Cricket and Optimism

Cricketers received a largely cold welcome, and had to be provided a thick security cover to avoid any mishap.

I have great respect for the journalist in Kuldip Nayar. He has always been one of my favourite political commentators. However, as he rightly says, he rarely strays from politics, one such occasion is this article on the Indian cricket team's dismal performance. In the first paragraph itself, he has criticized the failure of the team at the World Cup in harsh, impassioned and almost violent terms. Like most other ordinary people, the great Kuldip Nayar does not seem to realize that in sport, especially with cricket in India, it is not fair to come down so harshly upon the team. For one, as this editorial in the Hindu points out, it is not entirely surprising or shocking to see a dismal performance by a team ranked no. 6 in the world, and considering them favourites in the first place is utter folly and unrealistic expectations. I myself saw anger raging in the common room, where I watched the India-Bangladesh and India-Sri Lanka matches, spectators calling players names, slamming chairs, and getting violent and depressed about the team's failure. A broader issue is whether such an obsession and passion associated with cricket in India is justified at all when it is not the world leader in the game, or for that matter, probably never has been. Even the '83 World Cup win was a huge upset, almost minnows going on to win the Cup.
The need of the hour is to diversify public sport attention to other sports, which does not seem to happening despite various efforts (like PHL in Hockey).
Undue hype and overoptimism always results in unrealistic expectations, which is always a great gamble, because the odds simply aren't favourable. Hence, living in the reality and having reasonable expectations is optimism and not driving at 200 mph hoping that nothing will happen.

Of Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and World Cup '07

It is extremely sad to see the turmoil in Zimbabwe, or more proximately in Sri Lanka. The situation in Zimbabwe is quite disturbing, with a 'galloping inflation' rate of 1700% and consequent political disorders. It is surprising to see how little is talked about the situation in Zimbabwe, considering it is a show of a failure of 'democratic' setups. Opposition is, according to me, the most important player in a democracy. Without an (active) opposition, democratic government ought to fail, which it has in Zimbabwe.
The situation in Sri Lanka is quite shocking and serious. Demand for separatism is as much a problem in India as well, possibly more widespread, but more dangerous in Sri Lanka because of its smaller size and it being a nation with greater unity and lesser diversity. With a prayer that order is restored in both Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka in the nearest possible future.
I can think of one thing in common between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. Cricket teams from both countries have been minnows for a long time, the former being still considered one, while the latter proved itself by winning the Wills World Cup in the subcontinent in 1996. That World Cup, being a decent one for India, saw the peak of Sachin Tendulkar as also of Anil Kumble in One-Day cricket, who announced his retirement from limited overs cricket yesterday. Talking of World Cups, this world cup will be remembered mostly for wrong reasons, although it is a little too early to draw the highlights from the Cup. Bob Woolmer's death (possibly murder), India and Pakistan's first round exits, small grounds-high scores, bad weather and rain resulting in short games or one-day games becoming two-day ones.

Yukatec Mayan and Kalamane Koffees

Jaguar Paw, or "Almost" played by Rudy Youngblood.

I have to put this on record. March 27th was possibly the best day for me after coming to Law School.
Things back home seem to get back to normal, with Ma perfectly all right and back home now.
But in Law School, my first outing in the exclusive company of both of my favourite people in Law School. I won't even bother being adjectival about it, it is indescribable; just that feeling of utter joy and perfect comfort in elite company, which I haven't experienced in Law School so far. Things didn't quite start too auspiciously though. Couldn't get the show for Little Miss Sunshine, so took a while to decide whether to watch Nishabd or Apocalypto. Chose the latter as it had longer running time. Had a cheap lunch buffet at 'Zaika', just before which Batashi's slippers gave in. Then returning to Forum, we commenced watching Apocalypto, despite the intensity of which, it turned out to be comedy for us in the first half. The two ladies even tried shifting to another movie. Anyways, post-intermission, we decided to accept things as they were - the movie as it was. And it turned out to be quite an experience. A movie which I shall remember for a long long time, not only for being exquisite, but for the enviable company I was in. A yoyo got me a free dinner at Grameen.
Very precisely, the day was infinite bliss per second.

On Internet Curbs

Might sound really cliche. Yet, like everything else in this world, internet and technology also has various problems and demerits while being an immense resource of information, of entertainment, of communication.

My roommate and I were condemning in harsh and helpless terms the blocking/'denying access' of certain websites (chiefly ones containing audio and video), and how we are kept devoid of accessing such websites on useless pretexts.

