism, standing in the blue corner up against the Communist manifesto in the red (pun intended). Thus the greatest private property is one’s mind and in the economic system envisaged by Rand, the state must carry out the responsibility to guard the sanctity of this one supreme asset.

Which is something the ‘People’s State’ in AS does not do. This is the second half of her characters – comprising the looters and moochers. People who deprive others of their innovations because they seek to reward the non-performing at the expense of those who perform, while very conveniently passing off this heist under the garb of ‘greater social need’. Moochers of course are the parasites – those who force others to believe that they are under a moral obligation to sustain them since those who are talented and successful must carry the burden of those who have not been able to acquire these attributes.

Both positions are those of extortion and throughout the novel are adopted by the ‘villains’ under the garb of moral obligation, towards society and towards the weak. Rand soundly rejects this point of view. She candidly outlines the decay that sets in when man’s actions are governed by the over arching umbrella of moral responsibility which is nothing but an attempt by the unproductive to live a life by robbing the productive of their means. The looters routinely use Communist postulates and arguments to undermine the men and women of ability. Principle among these arguments is the one against the making of profits and generation of money. (Franciso d’Anconia’s six page rebuttal of the argument that ‘Money is the root of all evil’ is one of the highlights of the book) Another argument is that of a rich and successful person’s moral obligation to support those who are not as well off. Hank Rearden’s family never fails to criticize him for running after money, for being materialistic but also feeds from his treasury for their sustenance. Rand does well to bring out to the hypocrisy of this situation as well as punching holes in theory of ‘Sanction of the Victim’. Rand displays how evil can exist only because good allows it to. It is only because the productive minds accept the moral guilt of being productive and accept the obligation of carrying the world on their shoulders that the looters and moochers thrive and become more powerful.

Rand also criticizes religion and mysticism (Galt’s speech has a few nasty things to say about India in this respect) believing that both these are forms of blind faith. The ‘mystics of the mind’ as Galt calls them force you to abandon your mind and consequently your ability to reason. The ‘mystics of the muscle’ are the looters, those who rob you of your productive efforts. Galt seeks out to destroy both by taking away the one weapon that these two forces possess – voluntary sanction of the victim. It is an approach that finds a small resonance with the Gandhian practice of Satyagraha. Rearden’s response of refusing to recognize the court that tries him but at the same time refusing to accept his guilt, not co-operating with the judicial process and holding steadfast to his views are reminiscent of Gandhi’s non-violence tactics. Tactics which rested on the single premise of the victim being morally stronger than the oppressor.

It is difficult not to agree with Rand’s thought process. Having espoused the concept of free choice and free minds, liberalism, rationality and broad mindedness, there is a lot that one finds common with what exists in the book. But AS suffers from two weaknesses. One is literary and the other a moral one. Rand’s characters, as pointed earlier, are purely black and white. They are neatly divided into two camps. Even if one passes that off as a necessity for her to show the divergence in the core beliefs of these two groups and distinctly draw out the features of objectivism, you cannot ignore the monologue that characterizes the book at certain places. Characters rarely converse without venturing into long speeches of philosophy. It almost seems that essays have been masqueraded as dialogues. At times you wonder whether it is humanly possible for someone to speak as long and use as heavy words, phrases and sentences as Rand’s characters do in the novel. AS is Rand’s magnum opus. But one can’t help thinking that the one thousand page novel could easily have been passed off a philosophy book condensed into three hundred odd pages. Rand would of course later in her writing career go on to do exactly that with her book ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ as well as other titles. Her followers like Leonard Peikoff and Nathaniel Branden would also follow the same route and churn out pure philosophical essays rather than philosophy dressed works of fiction. But to be fair to Rand, all writing has a message and you can certainly doubt whether objectivism would have reached as many people had she not transformed them into novels like ‘The Fountainhead’ and ‘Atlas Shrugged’.

More than the literary it is a moral question that requires a critical appraisal of Rand’s work. While A is indisputably A, what are the attributes that make an A an A? And can these attributes also display a partial presence in B? Rand says contradictions do not exist – things are either black or white. It is this argument that I now propose to dispute. And I want to do so by taking a few examples.

The two great Indian epics – Ramayana and Mahabharata – deal with moral issues at a great depth. They outline the moral codes that must govern the societies. The Ramayana is the simpler epic – a straight fight between the good and the evil. But try and judge maryada purshottam Lord Ram by objectivist criteria and you might find some surprises. What makes Ram leave Ayodhya, refuse the throne that is his by right and follow an obligated father’s wishes to march on to the jungle. Is Ram being a mystic? Is he acting in his self-interest? Or is this another form of altruism, a state of living that Rand absolutely despises. And if Ram’s interest is assumed to be to up hold the promise of his father then is it not a sacrifice (another word derided by Rand) on his part? The giving up of a kingdom for a life in forest – a sacrifice driven by an immoral promise forced out of plain treachery by a scheming wife. And what makes maryada purshottam to abdicate his wife just because of a seed of her disloyalty planted in his mind by the actions of a washer man who also throws out his wife who has lived in another man’s residence? Why does Ram, the upholder of all the sacred Hindu moral values on one hand turn so parochial as to throw his wife out on the mere fact she spent days and nights in the house of another man? What makes a demi-god character who displays prudence and rationality throughout the epic to act in such a ‘contradictory’ manner?

The Mahabharata is all the more dense when it comes to the concept of morality. It is perhaps the most morally ambiguous epic in literature. Each character has that one fatal flaw that stops him short of perfection. Bhisma is the maryada purshottam of the Mahabharata, who upholds all the values of raj dharma but allows his choice of right and wrong to be compromised by his loyalty to the kingdom he serves. Karna similarly allows his sense of morality to be compromised by his friendship to Duryodhan. And what of the Pandavas? Are they all white? What makes the upholder of moral values, the dharamraj Yudhistra to succumb to the tentacles of gambling and lose everything he puts at stake? And what of Lord Krishna himself? He, who is the orchestrator of the Pandava victories, is the most morally ambiguous of all. Where is the morality in placing Shikhandi before Bhisma, forcing the old man to lay down weapons and then firing arrows at him at will? Is it any less immoral than the Kauravas ganging up on an armed but alone in battle Abhimanyu? Was it moral to speak a white lie to Drona and make him abdicate his weapons and then chop off his head while he was sitting in meditation? Was it moral on the part of Krishna to goad Bhim to strike on Duryodhan’s thighs even though the rules of mace fight forbid such a move?

Each of these ambiguities Krishna addresses through sermons at different places on the epic, the most important one being the Geeta itself. All is fair, he stresses, on the path of righteousness. Krishna’s actions are legitimate because the Pandavas have righteousness with them. And that is not because they are all white or do not possess any human flaws. They most certainly do; but unlike the Kauravas they are able to acquire a streak of humility to conquer their flaws. The Mahabharata is not a simple fight between the right and the wrong – but a fight between those who have been able to conquer their contradictions and those who continue to live by their faults.

And this is precisely what is missing from the characters in Rand’s book. They are too perfect and not real. In a certain sense, even artificial. They exist in a realm of perfect competition and empirical economics will tell you that those conditions do not exist in a real world. Let me put forward another example – India and the United States are democracies. Both run on a political system that recognizes an individual’s fundamental right to choose who governs him. Adult franchise is the ultimate political representation of volitional consciousness. And if both these nations consider democracy as the moral code of their political systems then why are they spreading non-democratic regimes all across the world? The US has installed tin pot dictators all across the globe just because a democratically elected government would not serve their interests. Closer home while we profess democracy and advocate its spread in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East, we are perfectly willing to turn a blind eye to the democratic demands in Burma where a popularly elected leader has been under house arrest for almost two decades now. Why? Because it serves our self interest to keep the Generals ruling that country happy so that in return they control the militant groups operating in the North East. How different are we then from the Americans (often called ‘Cynical Bastards’ for this hypocritical policy), who support autocrat and non-democratic regimes in many nations simply because it suits their economic self interest?

My question is two fold – is this rational self interest? Both nations act in their own benefit and offer a morally questionable trade off. And if yes, then does this mean that our self interest may conflict with our living code of morality? Why is it okay for our people to exercise their minds but not okay for those from other nations to do so? So what do we choose – our morality or our self-interest? But hang on; doesn’t following your self interest as per Rand lead you to a path of a moral life? Or I am missing the definition of morality? Isn’t adherence to a principle you stand by the ultimate test of your morality? And if yes, then does our pursuit of rational self interest as individuals and as nations mean that our morality crosses path with our interests rather than running parallel to it? Isn’t the Mahabharata an example that contradictions in human character do exist, just that many are able to conquer them? Is India’s engagement with Pakistan in a peace process a step towards compromise (another concept that objectivists love to hate) or a step towards co-existence? And if both represent a climb down, a give and take, a sub-optimal solution, agreeing to live with each other through certain adjustments, then what is the objectivist alternative to it? Bombing each other out of existence? Isn’t our stand of co-existence with our neighbor driven by our rational self-interest to exist and not be bombed to pieces? If yes, then isn’t our rational self interest driving us towards a possible compromise and life of co-existence?

Difficult questions? Welcome to a difficult world.

