This article first appeared on the Big Show in December 2011. The link to the original post is here

In military circles it is often light heartedly remarked about Russia and Afghanistan that invading armies over the centuries passed by the skeletal remains of previous empires that had tried and unsuccessfully attempted to conquer those lands. In the cricketing context, it is perhaps an exaggeration to compare the unforgiving vastness of western Russia or the rugged and inhospitable mountains of Afghanistan with the pleasant and warm lands of coastal Australia. The analogy though begs the question – Is Australia the most difficult country to tour, especially for the sub-continent teams?

Statistically, Australia remains the team to beat at home. Its winning ratio over the last decade (2001-2011) is a staggering 74%. The years of total dominance in the first half of the last decade contribute significantly to this healthy number. This record at home becomes more respectable when compared with other major countries – In the same period, South Africa has a winning ratio at home of 57%, England of 61% and India itself of only 47%. Neither are Australia’s numbers bloated due to runaway successes against minnows. Its winning ratio at home in the analyzed time period against England and South Africa combined has been 67% (2 out of every 3 tests). Interestingly the only test series to have been lost at home have also been against these two countries – The 3-1 Ashes loss last year against England and a 2-0 defeat against South Africa in 2009.

For the sub-continent giants Pakistan and Sri Lanka, there has been little joy Down Under. Pakistan has lost all 6 test matches in the last decade and while Sri Lanka has only managed to draw 1 and lost the other 3. Yet, amidst all this carnage of numbers, one anomaly stands out. Against India, the Aussies have won 3, lost 2 and drawn the remaining 3 – that gives a win ratio of 38%. Against no other country at home has this number dropped below 65% for the last decade.

MS Dhoni’s team faces the expectations of maintaining this competitive posture and given the ‘perceived’ troubles with Australia in the recent times even go ahead and retain the Border-Gavaskar trophy that has been in their possession since the home series of 2008. Six months ago, this script seemed a fairly promising adventure; post England, the tale is now one of redemption. For India all the marketing jargon of ‘final frontier’ is now secondary. They must first prove to themselves and then to their fans that the ability to meet opposition head to head on foreign soil, the single biggest achievement of Indian cricket in the first decade of the 21^st century, is still alive and burning.

On each of their previous two tours, India punched above their weight. Man for man, their batting perhaps matched that of the Aussies but never have the bowlers looked as threatening as the home side’s. In 2004, Zaheer Khan showed a glimpse of his brilliance (5/95) at Brisbane before departing for the rest of the series. In 2007, he again flattered to deceive and after a 4 wicket haul in the opening test at Melbourne, missed the rest of the tour with an injured ankle. Another premier bowler, Harbhajan Singh, also missed 3 tests on the 2004 tour with an injured shoulder and made more noise off the field than on it on the 2007-08 trip. In Australia, in 4 tests, Harbhajan has taken 9 wickets at an unflattering average of 73. On both occasions, India discovered new bowling talents in Irfan Pathan and Ishant Sharma, rookies who came back home with enhanced reputations, but it was one man who held their bowling effort together and kept the Australian batsmen honest. For a spinner, Anil Kumble had two outstanding tours of Australia in 2003 and 2007 taking 24 and 20 wickets respectively at averages of 29 and 34. On both occasions, he was India’s leading wicket taker by a distance. In a country where away spinners leaked 46 runs for each wicket (since Jan 2006), Kumble with 44 wickets at an average of 35 is the leading wicket taker amongst spinners in Australia over the last ten years.

This time though India go without their holding and strike bowler of the last two efforts, which makes it absolutely imperative for the fragile ankles of Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma to last the distance in the Test matches. It would be a surprise and not an expectation for India’s bowlers to consistently bowl out Australia and it is their batsmen who would have to land the heavy blows to keep the team in the bout. It is on the continued success of Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly and later on Sehwag that the positive results away from home were achieved. In Australia, Sehwag, Laxman and Tendulkar average above 54 while Dravid, despite a poor last tour, still averages 48. The batting order will feature two first time travelers this time – Gautam Gambhir and Virat Kohli, with Rohit Sharma who impressed in the ODI outings in Australia in 2008, as the first backup.

Unlike England, if India is to make a match of it in Australia, their batsmen have to make up for the deficiencies that their bowlers will perhaps frequently display. And therein lies the weight of India’s burden. Dravid has had a wonderful year and looks assured and settled. Laxman had patches of brilliance and Tendulkar has been laden with artificial mental burdens of late. Sehwag has only now struck form (and how!) and Gambhir averages below 30 in his last 25 test innings with no century to show. Buffering this line up are Kohli and Dhoni - for the first, this can be a career defining tour if he manages to avoid the fate that England dished out to Suresh Raina; for the second, this would perhaps be a visit where he may be required to play above his test average of 38. Indian batting faces a collective challenge which would demand the shedding of indifference and inconsistency and the adoption of bold and certain postures. The pitches would be quick, barring Sydney and the engine of Indian batting would have to chug into life quickly and swiftly. A slow start would only create the danger of a repeat of this summer, when more than the English bowlers, the lack of certainty and confidence of the batsmen did them in.

Facing India would be an Aussie side that has tasted victory against both South Africa and New Zealand recently, has discovered a new found depth in bowling riches and would in all probability have an in form Ricky Ponting awaiting India. The gaps would remain at the top and at the bottom – an opening combination that contains a Shane Watson unable to bowl at full effectiveness denies Australia the comfort of a quality all-rounder, and a rookie spinner in Nathan Lyon may not pose too many uncomfortable questions to the Indian batsmen. Barring that, Australia will come hard with (speed) guns blazing at India and will perform the basics in fielding and catching well.

For India, the story is familiar and yet slightly deviant. Their batsmen must win the big moments for them but this time they will perhaps be afforded lesser buffers of luxury by their injury prone and inexperienced bowlers. History can often be a strange companion. It can comfort, as the statistics in the opening part of this article indicate, or it can sow doubts and suspicions, as the memories of England this past summer may testify. India have fought Australia to a stalemate during their last two trips Down Under; its critical, for the sake of their immediate Test match future, that they leave a more promising legacy behind on this trip that what exists in the harsh battlefields of Russia and Afghanistan.

Statistics Source: espncricinfo.com

|

In Delhi’s political circles they are mourning the demise of the Left. And it is not just the caricatured ones from ‘civil society’, JNU and NGOs that experience this sadness. It is perhaps equally true of the Congress and its government in the UPA. For the first five years of its perch in the cockpit of governance, the party and the alliance faced internal turbulence on every issue directed at it from its own friend cum critic, the Left parties. From market liberalization (insurance and retail), to the scope and breadth of NREGA (something many journalists were quick to cite as a reason for the 2009 Congress victory) to ultimately the decisive (and fatal) clash over the nuclear deal three summers ago. Neither the Left, nor the UPA has really recovered from that collision, despite a return to power that spoke as much for the vanquished as it did for the victor.

