This day Sachin completes 20 years in International cricket. To borrow Ramiz Raja's catchphrase (or rather word), a 'tremendous' achievement. It could not have been easy, carrying the expectations of a billion people and more often than not, the responsibility of 10 others. Were I to get a Rupee for every run of his, I'd have been richer by about 30 grands, which, mind you, is no mean feat, earning 30,000 Rs., that is.
In keeping with this moment, the most popular faces in cricket lavished praises on him, namely Geoffrey Boycott, Ravi Shastri, Harsha Bhogle (English) and Maninder Singh (Hindi) . Everyone from his coach, brother to the extras who hung-around-him-in-a-pepsi ad and Shahrukh Khan have a different opinion about his greatest asset. While most said it was hard-work, passion and humility, there were a few who thought it was his butt. Strangely enough, nobody emphasises on his talent. Makes me think that any romeo-styled lover, with a dash of humility, a ripe butt and 2 litres of sweat everyday can become a national icon.
Admist all the fanfare, Lalit Modi lauded Sachin's marketing acumen in making Mumbai Indians the biggest IPL brand, despite not doing too well on-field. The defining moment, however, came when Sidhu quoted, "Just like it is foolish to drive after dusk without your headlights on, likewise, you should not drool over other women while your wife is around", admist fits of laughter after every word, which lasted anywhere between a minute to an hour. Rumour has it that every channel is now trying to put together an expert panel comprising at least a cricketer, a psychiatrist, an astrologer, an acclaimed novelist ( not Chetan Bhagat) and a finance, railway or foreign affairs minister, who will try and comprehend the gist of Mr. Sidhu's statement and find its parallels in Sachin's career.
It has also come to my notice that during one such show, MNS activists raided a TV Channel's office and disrupted proceedings. They shouted a few slogans and staged a walk-out, only to return after being reminded that this wasn't a parliamentary session. Despite nobody bothering to ask him, Raj Thakarey issued a reason for this 'appropriate' behavior by his party workers. According to him, Sachin being a Marathi Manoos, all the discussions regarding him should be held in Marathi on this occassion. Upon this declaration, he turned to the anchor of the show, Tony Greig, and warned him of dire consequences if not complied to - all in Marathi. Tony did well to not ask him to translate that in English.
All this drivel apart, it has been fantastic watching him play over the years. I hope he wins The Cup, and this time, for himself, more than for us. Also waiting for him to complete a century of centuries. I know the day will come. Amen
Sunday 15 November 2009
Monday 9 November 2009
The idea of Democracy
India achieved independence in 1947 and we are now the largest democracy in the world. The vision of the founding fathers was 'Swaraj' or self-rule. In compliance with that, we elect MLAs and MPs who represent us in assemblies. This should give us self-rule, you would think. The govt. work for us, you would think. Not quite.
We do not have the power to rule ourselves. For starters, we presume that the ideas and principles of an elected representative would be in line with the interests of the majority of the population since they chose him. But history suggests that majority can never be kept united. In present times, Advani's hardcore Hindutva handed BJP a drubbing in the Lok-Sabha elections. Whereas in Bihar, MP and UP, the Lalus, Paswans and Mulayams have always kept their focus on large minorities. Hence the promises and subsequent schemes and actions are towards wooing minorities.
Even if the majority happens to elect itself a leader, it can only pick a representative for itself. The policy-makers or the ministers are chosen not by us but by the party 'high-command' which usually means the whims and fancies of at most half a dozen persons. How else could you justify the re-appointment of R. R. Patil as Maharashtra's home-minister, who termed the 26/11 attack as a minor incident. I am sure the majority of Maharashtrians wouldn't approve.
Then there are individuals who have the power to modify or change policies to suit them, perfectly under the realms of law. Without going deeper in to that, I'll just say that this class too is a minority. Perhaps keeping the majority, the 'aam-aadmi' interested while a small and powerful elite group runs the show from behind the curtains, is the game. What is our role then? At best, we have the power to pick those elites who run the show.
Totally Unrelated Note: Another heart-break for the nation as the old warhorse waged a lone battle in a sea of ruins, falling just before the line. The collective efforts of 10 others could not overcome the last hurdle. Sachin reminded us of the 90s, and so did the rest of the team.
Since Sachin's heroics and subsequent heartbreak, Tatenda Taibu and Mohammad Aameer went through the same fate, both bagging the man of the match award too. Sachin inspiration?
We do not have the power to rule ourselves. For starters, we presume that the ideas and principles of an elected representative would be in line with the interests of the majority of the population since they chose him. But history suggests that majority can never be kept united. In present times, Advani's hardcore Hindutva handed BJP a drubbing in the Lok-Sabha elections. Whereas in Bihar, MP and UP, the Lalus, Paswans and Mulayams have always kept their focus on large minorities. Hence the promises and subsequent schemes and actions are towards wooing minorities.
Even if the majority happens to elect itself a leader, it can only pick a representative for itself. The policy-makers or the ministers are chosen not by us but by the party 'high-command' which usually means the whims and fancies of at most half a dozen persons. How else could you justify the re-appointment of R. R. Patil as Maharashtra's home-minister, who termed the 26/11 attack as a minor incident. I am sure the majority of Maharashtrians wouldn't approve.
Then there are individuals who have the power to modify or change policies to suit them, perfectly under the realms of law. Without going deeper in to that, I'll just say that this class too is a minority. Perhaps keeping the majority, the 'aam-aadmi' interested while a small and powerful elite group runs the show from behind the curtains, is the game. What is our role then? At best, we have the power to pick those elites who run the show.