I suspect Rand’s robust philosophy like all schools of thought has had some difficulty standing up to the queries of a real world. In spite of that it needs to be studied, more deeply analyzed and respected. Simply because it stands as a solid defense for the fundamental human right of making a choice (something no can dispute and take away from Objectivism) and because it stands as a solid wall behind the liberal, rational and open minded process of living a life.


P.S. Rand, through Galt’s speech is quite critical of the ‘mystic’ India consisting of sadhus who sleep on a bed of nails, while she profusely praises the US as the first country that gave importance to the concept of the power of a man’s mind. Too bad, ‘The Argumentative Indian’ wasn’t out then. Indian philosophy dates back to eras when the US as a continent was not even discovered. And the United States itself took almost two centuries to make a decision as to what extent it wanted to recognize the power of the mind of its people. Slavery was abolished only after the civil war in 1860s (Britain has abolished it decades earlier), women allowed to vote only in the late nineteenth century (Good luck Hillary! a women president if she comes will come after 232 years of male presidents) and blacks were allowed to vote only in the 1960s (a full century after abolition of slavery). If I could fault Rand on one count, it would be this irrational and blind devotion to the United States. Not expected from an objectivist.

|

A squirrel that I found on the edge of one of the walls on my climb up on the Golconda fort.

A cannon placed at the entrance of the Golconda fort. I took the snap from right behind it, and even though it is more of a showpiece the cannon is still perfectly aimed at the gate for a strike at an approaching enemy

Hyderabad city in the background and the entrance and lower parts of the Golconda fort in the foreground as seen from the highest point of the fort.

|

The horizon on the east, as seen from the window of the aircraft. Early morning at 6am as the plane took off, this sight caught my eye and I captured it stealthily escaping the attention of flight attendants with my mobile phone.

|

Ok so here is an exercise in sheer self indulgence. I have copied this pice of tag from a friend's blog (note the word...copied) and filled my anwers in (to whom...i dunno); though i think the next time around, i wud first see the length of the tag before copying. All answers are mine btw...nakal main akal, anyone?



( ) smoked a cigarette (Never have, never will)
( ) crashed a friend's car (Nah, I am quite careful with other people’s belongings)
( ) stolen a car (Jeez…why?!)
( ) been in love (Maybe….maybe not)
( ) been dumped (u need to have relationship for that too happen)
( ) shoplifted (Nopes)
( ) been fired (came quite close though)
(X) been in a fist fight (yup..in school, when I was 6)
( ) snuck out of your parent's house (Nopes)
(X) had feelings for someone who didn't have them back (Over and Over again)
( ) gone on a blind date (Once)
( ) lied to a friend (I try not to)
( ) skipped school (Never)
(X) seen someone die (Cremated some...if that qualifies )
( ) had a crush on one of your Internet friends (Nah…didn’t find one worth enuf)
( ) been to Canada (Agreed I am a half sardar, but no)
( ) been to Mexico (What for?)
(X) been on a plane (Yes!!)
(X) eaten sushi (Yes…didn’t like it too much though)
( ) been skiing-snow or water (Sadly no )
( ) met someone from the Internet (Nopes)
( ) been at a concert (No)
(X) taken painkillers (Loadsa time)
( ) love someone or miss someone right now (Hmm…No)
(X) laid on your back and watched cloud shapes go by (Quite often….believe me its enchanting)( ) made a snow angel (In Delhi?! Mate u need to look at the weather pages)
( ) had a tea party (Aunties do such things mate)
(X) flown a kite (Once...with dad, never really took to it though)
( ) built a sand castle (No :( though I v been to beaches galore)
(X) gone puddle jumping (yeah…another one of those simple pleasures of life)
( ) played dress up (No…my memory cant recall a thing like that)
(X) jumped into a pile of leaves (Yes, once at the Lodhi Gardens)
( ) gone sledding (Weather mate!!)
(X) cheated while playing a game (Ludo, trump cards, silent handballs in football, not walking when out in cricket…)
(X) been lonely (Felt lonely at times)
(X) fallen asleep at work/school (Amazingly only at work!)
( ) used a fake ID (Never needed to)
(X) watched the sun set (many times over….beautiful)
(X) felt an earthquake (Yes….the one that rocked Gujarat in 2001 )
( ) slept beneath the stars (Yes…summer nights during childhood in Chandigarh)
(X) been tickled (Infinite times…I am quite ticklish)
( ) been robbed (The Lord have mercy, No)
(X) been misunderstood (Over and over again; don’t misunderstand me, but it wasn’t my fault)( ) pet a reindeer/goat/kangaroo (wud love to pet a dog)
(X) won a contest (quite a few if debates and quizzes count)
(X) run a red light/stop sign (Sometimes…)
( ) been suspended from school (Mate accept it...i was a good kid)
( ) been in a car crash (Thankfully no)
( ) had braces (Again, thankfully no)
(X) felt like an outcast/third person (Felt an outsider on some occasions )
(X ) eaten a whole pint of ice cream in one night (Yes Yes!!)(X) had déjà vu (Seems to happen too often for my comfort :( )
( ) danced in the moonlight (Haven’t found anyone to dance with)
(X) liked the way you looked (At times yes…at times no)
( ) witnessed a crime (Not really)
(X) questioned your heart (Do that every day)
( ) been obsessed with post-it notes (No, somehow I have got in the habit of using them)
( ) squished mud through your bare feet (Squished sand…not mud)
( ) been lost (Once in the trade fair when I was 9)
(X) been on the opposite side of the country (Kanyakumari, Nagaland, Gujarat, J&K…been to all corners)
( ) swam in the ocean (Cant swim for nuts)
( ) felt like dying (Hmm…have had depressing moments, but nothing quite so)
( ) cried yourself to sleep (Nopes)
(X) played cops and robbers (Ya…had four cousin brothers when I was growing up )
( ) recently colored with crayons (Shit I am so old!!)
(X) Sang karaoke (Yes, even with my miserable voice)
(X) paid for a meal with only coins (In school yes)
(X) done something you told yourself you wouldn't (Hmm… Yup, a few things)
(X) made prank phone calls (Only when I was 12)
(X ) laughed until some kind of beverage came out of your nose (Not nose, but out of the mouth like a fountain)
( ) caught a snowflake on your tongue (Sigh….)
( ) danced in the rain (Love getting wet in the rain…dance, no one was there to accompany)
( ) a letter to Santa Claus (Surprisingly, never)
( ) been kissed under the mistletoe (Gee…what a heartburn that question causes)
( ) watched the sun rise with someone you care about (I am a late and a lazy riser)
(X) blown bubbles (Rarely I guess, as a kid)
( ) made a bonfire on the beach (Nopes L)
( ) crashed a party (Na)
(X) gone roller skating (Did a bit as a kid)
(X) had a wish come true (Yes…a few times...the critical ones!!)
( ) jumped off a bridge (Would want to…bunjee jump only please)
( ) ate dog/cat food (why would I do that?? My mother feeds me, thank you very much)
( ) told a complete stranger you loved them (Told one I liked her…but she was a stranger only in half sense of that word)
(X) kissed a mirror (lets not get too much into it)
(X) sang in the shower (Yup…some people have a talent only for bathroom singing)
( ) had a dream that you married someone (nah)
( ) glued your hand to something (I am quite neat with all those things actually)
( ) kissed a fish (I only eat them…that too as pakodas)
( ) climbed a water tower (Im no tarzan… incarnated or otherwise.)
(X) screamed at the top of your lungs (Once when we were playing a group game…had a sore throat for the next few hours)
( X) done a one-handed cartwheel (tried, but stumbled)
( ) talked on the phone for more than 5 hours (2 at max)
(X) stayed up all night (Try studying for CA :))
( ) picked and ate an apple right off the tree (Nopes)
(X) climbed a tree (Ya I guess…when I was between the age of 10-12)
( ) had a tree house (Didn’t go that far)
( ) been too scared to watch a scary movie alone (Nopes…face it head on!)
(X) believe in ghosts (Too rational for that)
( ) have more than 30 pairs of shoes (Only 5)
( ) worn a really ugly outfit to school (They only allowed uniforms :( )
( ) gone streaking (Too shy for that)
(X) gone doorbell ditching (U mean ringing bells and running away…did it once on a hot summer afternoon, got the scolding of my life from my mother)
( ) been pushed into a pool/hot tub with all your clothes on (No one tried)
(X) told you're hot by a complete stranger (Yes but subtly)
( ) broken a bone (Once, the shoulder joint when I was 6)
(X) been easily amused (Ya…I have an easy SOH)
( ) caught a fish then ate it (Kabhi nahin)
( ) caught a butterfly (they are too beautiful to be caught)
( ) laughed so hard you cried (no…what a contradiction that would be)
( ) cried so hard you laughed (No…when I cry I only cry)
(X) cheated on a test (Just once…to no avial… It was the only test I ever flunked)
(X) forgotten someone's name (Many times over…you know they have a name for such a person….Oofle)
( ) French braided someone's hair (What’s that?)
( ) been threatened to be kicked out of your house or been kicked out of your house (Told ya mate, I was a good kid)
(X) loved someone so much you would gladly die for THEM (If you count mom, yes)
( ) cheated on someone (Don’t like the idea)
(X) talk to yourself when no-ones around (Yes…only when I was studyin)
( ) hate someone you once loved (Hate is too strong and dangerous an emotion to harbour )
( ) love someone you once hated (If I dislike someone, it tends to stay)

|

When the dust finally settles and a scorching Aussie summer (both literally and metaphorically) ends, the test match in Sydney might be remembered along with the acrimony it generated, also for the push it provided towards cricketing reform. For far too long, the administrators of this game have been spending their energies on matters that lie on the periphery of the cricket field. The BCCI might well have woken up to the ‘Bucknor Disaster in the making’ had they read through the list of umpires for the current series rather than spending all their energies in trying to sell the Indian Premier League. The ICC, of course, has now made a habit of waking up out of its rip van winklesque sleep only when the fire alarms start ringing in the kitchen. The elite panel is over-aged, over worked and in instances like Bucknor, clearly incompetent. But you wonder whether the ICC would much rather spend time debating the value of the media rights and the sponsorships clauses in the player’s contracts rather than concern themselves with the small matter of umpiring?