The Congress since then has been on an auto-pilot. The Prime Minister, having braved a confrontation that many thought him incapable of causing and having achieved what he believed to be a significant domestic and foreign policy victory, seems to have lost energy and drive. It appears as if the 2009 polls for him were the end of a race and not a pit stop that many observers assumed it to be. These days he resembles an unwilling sportsman, forced out of retirement (or in his case being forced against retirement) to lead a team where disinterest is the prevailing feeling. The Congress seems to have mistaken the period between 2009 to 2014 as one that simply requires the completion of the formality of staying in office. The real pie is the next election when Rahul Gandhi is expected to take over the reigns and a new era of posturing can begin. UPA II then is the foster child the parent is not too keen to engage with. It is a necessity to be borne but the imagination is hidden for better times expected to come ahead. That perhaps explains the indifference and apathy running through this government since its inception. The Prime Minister has been low key, but unlike his first term when this was an asset, in his second term where allegations of corruption have abounded and ministers have been speaking about everything except their work, this silence has conveyed helplessness to favorable and weakness to the less charitable of his supporters.

The problem with playing a waiting game is that two critical elements, time and circumstance, always remain out of control and can turn and twist causing discomforting pain to even the most numb of bodies. In a sense, the UPA’s problems are seeded in its first term when a blind eye was turned to dirty secrets that many thought would either never come out or were underestimated with respect to their potential impact. But both the Telecom scam and the shenanigans of the Commonwealth Games have put the ruling coalition on the mat from which it is still wriggling to escape. It has not helped that multiple public agitations, high profile in nature and media coverage, have never really allowed the government to shift the focus away from the misdeeds in the corridors of power.

To use corporate jargon, the ball has been dropped. And several times over. As evidence slowly crawled of irregularities in Telecom and CWG deals, standard bureaucratic responses were dished out. There was little attempt, in the face of political compulsions, to decisively act and grab the initiative from the opposition, which despite its own disarray has managed to find a voice that it lacked in the UPA’s first term. The result has been that both the government and the party have been made to defend on the backfoot, right from the disastrous announcement of Telengana in the winter of 2009.

Democracy demands governments to possess a thick skin, but also combine it with a large heart and a sense of magnanimity. While the right to free speech requires us individually to listen to a lot of things we would privately consider as trash, governments must not only put up but also accommodate with groups, persons and views that may seem unrealistic at best and churlish at worst. Given that outcomes in our system only appear after years of grind in the bureaucratic machine, intent becomes more important than immediate action. And this government has done every action to let the voter question its intent. When the well heeled and well off middle class agitates for a stronger anti-corruption law, they must be co-opted and not discredited. When a gimmicky godman ‘fasts’ a few hours of the day demanding the return of black money, death for the corrupt and courses in Hindi, there are certainly more deft ways of taking away his sting than by forcibly evicting him and his supporters from the middle of the national capital. Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev will not stand up in polls but the UPA has now given itself the tag of being a government against peaceful protests, howsoever whimsical and misdirected.

The arrogance of power can often lead one to believe that the reaction is temporary and will not affect electoral outcomes. But in a democracy as chaotic as ours, it is foolhardy to rest on such cushy assumptions. Shifting caste identities and a perceived stamp of corruption from Bofors decimated Rajiv Gandhi’s super majority in 1989. For the Congress to think that anti-corruption anger is a middle class drawing room phenomenon and that a disunited NDA along with a beaten Left present no challenge three years from now is to adopt hubris at par with the NDA’s India Shining posturing of 2004. The electorate threw a surprise out of nowhere then and it is perfectly capable of doing it a second time. The initiative has been lost, the momentum was never there and now along with scandal comes the tag of being insensitive and brash. The government stays in office, its electoral fortunes may point north in the coming days but is moral compass is pointing a firm south.

|

2010 stands the risk of entering Indian history as the year of graft. It was a year where incidences, coverage and adjectives of corruption reached hitherto unseen limits. Instances of illegal money making were sector and space neutral. They ranged from sporting events, a cricket league, telecom licenses to the usual bad boys of real estate and mining. Some of the stories uncovered had a ‘I told you so’ ring to them, as with the 2G spectrum and license saga. Some like the Adarsh society, came out of nowhere and created a tsunami that swept all before quietly retreating into the calmer waters of middle page news. Like the scandals, their perpetrators or suspects too respected the Indian heritage of diversity. Politicians led the way, followed closely by organizers, mining barons, industrialists, high flying highly visible sport administrators and in a bit of surprise for the public at large, generals and journalists.

What stood out in 2010 was the eagerness of the corruption scandals to devour their victims, many of whom would not have been mistaken to believe that the storm was one they could ride out. Many are still battling the choppy waters, refusing to abandon ship, not realizing perhaps that the hull and the mast have suffered irreparable damage. In terms of resignations and exits, the year was certainly one of the busiest. Notable among the martyrs was a greasy Union Minister whose stubborn resistance against facts for over two years seemed inspired by a Sunil Gavaskar innings, a loquacious Minister of State who required only 140 characters to be felled, a Chief Minister who would have much wished that he could escape with the American president he was seeing off minutes before being given the pink slip, a cricket czar whose one error gave his numerous enemies the tiny sliver of opportunity they had waited all along and two senior journalists who could not keep their egos within the confines of the press club.

Towards the end of the year, the leaked Radia tapes provided a new form of online voyeurism, to which this author himself claims affliction. They provided much amusement for the listeners and much embarrassment to the conversing parties. At a higher level they brought home a painful reality we have been afraid to admit for long – the country is being run by an elite of oligarchs and politicians for whom universal suffrage is only a constitutional formality. It was not the influencing of appointments and rewards that should be a cause of worry as much the blatant system of monetary patronage of all classes of our political life. The revelations tarred all. The politician’s debauchery was only vindicated, the industrialist’s mildly affirmed and the journalist’s discovered. A smaller scale of the loot would have made the public more cynical, the current scale can only cause disillusion. The executive ran from one hiding corner to another and the legislature decided to spend time shouting for political points than discuss the corrosion. It would only be the judiciary, battling its own demons of graft more than ever before this year, that would give a call and question both the actions and inactions of the executive offices.

The Union enters the second decade of the 21st century struggling to live up to the ideals of its founding fathers and the spiritual guidance they left in the Constitution. It gasps to find substance over form. It aspires to seek its place in the world but undermines its own values at every stage. It experienced political liberation six decades ago and an economic liberation two decades ago. It will never be able to live up to its promise for all but to meet the aspirations of most, and not just a privileged few, it needs to experience a new moral discovery and liberation.

Much as it is tempting to focus on the big bang of graft that swamped all the other noise around us, the year also brought some redeeming affirmations. A high court stretched the logic of justice, summoned courage and tackled an issue that politicians, religious leaders and the society at large had refused to entangle. In their own words, the justices set foot upon ‘a piece of land where angels feared to tread’ against the advice of ‘sane elements’ who had ‘advised them not to attempt that’. They pleased none of the three litigants completely but caused much satisfaction to the man on the street. It was evidence that our noisy and chaotic democracy could find some way, even if it took decades, of tackling inflammable, contentious and religiously dividing issues. A peaceful resolution of the property dispute at Ayodha is as much a litmus for India’s social integration as Kashmir is for its political. In the valley meanwhile, the Indian state dithered, bore the brunt of stones and calls of ‘azadi’, heard calls of sedition issued from an air conditioned Delhi auditorium from a wasted socialite but in the end summoned the one quality that is the hallmark of statesmanship and is much needed for internal stability – a generosity of heart. The pain lingers but Vajpayee’s framework of ‘insaniyat’ survives. However much Pakistan, Arundhati Roy and the Hurriyat Conference think to the contrary, that framework does not stand in contradiction with the Constitution.

