Sunday, February 24, 2008

Indian Premier League-Silly point et al..

Too much has been written and said about what the Indian Premier League has done to players who havent been paid very well for decades by the BCCI. There were a lot of people who argued passionately though unconvincingly that for too long players havent had their fair share of the revenues controlled by the satraps of the BCCI. There were others who argued that the BCCI was making the game a tamasha by auctioning players in a modern style Mandi. I feel both these groups of people have tried to make their own silly points by comparing the premier league to the soccer leagues worldwide.

In order to take a more dispassionate view about the entire happenings of the past week, it is necessary to step back and analyse what the objective is for the IPL. If the objective for the IPL is to generate money for cricket, I think the auction does this very well. But if BCCI's stated aim is to encourage fresh cricketers and give them a chance to play against stalwarts of international cricket, this league falls very short of what it intends to achieve. To compare the situation with the soccer leagues, though millions of dollars are spent in transferring players across clubs-every premier league has its owns rules governing the number of domestic players that need to be part of the playing eleven. IPL without such a rule cannot claim to develop domestic cricket. There are many ways in which this can be mandated as a rule. For instance, the BCCI can mandate that there can be only a maximum of 6-7 players in each IPL team both foreign and Indian who are currently donning the national colours for their respective countries with the rest of the players coming from the state or region where the team is based. The other way of giving a fillip to domestic cricket is to mandate that owners take a share of one Ranji team in the region that their IPL team is based. Without these clauses IPL is just going to be another entertaining exercise that does nothing to improve cricket at the grassroots level.

The second point that many people have been making is about cricketers getting their fair due bcos of the bidding process. While this may be true for established players, spare a thought for all the people who have represented India in the past. Are they going to get a better deal as a result of the revenues that BCCI is going to earn from this auction? If not, what will be the fate of players who are not as charismatic as Dhoni or Yuvraj once they retire? If the BCCI can hound Kapil by not paying him his pension, think of others who dont even have a voice. While I dont envy the current lot who are getting such huge sums, it is BCCI's responsibilty to ensure players who have represented the national team to get a fair deal even after they have retired. I think these are substantive points that have been missed by critics and proponents of the IPL.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

The Emasculation of Mr.Singh

It was amusing to watch the volte face done by the PM Mr.Manmohan Singh at the HT Leadership summit a few days ago. This volte face has shattered the facade of Mr.Manmohan Singh as one of the select few politicians who have an iota of integrity about them. In trying to save his government the blushes, Mr.Singh has shown himself to be no different from any other politician. Given the stature of the PM and the importance he attached to the deal, people atleast expected him to stand up and call the bluff of the Left. Alas power can do strange things to even the best amongst us.

In the ruckus over the nuclear deal, I see a sinister plan by the Left to position itself as the alternative to the Congress and the BJP. Though the Left doesn't have a significant base in India other than in Kerala and West Bengal, it has hogged the national limelight now as a result of the ineffective leadership of the BJP. The Left is cleverly using this opportunity to increase people's awareness of its policies while keeping the government in limbo. In my opinion, the threats of the Left are just canards being played out to the media. The Left is enjoying its role and will not want to bring this government down at any cost. Who knows what the elections might hold for them?

To conclude, I think the Congress will lose whatever groundswell of support it has currently if it goes on without doing much to improve the levels of governance. It is now for the Congress to decide if it is willing to be in a worse situation much later.

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Are we going ballistic over the nuclear deal?

It was fascinating to see the high drama being enacted over the N-deal in India. What was baffling to me and surely to most Indians was the stage at which reservations were being expressed over the deal. After the agreement was signed in July 2005, there was a period of 2 years during which the Indian government was negotiating ostensibly in national interest with the US to arrive at a fairer agreement. This is what happens when we give some parties especially the Left in India the opportunity to shape policy without being accountable whatsoever for any of the hardships involved with its implementation.

When you sit across the table with seasoned negotiators such as the ones the US has, its very hard to get any traction on most issues. When compared to other negotiations such as the Doha round of trade talks, the US has been far more conciliatory in granting India what it wanted on many aspects of the N-deal. Any international agreement has some trade offs built in to it. Otherwise the two negotiating parties would have never been able to face their respective domestic constituencies without accusations of a sell off to the other. What is striking is the unpragmatic stance adopted by both the left and the BJP in this matter to dogmatically insist on a deal that is blatantly India sided.

