Randomness Redefined

Here’s a term that has been much abused - the spirit of Mumbai. Once again there are terror attacks on Mumbai, and once again, you can expect the term to be thrown around aplenty. The media and the politician will no doubt be looking to salute the spirit of Mumbai. So what is the spirit of Mumbai?

The way it has been used after each terror attack just goes on to convince me that the spirit of Mumbai is a red herring. Coined by politicians and popularized by the media, it is a term used to distract people from the failings of the government to deal with government passivity to terror. Every time I see any politician cornered in a debate over the failure of the government, he will change the topic to appreciate the spirit of Mumbai, earning audience applause in the process. It has become an easy way to get out of tight corners for the nincompoop politico.
Of course, the spirit is no myth. Most offices (expect those in vicinity of the terror attack, like mine) conducted business as usual on Thursday and Friday. There was 100% attendance in most offices, trains were as crowded during peak hours.

Though schools and colleges were closed, most coaching classes and private tuitions continued to be run as per schedules. Though people may have avoided getting out of their houses unnecessarily, one could still find hawkers in the street, most shops open. A remarkable feat, considering paramilitary and military forces were fighting with terrorists in a part of the city.

Part of this spirit though is borne out of sheer necessity. Mumbai is an extremely competitive business minded city. If I don’t reach office, someone else will. My place on the road maybe taken up by another hawker, if I don’t turn up. If my shop has its shutters down, my customer will turn to the shop next door. Terror is no excuse for not working, for not performing. This city IS the business capital of India, and the business must go on. Only cricketers and politicians have the luxury of chickening out, of not doing their jobs.

My request to every Mumbaikar is this: Yes, we are spirited. Yes we will continue to live like we have, terror or no terror. We will not be afraid of attacks. But let us not allow the politicians and the media to exploit our spirit. I request everyone that every time you hear the mention of the term ‘spirit of Mumbai’ look for ulterior motives. Look at if the person mentioning it is using it to divert our attention. Do not let applause to our spirit calm the sense of outrage, the anger within us. Stay angry. Ensure that terror is an election issue, for nothing else but votes matter to the politician. Enough is enough, we Mumbaikars need to draw the line. We will not be afraid of terror, but we will also hold our politicians accountable for it.

Labels: Mumbai, Mumbai terror attacks, Mumbaikar, spirit of Mumbai, terror

Ever since disaster stuck Lehman, things havent been what they used to be. Slowdown and recession fears loom large.

And you know that the economy is in dire straits when:

• Industry associations forget ‘growth’ and speak about ‘costs’

• Marketing becomes the popular choice over finance in b-school campuses

• The statement “I am a banker” generates sympathy rather than envy

• The ‘am’ in the above statement becomes a ‘was’

• HR managers hope that attrition rises

• Keynes replaces Friedman as theory of choice in economic text books

• The word ‘regulation’ is written in favourable terms in pink papers

• China becomes the’ savior’ instead of the ‘threat’ for the global economy

• His race is not a problem if the president can handle the economy

• The benefits of socialism are discussed outside the confines of Kerala and West Bengal

• And finally this happens to the world's richest football club:

Labels: change, economic slowdown, Financial crisis

(As an effort to revive my blog, this is the first part of a multi part series on things that connect us as Indians, a common thread running through us. I am not sure how frequently will I be able to update the series, how many parts will there be to this series, or even if there will be a next part. I very well realize that I run the risk of stereotyping Indians, but it is a part of an introspection process. The idea is borrowed from Zhu’s blog, who is writing a series on Canadians.

It would be the most obvious thing to say that we are such a diverse country. Some say there are 2 Indias, many go on to say there are too many Indias to count. And yet, we have not just survived 60 years as a nation, but we have whole-heartedly embraced the Indian identity, despite our differences, be they religious, linguistic, social or any of the many parameters that lead to the diversity of the nation. So what is it that forms an Indian within us? What is it that generates uniform sentiments amongst most of us, if not all of us? In this series, I will try my level best to answer these questions. Criticisms, ideas, opinions are all welcome)

Based on the above background, it would be anyone’s guess that my first article should be dedicated to cricket.

Yes, Cricket! The topic on which every Indian has an opinion on, must have played some time in his life and thinks he can do a better job than the captain/coach leading the men in blue on the field. Hockey may be our official national sport, but to borrow from Pepsi, there is nothing official about cricket. If there is a cricket match, you can bet what the topic of conversation for the next few days is going to be. Cricket pervades through coffee tables, dinner conversations, roadsides, class rooms, tea-shacks, i.e. the works. If there is a TV in the open anywhere in the neighborhood, you can be sure that there will be a small crowd around it. Cricket is a universal ice-breaker in India, and people who have just met become close friends just based on cricket conversations.