In Delhi, a nation held its breath and had almost collapsed out of anxiety as a mismanaged sporting event threatened to erode all the gains of the new economy. The post liberalization urban generation, used to playing with global standards of quality, watched in horror as the task of constructing stadiums and organizing athletic events turned into a business school case study of mismanagement. The world saw our lack of project management skills and for once the excuse of the slow moving democracy could not act as a cover for our exposed skins. The much heralded Indian jugaad, codified as our Sports Minister repeatedly stated, in the Punjabi wedding drama, came into play. The games and the participants, while they were on, won the city’s appreciation. The cost went to the tax payer and more damagingly to India’s image.

While Delhi went comatose in the last two months of the year, engulfed in a verbal fog of 2G, spectrum and tapes, one of the last caste outposts of the country fell and a politician swept to power on basis of a positive political perception. It will not eradicate caste from our political or social lives but Nitish Kumar’s victory will remind others that tangible development efforts have a longer shelf life than voting coalitions. Lalu Yadav discovered that this year. Mayawati and the Left seem set to discover it in the coming two. Nitish’s victory may also do the country one more benefit, if the BJP so chooses to encash it. It opens up a roadmap to victory for the wilting lotus, if only it decides to open its eyes. Gujarat and Bihar are indicative of the distance between India’s west and east and also of the political distance between the where our largest opposition party is and where it ought to be.

In this sad and at times depressing year, one can be cynical and say the winner of the year was the Chief Minister of Karnataka – the only man who successfully managed to brave the corruption windstorm and keep his chair, if not his image and integrity. But a happier event towards the end of the year provides an escape from that gloomy conclusion to this post. The greatest Indian sportsman reached a landmark many of his contemporaries and those to come in the future will view as the Mount Everest of batting accomplishment. Sachin Tendulkar completed fifty test centuries, scored a one-day double hundred and at age thirty seven pulled a fair distance away from his current crop of challengers into a summit of his own. Like always, he stood out in contrast to the negativity around us. He bore the burden of showing the discipline, fortitude and dedication that many in our public circles chose to abjure. He bloomed when many expected him to gracefully wilt. He summoned reserves of energy when the competition began to tire. He explored no short cuts and summoned no privileges. He lived up to the one lesson every dedicated teacher and parent instills into their ward – there is no substitute for hard work and honesty. It is a lesson worth recalling this new year.

|

One screaming hot afternoon in Chandigarh, I settled down in front of my grandfather’s eight year old, curve screened Salora television set to watch a game of cricket. The date was the 21st of May and I had reached the city to spend the summer vacations after celebrating my birthday on the 19^th. The spirits, you can guess, were high. I was in the room to the back of the house, occupied by a cousin sister who worked with a local newspaper and who every summer would be kind enough to share it with me as I spent the days bouncing around Sectors 46, 47 and 33 of Chandigarh with a set of three cousin brothers. My sister’s room was the boiling pot of the house – even the kitchen with all the cooking, burning and frying happening in it, struggled to match the temperatures and heat that could be reached there as it was serenaded by the sun post noon since it faced west. This natural anomaly was compounded by the fact that the only mechanism to control the heat was a cooler which for some quirky reason that my grandfather struggled all his life post retirement to discover, would blow cold air only from one half of its screen while spouting the atmospheric hot one from the rest.

At half past three, a delayed start to compensate for the equally blazing hot weather in Chennai, the game was all set to begin. My grandfather and I, bathed in sweat and shirts off, considered the Indian prospects while my grandmother slept comfortably in a much cooler room in the front of the house that was far away from any rays of the sun. This was 1997, India was playing Pakistan in the Independence Cup (there was a slew of them in 97 and 98 with all the four cricketing nations of the sub-continent celebrating half a century of good riddance from the British and in case of the Bangladeshis, from the Pakistanis) and this was the big ticket clash. Both teams had a win and loss under their belt by then. Sri Lanka had already qualified for the final and this was the last league game and a virtual semi. The expectation was high, even though those were the days of the disappointing 90s when victories over Pakistan had been scarce.

In the second over of the match, came perhaps the only moment of joy of the entire evening for the Indian fan. Shahid ‘Ball Chewer’ Afridi, skied a catch that was comfortably held by Ganguly at mid-off. The danger man was gone and there was a feeling of anticipation and relief. The next few hours belied all. The languid and fluid Saeed Anwar, still in his clean shaven avataar, played havoc with the bowling. Subject to an attack that comprised of the laboring medium pace of Kuruvilla, slow predictable left arm spin of Sunil Joshi and the fizzing leg breaks of Kumble, Anwar embarked on a feast. There were the side dishes as well such as eighteen overs of part time medium pace dished out by Tendulkar and Robin Singh. And of course, the icing on the cake was the lanky seamer from Karnatka who over the course of his career helped many an international left-handed batsman such as Jayasuriya, Anwar and even Curtly Ambrose to improve their career averages – Venky Prasad. Anwar reached a quick fifty and then fell down with cramps in the 18^th over, post which Afridi came back to run for him. He reached a 100, conserved energy and drank fluids, had three big partnerships and hurt Indian egos no end. Despite all the bonhomie and friendship during those IK Gujral days of 1997, this was nothing but a plain and simple humiliation. Anwar overtook Viv Richards’ record of the highest individual one day score and a prospect of India letting a Pakistani batsman hit 200 against them in a one-day game looked very real. Six shy of that, Anwar looped a soft catch to Ganguly again at short fine leg. I was 14, had watched a lot of cricket by then, but was still fiercely parochial and patriotic and took pleasure out of Anwar being denied a double. What happened in the rest of the game was immaterial. Dravid hit a valiant hundred, was denied a runner by Pakistan who very quickly forgot how Anwar had made his runs and India fell short by 35 and were booted out of their own Independence party.

Which is why, sadistically, yesterday’s knock of Sachin Tendulkar’s is a such a big jewel for any Indian fan to flaunt. Pakistan are no longer the team of the 90s, India has far more match winners in their team than the bare looking team of 97 and cricket has come a long way in the last 12 years. But still, if there was one person whom you wished/ fantasized/ prayed for overtaking Anwar, it was Tendulkar. Tendulkar, who did it batting a full fifty overs, at a better strike rate, without a runner and still came back to field in the second innings! You may call me a meano or a jingoist, but for a young fan who sat through each and every shot of that Anwar inning, this was revenge as sweet, sadistic and cynical as it comes.

|

I began my Republic Day by watching the new Mile Sur video on a news channel. Aptly titled ‘Phir Mile Sur’, it’s the same composition with the old underlying tune but suitably modified to reflect new trends in Indian music (multiplicity of instruments and fusion being prominent) as well the new faces on our Hindi movie scene. The makers could perhaps have attempted to reduce the Bollywood flavor of the video and introduced a more nuanced regional perspective (but certainly not S.Sreesanth, as one friend demanded on Facebook after seeing the video earlier on YouTube!). ‘Phir Mile Sur’, despite some tackiness quotient, is a decent reflection of how much India has changed over the last two decades. When the original was released, the year was 1989-90 and the nation was in a vortex of internal instability. A coalition government had just taken oath in New Delhi after the grand fall of Rajiv Gandhi’s super majority. Kashmir was beginning to simmer and Punjab had been festering for almost a decade. Then there were the recurring disputes of the Northeast and on top of all this was the Mandal genie released by VP Singh in the autumn of 1990 leading to self-immolations, massive protests and civil unrest in Delhi (I remember my school being closed for a few days when the situation had gotten seriously tense). For someone who would sit alongside his father and watch the state drafted news bulletin every night on gloomy Doordarshan, the words ‘Khalistan’, ‘Militancy’, ‘Encounter’, ‘Unity and Integrity’ (a favorite of the Prime Ministers of those days), ‘Tarn Taran’ (Punjab’s most violent district) and ‘Curfew’ very quickly became a part of the lexicon. And I did not even have to run to a dictionary to understand what they meant. The context of those days provided all the meaning. In the backdrop of all this and the economic uncertainty that followed a year later along with Rajiv Gandhi’s bloody assassination, India needed a ‘Mile Sur’ to make some attempt, howsoever feeble, to remind us of the clichéd ‘Unity in Diversity’ model of our political sustenance.