Totally Unrelated Note: Another heart-break for the nation as the old warhorse waged a lone battle in a sea of ruins, falling just before the line. The collective efforts of 10 others could not overcome the last hurdle. Sachin reminded us of the 90s, and so did the rest of the team.
Since Sachin's heroics and subsequent heartbreak, Tatenda Taibu and Mohammad Aameer went through the same fate, both bagging the man of the match award too. Sachin inspiration?
Monday 2 November 2009
Rules & Evolution
Watching the pub scene in RDB, I feel like the characters in the 1st half are a lot closer to us than we realise. Every other person of my age (starting from me) is a cynic these days, questioning traditions to contemporary culture, from history to futuristic ideas and every timeline between them. With access to internet, blogs, online forums and other outlets, we now have a bigger platform to argue on than ever before.
While some are valid and thought provoking, a few of the popular ones are just rubbish and show the 'argumentative nature of Indians', who just have to question every norm. Specially the arguments against society, system and the likes. Apparently they hold back the free-spirited. Not entirely true that.
To begin with, if there were no rules, there would be no 'free-spirit', just like there's no darkness without light. Furthermore, all the animals follow some norms and rules within their herds which become more elaborate and clearly defined as we go up the evolutionary ladder. Man too, being a social animal, is bound to have them. Our rules are just more defined and clearly laid-down, in keeping with the our arguably superior mental capabalities.
Any set of rules, be it science or social-science, is open to modification, correction, interpretation and even rejection and hence is evolutionary in nature: survival of the fittest. What keeps evolving in the right direction, survives, and the others dissappear. The country-laws have, for instance, come a long way from Hammurabi's slabs or the 10 commandments to a Penal code, with 2kgs of paper. As with our body and brain, these systems have now become so complex that it's hard to track back the roots. A lack of understanding leads us to believe that they are whimsical, just like a lack of common-sense made us allow women to drive cars.
A system, in fact, is essential for growth and development. Let's take the most common system in the world, the number system, whose contribution in the development of mankind is obvious. Take in it, the most common number sequence: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. Now if you were to write 7.00000001 afer 7 in stead of 8, that would be wrong. While 7.0000001 is not wrong in itself but it is out of place their. If their were no such system in place, and 7.0000001 were as good as 8, we would never have learnt counting. Similarly, if their were no civic laws or codes of conduct, it would be a disaster. Lack of law enforcement always results in a breakdown of law and order. The increased crime-rates after disasters, like the Tsunami and Bihar, are a clear indicator. True, sometimes they seem suffocating, but they are evolving all the time. We are, but a mere means to a better system, not the sum of it.
If you feel strongly against something, pray that others do too, for then, it will fall by the side in the long run*. If you hate and question every rule and system created by mankind, go to the Himalayas. You might find some peace away from any traces of man. And oh, don't forget to leave those clothes behnd, they too afterall, are the result of a production system.
*Long-run: No time-frame. However, it is widely speculated that the long-run is usually longer than short-run.**
**Short-run: Believed to be shorter than the long-run, despite the lack of a comprehensive reason.
PS: I am not a responsible author and have deliberately left out a lot of aspects because i found them boring to write about.
While some are valid and thought provoking, a few of the popular ones are just rubbish and show the 'argumentative nature of Indians', who just have to question every norm. Specially the arguments against society, system and the likes. Apparently they hold back the free-spirited. Not entirely true that.
To begin with, if there were no rules, there would be no 'free-spirit', just like there's no darkness without light. Furthermore, all the animals follow some norms and rules within their herds which become more elaborate and clearly defined as we go up the evolutionary ladder. Man too, being a social animal, is bound to have them. Our rules are just more defined and clearly laid-down, in keeping with the our arguably superior mental capabalities.
Any set of rules, be it science or social-science, is open to modification, correction, interpretation and even rejection and hence is evolutionary in nature: survival of the fittest. What keeps evolving in the right direction, survives, and the others dissappear. The country-laws have, for instance, come a long way from Hammurabi's slabs or the 10 commandments to a Penal code, with 2kgs of paper. As with our body and brain, these systems have now become so complex that it's hard to track back the roots. A lack of understanding leads us to believe that they are whimsical, just like a lack of common-sense made us allow women to drive cars.
A system, in fact, is essential for growth and development. Let's take the most common system in the world, the number system, whose contribution in the development of mankind is obvious. Take in it, the most common number sequence: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. Now if you were to write 7.00000001 afer 7 in stead of 8, that would be wrong. While 7.0000001 is not wrong in itself but it is out of place their. If their were no such system in place, and 7.0000001 were as good as 8, we would never have learnt counting. Similarly, if their were no civic laws or codes of conduct, it would be a disaster. Lack of law enforcement always results in a breakdown of law and order. The increased crime-rates after disasters, like the Tsunami and Bihar, are a clear indicator. True, sometimes they seem suffocating, but they are evolving all the time. We are, but a mere means to a better system, not the sum of it.
If you feel strongly against something, pray that others do too, for then, it will fall by the side in the long run*. If you hate and question every rule and system created by mankind, go to the Himalayas. You might find some peace away from any traces of man. And oh, don't forget to leave those clothes behnd, they too afterall, are the result of a production system.
*Long-run: No time-frame. However, it is widely speculated that the long-run is usually longer than short-run.**
**Short-run: Believed to be shorter than the long-run, despite the lack of a comprehensive reason.
PS: I am not a responsible author and have deliberately left out a lot of aspects because i found them boring to write about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)