Perhaps then, the Sydney test will end up doing us all a big favor and remind the mandarins who run this game that ultimately cricket is played on a green oval ground with a twenty yard pitch in the centre and two competing teams of eleven each with two men in white shirts presiding over the proceedings. At the end of the day the only thing driving the billions of dollars of television revenues and media rights is what goes on there in the field between the two sides actually playing the game. And as long as matters that contribute more to the financial health of the balance sheets of the respective boards continue to enjoy more relevance than those related to the quality of game in the middle, fiascos such as Sydney and The Oval shall continue to occur.

As I write this, already the raging fire is sought to be controlled. The ICC, clearly wary after the Darrel Hair episode, where it stepped in too late and only compounded the mess, has shown a degree of flexibility which is refreshing. The standard typical response of ‘We do not interfere with who umpires whom’ has been replaced within a day (more so after a display of intent by the BCCI) with the removal of Steve Bucknor and the granting of permission for Harbhajan Singh to be picked till the time his appeal is disposed.

More importantly, the entire fiasco at the SCG has raised three important issues each of which now deserves a serious discussion in cricketing forums. The first is quite obvious – What can be done to improve the standard of umpiring and to what extent are we willing to go with the use of technology? The second is the issue of racism. Who judges what is racist or not and how do match referees sitting in the air conditioned comforts of the pavilions pronounce judgments on such problems. And the third being the matter of the spirit in which the game is now being played and whether players on the field can any longer trust each other?

So let’s address them one by one. The umpiring issue is perhaps the one that requires immediate redressal and also perhaps the one that will seriously test the flexibility and imagination of the cricket administrators. Can test matches between nine playing nations requiring round the year supervision be looked after by an elite panel of nine to eleven men? More so, when they often have to fly across continents, stand in varying conditions throughout the five days and face continuous scrutiny from television cameras? A few relevant suggestions have been floating around, the first of course being to expand the elite panel itself so that more rotation of duties takes place and umpires are not overworked. Another suggestion worth exploring was the one offered by Ian Chappell. As Chappell says, the concept of neutrality of the umpire is now an obsolete one, more so in the age of television where your biases can be cruelly exposed leading to Bucknor and Hair like consequences. So if neutrality is no longer the driving force behind umpire selections, then surely nothing should stop a good umpire from standing in a home test. A case in point is Simon Taufel of Australia, widely regarded as the best on the elite panel now. If Taufel is indeed the best (and I am sure no Indian player would have doubts as to his neutrality) and if he can umpire in one day internationals in Australia then why not in test games? Shouldn’t the best umpire on the elite panel be standing in the most high profile series of the year? The advantage of doing away with a redundant neutrality would be two fold – one, it will ensure merit remains the only criteria for appointment irrespective of nationality and secondly because it will allow an umpire to spend more time in his home country with his family, more umpires at the first class game may get encouraged to attempt to graduate to the tougher elite panel.

How far can technology be used is perhaps the most contentious point of all. Some advocate a radical usage, while some (like Ian Chappell again) prefer not to use any technology which is not a hundred percent foolproof and which also requires human intervention. The counter argument of course is that the umpires on the field are also not foolproof, and if they can be allowed their share of the errors then so should be technology. But in a game that thrives so much on the vagaries of skills, conditions and state of the playing surface, mechanizing the decision making in cricket completely would rob it of some of its charm and unpredictability. A three fold approach in contrast may be a more reasonable alternative. First, cricket administrators need to agree on what technological tools to use and which ones not. Something like a hot spot, which the broadcasters claim is cent per cent scientific and can be referred for leg befores and snicks must be used. Secondly, since television only caters to the viewing public and the newer tools are developed to enhance viewing experience rather than ease umpire decision making, it is imperative for the ICC to sit with the major broadcasters and consider what specific technological tools they need and how things like Hawkeye and the Snicko can be made more reliable for further use in umpiring space. The broadcaster by themselves have no incentive for such a move since they are not answerable for the verdict that hawkeye shows, but the ICC does have an reason simply because the umpire ruling the batsman out would have some questions to answer if the hawkeye goes against him. And finally, it would not be a bad idea to introduce tennis like appeals for questioning decisions that a team might feel are incorrect. Three decisions per innings (besides those that will anyway to go the third umpire) might be a way to start. The questions to be addressed then would be who decides to make an appeal (the batsman in the middle or the captain sitting in the dressing room?) and can a decision made by a third umpire (ala the Symonds stumping not given at the SCG) also be contested and if so, then who would adjudicate the same?

I wonder if people would have contrary views on racism. No matter how much sociologists here may dub us Indians as color conscious hypocrites, almost every cricket fan would agree that any racial abuse irrespective of the nationality and the tone of the skin of the abuser needs to be strongly punished. Cricket fields should not become like American streets of 1960s with words like ‘nigger’, ‘black’ and ‘bastards’ flying around. But the problem in the current case is perhaps, not the intent of the match referee to punish racism but the manner of doing so. And the sense of hurt in the Indian camp has been compounded by a feeling of having been cheated of a series saving draw by the connivance of incompetent umpiring and dishonest appealing by the opposition. In the absence of circumstantial evidence, the words of one side have been taken against those of another. Whether something was actually said or not (and both the Aussies and the Indians are certainly capable of losing it in the heat of the moment), there is nothing to corroborate it. It’s a verdict that I suspect will have quite a bit of difficulty standing up in a court of law.

Another consequence of the final day’s play at Sydney would surely be the burying of the idea of trusting a fielder’s word for a contentious catch. Australia are not the first team to display selective honesty and I would perhaps go to the extent of stating that very often in case of diving catch the player may not actually realize that he has rubbed the ball against the floor in the process of balancing himself . But then that is precisely what umpires are out there on the field for. If a batsman stands (and he has every right to), then the decision must be made by the men in the middle or the one sitting in front of the television. Selective honesty, as displayed by Michael Clarke, will ruin the credibility of the players. Equally unacceptable is the logic offered by Ricky Ponting, that with the bat in his hand he is entitled to stand his ground even if the nick goes to third slip but while fielding his word must me taken as final. It is a thought that the ‘straight and honest as a coal miner’ Australian captain might find difficult to accept but in the competitive sphere of international cricket perhaps honesty has taken a backseat and adjudication should solely be left to the umpires and not to the players.

So did the Aussies behave badly and does Ponting, as Peter Roebuck wrote, deserve to be sacked for leading a bunch of wild dogs? Roebuck might have been a bit harsh but I wonder whether any Australian team in the future or any cricket watcher for that matter can call the Indians as an excessive appealing side. The last test was so much about going after that record that the Aussies went for everything. One admires competitive cricket and perhaps one secretly also desires the Indian team to be as feisty and no holds barred as there opponents. But somewhere Ponting has lost that grace that Steve Waugh built around his team. Waugh made Australia, from a good side that he inherited from Mark Taylor, into a champion side that seemed unbeatable. And no one grudged him his success; his side played tough but never was called a bunch of wild dogs. In the worst player behavior episode of his captaincy (Mcgrath abusing Ramnaresh Sarwan in the West Indies), Waugh did not shy away from criticizing his team mate. In his autobiography he called Mcgrath’s behavior as a case of ‘brain burst’. Ponting might have the support of his team but he would do well to analyze why most cricket writers and the fans in the public are not with him on this one. I guess it is partly because the Aussie fans are not used to seeing their team run to the match referee every time something is said to them and partly because the repeated coverage of the dubious catches claimed. Perhaps, there is a cost that the Aussie cricket public does not want its team to pay for victory. And in this case it seems the cost is honor – of a team, of a captain and above all of a game.

|

After much delay and procrastination, I finally dragged myself to write this piece on our Core Analyst School (CAS) training in Kuala Lumpur. Perhaps there is a silver lining in this, for initially I had thought of capturing the moments of our course in episodic articles spread over its duration. Mercifully for all readers, I landed up in KL with an upset stomach that simply refused to digest anything it was fed for almost three days. And the accompanying cold and dripping nose made me drop the idea. As the course progressed, I barely found any energy at the end of the long and grueling days (more due to extended lounge bar and shopping sprees than any classroom sessions) to sit down and pen my thoughts.