Two decades later, the uncertainties have changed with one critical difference. Most of them are external and not internal. The language of ‘Unity and Integrity’ has now been replaced by that of ‘Development and Growth’. The old distant terrorism that urban India knew of only through DD’s daily news is now a phenomenon that we have recognized as a daily classless danger to be lived with and confronted. Our internal contradictions of the 80s, like old skin, have been shed and our new fault lines will be a friction of ideas centering on how growing aspirations in a rising economy should be catered. Separate smaller states will be demanded, not only because they promise a symbol of identity, but because they hold the promise of overturning the economic neglect and offer opportunities for ‘sharing of riches’. The gun toting Naxal may be wiped out but discontent in rural India will not be unless we achieve a greater allocation of benefits and decide on how best to acquire land equitably. In that sense, perhaps India still needs a ‘Phir Mile Sur’ not to remind us that we share one political legacy of unity but perhaps to hold out the assertion that as the efforts of that legacy begin to bear economic fruit in the coming decades, we all are entitled to our legitimate slices of the pie.

So how much have we really changed in the two decades after that depressing autumn of 1990? I was recently watching a YouTube clip containing highlights of the games from the Hero Cup held in the winter of 1993. It’s an event cricket historians seem to have forgotten. It still remains the last time India won a five team one-day international tournament. It was also the first time that the BCCI sold television rights to a satellite TV channel (Star) instead of Doordarshan leading to litigation at one end and cricket’s TV boom at the other. On the clip I saw, the boundary hoardings consisted of the following prominent brands – Hero Puch, Modiluft, Peerless, Directors Special, Vimal, Kelvinator, Coramandel Cement, Yamaha and Pennzoil. That covers a decent number of sectors of the industry in terms of representation. Notice the one that it doesn’t – Telecom; because telecom would only be deregulated towards the end of the 90s and would go on to change lives in a remarkably similar way as the diminutive little Maruti 800 did. Notice another omission –no cola companies in the above list. While Pepsi came back into the Indian market around 1990, Coke wouldn’t come till 1993-94 and the real advertising war between the two giants for the large Indian middle class purse would begin only mid-90s onwards with star power being recruited and campaigns often turning nasty.

The cricket example above though, is only symbolic. Just as telecom is virtually a separate sector of the economy today in terms of the sheer impact it has on lives, the economic reforms of 1991 have perhaps singly overtaken any other event in defining the India of the last two decades. The reforms opened opportunities, mostly in the urban centers, brought global brands to India, gave a fillip to the economy and enlarged our wallets. Larger wallets in turn meant that the world started looking at us as a mass of people with an economic aspiration to spend and a social aspiration to climb. It is no wonder that every significant consumer as well enterprise product and service company is present in India today enamored by a market that promises top line growth of double digits which is no longer possible in a saturated market back home in the US or Europe. Good or bad, the one basic outcome of the reforms was that money was no longer a bad word. Consumption was suddenly an aspiration and not a moral sin. The political empowerment of India with the coming out of multiple political parties in the 1990s would be accompanied by an economic empowerment that would in some way, though perhaps not entirely and effectively, permeate every section of society. We only have to look at ourselves to realize the extent of the shift.

In 1991, my father’s office still had round dial telephones and there was no aspiration in my family to own a similar one at home. My father drove a white Premier Padmini (Fiat as we knew it then) that perhaps had the most awkward gearbox ever seen in a car on Indian roads. Computers and software were something you didn’t even read about in the newspapers let alone see one in your school or own one at home. TV still meant Doordarshan which would close its telecast between 11am to 2pm and 3.30pm to 7pm every day unless there was a cricket match on. Vacations anywhere in excess of 500kms meant budgeting a total of 4 days for to and fro travel by train. There were no brands of denim jeans. The only shoes you could wear were Bata, Liberty or Action. The only toothpaste you would use was a Colgate and the only soap you would use was a Hamam. The only fast food outlet in Delhi was Nirulas, the only rum my grandfather could drink was the army canteen issued Old Monk (a favorite passed on through generations) and the only decent whiskey available to him was Red Knight made by Mohan Meakin in Solan. Need I say more!

I sometimes wonder if we ourselves have grasped the impact of the last two decades. Time is never a constant and every decade or so, some nostalgic blogger like me would reflect on the years gone by and how life has changed. Every generation feels it has passed through the most impactful change. As children of the economic liberalization of this country, my generation can at least claim to have witnessed the transition first hand. How impactful it would turn to out to be for the longer destiny of India is something that as always, history and posterity can dwell upon at leisure.

P.S. – The Indian Express this morning carried a beautiful five page feature on landmark judicial cases and the personalities behind them that influenced both the working and the interpretation of the Indian Constitution. Stretching across the 60 years of the document’s existence, it highlighted the men and women, jurists and lawyers who sought to enforce the tenets of our governing document in our day to day lives. Express began the series with a case that it called the most important ever in the history of Indian constitutional law. In early 1973, a 13 member bench of the Supreme Court (the largest ever gathering of justices summoned to debate a judicial matter in the country’s history till date) decided by a wafer thin majority of 7-6 against the State and in favor of a temple priest. The judgment was historic in that it placed the Constitution above the Parliament and entailed that there was a certain ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution that Parliament could not alter even with an amendment. This basic structure included among other things the fundamental rights of life, liberty and equality. In the coming three decades, the Courts would use this principle to drive the primacy of fundamental rights (most recently in the Sec 377 case last year where the right to equality was sighted) and uphold the rights of the ordinary citizen against the high-handedness of the executive. That single judgment made the difference between the Indian Constitution being a living, thriving document impacting the lives of its citizens or being a set of rules of a banana diplomacy that a despotic government could change at will and a compliant judiciary would endlessly blink over.

|

On an early summer day in the year 1526 a light, swift fighting force backed by about 15-20 pieces of field artillery faced a monolith of an army in the dusty fields of a tiny hamlet in North India. Underestimated, unknown but highly mobile with a well trained cavalry, Zahir al-din Muhammad Babar’s Mughal army routed the forces of Ibrahim Lodi, whose chief weapon on the battlefield was the elephant. Scared by blasts from the Babur’s artillery, the tuskers ran amok all over trampling the men of their own army and paving the way for the fall of the Delhi Sultanate. It would be the last time when the elephant would be used as a major fighting weapon in any action on the Indian sub-continent.

