Writes Paul Lewis,

Quite so – so why not produce some green-tops and have their batsmen wondering about things other than how many centuries they will score and whether it will be Goanese fish curry for lunch?

The answer, of course, is money. New Zealand Cricket, like every other cricket board in the world, is terrified of India because they are the new powerbrokers; the Keepers Of The Cash.

Their money has cascaded through the game like acid rain, eroding the old order.

Cricket boards and players alike have been seduced by the bounty.

If we’d offended them by producing a green-top and running through them like a prune and licorice vindaloo, well, India might not return and might use their power to squeeze New Zealand out of lucrative events and tours.[link]

I despise much of what BCCI does. They are frequently liable to behave like a bunch of thugs punch drunk on power and money–witness their bullying of ICL affiliated players commentating on the New Zealand series.

But even then, this goes a little too far. I don’t think BCCI has reached the stage where it  can dictate pitches on tours. I mean, what next? India did not fold up on the fourth  day because Lalit Modi called NZ IPL players and told them he will throw them out of the cash-rich tournament if they dared to bowl well.

The real reason why NZC is preparing the pitches it is (indeed, most boards in the world), is because they make more money if matches last the whole distance. Quite simply, a five day test match yields far more revenues–from gate collections to television rights–than a three day match on a greentop. The Indian series is obviously lucrative–the NZC board expects to make nearly NZ$25 million from it–and it wants to milk it for it all it can. India can afford to ignore such concerns–even here, we are hardly preparing the kind of dust-bowls common in the early 1990s–because for the Indian board, test match earnings are loose change they would probably not even notice if they popped out of Lalit Modi’s pockets.

Silly to blame BCCI for that! And really, in Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma, India has probably one of the world’s best new ball attacks. Hard to imagine they would be cowering in their boots if they had to play on a greentop. Perhaps, that is another significant reason why it is not easy to frighten India these days by preparing bouncy pitches: The Indian cricket team is simply more skillful and better balanced than a lot of teams which have toured before.

And finally, if the Indian board was as powerful as Lewis claims, they would never tour–after all, the tv rights as well as gate collections are owned by the home board. Arguably, the Indian board makes very little money when they tour. And boy, does the BCCI love money! Hell, if BCCI had its way completely, both one day as well test cricket would be disbanded and we would play five IPL tournament a year or maybe more depending upon Lalit Modi’s moods.

p.s On another note, Sachin Tendulkar is quite close to his imperious best in New Zealand. He may have been around since Dinosaurs roamed the streets and might have scored like 5 million runs, but for an Indian cricket fan, there is little which gives as much pleasure as watching Tendulkar in full flow. He is special.

(Since any of you are unlikely to read Pragati)

Let’s keep our republic.

BEFORE SHE was selected by John McCain as his running mate in the 2008 US presidential elections, Sarah Palin was a little known governor of a distant American state. Venerated and despised in equal measure—depending upon your culturopolitical affiliation—Mrs Palin was an old style cultural warrior. Proof that even in a stable, modern democracy like the United States, cultural differences persist. For example, almost forty years after Roe vs Wade was decided, abortion still remains a hot button issue.

In a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country like India, the edges are more sharply drawn. Is there an Indian culture? Does it define our nationhood or is it a concept solely meant to preserve traditional hierarchies and power structure?

Amorphous as the concept may be, and despite the virtually insurmountable definitional challenges, cultural identities matter and are increasingly more meaningful to people. Human societies, even if organised around nation states, don’t exist in a vacuum. There has to be a reference point and that are usually markers of cultural identities: ethnic groups, language and religion.

Therein lie the seeds of conflict. Or, as Samuel Huntington has argued, “We know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against.” Essentially, most people are against something rather than in favour of anything.

The controversy in Mangalore—where a band of self-appointed culture warriors attacked female pub-goers—that currently rages on in opinion columns, television stations and cyberspace is merely an extension of what has happened elsewhere: from the streets of Srinagar to the backlanes of Mumbai, a city whose changed name itself reflects cultural revisionism. And that debate can be placed at multiple levels.

At the simplest, it is easy enough to see the Mangalore incident as a conflict between two visions: an atavistic philosophy with regressive attitude towards women’s place in society, countered by a more libertine vision, which, at least superficially, draws on notions of freedom and individual liberty.

On the other hand, in places like Mumbai, it has played out on a more ethnic-cultural platform. Whatever may be its idiom, the roots can be traced back to a rapidly changing Indian society searching for its inflexion point.

The hackneyed response from left-liberal sections to such cultural conflicts is to either dismiss the role of culture entirely or engage in doctrinal wars over its contours—for instance, by citing the odes to Soma in classical Indian texts to counter the Sri Ram Sene’s angst against alcohol. But this is an endless debate where no amount of evidence will ever convince the other side.

Other commentators, most noticeably Pratap Bhanu Mehta, have advocated open conversations on “what new social values signify and how they can be properly embedded in society without repression and conflict.” From the perspective of social advancement, these conversations may be important but they are less useful in resolving cultural conflicts. For the notion of individual freedom militates against conversations originating from within existing societal norms. Understanding the angst against freedom or against “culturally inappropriate behaviour” does not automatically translate into an ability to address them. Reconciliation between such diametrically opposed views is virtually impossible or, even if achieved, would be momentary at best.