In a sense, CAS essentially captures that one core value of Accenture – Integration. I doubt whether any multi national organization would have a training program which would bring people from two continents, put them together for about two weeks and make them interact, brainstorm and have discussions with each other. In my team, I had two analysts from Tokyo, one from Shanghai, one from Canberra and one from Melbourne. The story was repeated across all the entire fifteen teams formed for the course. A cross cultural diversity that certainly challenged me to communicate more effectively and be more coherent with a couple of team mates who at times were not so proficient in the use of the English language. And as the course progressed, I realized that even though some of us might have had misgivings as to the relevance of the contents of the course, just the chance to work in a diverse team and the opportunity to initiate participation and carry your team mates from different countries along was an experience in itself. Its relevance perhaps can hardly be questioned, for many of us might well find ourselves in projects tomorrow where we are working with people not from our country. The experience and learnings of CAS would certainly be called upon then.

Its always lightens a training when your faculty is out to have fun as well, and we were certainly lucky to have a set like that. The mood was always light, the ice breakers (charades, chicken dance, ‘All my neighbors’ and a host of crazy videos from You Tube) made a dull session turn into fun and the faculty members never shied away from shaking a leg, sharing a drink or simply letting their hair down in the networking events.

So what was there at KL outside the classroom? The nights were spent for many in the lounge bars and pubs of the city (many landed up late the mornings after, or simply landed clutching their heads and rubbing their eyes). There was of course the mandatory pilgrimage to the holy grail of Malaysia – The Petronas Twin Towers and the sight of them at night was absolutely amazing. Even more scintillating was the view from floor 65 where Accenture has its office. The highlight perhaps was bargain shopping at China Town, a street market where every brand you could only drool over and wish you pocket could afford one day, was available for one – thousandth of a price (alright, one hundredth, allow me some scope for exaggeration as well). From Gucci, Louis Vitton (suitcases and briefcases by that brand, can you imagine?), Prada and Guess; from T-shirts (all the football clubs you could recall) to shoes from all brands to DVDs and souvenirs and mementos – everything was available at a throwaway price if you could summon your bargaining skills. And we certainly did, to the point that one shopkeeper even shooed us out of his shop screaming ‘You Indians! You bargain too much!’

And when we were not shopping we were enjoying the other sights – KL has some of the best public transport systems you can imagine. The cute monorail, a metro running through the city, air conditioned buses and a high speed transit rail connecting the main city with the suburbs. And even though there were some rumblings of protests by a civil group in the main city, the discipline and neatness on the roads was admirable. Admirable also was the suburb of Putrajaya where we were put up, which now houses all the Malaysian government complexes. The tour of its imposing mosques, multiple bridges and wide pathways at night will remain my highlight of the trip. Also enthralling was the trip to the entertainment park at Genting, where a dozen of us braved our hearts, stepped on to the free fall ride and fell at a gravity defying pace from a height of about a hundred feet. One high which none of the drinks at the lounge bar of the hotel could match!

Alas, the time to say good-bye was equally difficult. It was amusing how many friendships were made in that small period of a fortnight and the rapid exchange of mail ids, msn addresses and telephone numbers clearly evidenced the same. Also an evidence of the closeness we shared a group was the video that we finally managed after much hiccups and the bunch of nostalgic mails that appeared after everyone joined work, with promises to stay in touch in the future. It’s a promise that will have its own test with the rigor of work and time, but I would have to honestly admit that the Core Analyst School from 19th to 30th of Nov at KL surely… blasted while it lasted.

|

Of all the businesses by far, consulting is the most bizzare
For, to the penetrating eye, there is no apparent reason why
With no more assets than a laptop and a pen, this group of personable men
Can sell to clients more than twice, the same ridiculous advice
Or find, in such a rich profusion, problems to fit their solutions.

The strategy that they pursue, to give advice instead of to do
Keeps their fingers on the pulses, without recourse to stomach ulcers,
and brings them monetary gain, with a modicum of pain
The wretched object of their quest, reduced to a state of cardiac arrest
is left alone to implement, the asinine report that they have sent
The masochistic clients invite them, until merciful reliever invokes the company reliever,
no one seems to know, the rate at which these consultants grow

The paradox is each adviser, if he makes the client wiser,
inadvertantly destroys, the basis of his future joys
So does anyone know, where latter day consultants go??

Reprinted with due regards and respect to the Ralph Windle of the Financial Times. And with due apologies to all consultants.

|

I am what I am. I wish I could quote this Reebok tag line and then sit back. But is it true? Am I really what I am, what I profess to be or is there is a different self behind the masquerade? Am I the competent professional or a bumbling, careless fool? Am I the liberal moderate or a shy conservationist? Am I religiously agnostic or just a plain religious hypocrite? Am I the eternal optimist or a hidden cynic? Am I the one with the solutions or simply a part of the problem? Am I the outspoken radical or a cowering and silent coward? Am I the sensitive family guardian or an ignorant relative?
Rolling along and finding new question marks…do I know what I am? ...

|

It is a little difficult for me to assess where I stand in this whole Sanjay Dutt affair. Ever since he has been consigned to six years of imprisonment by the unrelenting and strict P.D.Kode, opinions have been flying thick and fast as to the merits and demerits of the judgment. Most of us probably do not question the fact whether Dutt illegally possessed a firearm or not, but we do dispute and debate whether six years of incarceration is too harsh for keeping an AK-56 rifle on behalf of an underworld gangster.

Opinions have been broadly divided in four categories – the first who think that he deserves his years, simply because everyone linked with the gruesome blasts of March’93 need to be punished. The second type is the one which believes that being a celebrity he needs to be made an example of and hence punished harshly than others around him. Then there is a third and a contrary opinion which believes that he is being made an example of precisely because he is a celebrity and is an easy prey. And finally there is the fourth lot, his many ardent admirers who genuinely believe that he isn’t guilty.

You can easily discount the ‘punish him to set an example’ argument quite easily because it lacks the maturity that jurisprudence and legal interpretation demand. It was an argument used quite often in the case of that frequent law breaker Salman Khan, but it is one that is not strong enough to hold its ground. A person should be punished according to the measure and severity of his crime and not according to this social status, for status and wealth are precisely the attributes that courts are supposed to ignore. The same could also be used to counteract the opinion which paints Dutt as the scapegoat. There are others in this case who have probably been dealt with more harshly than him – Yakub and Rubina Memon being the prime examples. They were first of the Memon family to have surrendered and returned home believing they would be tried freely. And now, the former faces the gallows for being a conspirator and the latter goes to prison for life.

Which then leaves us with the two arguments debating the correctness of quantum of sentence and it is here that I have some element of sympathy for Dutt. Not because he is a celebrity or because he is the endearing Munna Bhai but simple because as this trial has worn on he has displayed that he truly is his father’s son. His moral compass finally came around to admitting that he did commit a wrong and that he stored a firearm in his house while not having a permit to do so. You could of course argue that there are thousands of people around the countryside and even in our cities who possess firearms without a license and go unpunished. But that is missing the point – an illegality is an illegality and non-punishment of one is no excuse for letting off another. But Dutt’s case is slightly different than many of the other high profile celebrity criminal cases in recent times. Despite all the media attention and hype around him, he has displayed a certain poise and maturity while appearing before the courts. Even till the end, as he tearfully admitted before Judge Kode, he acknowledges that he made a mistake but that he had no inkling of the larger bomb blasts conspiracy. His stand is so refreshingly honest when compared to the likes of Salman Khans and the Sanjeev Nandas, who somehow vanished from the wheels of their cars or through an inspiration from Houdini turned their cars into trucks. For that matter, Dutt has also come out in a much more straightforward fashion when compared to the open hypocrisy of the celebrity eyewitnesses of the Jessica Lal case or the verbally fluctuating Sunil Kulkarni of the BMW case. At a time when accused show scant respect or regard for the law, it is heartening to hear some one take a stand and acknowledge his guilt, albeit only partially against the charges pressed against him. And in this admission of his, is reflected the moral standing of his father, the last of the Gandhians in active politics. It’s almost like your little kid admitting that he lied or stole – you might still spank him or scold him, but you would know that he has learnt the larger lessons, those of abstaining from such misdeeds and of being honest to himself and those around him. And no matter how long a time he may spend behind bars, Sanjay Dutt came claim that at the end of this all, he has still managed in a way, to protect the honor and dignity of himself as well as that of his deceased father.

****

Jury is still out on who actually threw the jelly beans at Zaheer Khan at Trent Bridge but Michael Vaughn and Peter Moores would be well advised to keep the toffees back in the dressing room the next time they take the field. This incident reminds me of a famous anecdote once narrated by Ian Healy on television. Now the Aussies are universally acknowledged as the motor mouths on the cricket field but it doesn’t always pay. This was in the mid – 90s and Australia were playing Sri Lanka in Colombo. The Lankans were three down for not much and Asanka Gurusinha (no less a pugnacious character himself) was finding himself all at sea against Warne and Mcgrath. After another across the line play and miss, Healy chirped to Mark Taylor standing at first slip, ‘No harm in playing straight’. It was an inoffensive and innocuous remark which Gurusinha took so seriously that he went on score a big hundred by the end of the day. While walking off the field at the end of the day’s play with the Lankans firmly in commanded, Taylor chided Healy, ‘No harm in you keeping your mouth shut.’