1526 is how far back you would have to go in Indian history to see when the ‘elephant’ suffered its last defeat in the field of battle. 2009 is when the elephant has suffered its first defeat in electoral politics. It would be fascinating to be a fly on the wall in Behenji Mayawati’s mind right now; to listen to the thoughts churning there, to behold the surprise. The BSP has been used to winning thus far, albeit at a very gradual pace. The grand majority in UP two years back heralded a new sunrise of the party. It was expected to move beyond its core constituency of Dalits and solidify a rainbow vote combination that also included the Muslim minority and the Upper castes – a combination that could propel Mayawati not just in UP but also in other states where such low hanging fruits existed. That she wanted to assert herself nationally was visible through the number of public meetings she addressed in different parts of the country. Mayawati was in Maharashtra, MP, Rajasthan, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh – all states with significant Dalit populations. She was the dark horse, the unannounced leader of the third front, the kingmaker of the new Lok Sabha, the woman who would decide India’s destiny, a woman whom the even the Economist found worthy of mention. (This author himself, thought she would at least get 30 seats in UP alone). Prominent political commentators predicted her hold over the proceedings to follow post elections.

Well now Mayawati and her elephants have been tripped by an electorate that hates nothing more than being taken for granted. Behenji lost her mandate for exactly the same reasons for which she had first won it. You cannot enrich yourself at the cost of your voters and simply assume they would follow you on empty promises of identity and protection. The Congress lost its vote bank in north India because for years it simply assumed that it would be followed blindly; that it possessed a hereditary right over the votes of the marginalized. Behenji too simply assumed that Dalits and Muslims of UP would stay solidly behind her and that by calling out the Dalit identity in other states she would cast her die for the dream national role. In the end, all those fancy statues and stone parks in Lucknow have come back to haunt her. She may cry all she wants about a conspiracy hatched by her rival parties but the reality is that she has been dumped for non-performance. As the editor of a prominent national daily said on counting day, India wants to vote for aspiration and not for settling scores. You would have a difficult time winning over people’s aspirations if your entire energy is spent in satiating your megalomania. Mayawati won 21 Lok Sabha seats, 2 more than last time and clocked a national vote share of 6.17% - to use a colloquial Hindi term, with these numbers, for Mayawati ‘abhi dilli bahut door hai’.  

Behenji’s vote share though is third behind the Congress which received 28% of the total votes and the BJP which tallied a disappointing 18%. Why a party that was a strong, natural alternative to the Congress a decade ago is now a full 10 percentage points and 85 seats behind the leader is a matter that both the bigwigs at Delhi and Nagpur must address through their frequent ‘chintan baithaks’. A strong right of the centre national alternative is needed for a Congress but a right wing fundamentalist alternative will get whipped election after election. While his rhetoric may have worked in the case of Varun Gandhi, the party itself managed only 10 seats in the state of UP – the same number that it had in 2004. In the riot torn Kandhamal constituency of Orissa, which was ‘perfectly baked’ as per the BJP’s model of winning elections on the back of polarized electorates, the party’s candidate lost by over a lakh of votes. He too will get much time to do ‘chintan’ in his jail cell where he currently sits.

Has the BJP learnt nothing from 2004? It had a host of issues and a lot of time to play its cards right six months back. Then it allowed two men to completely derail its campaign – Narendra Modi and Varun Gandhi. From standing outside the Oberoi when the encounter was still going on to using the ‘gudiya-budhiya’ rhetoric, Modi did much to divert the agenda away from development. The school bully image was at complete contrast to the quiet manner in which Rahul Gandhi went about his campaign – both Mayawati, who ridiculed him for sleeping in a Dalit’s home and Modi, who never stops taking potshots at the Gandhis, have been proved ineffectual. In Gujarat, which the saffron party was supposed to ‘sweep’, 8 candidates personally chosen by the Chief Minister lost. His gain from 2004 in the state is just one seat. The only state where the BJP did better than 2004 was Bihar – and even though he hugged Modi in far away Punjab, Nitish Kumar didn’t allow Modi to enter the state before all the votes were cast. Nitish has won as decisive a mandate as Modi ever has; then why the Modi model of rioting and development and not the Nitish Kumar, Shiela Dixit and Shivraj Chauhan model of good inclusive development should be the answer to India’s problems, is something that any supporter of this ‘Hitler with a beard’ is yet to explain to me.

 If anyone in the BJP is interested in paying attention, in the lack of that explanation lies their route back to power in Delhi.

Indian elections can often turn out to be an exercise in humility for its participants. The Left, which held a stronger veto over the previous government for four years, than even the one that Soviet Union held at the UN for forty years, now stands with its back to the wall and facing the unthinkable possibility of losing the next assembly election in Bengal. The many aspirant ‘Prime Ministers in waiting’ will now do just that – wait. Their despondency was summed up by Sharad Pawar who, first took his hat out of the ring, a day before the elections, and then was the first one on the day of results to concede that the Congress had the right to decide who would be the Prime Minister.

As far as the victor of this election is concerned, the Congress will do well to consider the hubris that led to the downfall of its rivals in the last two elections. It will face anti-incumbency and vote fatigue in different states after 5 years, the only insurance against which shall be performance. Its gamble to stand on its own feet in UP paid off and underscored the point that often in elections, winnability is simply about providing a fresh alternative to the voter.

As far as projections go, no one saw this ‘landsweep’ in favour of the Congress. Yours truly had stuck his neck out in March and predicted a tally of 148 seats for the party with Andhra, Rajasthan and Maharashtra being the bellwether states. He had also predicted of a long political summer of negotiations and side changes and deal striking with the most probable scenario being the return of the UPA with a little help from the Fourth Front and splinter groups of the Third Front.

Proved wrong. Period.

|

Deep down perhaps every Indian middle class young boy harbors a dream of visiting America. It is shaped in many cases by a desire to replicate relatives in the family who have been to the land or in most others by the exposure to soft culture of Archies, Hollywood and Mcdonalds. If you are a graduate techie being turned out of those myriad engineering colleges of India, then the US of A is your ultimate onsite destination.

Unlike the previous occasion, this time my journey to the airport from my house is smooth. That’s because my flight is before the mad rush hour at midnight and beyond and also because the day is dry and there aint any rain to clog Delhi roads. Check in is slow and it takes me 15 mins for reach the counter from the end of the line. It takes another 10 for the check in counter official to weigh my baggage and get my boarding pass out between his chuckles and jokes with a colleague.  There are somethings even a swanky modern airport cannot change.

The immigration officer is interested to know what Accenture (my employer) does. By now I am tired of giving this explanation – despite the huge sums that we spend on television advertising, people still do not know us. Or well at least the average common man doesn’t. Even the urbane ones who might be watching English news channels where our advertisements are a regular feature are clueless when the name is mentioned. Neither have past full page ads in newspapers been of any help. I am also tired of referring to the firm as the one with Tiger Woods ads. No one seems to have a clue about Woods. So now, I just let it be – I politely inform the immigration officer of our scope of services. He asks whether we are still recruiting. I sense this as an inquiry of an interested father for his kid than that of a customs official. He says the outlook is improving and that things shall change in the next few months. As evidence he points to the upward movement in the ‘market’. I want to believe him, I am flying to the States – someone must be needing my services.