Coming to the points of opposition the Left has over the deal, India's loss of strategic sovereignty on its nuclear programme shouldn't be a big deal for the Left considering its opposition to nuclear weapons of any kind. Its hard to understand the Left's U turn on this issue as they have been consistently critical of the US for triggering a global arms race. It remains a totally different issue that both Russia and China have also been doing the same and have been long standing influences on Left policy in India. Coming to the next point of opposition that the Left has to the deal, India's strategic alignment with the US makes much more sense than the alignment India had with Russia. Maybe the Left wants us to forge a completely unrealistic alliance with China-a country that build roads connecting it to Mt.Everest and Pakistan without taking Indian sentiments into consideration. Russia is today a dangerous country in terms of the direction it can go in and India needs to be careful about dealing with forces in the country today. In a situation where even Pakistan is experiencing domestic trouble, India needs strong allies to help it in the event of a war like situation.

India's image in the world community as a progressive nation embracing the winds of global change are at test today with this deal. What India does today will influence the image of India in the west far more than in the past. Its time for India to stand up and be counted amongst the leading nations of the world. Lets not throw it all away at this juncture.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

United Nations Talk by Jiddu Krishnamurti on Peace in Our time

Probably since the beginning of man, human beings have had no peace at all. And there have been a great many oganizations, including this organization, to bring about peace in the world, pacem in terris. But there has been no peace. For various obvious reasons: nationalism, which is glorified tribalism, various opposing religions, divisions of classes, races and so on. There have been divisions on the earth from the beginning of time: the family, the community, bigger community, the nation, and so on. And also from what one observes, religion has been one of the causes of wars. One sees the Israelis and the Arabs, the Hindus and the Muslims, the Americans and the Russians, ideas against ideas, ideologies opposing ideologies, the communist ideology and the so-called democratic ideologies. Why is it, after all these millenia upon millenia, why is it that human beings throughout the world don't live in peace? Why is it our society in which we live, whether it is the American society, the European, or Indian, or Japanese, that society has not given us peace either. That society, the culture, the tradition, is created by all human beings. We have created this society. We are responsible for this society, which is corrupt, immoral, violent, divisive, cruel and so on. We have created this, this society in which we live. We are the society.
Please the speaker is not a communist in the orthodox sense of that word. We are what we have made of the society. So we are society. That is a fact, not an exotic or stupid, irrational thought. We are society. Each one of us have made this terrible confusing, contradictory, brutal society. And until human beings, each one of us, radically transforms himself we will have perpetual wars, there will be no peace on earth. Religions have talked about it endlessly. The popes, the priests, local parish clergyman, have talked about peace. This Institution, with all its power, with its position, with its international grasp, this Institution has not brought about peace either. Forgive me for saying this, if you don't mind. And will institutions, foundations, will they ever bring peace on earth? Or it doesn't lie in that field at all - organisations or institutions, propaganda and all the rest of it? Or do we realize, each one of us, I am asking this most respectfully, do we realize that we are responsible for this? Not intellectually, or verbally, or just accepting a theory, but we are responsible for this horror that is going on in the world; every form of violence, terrorism, wars, we are responsible for it. War is not in Beirut, it is in our hearts and minds. This has been said so often, one is rather bored by all that. And we human beings seem to be incapable of living peacefully in our relationship with each other, living peacefully without any dogmatism, ideals, concepts. Because beliefs, faith, conclusions, ideals, have separated man. And man apparently has not been able to live without any of those bondages. Man is conditioned, human beings right throughout the world are conditioned. Their brains have been moulded according to a particular tradition, various forms of superstitions called religion. And is it possible for human beings wherever they live to be free of their conditioning? The conditioning as an American, as a European, Hindu and so on, is it possible for us, who are so advanced in technology, is it possible for us to radically, fundamentally, bring about psychological change? This is really a very, very serious question. This is what the biologists, bio-technologists are trying to do - trying to bring about a radical change in the very brain cells themselves so that human beings can live peacefully, not everlastingly fight each other.
So facing all this, not abstractly, as a human being, what is he to do actually? Form another group? Another religion? Another Institution? Or as a human being become aware of his conditioning? Be concerned with his conditioning and free the brain from that conditioning? Otherwise we are going to have perpetual wars, there will be no peace on earth in spite of all the religions, in spite of every institution. It must begin with us, not without somebody else out there. So is it possible to bring about a deep mutation in the very brain cells themselves? Why are human beings so conditioned - Germans, French, Russians, Italians, British, Americans, Hindus and so on, why? Is it because we want security, both external and inward? Is there such security inwardly, psychologically to be safe? Is there such security? Or psychological security is an illusion? We can go into all this in detail but our time is very, very limited.
So is there psychological security, either in the family, in a group, in a community, in a nation and internationalism and all that business? Is there any kind of security inwardly? And that is, if we are not sure about that, certain, clear, we try to seek security outwardly, externally, through nations, through religious oganizations, through some ideologies. So it is very important, it seems to one, that we should talk over together now and discover for ourselves if there is an inner security - security in our relationships with each other, however intimate it may be, between man and woman, security in community and so on. Is there security in our relationship with each other, man and woman, wife and husband? If there is security why is there such contention between man and woman, wife and husband, such conflict in their relationship, each one pursuing his own ambitions, his own fulfilments, his own desires and so on. Is it not important to find out for ourselves if there is such security in relationship. If there is such security in this then that security is the beginning of peace. If there is no security in our relationship with each other that is the beginning of conflict, war.