No harm in keeping those jelly beans where they belong – in a big jar on the top shelf, way out of the reach of naughty kids.

|

Jeevan ke bikhre sire lekar, darpan ke toote tukde lekar
sookhe se ujadi fasal lekar, baadh mein behte ghar lekar
kya karoon me tumhari samvedna lekar?

rishton ki aadhi kadiyaan lekar, deewaron se chhoti seedhiyaaan lekar
aangan mein bikhre phool lekar, aandhi mein udti dhool lekar
kya karoon me tumhari samvedna lekar?

milne ke jhoote vaade lekar, band darwaze ki dastak lekar
greeshm mein julse patte lekar, sheeth mein jame iraade lekar
kya karoon me tumhari samvedna lekar?

woh kabhi na aayi chitthi lekar, woh lautne ke vaade lekar
paane pe chithki siaayee lekar, woh tooti hoyee kalam lekar
kya karoon me tumhari samvedna lekar?

woh udhari hoyee chunari lekar, sringar ki khaali maez lekar
woh haar ki muskan lekar, woh door ki ummedein lekar
kya karoon me tumhari samvedna lekar?

registaan ka sooraj lekar, prashant ka paani lekar
Jeevan ke bikhre sire lekar, darpan ke toote tukde lekar
kya karoon me tumhari samvedna lekar?

|

I sometimes wish sport could be explained through theory. Its assumptions listed and consequences predicted. Its processes and flows explained much like a calculus problem with a chalk on a blackboard. But unfortunately, sport does not lend itself to such easy analysis and ‘ceteris paribus’, two words through which economists earn their fame, bread and butter don’t often find mention in a sportsman’s dictionary. Other things do not remain constant in the field of play. The action there is governed more by instinct, the result very often dependent on the call made at the spur of a moment. Too many variables combine to make the applicability of any mathematical model a bit of nightmare. From the vagaries of a cricket pitch to the home and away games in soccer (one would wonder why it would make such a difference, since unlike cricket the playing surface does not change in nature in any way) to the impact of that one critical and match turning line call in tennis and that heartbreaking engine failure in F1 – nothing can be encapsulated by the tightness of any model. In short like life, sport lends itself perfectly to unpredictability.

Disappointingly yet unpredictably India are out cricket’s biggest tournament. And predictably the reactions have been one of outrage. Adjectives have been ascribed to the performance, posters and effigies been burnt and funerals conducted. The competence of those representing the country has been questioned and in what is surely the biggest slur for any sportsman, their commitment to the game doubted. Now if you were a fan of the game and not of victory you would understand what I was talking about in the introductory paragraph. In sport like in life, at times you are bound to lose. And if you are not good enough even bound to lose badly as India did last night. So what are we mourning about? Mourning…it’s a strange word isn’t it? Who died if I may ask? When asked after his team’s defeat to India in that epic series in 2001 whether there was an atmosphere of mourning in the dressing room, the ever practical Steven Waugh replied coolly, “Mourning? It’s just a game mate. No one died out there.” So I ask again, whose last rites am I supposed to attend and whose departure to mourn? The death of over baked and unreasonable expectations? The loss of advertising revenues running into multiple zeroes or of those monies spent on armchair experts mulling over the team’s prospects in television studios?

If your life revolves in the matrix of India and one day cricket, then I guess you are free to go ahead and mourn. But if you follow the game because of your love for it, then I would suggest swallow your pride, accept the defeat gracefully and move on. There is a World Cup going on (and as I write in a possible precursor to the final Australia are matching wits with South Africa) and there are talented sportsmen out on the field plying their wares.

I often believe cricket enjoys that same degree of unreasonable passion in India as soccer does in England. And this I say unflinchingly despite being a die hard fan of both games. The English haven’t come any where close to being the world champions in soccer for more than 40 years and yet before every World Cup the tabloids and the mainstream media would make you believe that title is theirs by right. And with defeat come recrimination and the predictable cycle of coaches and players being sacked. And this concept of passion without knowledge, of love of victory more than the love of the game is something we repeat with alacrity. You have poems sung, albums cut, brands being sold, yagnas performed – all to bring the cup home. And then with defeat you have bonfires and demands for sacking everyone right up to the baggage boy of the team. So why do we treat our sportsmen so shabbily? Why do we subject them to the kind of treatment that we often reserve for our worst politicians? And yet when was the last time you saw a politician’s effigy being burnt? Even Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, the current day prevailing villain has been exempted from that unique humiliation. So what crime are the cricketers guilty of? Killing our dreams? Tarnishing our reputations? Or simply depriving us of an opportunity to rise above our complex of underachievement in life?

But somehow like in life so in sport a reality check is not such a bad thing after all. I hope this reality check wakes India up to some of the worrying questions opened up by their defeat. Questions such as why there appears lethargy among those moving in the field, why running the extra run seems so difficult and why the extra run is given away in the field? No matter how talented you may be, sport at the end of the day is about simplicity. And the more you are good at doing the simple things efficiently, the more successful you shall be. I hope it also brings to light the longer term problems Indian cricket faces – that of the drying supply of quality spinners, of younger batsmen not stepping up and succeeding at the international level, of the puzzling and worrisome decline of Irfan Pathan and most importantly of all where the leader of the next generation of Indian cricketers would come from?
These are tough questions but certainly not equal in magnitude to that calculus problem sketched on the blackboard, and unlike theory sport often throws up its own answers. Someone’s problem is someone’s opportunity. As a good friend of mine bemoaned this morning, champions rise to the occasion. And as I replied to him, what we need right now are not funerals or processions but a few good men who possess that one irritating quality the best student in your class in school displayed so passionately – the ability to raise one’s hand whenever a question was thrown in the air.

|

As a cricket fan the last twenty fours have been completely surreal. Late last night an insipid Indian team huffed and puffed to a humiliating loss to a young Bangladeshi squad. A couple of hours later came an even bigger shocker as Pakistan got knocked of the World Cup by a group of amateurs from Ireland. This piece was originally supposed to celebrate the eccentric nature of the results that the game of cricket often comes to produce. But celebration is probably the last thing on anyone’s mind as news filters in from the Caribbean of the sad, tragic and shocking death of Bob Woolmer, coach of the Pakistan team and unquestionably one of the giants of the modern game. His death is by far surely the biggest tragedy in the history of the tournament.

A man of limited cricketing accomplishments on the field but one of the sharpest brains off it, Woolmer represented the quintessential global cricketer. His Indian connection went all the way to Kanpur – where he was born to English parents in 1948. He went on to play county cricket after his family moved back to England and won nineteen inconspicuous caps for his country. A batsman with limited abilities and a modest test record, Woolmer never really set the field on fire. But till his death, Woolmer probably remained the strongest proof of the argument that a good coach need not necessarily be a great player. His coaching abilities essentially came into limelight during his days at the Warwickshire county team where under his tutelage played two of South Africa’s greats, Allan Donald and Shaun Pollock. As a coach, Woolmer brought a kind of Midas touch and a professional attitude to the teams he coached. Warwickshire were a force on the English county scene when Woolmer coached them and post him they never really did attain those glorious heights.

But Woolmer’s life will always be remembered the most for his tenure as the coach of South Africa. Recently out of isolation due to apartheid, South Africa came out like a breath of fresh air to a cricketing world which in spite of being fully professional still followed an amateurish work ethic in most parts of the world. And nothing typified this approach better than their laptop wielding, theory prophesying, fielding emphasizing coach who would take his squad through innovative field drills and training methods. I still recall watching him gazing over his laptop sitting outside the dressing rooms when South Africa toured India in 1996. And those were days when desktop computers were themselves a rarity in Indian homes and the Windows software was barely a year old. As school kids we often derided this unaccomplished player, forever believing that it was foolish to think that cricket could be played on a laptop screen instead of out on the field. But Bob Woolmer was a man who always saw beyond when it came to cricket. The laptop was followed by the innovation of the ear piece which Hansie Cronje used to communicate with him at the 1999 World Cup. His period as the coach of South Africa will be remembered as the golden era of their cricketing achievements. It saw the coming of age of such greats as Allan Donald, Jonty Rhodes and of course that mercurial captain Hansie Cronje who forged one of the most successful partnerships with his coach. Bob also oversaw the induction of youngsters like Pollock and Jacques Kallis, two players he always believed were destine for greatness. And though South Africa failed in their two World Cup attempts under Woolmer in 1996 and 1999 and always fell one step short of beating Australia, the team of that period unquestionably carried an aura of invincibility around them much the same way as the Aussies do today. Whatever South Africa may have done after him and they might go on to win the current edition of the World Cup, yet they have never again been able to capture that image of solidity that surrounded them with Cronje and Woolmer in command.