Emirates has an in-flight entertainment system that simply captivates me. There is a good variety to choose from amongst movies, TV shows and songs (the 13 hour flight from Dubai to JFK had about 20 new movies on the menu along with countless older ones, including Hindi classics such as ‘Golmaal’ and ‘Chupke Chupke’). There is an informative section that tells you about the movement of the flight and metrics such as altitude, speed, time at the destination and the distance travelled. What takes the cake are the two cameras installed on the exterior of the plane whose live feed can be seen on the screen by passengers – the first camera is on the nose and the second on the underbelly. It’s a treat to switch either of those on during take off and landing. I didn’t miss my window seat on both the flights courtesy the cameras.

New York is cloudy and damp when I land. The last few minutes of the flight witness my attention being captured by an engaging conversation on the seats to my right between a US national of Somali descent and an white American lady from Florida. The Somali is bemoaning the state of his nation, his inability to meet with his Syrian wife and kids and the plight of his family back home. Conversation turns then to the scourge of piracy affecting the seas of the coast of Somalia and the lack of action by the international community to correct the state of affairs in the nation. It is difficult to escape the passion of the Somali as he stresses the failures of his nation and more so of those who could have prevented them from occurring.

‘Khanna as in Vinod Khanna?’ asks the woman at the prepaid taxi service counter at JFK upon seeing my passport. She is of Thai origin and finally helps me with a reservation after two of her colleagues tell me that their cabs don’t travel to the town where I am staying (Parsipanny in Jersey, an hours’ drive from NY). She informs me that she met Shatrughan SIngha at the JFK once and is aware how actively both the above mentioned actors are involved in politics.

There is a debate going on in America after President Obama subtly switched his stand on torture investigation and stated that Justice Department officials who approved of torture techniques may be investigated. It’s the first indication that the Bush administrationmay be hauled for its brave efforts to ‘change the world’. The Republicans of course are up in indignation and Dick Cheney has issued a war cry. On my cab drive, we are listening to a radio station which is blatantly Republican. The radio jockey after interviewing a dumb bimbette who claims she made her two daughters to run up and down a mile long road on a cliff so as to stop them from fighting each other, then proceeds to take calls. A caller says that torture is not what is done to Al-Qeda but what was done to victims of 9/11, that watching people jump from burning high rises is torture. This jockey then in a grave somber tone that sounds straight out of a campaign race proceeds to tell ‘American people’ that they are not safer than they were pre 9/11, that the current President has no stomach to fight enemies of the nation and that torture is done with the aim to achieve the ultimate good of ‘extracting information’. Next morning at breakfast I watch a Fox news telecast that is debating the same – it has three panelists on the show, two of whom are blatant republicans while one tries to strike a middle ground. The anchor again reminds us that torture yields information that is essential to save the country. The President is castigated by the Republican leaning panelists of succumbing to left wing liberals while deciding to investigate tortures. Listening to this debate, you wouldn’t be surprised that Americans are so reviled in the countries which are the worst sufferers of Islamic extremism. You would also not be surprised that despite 8 years of ‘war on terror’, the US still has no clue about the root causes of the threats faced by it.

 

|

Posted by Aftab Khanna, who on the gentle goading of Tony Sebastian, has finally decided to try and foresee things before they have happened

“The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win” – Leonid Brezhnev

Comrade Brezhnev might well have spoken for all us sitting at our homes in front of television screens and twiddling our thumbs as the great Indian tamasha gets underway once again. Opinion polls have been banned this time around – thus sparing the politicians many an anxiety and depriving our pollsters of their moments under the arc lights. The election process, one cant help but feeling, is poorer for the same. It was fun seeing spokespersons of major political parties denying all the poll findings if they were against them and then crucifying the pollsters on counting day when results went in their favor. Conversely the party projected to win would end up being cheated by the pollsters and suffer a reverse at the hustings. The spokespersons would go on to deride the very same polls that they were trumpeting a few weeks back.
India is a strange democracy and stranger still are its elections. It’s a country where the Intelligence Bureau instead of gathering evidence of upcoming terror strikes (I am sorry for making them sound like a music concert, but that’s the regularity and seriousness they acquired under the UPA) actually goes out and collects intelligence against the political rivals of the incumbent. The IB is the oldest pollster in the country and perhaps has a higher accuracy rate than even the likes of Prannoy Roy and Yogendra Yadav. You would have heard the old cliché – Indian elections are notoriously difficult to predict. It got a shot in the arm in 2004 when all the opinion polls (and surprisingly even the exit polls) got their results completely wrong. The electorate is so fragmented and so diverse that to reach the correct prediction is to play a game of snakes and ladders on a thousand square field. Yet there are some who carry the burden of psephology (would you believe it, MS Word 2007 does not even have this word in its dictionary; pollsters rival only investment bankers these days when it comes to earning discredits) and enlighten us as to the fate that awaits us ahead.

Yours truly is not a bearer of this burden – simply a patient of swivel chair (that’s the one I sit on) analysis. Hence, as Sir Tony would agree, in an extraordinarily courageous display of pre-emption, he now goes ahead and puts his neck on the line and attempts to gaze into a very hazy crystal ball.

The Congress: The grand old party of India is losing allies as its vehicle chugs along the bumpy electoral road. Lalu Yadav may have been temporarily estranged (both him and Mulayam would come back to the UPA to demand their pound of flesh in a post poll scenario) but it is the loss of the PMK in Tamil Nadu that would perhaps hurt the party the most. It would struggle to retain its tally of 10 seats in the state and its alliance partner DMK seems to have already thrown in the towel. The party seems set to gain in Punjab and Kerala and would lose in Haryana, Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam and Tamil Nadu. Key to the Congress’ fortune would lie in the states of Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh (with the last two being bellwether states in my estimate). The party would need to rout the BJP in Rajasthan, retain more or less the same seats in Maharashtra and minimize its losses in Andhra to even entertain hopes of government formation. Anything under 140 seats and the Congress would be at the mercy of Mamta, Mulayam and, in scenario nothing short of a nightmare for them, perhaps Jayalalitha and the Left.
Projection – 135 to 148 seats

The BJP: The Bhartiya Jalopy Party would be hoping for a repeat of the fortunes of 2004, not of their own but of the Congress! The Congress went into the polls then with no one giving it a fig leaf’s chance and trumped all the analysts and pollsters. Unlike the Congress in 2004 however, the BJP has failed to stitch together coherent alliances and seems set to pay the penalty. Its loss of Naveen Patnaik would cost it in Orissa (though like Lalu, the BJD too would come back to its erstwhile ally if push comes to shove) and the party would suffer reverses in Rajasthan. It seems set to more or less even out gains in J&K, HP, Gujarat and Jharkhand with marginal losses in MP, Chattisgarh and Maharashtra. Key to its fortunes would be to achieve damage limitation in Rajasthan and hope that Nitish Kumar swings Bihar their way with at least 20+ seats. But it’s still a tough shot for the BJP to emerge at the same levels as 1999. It would need to surprise us all a bit – sweep Gujurat, Karnataka and MP massively, raise its tally in Maharashtra and most of all, grab at least 20 seats in UP. That seems asking for a bit too much from Mr.Advani. The party’s only route to power is thus to cobble up around 140 seats on its own, hope that Jaya sweeps Tamil Nadu, the TDP alliance sweeps Andhra, Naveen Patnaik takes Orissa handsomely and all of them return to the NDA fold – if Mr.Advani and Mr.Jaitley pull that off, then I for one at least wont grudge them their 5 years of power.
Projection – 120 to 135 seats