So we ought to really seriously enquire into this question. That is, become aware, conscious, of our relationship with each other because to go very far we must begin very near. And the nearest is man and woman, wife and husband. In that relationship there is conflict as there is now, then that conflict is spread, ultimately war. We have never given thought to this, that as our house is burning, which is society is burning, declining, degenerating, are we all so degenerating? To slide, slip down, implies our whole life is a routine, our whole life is a series of battles, struggles, conflicts. If we don't alter there, how can you bring about peace on earth. It seems to logical, so rational, sane, but we don't do that. So could we, as human beings, not as Americans and all the rest of that business, could we as human beings become aware, pay attention to our intimate relationship because unless the psychological world is quiet, sane, peaceful, that psychological state will always overcome every kind of organization, whether it be communist organization, totalitarian, or so-called democratic organization. The psyche is far more important than the external legislation, governments and so on. I wonder if one realizes all this? Do we, sitting here, peacefully, so-called peacefully, realize our responsibility as human beings? The wars that are going on in the world is our war, because our consciousness - if I can go into all this much more deeply - our human consciousness, which is made up of biological reactions, fears, hurts, pleasure, beliefs, dogmas, rituals and endless suffering, that is the content of our consciousness. If you observe this closely it is a fact that every human being throughout the world shares this, every human being suffers, every human being has fear, pleasure, sense of loneliness, despair, anxiety, confusion, every human being, whether they live in the Far East, or here, or in Russia, or in other places. We have been brought up, educated to consider ourselves as individuals. Is that so? Is that a fact? Because we share the consciousness of humanity, because we all suffer, we all go through great agonies, boredom, every form of uncertainty. You may have great talents, great capacities, but behind those capacities lies the ordinary, daily consciousness of all humanity. So each one is humanity, not separate individuals. I know you will not accept this because you have been conditioned from the beginning by religions, by society, by culture, that each one is separate individuals, separate soul. And therefore he must seek his own salvation, his own expression, his own fulfilment. And this so-called separate individuality is creating havoc in the world, which does not mean that we all become the same automatic, turned out in the same mould. On the contrary, freedom is the highest form of existence. It is the greatest art, to live freely. But we are not free. One thinks one is free to do what one likes, specially in this country, each individual thinks he is supreme to do what he wants. His own fulfilment, the expression of his own desires and so on. But if we examine closely and seriously, we share the consciousness of the entire humanity. Because this is a fact. Individuality may be an illusion. And to that illusion we are committed. But when you travel around and observe very closely, every human being, whether he has great position, great deal of money, status, power, he is like the rest of the world psychologically, he goes through great pain, desperate loneliness and all the rest of the psychological world of uncertainty, confusion. And we are the rest of humanity. We are not Africans and Europeans and all that nonsense. We are humanity. Unless we realize that one major fact in our life, we are the rest of humanity, black, white, purple or whatever colour they be, psychologically we are one. Unless human beings deeply realize that we are going to have wars, we are going to be eternally in conflict, as we are now. And no organization in the world is going to change that fact. We have had religions all over, various types of religions, Catholic and Protestant, and the division in Protestantism. There have been religions of various types in Asia. All invented by thought. And thought has made man separate because thought is the result of experience, knowledge, memory and so thought is always limited. It is never complete, it can never be complete because it is based on knowledge and knowledge is always finite, limited. It can expand, it can change but it is still within the field of knowledge. And knowledge is always limited. And we try to change the world through our knowledge. And this experiment to change the world through knowledge has never succeeded.
So what is a human being to do, if you are serious, concerned, with the world, with your own life? What is a human being to do? Form innumerable oganizations, with their bosses and their secretaries and so on? Or each one of us is responsible because we have created this society, we are responsible for every kind of war. So is it possible, not merely intellectually, but actually, in our daily life, radically to change, bring about a deep mutation? Unless we are capable of doing that we are going to have perpetual wars. No organization in the world has prevented any wars. For the last historical process there have been practically wars every year for the last five, six thousand years, all over the world. And man has been responsible for these wars. You may not have a war in America, in this part of the world, but you have wars in other parts of the world because we are divided, as Americans and Russians, and English and French and all the rest of it, not only nationally but religiously, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus. So there is this constant division, both outwardly and inwardly, it is bringing about great conflict. We are one human being, not separate. We don't seem to realize that. You suffer, you go through great anxieties, uncertainties, so does every other human being in the world. And we haven't been able to solve that basic issue, whether we can live with ourselves peacefully. Peace doesn't begin on the other side of the world, whether we live peacefully, without conflict.
And I think this is a very important question which we must put to ourselves: why is it that human beings who have lived on this earth perhaps fifty thousand years, we have done extraordinary things technologically, we have done practically nothing in our relationship with each other? We are perpetually in conflict with each other, man and woman, and this conflict is extended into war. So we are asking a most fundamental question: why do human beings who have lived on this earth for so many millenia, who have done extraordinary things technologically, who have brought about good health for people, we have done the most incredible things externally, but inwardly we are savages. Forgive me for using that word. We are fighting each other, even in our most intimate relationships. So how can one have external peace in the world, pacem in terris, if one is not peaceful in oneself? We never answer that question, we are always trying to bring changes in the outer, but we never ask of ourselves why we live this way, perpetually in conflict. It is fairly obvious when you ask that question seriously, not casually, we never spend a day trying to find out why we live this way, building a vast network of escapes from this basic fact. And we are still going on. We never seem to realize that unless each one of us fundamentally changes radically there will be no peace on earth as long as you are an American, Russian, different ideologies, different concepts, different gods, and so on, we will never have peace on this earth.
So it behoves us, and each one of us, to find out why we live this way. And whether it is possible radically to change our whole psyche. If there is not a revolution there, mere outward revolutions have very little meaning. We have had communist revolution, French revolution, other forms of revolution throughout the world and we remain what we are, self-centred, cruel and all the rest of it.
I have finished sirs.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Indians in a state of denial about terrorism....