Cricket is an import from England, but the sport has been truly Indianised. The Brits watch cricket with gentlemanly grace, Australians and South Africans with a can of beer, the West Indians with a touch of Calypso, but Indians watch it with passionate fervor, with devotion to the game. The Indian cricket team may not be the best in the world (except for the shortest version of the game), but I am sure every team would love to have supporters like the Indian cricket fans.

Cricket is played across the country, from east to west and north to south. Gully cricket is an important part of formative years of any kid in India. It doesn’t matter if you have the equipment or not, you can play cricket anywhere. The bat may take the form of a flat piece of wood, Thaapi (a washing instrument) from the wash room or just a hard cover book. Any kind of ball will do, and if it’s not there, a rolled up piece of paper or a small, rounded stone serves the purpose. Any place is good enough to serve as the cricket pitch, be it an open ground, the staircase, the road or even classrooms during the recess. Your skill level is also no restriction for playing cricket, although being good certainly provides its own bragging rights.

But bragging rights aren’t limited to playing the sport. Your knowledge of the sport is as important. Most Indians are arm-chair cricketers, who love to talk cricket. At such times, being able to throw in obscure cricket facts, pulling out player statistics and talking of on-field incidents can make you very popular. But be careful not to bluff, as it is very easy to get caught, given the mania surrounding the game. And that would be very embarrassing.

Indian cricketers have demi-god status in India, and are the richest cricketers in the world. Fan support remains unparalleled in the cricket world and can rival any other sport. The Indian cricketers earn more from product endorsement than from playing the sports. However, this fan support has curtailed their public life severely, as Indian cricketers can’t be seen in public, as they carry the risk of being mobbed. However, the ire of fans is as passionate as their support. The average cricket fan takes defeat and non-performance very seriously. Even Sachin was booed in his home ground following India’s disgraceful exit from the World Cup. Past greats have faced the same fate, with both Gavaskar and Kapil facing questions on their role in the team towards the end of their careers. Sachin and Saurav have just managed to silence critics asking for their retirement.

There are critics of the sport in India. Most of them consider it a waste of time, considering the length of a game. Others are just put off by the hype surrounding the game. Many accuse cricket of ruining the development of other sports in India. Still others aren’t able to digest the home team’s inconsistent performances. However, even the critics find it hard to ignore cricket, and you shouldn’t really be surprised if you find a critic as ardently following cricket.

Cricket has gone beyond the status of sport in India, and has often been referred to as a religion in India. However the passion for the sport is limited to international matches. Only recently has there been any interest in local leagues, which is essential for the development of the sports, as well as cricket retaining its status in India. I hope the interest continues, as cricket continues its status as the unofficial sport of India.

Jeetega bhai Jeetega!!!

Labels: Cricket, gully cricket, India, Indian

It’s been a long time since I blogged. When I last blogged, I never thought I would be blogging the next time sitting in Paris. Well I have to sit, as I have walked more than 10 km today. The walk was interesting and enjoyable, given the beautiful weather and the even more beautiful Parisian architecture to admire. But I did not walk the distance so that I can talk about the weather or beautiful buildings (there might be a post on that too, you never know). I was forced to walk to my college in Paris because of a train strike, which brings me to the topic I wish to address today.

Strike? In France? Isn’t France supposed to be a capitalist country? (Did I take some of our communist friends from Calcutta with me?) I had the same perception of France when I left India a month ago. I have been trying to understand French politics, its people and a bit of its history, and I am surprised that France has at all been capitalist. The people and successive governments in France have adopted socialistic policies. Unions in France are very strong; the right to strike, vacation, pension and social security are almost sacrosanct. Privatisation is a bad word, and people really don’t trust corporations. Perhaps the only thing capitalistic about France is that it recognizes the right to private property.

The French economy isn’t doing too well, and there are reasons for that. European integration has lead to free movement of goods, capital and people. Capital has migrated out of France in search of lower wages, people have moved into France in search of higher wages and goods have found higher prices. Unemployment and illegal immigration are just the tip of the iceberg of French problems. In order to solve the unemployment issue, France had adopted a rather, ahem, “interesting” policy of mandatory 35-hour work weeks for all employees in France. (While some employment was created in the process, the labour bills of many French companies shot up and they are struggling to be competitive today). Economic growth has been sluggish (hovering around 2%) and inflation is up, especially since the introduction of Euro in France.

France pays great retirement benefits to all employees, which are taken out of the taxes collected annually (France doesn’t have a pension fund). With an aging populace, fewer people are working every year (to pay taxes) while more number of people get added to the retired list (to enjoy pension and retirement benefits). To add to its woes, France also has one of the earliest retirement ages in all of Europe, and also allows earlier retirement (than the retirement age) in many jobs. This allows some people to pay taxes for fewer years than period of their retirement benefits. The retirement benefits have led to some fiscal disarray. To further complicate matters, taxation is a taboo subject in French politics. Being a part (rather a founder) of the European Union, France is obliged to exercise fiscal discipline, keeping its fiscal deficit under control. France needs to cut down its spending on retirement benefits.