Third Front: Can the reincarnated ‘Teesra Morcha’ grab power from under the noses of the UPA and NDA? Despite all their media blitz and ‘shor’ this cabal of regional players (accept it, the Left is a regional player) faces some quite steep hurdles. The Left is all set to slide from the high of 59 to around mid 30s in the new Lok Sabha. Naveen Patnaik, if he chooses to go with the Third Front, may not deliver the same seats as last time (11 of 20), since he fights alone and faces anti-incumbency both at state and parliamentary level. Third Front’s door to power rests on several shaky hinges – Mayawati has to outperform in UP and come close to a tally of 50, TDP must win around 30 and agree to stay with the Front and Jayalalitha should also reach a tally of 30. With these numbers and around 35 seats of the Left, the Front would hit 140+; that’s a range at which both Lalu and Mulayam (sure to underperform and return with lower numbers) may decide to grab a bite at power and change camps. If Naveen Patnaik too takes the third turn, then with numbers in excess of 150, the Third Front dream can hope to face the dawn of realization. The Congress may then be called upon to support the front from a position of weakness and we can all happily return back to the days of 1996.
But will it happen?? Will Mulayam join a front with Maya? More importantly will Mayawati reach near that figure of 50 in UP? Will both the TDP and Jaya outperform? And will the Congress agree to bide time and prepare for 2014 and extend outside support?
Projection – 110 to 125 seats

So what are we looking at after the polls? Make no mistake, India might well face a long summer with political parties slugging it out in the lack of a clear mandate. Deals would be struck, sides will be changed and there will be plenty of entertainment on offer. One won’t be surprised if there is a complete deadlock for a few days and the new Prime Minister gets sworn in only around late June. Here’s how the scenarios may pan out –

Probable– Congress reaches around 140; Lalu and Mulayam, both emerge weaker but rejoin the UPA and a Third Front constituent joins in while a couple of existing and dispensable allies are ditched. The alliance scrapes through to 272.

Somewhat Likely – Congress on its own is around 125 - 130 but the Third Front, let down by Mayawati’s inability to effect a decisive sweep, is also not strong enough to stake an independent claim. In a grand reconciliation the Left decides to bury its differences and carries along a couple of its Third Front partners to the UPA, once again supporting from outside. In such a case, Manmohan Singh might have to end up paying for his anti-Left tirade of the last 12 months.

Slightly less likely – Mayawati trumps everyone, sweeps UP and establishes presence through wins in Punjab and MP. She commands the Third Front along with Jayalalitha who also decimates the DMK in Tamil Nadu. The Congress, stranded at around 120 is left with no option but to cede momentum to the ladies.

Less likely – The NDA sweeps Gujarat, MP, Bihar; improves marginally in UP and Maharashtra and minimizes losses in Rajasthan and Orissa. It reaches a tally close to 200; the Third Front breaks up, the AIADMK and TDP with around 30 seats each finally propel Mr.Advani to Race Course Road.

Of course, I could be massively wrong. The least likely scenario may well turn out to be the most likely after the votes are counted. Predictions in Indian polls, more than astrology, can go horribly off the mark. Hence, you are advised to add a pinch of salt to your popcorn, as you read the same. And in case you feel badly let down by this author when the results finally come out, you are welcome to return to this post and smash some eggs on its face.

|

Is it only me or are there other people also out there who think that there is something fishy about all these Bollywood movie awards? Times of India yesterday ran a full page story on this year’s Filmfare awards (Filmfare being a sister publication commanded natural space) and the list of awardees was well, how should I put it, a bit like reading a half well selected Indian team. It raises your eyebrows but only in a mild arc. Of course, you can always argue that all the awards doled out in India end up raising more than just arc – usually they raise a ruckus, mostly by those who have missed out and in the case of Milkha Singh a few years ago even by those who have received it. So why should yours truly raise his eyebrows only at poor Bollywood and at Filmfare? Perhaps because they came a week after the Oscars and howsoever illogical this may sound, I couldn’t help drawing a comparison. And perhaps because, Filmfare still claims to award India’s equivalent of the Oscars. It is rightly the oldest film awards function in Bollywood and can claim to command a certain degree of respect, perhaps by its sheer weight of history.

In the recent years of course, that respect, credibility and the comfort zone of Filmfare has been challenged by a slew of ‘me too’ clones. All you need these days of course is a publication that lends the media machine to your awards, a television channel that will ensure the sponsors and the entertainment factor and a lead sponsor to shell out all those mega bucks to the dancing stars. The trend was started by Screen (with Indian Express and Star), followed by Zee and now you have those hideous India International Film Awards that are a blatant way to rip off money from all those pravasi bhartiyas crazy about Hindi films (to the extent that they are held every year in an offshore destination; though I would like to see how many dollars the pravasis would shell out in this time of a downturn or perhaps it might well be yours and mine TV eyeballs that would bankroll the event). What all this does mean is that there is a competitive pressure amongst all these awards and since sponsors and revenues shall all be decided by the TV ratings, it becomes imperative to ensure that those don’t drop. And the safest way to guarantee TV ratings is to make sure that you get SRK to dance. But why should SRK dance at one function and not at another. So in this competition enters another element now. Give the star an award, give him a reason to attend and then make him dance. Everyone goes home happy – the star gets awarded, the commercial film gets lauded, sponsors make money and TV gets rating. And credibility? Ah pray what’s that again please??

Of course, the above is just a theory and conjecture (I want to qualify that, you never know when this blog might hurt the sensibilities of an idiot who might then drag me to court, as is happening with disturbing frequency recently) – but as I look down the list of the Filmfare awardees this year I can’t help but get that uncomfortable churn. Was Hrithik’s seriously a better performance than Nasser’s in ‘A Wednesday’? Was ‘Jodha Akbore (oops Akbar!) seriously a better film than say a ‘Mumbai Meri Jaan’ or an ‘A Wednesday’, a ‘Dev D’ or even ‘Rock On’ in terms of its narrative, tightness of script and communication of message? To satisfy any such concern, all these awards have found a convenient circumnavigation tool called ‘Critics Awards’. It’s a bit like handing out a return gift to the kids at a birthday party, a mere tool to acknowledge a presence and to keep the noise level down. So this year, Mumbai Meri Jaan has taken most of the Critics Awards. Movies like Oye Lucky have also found luck in the technical categories like Dialogue, categories about which the TV viewing public and the sponsors don’t give a fig about. But when it comes to the big draws, the Best Actors, Directors and Movie, big budget cinema (I won’t use the word successful since there always seems to be a debate about whether a movie was ‘hit’ or ‘miss’) called the shots.