And then of course came that stint in Pakistan, a team and a country that many believed would be Woolmer’s biggest challenge. He managed temporarily to bring a semblance of unity in a fractured dressing room, produced results after the morass Pakistan found themselves in when he took over and oversaw the flowering of the likes of Younis Khan and Mohd.Yousuf. But the erratic nature of Pakistan cricket and those who govern it, eventually Woolmer began to show signs of strains. The Oval test fiasco disappointed him no end and then of course the old bogey of dressing room conflicts and biased selections further put pressure on him. Taking a depleted side to the World Cup was always a challenging task and as Pakistan unexpectedly floundered against the West Indies and then against the minnows Ireland, Woolmer fall was complete. His image of shutting down his laptop and packing it in his bag after Ireland had hit the winning runs would probably remain the most ironical snapshot in cricket coaching. It is most tragic of course that it would also remain our last image of one of the greatest thinkers of the game. The laptop coach had shut his system and would not wake up the next morning. Coaches would come and coaches would go but very few will probably have such a impact on the game as Woolmer did. Every time a John Buchanan or a Greg Chappell peers into a laptop screen in the dressing room, it would bring back memories of the man who never became a great player but was undoubtedly the Vince Lombardi of modern day cricket. His death is a tragedy the World Cup and the game of cricket could well have done without.

|

These are interesting times for the Indian judiciary. A highly regarded, vocal and distinguished Chief Justice has now given way to a man who would be the first person from the backward castes to reach the pinnacle of judicial system. Justice Y.K Sabharwal was a man who never held back, did not hesitate from taking tough decisions and walked as straight and a diplomatic line as possible in times of increasing inter democratic organ friction. His rulings mostly panned the executive of the day – from declaring the dissolution of Bihar assembly by Governor Buta Singh as unconstitutional to the Delhi sealings judgment that made life miserable for the centre and the state governments. But his most far reaching decision and possibly the one which may end up having the greatest impact on India’s polity in the future was the last one he passed in the capacity of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It was a nine judge constitutional bench (the very acme of the Lordships inhabiting the Supreme Court) headed by Justice Sabharwal which ruled that every law including those placed under the Ninth schedule of the constitution were subject to judicial scrutiny. In effect, it meant that the executive could now not place populist laws under the said schedule and then take cover behind the judicial immunity granted by Article 19 of the constitution. To cut a long story short, Article 19 was introduced by Nehru in the early fifties to grant immunity to land reform laws from judicial inspection. It basically stated that all laws placed by the executive under the Ninth schedule of the constitution could not be challenged in the courts. Over a period of time, politicians had misused this provision to place populist legislations under this schedule, the most prime example being the Tamil Nadu legislation reserving 69% of seats in educational institutions for backward castes in spite of the fact that a Supreme Court ruling exists that states that quotas cannot exceed 50%.

Now however, the Supreme Court has a differing view. Call it a traditional or a flexible view as you may see it, but the nine judge bench basically held that the constitution was envisaged by its makers to possess a basic structure and grant certain fundamental rights and no provision of the constitution or any statute placed under it can undermine that vision. Thus any legislation, even if placed under the Ninth schedule (notice the role of number 9 in all this drama) if it violates the basic structure or fundamental rights (just as the Tamil Nadu statute violates the fundamental right of equality), it is open to judicial review and liable to be struck down. It is a judgment which has opened up new possibilities of interaction between the judiciary and the executive and as many lawyers and constitutional experts believe that interaction may not be a very friendly one.
The judiciary – executive interaction has taken a few interesting turns in recent times. Often the judges have come to the rescue to the legislature, as seen by the upholding of the parliament’s decision to expel corrupt MPs. But on most of the occasions, it has been a confrontational stance adopted by the courts, more like a strict schoolteacher punishing an errant student. The CNG conversion fracas in Delhi (pushed down the throat of an unwilling administration by the courts), the sealing rulings, reservations issue, the ruling on the Bihar assembly dissolution and the ruling calling for shifting of hazardous industrial units out of Delhi all have pushed the executive into a corner. The friction between the two organs has not been helped by the fact that often the netas and the babus have pleaded helplessness in implementing the orders of the court as was seen in the case of sealing of illegal properties in Delhi. One may wonder whether in a scenario of politicians increasingly resorting to short term populist politics for sustaining vote banks, is the judiciary actually assuming more and more responsibilities of the executive? Do we want our courts to decide how land should be used in Delhi or how many seats should be reserved in colleges or how or police system needs to be reformed or which fuel should buses in the national capital run on?

These are questions which lie solely in the executive’s domain but as the netas yield decision making ground to the courts in search of greener vote pastures, the turf battles it seems are ready to begin. For time and time again, the administrators wake up (notice the uproar in parliament about the fact that their decision to expel MPs could be reviewed by the Supreme Court) and try to ward off the courts. So far the courts have held an upper hand and have ridden a public opinion which is widely distrustful of those who govern.

But at the other end of this spectrum lies an equally interesting story. A story which each outgoing Chief Justice talks of but rarely acts upon. A story of judicial accountability and corruption. It is now widely acknowledged amongst the senior judges that corruption does prevail amongst the lower levels of the judiciary. Repeated cases of judicial misconduct – Justice Mukherjee of Delhi HC being indicted for disproportionate assets, the spat between two judges of the Punjab HC and the sex scandal involving judges of the Karnataka HC – have come to highlight the problems thus far ignored by both the Supreme Court and the law ministry. The question of judicial competence and accountability is of far greater import than the administrative problem of cases in backlog frequently cited by the media. One would wonder why someone like Justice Bhayana who acquitted Manu Sharma at the trial court stage was promoted to the Delhi High Court within two weeks of that verdict. And will a judge whose verdict was termed as ‘bad in law’ (worst indictment for a judicial verdict) by a higher bench of the same court where Justice Bhayana now sits, still get to hear criminal cases and decide on the destinies of other Manu Sharmas. This is an issue not just of corruption but also of competence – why are our trial courts repeatedly giving verdicts which are so resoundingly overturned by the higher courts? (SAR Geelani’s conviction and the Priyadarshini Mattoo cases being high profile examples of this trend) And has anyone in the Supreme Court woken up to this disturbing trend.

My hunch is that yes, someone may have realized the problem exists but its solution is either out of sight or way below in the judiciary’s list of priorities. Only lip service has been paid and repeatedly whenever the media has highlighted this malaise, the courts quite disappointingly have hidden behind the protective walls of the contempt laws. So who will judge our judges? The executive has so far kept away from active participation in the cleaning up process, resorting to mere lip service on ceremonial occasions to express its concern. But as the friction between the two grows and as the courts put more force on the netas, striking down populist laws and forcing them to take unpopular but necessary political decisions, the executive and the legislature may well take up the bogey of judicial accountability. It will be their ultimate ‘brahamastra’ – a weapon to ward off the judiciary as well to strike crucial blows on judicial independence. Clever politicians could well keep the domain of ruling upon the ability of judges to judge to themselves and that scenario is the ultimate nightmare of any of those black coats sitting on the benches of the higher courts.
There is thus a delicate balance existing between the courts, the parliament and the government at this stage. Each has possible lever against the other – the courts possess one that is explicit while the parliament and the executive one that is hidden and whose exact contours, sharpness and capability to hurt is as yet unknown. How this scenario pans out in the future will determine the future meetings between these three pillars of democracy. The more the courts shy away from looking within themselves, the more they will give space to public opinion supporting politicians to act on that front. The roles will then be reversed, democratic responsibilities and spaces will lose their clear demarcations and general confusion may reign. It is an interesting scenario if you are a game theorist, only the game at stake is India’s future as a healthy and functioning democratic system.

|

Normally known for its upfront and uninhibited marketing methods, the Times of India had in a rare show of finesse and subtlety come out with a beautiful advertisement campaign for its print edition the last year. Emphasizing, its tagline of 'A day in the life of India', the advertisement showed a neighborhood crowd joyously celebrating the selection of their local lad in the Indian hockey team. When the news was communicated to the boy's grandfather, the old man simply picked up the copy of the Times carrying the news of the selection along with his reading glasses and quietly slipped in to his corner of the house. There, opening his trunk, the grandfather took out a copy of a sepia tinted edition of the Times - one that carried the headline of his being dropped from the Indian camp and superimposed the present day one upon that. A little jig to the faint tune of the bands playing in the courtyard outside followed, thus capturing an era between the dropping of one generation of a family and its redemption by another simply in the space of two newspaper headlines.
Why this reference to the Times on a freezing Delhi winter morning? Because, if you are a hockey fan like I am, you would really wish that the Times could apply some of its marketing brains to Indian hockey and bring it some sort of redemption. But alas, if wishes were horses...and marketing whiz kids don’t play sport, they only sell it. For Indian hockey, which returned empty handed from the Doha Asian games, redemption for its string of disappoints is nowhere in sight. Its fall from the glory days of the previous century to the barren state of today could well fit the Times tagline quoted above. But those who love Indian hockey, these have been long, unending and painfully dark days. Days spent watching a sport from a pedestal that seemed destined to be occupied by it for posterity. Days spent watching standards slip, others outpacing us, taunting and mocking us as we stumbled, slowed and eventually fell in the global race for success. It’s been a bit like watching an empire collapse, brick by brick, province by province – its king and people desperately unable to do anything against the approaching aggressor or the self-destructing monster within. It’s been akin to watching a company go down, years of toil and effort of those who built it now being put to the stake by the brutal hammer of a liquidator.