If not in social discourse, where does the solution lie? For that the debate needs to be framed properly. What is addressable is not the Sri Ram Sene’s views—in a democracy, everyone is entitled to their opinions, howsoever archaic they may be—but its recourse to violence. And indulging in hooliganism is the rule rather than exception for such groups.

Therein lies the role of the state. The Indian constitution says that amongst other things India is a “democratic republic.” A republic believes in the rule of law, and not the rule of men—the republican philosophy is against the rule of dictators or kings, but also against the rule of ephemeral majorities. A democracy too is against tyrants, but it, by definition, supports the rule of the majority

.

Now, majority decision-making is unambiguously correct when we elect our leader; use force to protect life and property; or quell communal secession. Essentially, it represents the idea of a liberal democracy—popular democracy restrained by its faith in constitutional processes and rule of law.

In other words, democracy seems to be the best way of operating the republic. But the idea of democracy becomes counter-productive when it is used against republicanism itself. If a republic is against the rule of men, and it represents the actualization of an implicit social contract—an understanding that men have certain inalienable rights—that not all majority decisions carry legitimacy.

So debates on whether visiting pubs enjoy social sanction or is consistent with Indian culture become redundant. The role of the state is not to act as moral arbiter on appropriateness of adult behaviour or adjudicate cultural disputes but to use its power to preserve the rights it explicitly guarantees to its citizens. And in a democratic republic, the rights are protected through rule of law. The Indian state is morally bound to secure those rights for its citizens when they are threatened by non-state actors—whether terrorists or vigilante groups. That is what civil society should demand. The anti-Sri Ram Sene groups would have served a much higher purpose if they had directed their ire at the government rather than individuals or specific political parties.

Unfortunately, despite our constitutional proclamations, the Indian republic is moving away from one that does not believe in prosecuting someone unless the there has been harm to someone else’s life, liberty or property, to a partially constrained semi-majoritarian democracy. It is hard for Indian governments to criticise Sri Ram Sene’s moral policing when they have happily indulged in the same—from banning books to banishing artists. In principle, how is vigilantism

of fringe groups different from the state’s reluctance to de-criminalise certain acts of private, consensual sex between two adult individuals?

Constitutional weaknesses show over time. Today’s Britain can be understood as a benevolent totalitarian state, whereas the United States, despite all its weaknesses, can justifiably claim to have lived up to Benjamin Franklin’s challenge in response to an American’s question regarding what kind of government did their Constitution beget: “A Republic, if you can keep it.’’

Let us keep our Republic.

Reading this debate, and more so the comments, leaves me thinking hard. Very hard.

Do these guys have any idea of their country’s history!

I mean, you bought half of the damned country, for starters. Forget earlier wars, you can start looking at Bay of Pigs,  Vietnam, Iran-Contra, Nicaragua, support for Pakistani genocide in what was then East Pakistan, support for some of the worst dictators during the cold war,  Clinton lobbing missiles in Afghanistan after attacks in Sudan (which international body sanctioned it?), and helloo, which international law allows you to launch drones in Pakistan?

You would think America was a cuddly bear which people liked and suddenly it has been transformed in to some giant anaconda.

It is what it has always been. A giant power which uses hard power to secure its interests. (Sure, soft power too.) For nothing, it spends more than all nations combined on defense.

You think every country can launch a war after just one attack? Big deal, 3000 died! Hundreds of thousands have died elsewhere with government doing nothing but twiddling their thumbs.

I mean, for those of us with longer memories, the first American reaction after every terror attack–oh, they used to be rebel or freedom fighters in the pre-9/11 world–was to lecture on importance of peace, or respect for human rights, or to urge ”all parties” to sit down and talk. And that is why I have no qualms in admitting that my gut reaction after I saw the 9/11 attacks on television was: Oh, now, you bastards get how it feels like to be terrorized. I am not proud of it but I had enough of these sanctimonious Americans pretending the world was some giant children’s party with them the headmaster.

Not that I don’t support the idea of a TRC. Absolutely, preferably for last 50 years. These idiots would develop at least an elementary understanding of their country’s history.

Inspired by this excellent post, I propose that Thalaivar be appointed India’s prime minister for life. I demand the appointment must be made with immediate effect. Here are the advantages of making Thalaivar our next PM:

1. They won’t be any need for a cabinet. Thalaivar can function as PM in the morning, defense minister in the afternoon, finance minister in the evening and can entertain the humanity by dancing on national television in the night.

2. Similarly, there won’t be any need for IB, RAW, Army–the works. The next time dushman nations attack India, Thalaivar will magically reach the location and kill all the terrorists with a swipe of his hand. Alternatively, he can attempt to seduce them by showing his movies ala Rakhi Sawant. If any additional help is required, Sunny Deol, who once threatened to flood Pakistan by pissing in that direction, would be enlisted.

3. Imagine the savings on defense budget. And police. And everything else.

4. There will no longer be any religious riots–only one religion will be permitted–Thalavism. Babri Masjid-Ram Temple would be replaced by 1600 feet tall cutout of the Thalaivar.

5. No more Bollywood vs Tollywood vs Mollywood debates. The entire film industry would be shut down–why would we need them?

6. Number 5 will mean no more of Amitabh Bachhan. Yes!

7. Our prime minister will never age. He will always be just ”fresh out of college”.

8. Naturally, he will never die too.

9. Instead of boring blue turbans, we will see hairstyles of dazzaling hues.

10. Bal Thackeray will be too busy claiming Thalaivar as Marathi Manoos to bother the rest of us.

What else?

And remember, you first heard it here.