Whatever we might think about the snobbishness and early morning shenanigans of the Oscars, you have to give them credit on two counts. One, they manage to achieve the right amount of slick quotient required for high quality TV coverage and second, agree or not with the final list of rewards, you would hardly find any controversies about the nominations. Most of them would deserve their place. In fact the Academy quite often supplants the big studios and doles out Uncle Oscar to the small budget ones. Surprisingly they manage to affect this snub and still put forward an effective TV show. A movie like the ‘The Dark Knight’ managed two Oscars out of eight nominations with one of them being the certainty of Heath Ledger’s win. Had it been India, the movie would have swept the awards circuit by the sheer weight of its collections. Not taking away anything from Chris Nolan who as a critic remarked ‘created Shakespeare out of a comic book’, there were perhaps other and deeper performances that pipped the caped crusader. Of course, the Oscars are not without their share of murmurs and some newspapers claimed that Slumdog was nominated and won a bundle of awards simply to ensure that TV revenues from the sub-continent were high. It was a bit like that old argument about Indians winning Miss Universe and Miss World titles so that Fair and Lovely could sell more (when was the last time an Indian girl won a beauty pageant by the way?? And is Fair and Lovely still selling despite all those national setbacks at Miss Universe and Miss World contests?)

Perhaps a way out could be to have an industry body conducting the awards. I remember seeing a Producers’ Guild Awards on NDTV last year and you could instantly see why such an idea will hit so many roadblocks in India. The audience present could not even fill a school auditorium and almost none of the major winners in the ‘popular’ categories of music and acting were present. Maybe in India we should stop fretting and simply accept that our awards are weighed towards commercial success and that it shall often be difficult to break that glass ceiling and bring an element of credibility. The only way out is to then treat them as those doling out these awards do – not recognition of cinematic excellence but simply as toffee handouts on the birthday party. The bigger fist shall get the lion’s share. The spectacled geeky boy shall be shoved around and then pitied and handed a token to assuage everyone’s conscience.

*****************************************************************************************************************

Can the Election Commission please announce the election dates and spare us all the agony of looking at full page government advertisements and blaring declarations of achievement on radio by various state ‘sarkars’. I am amazed to see that after so many years of inactivity, every day India is seeing a flurry of inaugurations and foundation stones. Of course, in our country, foundation stones remain just that - stones. The only ones benefiting from all this wasteful expenditure of your and my money are media companies designing these ads, the singers and actors finding employment in them and the print media that gets almost five to six pages of sarkari income every day. Perhaps the government can put a charitable spin on it and say that this is a thinly veiled bailout package for the Times of India and the Hindustan Times. Who cares about public money as long as the monkeys can scratch each other’s backs?

 

|

There is a strange kind of debate going on in the Indian media as Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire prepares to hit the screens this Friday. One of the disadvantages of round the clock media coverage, as we have all realized by now, is that a lot of inanity finds prime time viewership that is quite disproportionate to its significance to public debate. The arguments over whether Slumdog glorifies Indian poverty and thus consequently establishes that only Indian slums sell to the west is one such. The Hindi news channels, having by now long forsaken any pretense at news coverage and generating public opinion, have concentrated all their energies on blowing the trumpet for the movie and blaring its soundtrack even more diligently than MTV or the radio channels. Slumdog hardly needs any pre-release publicity; the mad frenzy that has gripped our news networks, who have by now done multiple interviews with anyone remotely associated with the movie, has ensured that enough people will be queuing up to buy tickets on day one even without posters, television campaigns or star appearances of its cast of actors. The English media, particularly the television one, has taken up the cudgels and run debates on whether the four Golden Globes amply prove that a romanticized picture of Indian poverty presented by an acceptable foreigner is enough to set the critics from New York, Hollywood and London running. Is Slumdog glorifying and selling Indian poverty?

Forgive me for being a bit thick, but there are far too many layers that I detect and am unable to unravel. At one level, there is the old fear. That of being identified still as the land of elephants and snake charmers and sadhus lying on bed of nails. This is the fear of the India of thirty years back – that realized too late that much of its spiritual charm for westerners lay in its image of being a place of hardship and renunciation. Placed alongside that, the snake charmers, the slums, the sewage and the grime seemed to complete an appropriate picture. India was a yogic land content in its dirt and at ease with its nakedness and flies. Of course, by the time India itself realized this image, a lot of time had passed and a lot of catching up to be done. This is an image that every Indian now seeks to suppress. Added to this is a new generation of monetarily empowered middle class Indians, the beneficiaries of the unlocking of gates achieved in 1991. And it is this semi-professional, confident and semi-nationalist Indian who now cringes at the mention of his country’s scars. For this Indian, the rise of an Infosys, economic growth, fancy office s and glitzy malls and rising consumer choice and consumption are enough to show that the tide has turned and the dirty, spiritual home of hippies is now a bright spanking Elevate. More than movie critics, it is this Indian who wonders why Jamal Malik’s and not his story makes the Western audiences sit up and award Golden Globes. This Indian begs the question as to why, when he has achieved skill based growth, must the world still look at Dharavi for inspiration. This Indian essentially contests the fact that Jamal Malik and not he is the true representative of his nation.

Alas, statistics, our urban landscape and daily realities of life are against him. For while he might have grown, a great of number of his countrymen are still slumdogs. More importantly, what he forgets is that the person sitting next to him on the high table of self achieved prosperity had some generation of his family that rose from those slums. He overlooks the wonderful stories of those who found inspiration to break out of those stinking drains and cramped houses and let their height grow to catch more the sun. He forgets that in India’s slums are born the dreams of desire. He forgets that he is the inspiration for those dreams. That those living cheek by jowls in India’s many Dharavis look to him and say to themselves – if he can, we can.

Essentially, this young Indian is insecure. Insecure of being pushed back to the land of renunciation and sadhu ashrams. Insecure that the world may fail to recognize him as it looks at India slums. He forgets that what he protests against is a story similar to his – a story of rising against adversity, of facing challenges and summoning grit to achieve a holy grail. Jamal Malik typifies India – yet to let go of it slums and scars, but not lacking in spirit to rise in this world and seeking a better life on his credentials alone. Slumdog is a tale of an India in transformation and howsoever much wealth the insecure Indian may amass, he cannot ignore the slums that dot his urban landscape. For in those slums lie the dreams of tomorrow and from there came the achievers of today.

I put this state of needless debate as my Facebook status and received some interesting responses. One friend was particularly galled by what he called Western hypocrisy in not showcasing their own poverty. That I believe is bit harsh. The West has been more self critical and inward looking that any other part of the current world. You only need to dive into the body of work of a Quentin Tarantino or a Martin Scorcese to explore the cinematic depiction of the underbelly of America. Another friend wondered whether all it takes to win a Booker these days is to get a degree from a foreign university, write about India and romanticize its poverty, corruption and caste system. He believes the west is excited about India’s plagues. I beg the question – Is India aware and excited about it plagues? The answer I leave for you to ponder. I could write another post defending Arvind Adiga’s book but I will mention only two points – read it and judge if you disagree with the picture of rural and urban life of India that he paints. And the second – all around me I see protagonists of Adiga’s book emerging. My grandparents’ young servant – son of a landless labourer from Bihar has taught himself to read English, owned and chucked a cell phone, bought a DVD player, likes to get his hair gelled and coloured, swears by the principle of ‘living within your monetary means’ and not taking debt and dreams one day to be an entrepreneur caretaking multiple residential dwellings. When I look at him, I realize that Adiga and Boyle do not speak to me in an alien language. These stories are resonating around India. These ambitions shall propel India. We must embrace them rather than shying away from accepting the place of their birth. We are, as a nation, surely self-confident enough to look at ourselves honestly in the mirror – to admire our beauty and understand our warts.

|