Against this backdrop, the last elections in France were held. Nicholas Sarkozy, the current president of France won the elections with a slogan of “Rupture”, which was telling the people that we need to change our ways drastically, if we wish to grow. Any person would be forgiven for saying that Sarkozy could not have won the election. Sarkozy is the son of an Hungarian immigrant and his promises included taking away benefits rather than extending benefits to the people. Sarkozy promised sweeping reforms and gave slogans like “Work more to earn more” to the vacation-loving French. However, Sarkozy had proved his mettle as interior minister during the riots that raged through Paris last year. More surprising than his victory was the popularity- ratings that he enjoyed after the polls. Sarkozy had effectively managed to get the people of France to agree in principle that change was needed in the way things had traditionally been done in France, which by itself was no small achievement.

Sarkozy, along with his labour minister Xavier Bertrand have started trying to implement their promises, and the first task they took on was taking away the early retirement option extended to rail employees, firemen and electricity workers in France. This has led to the strike with which I began my blog. This is the first crisis for Sarkozy, and for the first time in ages, there has been an unpopular strike in France. How things shape up after this may decide the future course of French politics for years to come

I had the option of skipping my classes, but one of the reasons I chose to walk to my institute was to show solidarity with Nicholas Sarkozy, for I believe he is a man who can set things right in France. I’ll be leaving France in December, but it is always great to see a politician strive hard and stick to his guns for what he believes is right for the country. I hope some Indian politicians are learning something.

Labels: France, Nicholas Sarkozy, Politics, Train Strikes

Once more, the gentleman’s game is surrounded by controversy. An umpire, Darrell Hair with a history of accusations of racial bias, accuses a team, Pakistan, with a history of ball tampering of doing the same. The captain walks off with his team, which forces the umpires to award the match to England. ICC, too didn’t take too high a view of the Pakistani team’s actions, and has initiated action against the Pakistani captain. Inzamam returned the favour, accusing Darrell Hair, and the ICC of racial bias.

The Pakistani media, as expected has lashed out at both Darrell Hair and the ICC. But given the fact that senior Pakistani bowlers have admitted to regularly tampering the ball, is it possible to give them the benefit of doubt? Such things get ingrained in the sporting cultures of countries. It is not the first time the Pakistanis have been accused of ball tampering. These allegations have come from non white players as well. But then, the proof of ball tampering available is only as credible as the proof against Darrell Hair’s racial bias. There are only historical actions and perceptions in either case.

Not that Darrell Hair, or the ICC for that matter, is free from racial bias. Darrell Hair’s actions seem to personify the anti-Asian bias, with Hair having gotten into the hair of players from all Asian cricketing countries. Muralitharan, Harbhajan, Shabbir and Danish have all been accused of chucking. The evidence of ball tampering seemed grossly inadequate, and no camera captured any footage of ball tampering. Yet, he accuses the team of ball tampering and deducts 5 runs, at a point of time where the match was very exciting.

Inzamam’s reactions too, were immature, leading his team off the field. What did he expect the umpires to do? Wait for an eternity, for the Pakistanis to make up their minds whether the want to play or not? Pakistanis could have continued playing, lodging a formal protest with the ICC later.

ICC has not been a saint either. Cricket was deemed to be the white man’s game, and that the power has shifted from England to Asia, hasn’t gone down too well with some of the whites. There have been racial comments about poor standards of umpiring of Asian umpires, but one can only look at the controversies created by the so-called ‘elite panel’ of umpires, to understand their standards. Steve Bucknor has regularly taken controversial decisions, many a times having match altering impacts. One of the reasons that Sachin hasn’t been able to perform has been poor umpiring, some umpires just seem to be too eager to give him out.

And now the latest twist: Pakistan wants BCCI to use its muscle to help it. After all, Asians should stand together, they argue. But what has the PCB done to seek such favours? The PCB comments over Gavaskar’s favoritism in the appointment of Shrinath as Match referee, haven’t exactly endeared them to the BCCI. Indians have always helped Pakistanis, with Dalmiya changing ICC rules so that Shoaib could play in Australia despite the chucking allegations. But PCB has never been willing to share a reciprocal relationship. Ehsan Mani’s comments over not have a major ICC event in India don’t exactly encourage co-operation with Pakistan. Why then, does PCB expect help in cleaning up its mess?

The above events were unfortunate, and avoidable. But the immaturity from either side has turned the situation into a farce, with off-the-field events making more news than on-field events. Just hoping that the air clears, and we can get back to focusing on the game.