If Indian hockey was a corporate enterprise, it most definitely would have filed for insolvency with the BIFR today. Its seems completely bereft of any ideas to resurrect the game and attract the best of the young talents to it and despite all the good intentions its mandarins profess they possess towards the game; the suicidal decisions just do not seem to stop. So who is to blame? The administrators who took success for granted when the gold medals flowed and forgot that the game was changing the world over and we needed to change along with it? Or the current crop of rulers of the game, who simply do not want the attention to be focused away from them to the players and thus keep clipping the wings of any one who asserts his presence on the hockey scene by the dint of his performance? Or the government which turns a sleepy eye to what it calls the national game? Or the players who experts claim lack pride and application?

Maybe they all do and then maybe above all of them it is we with whom the fault lies. We, the followers, who just don’t love the game the enough to demand a change. We, the public, who can stone the homes of cricketers and condemn the coach in parliament for one bad overseas defeat or one stray remark, but just don’t care about the shenanigans that go on in hockey. Do we really bother about our national game? Do we even give a damn about the disgrace its present state brings upon us a sporting nation?

No sport can survive for long with a losing team and a non-existent domestic structure. The Indian cricket team may lose on the international stage, but is the unheralded domestic competition tournament, the Ranji Trophy that will sustain it through tough times. Its level of competition may not be up to the international standards, but is the spine that keeps Indian cricket erect. It is a platform for young talent, for seven months of the year it provides competitive action to a large pool of aspiring hopefuls. Just its presence on the national scale ensures the reach of the game, propelled manifold by the exposure that television provides to the international games. If a young lad in the interiors of India wants to emulate a Dhoni whom he sees on his TV set, then the Ranji trophy exists to provide a vehicle for his dreams.

But what of hockey? Where is the structure? Barring a few tournaments organized by welfare trusts and charitable societies, there is no national competition to speak of. The National Championships have not been held for many years. The under 19 and other sub junior tournaments are also conducted by non- IHF bodies. The Federation simply uses these events to pick players and judge their form. And the circus of the Premier Hockey League will attract crowds, bring in money for the television channel that markets it but will do little to make the game healthy. For it is supposed to be the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Being the twenty twenty version of hockey, it simply cannot replace the original game where basics are honed, mistakes spotted and corrections made. It organizes teams on a basis of convenience, there is no spectator loyalty to arouse passions and it lasts barely a month. All major and successful hockey playing countries today have a professional club culture in place with leagues that continue throughout the year. But the word professional is an anathema to those who run India hockey; the winds of change that touched the Indian economy a decade and half back and brought an air of competitiveness to it have not touched Indian sports. Indian hockey administration has forgotten that in the globally competitive environment unless you change you perish – and Indian hockey is well down the road. The longer the team fails, the more the interest will wane and with no domestic structure to back it up the game will die, its demise accelerated by rulers who are too blinded by their arrogance to see the crumbling walls collapsing on them.

India’s last international success came three years ago at the Asia Cup; the talented squad which could have been a force at the Olympics was wrecked by an administration hell bent on showing the players their place. In any other sport, the heroes who win are feted. In Indian hockey they are booted out of the team. The nucleus of that last successful squad has been torn to shreds; its protagonists wander in the wilderness. Indian was out of the world stage long time ago, now we are out of the Asian stage as well. The next humiliation will be the non-qualification to the Olympics. The Indians need to win at least one of the three qualifying tournaments which will have the mid-level world teams and going by their form and the ‘shoot yourself in the foot’ methods of their rulers the Indian hockey team stands as good a chance as a turtle of winning an Olympic sprint. The funeral may take place then but the last rites have already begun.

|

I wonder how many of you followed the success of Tyler Walker Williams last week. Tyler Walker who? you may ask. The only Walker that rings a bell in Indian minds usually is Johnny Walker (sorry Mr.Mohandas Gandhi, but your endless walking didn’t exactly reach this generation); so for those who didn’t open the news channels over the last few days (wow, the lucky ones!) or scan the front pages of the daily newspapers, Tyler Walker is the new Vice President of the student's union at the JNU. Duh! big deal!, did I head you say? Well, maybe yes and maybe no.

Tyler Walker presents a very interesting and humorous paradox in an equally complex place. The JNU is one of India's most respected universities. It the regarded widely (and not incorrectly to a great extent) as the fountainhead of intellectual thinking in Delhi. It wouldn’t be unfair to call it the India International Centre of the educational institutions, where if you don’t have an opinion you are wasting your and other people's time.

But it has been equally notorious for being politically dedicated to the communist bent of thinking. The Student Union has been a communist bastion since decades and is a training ground for future politburo members. It has had its tough times, most notably during the tenure of the previous NDA regime when it got labeled as a 'madrasa' by the motor mouth of Praveen Togadia of the VHP. It was again in the news for the wrong reasons when last year the PM's speech at the university was disrupted by the Communist union members who raved and ranted and carried black flags. During this day and age, it is safe to say that if Lenin was to be reborn, he would like to land in India and contest student elections at the JNU for it is only there that he stands any chance of getting his ideas heard.

In this red fort now comes an American – the country, the economy, the very idea which is an antithesis to the Communist manifesto. You would think that Tyler Williams is another one of those young American hippies attracted to the ethnic and rural chic of India; one of those goras who landed up to learn Hindi and would gush about the rich diversity, spiritual beauty and other similar things about which India was noticed before the reforms and software came along. But taken at his words Williams is none of that. He is simply put – a communist who happens to be an American. In fact if you hear him speak about the economic policies of Manmohan Singh or the foreign policy of George Bush, you would think that he is more of a commie than even Buddhadeb Bhattacharya. (But then these days everyone seems to be more of a commiee than Buddha babu). Tyler Williams denounces the Iraq invasion, believes that the democrats won because the American public is tired of a disastrous war, thinks that the economic reforms of the Indian government are bypassing the rural poor and in fact proudly proclaims that he was one of those raising a black flag against the PM last year at the JNU.

So why am I gloating about an American who believes in Communism? Simply because of the paradox I touched earlier. Tyler Williams won an election (something that most communist nations never experienced during their years of Red Raj), in a foreign country (a rare occurrence in student politics) and that too by proclaiming a line of thinking which if heard by Mr.George W can lead to a revocation of his American passport. Just as the Communist party can ride to power in a democratic India (though only in a couple some states) and exert influence at the centre, so can an American become a student union leader (without any anti-gora campaigns against him) in a student electoral franchise in an essentially liberal Indian university. Walker in a sense has succeeded in a set up which his ideology has historically stood against and that too without any racial or national prejudice. In a sense, it only highlights the inclusiveness of democracy and the wide and sometimes odd examples it can throw. Walker’s success thus may be seen as a vindication of giving the people the power to choose… and perhaps the final nail in the already decaying coffin of Soviet communism…and perhaps also a timely reminder to Mr.George W, a reminder that policy making is more about of achieving consensus amongst diverse opinions rather than using a bulldozer to swamp over them.

|

I have been busy for a bit too long
no time to party or sing a song
hours have ticked by and the days have flown
i ve spent many late nights with a groan
work's been hard and a bit of a slog
resulting in a neglect of my dear own blog
the winter is setting in and the sun is out
maybe there ll be time to laugh and shout
a single post may not may not make up for the neglect
maybe i can find more time to reflect
so here's to makin another new start
with a rough burp and a little fart
regular shall be thats my vow
with this the lazy knight takes a bow.

|

I recently received a forwarded Power point presentation from a friend on pseudo secularism. Let me know what you think of it, he asked. I went through all the twenty odd slides patiently. They sounded very much like a typical RSS or VHP pamphlet – raving and ranting at the liberals for labeling hindus as fundamentalists and treating the minorities with kid gloves.
So why am I writing about it? And why didn’t I just label the mail as trash and send it to its right destination i.e. junk folder of my inbox. Because at a certain stage we who claim to be liberals must face these accusations and answer them. We can no longer run and we can certainly no longer hide behind the label of perversity we put on such attempts. It is time we spoke and reflected on what we stand for and proclaimed what we believe in.
So here is a rebuttal of every accusation that people who are supposedly pseudo secular have to live with. The questions are verbatim from the presentation.
Q) Show one Muslim country which provides Haj subsidy? And if Haj is to be subsidized then why are Hindus or Muslims taxed for pilgrimage to Amarnath and Kailash?
A) Being an irreligious agnostic, I care two hoots for any subsidy or pilgrimage. But the Haj subsidy in my belief began as a simple practical measure that has now snowballed into a political and judicial issue. Travel to Saudi Arabia can only be by air or sea and majority of the Muslims wishing to go may not be able to afford it. Hence, the concessions and grants. And to the best of my knowledge there is no tax on Hindu pilgrimages (the age of Alamgir Aurangzeb and Jaziya is long over). The Amarnath yatra is carried out with much fanfare and tight security with the state taking the responsibility for the safety of the pilgrims. Show me one country which stakes its reputation on one holy journey? The Kailash mansarover lies in territory under Chinese occupation, and for over a half a decade inspite of the freeze on the Sino – Indian border, the pilgrimage goes on smoothly. Show me a state that overlooks a territorial dispute to facilitate a pilgrim’s journey?
And are we to now compare ourselves with Muslim dominated nations, the religious clergy of many of which does not allow its women to go out to and work? States in which women have to be in purdah? States in which a Sania Mirza would have to step on to a tennis court wearing salvar kameez and not shorts? Have our aspirations sunk so low?