Recent events that have shown albeit inconclusively the links of Indian educated doctors to a botched attempt to blow up public sites in the UK have thrown Indians all over the world into a state of denial. The response of the intellectual elite in all the countries has been to state that these are the actions of a fringe group in Islam rather than the views held by the majority. I would like to explore in some depth if our attempts to add such a spin to events is facile.

It has become the standard response of Indians as well as others in the world to react to such incidents with the same nonchalance as any other. Whether it is Hindus desecrating mosques or Muslims joining the Global Jihad, our response has been that it is the fanatical few that are bringing disrepute to the overwhelming majority. Is this really true or do we want to stay in this state of suspended disbelief for ever? None of these events would have happened in a vigilant and aware civil society.

To brush these things under the carpet by saying that these are exceptions rather than the rule brings us to a more fundamental question? Why is it that these exceptions are not caught by the civil society or the law enforcing agencies early enough in India? Is it because we will be accused of prejudice if we act fairly? Is it because our views on religion transcend the views that we hold about our country? These seem to be some of the arguments that educated Muslims seem to be putting forward to justify these actions. I cannot still understand why Muslims in India should feel a deep sense of injustice towards what is happening in Chechnya? If they interpret this as a massacre of Muslims then what should be said about the nerve gassing of Shias and Kurds by Saddam-a Muslim himself? Are we so naive that we believe this so called theory of a global conspiracy against a community?

The only solution to prevent such problems from occurring in the future is to encourage a tolerant and aware yet vigilant civil society. None of these events could have happened without atleast a few of us in the know. Unless we stand up and confront these deep seated prejudices, we will only be saying the same thing for ever. Let us change so that we can prevent a repeat of the bombings that took place in Mumbai?

Friday, July 6, 2007

The irrelevance of the Left in today's policy debate

Two recent events exposed the stark reality of the irrelevance of the Left in shaping today's policy agenda in India. The first was the protests of the left to the docking of the USS Nimitz at Chennai. The incongruity of the event and the protests of the Left demonising the docking of the ship as India's abject surrender to the US is worth a dekko. The fact that US and India are embarking on a fresh chapter in their relationship speaks volumes of the new found maturity of the nations. However the Left still seems to be caught in a time warp and doesnt want India to get too close to the US. If not the US, does the Left want India to join forces with China or an irrelevant Russia? Chinese foreign policy has always been to keep India guessing and any talk of friendship is sheer optimism. The Left parties project the Indian dependence on the West as a sign of our weakness rather than as a sign of India's strength. A majority of the Indians have no qualms with our friendship with the US and aspire to the way of life there. Why does the Left still behave hypocritically when even China has adopted capitalism as the engine for its growth?

The second event that was not very publicised was the interview with Buddhadeb Bhattacharya on IBN. The West Bengal CM clearly said that he disagreed with the views of the Leftist economists on developmental policies. Such a pragamtic articulation by one of India's best CMs should jolt the Left out of its slumber and force them to re-think their policies. But the Left still seems to believe that what is good for Bengal is not good for the rest of India. It remains to be seen whether the Indian public will finally wake up and force the dinosaurs of the Left into extinction forever.