Q) Show one Muslim country where Hindus are extended special rights that Muslims are accorded in India?
A) I often wonder what are these so called rights. Apart from granting the Muslim fundamentalists the right to speak freely without rebuke, the Indian state has not extended any special rights to the community. Do our statistics show it? Muslims today rival Dalits and other backward communities on many social development indices. Education standards are on an overall basis low in the community, majority of them have low per capita incomes and their representation in higher levels of society are abysmally low. Unlike the Sikhs, they have not been able to either acquire economic muscle or agrarian prosperity. In fact in a world where even your next door neighbor could be a suicide bomber, Muslim identity is regarded with suspicion. Finding accommodation in many urban areas, as newspaper reports have proved, is downright tough if you are a Muslim. Where are those special rights? And why isn’t the community a healthy, self - confident and prosperous lot because of these rights which cause such indignation to the protectors of the majority?

Q) Show a Muslim country which has a Non-Muslim as a Prime Minister or President? Can any other country have a Muslim president and a Sikh Prime Minister?
A) The question answers itself. One of the good things about this country still is its participatory democracy. Most of the Muslim majority states do not even have a Prime Minister or a President. They either have royal families or American backed despots ruling over them. A democracy by itself is meant to provide representation and a choice to all. Do we now need to turn towards our western neighbor to realize the value of electoral franchise?
Q) Show a Mullah or Maulvi who has declared a ‘fatwa’ against the terrorism?
A) The Darul Uloom of Deoband, a respected and acknowledged centre of Muslim religious learning in India, has repeatedly remarked after each major terror incident that it is not in the teachings of Islam to kill or maim innocents. Islam’s problems today stem from a strong sense of victimization in the middle east – a feeling which has been strengthened by the Wahhabi sect of West Asia and the easy oil money which is spewing out terror factories in the laboratories of poor Muslim dominated states. The extremist religious fringe in many corners of the globe has been issuing provocative remarks or offering silent support to the violence being perpetrated by local terror groups. But if the entire clergy was extremist, then India would be a hotbed of terror today and the blame for spreading terror would not be put by intelligence agencies on rogue states and their leaders but on the clergy as a whole. And the law of fatwa cannot work both ways. The fatwa cannot be used both as an instrument to deride the Muslim clergy as well as a barometer to test its loyalty to the state. Leave it to the state to fight terror, the maulvis and the pandits should stick to what they are best at – reading scriptures.

Q) Muslims have become CMs of Hindu majority states. Can a Hindu ever become the Chief Minister of J&K?
A) People who raise this question forget that till date J&K has a Hindu king and had one for decades before Independence. He lost his influence not because his Muslim people decided to overthrow a kafir but because he ceased to represent their wishes. And what were their wishes? To join the Hindu majority but secular India and not the moth ridden Muslim majority Pakistan.
The J&K today sends five MPs to the Parliament. Only one of them, a Hindu from Jammu is a Minister in the central government.

Q) Muslim population in India risen from 10.4% to 14% since Independence while Hindu population has gone down from 87% to 85%.
A) The change in the figures is marginal at best. And if the Muslim population is rising then instead of heralding it as a sign of imminent threat to Hindu majority, it should be seen as a matter of grave concern. Simply because it reflects two hard and unpleasant truths. One that migration from the border areas of the north east adjoining Bangladesh continues unchecked and two that India’s largest minority community has been left relatively untouched by the population control measures. It is a reflection not of their growing strength but of a worsening standard of living. Even with increased numbers, Muslims have not climbed on the social indices which only means that as the number of children have increased, the families have slipped further and further into poverty.

Q) When Hindus gave 30% of their country to Muslims at the time of partition why cannot they be allowed to reclaim their holy sites at Mathura, Ayodhya and Kashi?
A) Since when did we start talking about India in terms of ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’? India does not belong to a religion or caste. Pakistan was a hand out to Jinnah and his Muslim League and not to the Muslims of India. For if Pakistan was really about protecting Muslims, then a larger number of them would not have stayed back in India. And all the above mentioned sites can be perfect examples of religious co-existence, only political interests of the so called protectors of Hindu religion have allowed them to be transformed into centres of religious tension. One may accept that the mosques may have been built to smite the defeated Hindu pride. One may also accept, that as a goodwill gesture the Muslim leadership should have offered to land adjoining the Babri Masjid to the Hindus for construction of the temple. But would a community voluntarily yield in an atmosphere of hate, tension and incrimination? Would Ayodhya have been solved peacefully by now, had the BJP and VHP decided not to pull down the mosque? And more importantly is it wrong in a modern, developing and secular state to ask the Hindu majority not to look upon the Kashi and Mathura mosques as symbols of Muslim aggression? Are Hindus barred from worshipping in these temples? Are the interests of the Hindu faithful harmed in any way harmed by these silent structures?

Q) Why are post Godhra riots blown out of proportion while no one talks of ethnic cleansing of Hindus in J&K?
A) The biggest misfortune of the Kashmiri pandits is that the pogrom against them occurred when there was barely any independent Indian media. At the time when they being persecuted, no one brought their plight alive to the nation. Today, a decade and a half later they are a forgotten lot. But why blame the media alone? The man who was Governor of the state when the migration happened and thereby was naturally accountable was not even censured. Years later, the same very political party which stands for aggressive Hindu nationalism made him a Union Minister. Which Hindu group or political party pays any attention to the Pandits, many of whom still live in one room refugee camps?
And why are post Godra riots always considered to be exaggerated? Was the burning of the shops, the rioting on the streets, the murder of innocents all a media constructed gimmick? What is spontaneous about a riot that only targets minority slums, colonies and shops? What is natural about violence which is justified using Newtonian laws by those who are supposed to protect those being maimed? Will we tomorrow say that the anti – Sikh riots of Delhi were a lie? That partition never happened?

Q) Do you consider that - Sanskrit is communal and Urdu is secular, BJP is communal and Muslim league is Secular, Praveen Togadia is anti-national and Bhukari is Secular, Hinduism is Communal and Islam is Secular, Hindutva is communal and Jihadism is secular?
A) For all I care both Praveen Togadia and Imam Bukhari are blood brothers and belong to the same gang of troublemakers. They both should have been exported to Afghanistan long back – Bukhari to support his beloved Taliban and Togadia to rid the world of jehadis. As for the BJP and the League, one wonders whether today anyone in this country apart from the BJP considers Jinnah’s party as secular.
But there is a deeper side to this. Hinduism is not communal and neither is Islam. They did not land form heaven. It is individuals and institutions that shape faiths. And if we allow ours to be hijacked by those who think they know what is best for us, then we would be laying the seeds for extremism. We should not forget that religion is about individual faith and collective identity and not the other way around. Neither Hindutva nor Jihadism has a place in a secular and democratic India. India is defined by its heterogeneity and not by a religion or identity.

Q) When uniform is compulsory in schools then why do we not have Uniform Civil Code? And why does Article 370 still persist when J&K is no different from Maharashtra or UP?
A) I wish the answer to the first question was simple as putting on a school uniform. Different religions have different personal laws and separate religious decision making bodies. Uniform Civil Code has often been mischievously used to poke at Muslim practices of polygamy and triple talaq. But the question to ponder is this? Is any religion in India free from prejudices or medieval thinking at a certain level? What of the Hindu caste system which has so bitterly created social and political divides in large parts of North India? What of the Sabrimala temple located in the supposedly progressive South India which does not allow women to be anywhere near a supposedly bachelor and virgin god? What about the rights of the Hindu daughters and brides? What of female infanticide among Hindu and Sikh families of Punjab? Would the prosperous and politically active SGPC yield space to a Uniform Civil Code? Would the RSS and VHP allow Hindu and Muslim family successions to be governed by the same set of laws?
The truth is that each of India’s religions faces serious problems, the solution of which lies in sociological reforms that must begin from within. Foisting a Uniform Civil Code would hand over the power to the state to clamp down on religious identity. It may lead to curbing of disturbing practices (which given the political interest to be milked by catering to the fundamentalists, it eventually won’t) but it will also lead to attempts to enforce religious homogeneity, which as has been demonstrated in the case of France can lead to social unrests.
Religious identities must flourish under the broad umbrella of the concept of a nation state, but the moment we start to defile a community (it was the Sikhs in the 80s, it is the Muslims now), we defy the very idea of India. An idea which has defeated the pessimism of the western analysts of the mid twentieth century, an idea that holds out inspite of all its scars and scratches, hope of co existence to a bitterly divided and fractious world. The idea of India is a lot bigger than the falsely perceived sense of insecurity possessed by some members of its majority community.

|