Further, we are not given access to internet in hostels because it might act as a possible distraction to us. There was a short duration when access to this site itself was restricted. On a closer examination, I found that such a practice of regulating internet timings or access is prevalent even in institutions which might require internet access the most - the IITs (the most recent curb being in IIT Bombay). In those institutions, the primary reason seems to prevent students from spending too much time online, rather than the technological reason of slowing the internet speed. The administration is concerned about students wasting their time on wasteful internet surfing, and ignore academics. However, one fails to understand how far this justification is tenable. Takes us to the larger normative issue of whether the university administration should 'morally police' students in such a liberal atmosphere. Even if it should, the extent is quite debatable. Students have often found themselves in disagreement with the administration, not only with regard to this issue. Specific examples from Law School include restricted timings of hanging out of hostels in groups (the limit being 12.30 a.m.), restricting administrative block (which includes the comp lab) timings, restricted posting on the 19(1)(a) board, which is supposed to be a symbol of 'free and fearless' expression and many such other instances. Why should there be such moral policing if it does not cause other people nuisance and is harmless? It's just strange. Will continue on this later, preferably after some comments.
Trying hard to play tennis, somehow plans not materializing..

On Friendship, Elite Company and 'Best Friends'

It is unbearably depressing. There seems to be nothing to be happy or cheerful about. Nearly lost the entire lacrimal gland reserve day before yesterday. Thankfully atleast the eyes seem a lot cleaner now. :-)

Is it me who is at wrong – do I have unfair or great expectations?

This reminds me of Ganga rooftop, with the cheap nice Bong, to whom I told about how I have a very one-sided friendship with her, and how friendships aren’t quid pro quo. I told him how I empty myself before her, and it is I, me and my life who is almost always talked about in our late night walks. How I don’t expect her to consider me as her confidant if she is not comfortable. The stoned (as he then was) cheap nice Bong commended me on my ‘maturity’ of handling relationships in general and friendship in particular. Now I realize how he actually was out of his senses, and how wrong both he and I were. It is such a shallow and self-centered approach to friendship. It’s almost using a person for your own purposes. It is foolish to treat social relationships like that. I am beginning to realize that good and strong friendships have to essentially and always be symbiotic and both-way. How I always strive to have a perfectly graceful platonic relationship with both members of the elite company.

Having ‘best friend(s)’ is another question of great debatable qualities, usually argued on an idealistic and spiritual plane. Shouldn’t the approach to life in general be staying reasonably detached, that is to say, neither too happy nor too sad about people and material world. In other words, as far as possible, staying constant and consistent by remaining aloof. If that is the case, it is best to consider your own self as the solver of your own problems and the only person who you can talk your heart out, which you would ordinarily do with a ‘best friend’. That is not to say that you become unsociable or misanthropic, or you don’t have close friends. It is theoretically possible to be close to lots of people, still not be so close to anyone that have great expectations from that person.

The erstwhile policy of not having any of best friends, having been involuntarily discarded, causes pain as a bye-product. Like most things in life, even this is irreversible and irrevocable. It is but obvious that there are no regrets on having such fantastic friends.

So much horsefeathers about people who do and don't quite matter much in life.

Felt very homesick yesterday. Wished my sister on her last exam. Hope she does well. Planning to fly back home two weeks hence.

Manufactured Public Opinion

Following is a piece written on November 10, 2006, in response to an article which appeared in The Hindu which appeared the previous day:

There are two major issues involved, viz., firstly the role of ‘manufactured public opinion’ [cf. The Hindu dated November 9, 2006 “Tyranny of manufactured public opinion” by Harish Khare] and secondly, the role of a lawyer in a legal system.

Legally, accused is very different from guilty and the latter is supposed to be condemned for the crime and not the former because if the accused is condemned the total legal process that converts the status of the former to the latter after close examination and appreciation of evidence and other incriminatory material is rendered redundant. However, as public opinion seems to be increasingly becoming manufactured by the over-involvement and over-enthusiasm of the media, the fear as to the accused being publicly humiliated before his offence is even proved looms large. There is a danger of the media taking over the role of the judiciary. Several accused people have been maligned by the media to such an extent that their public image is beyond repair. It is difficult for such accused to be ensured a fair process of law because even the honourable Bench member is an audience of the media and somewhere, (s/)he is affected by this manufactured public opinion. Apart from the risk of an innocent accused being unnecessarily and unfairly charged for offences (s/)he has not committed due to unconscious reliance upon the manufactured public opinion, even people like Dawood Ibrahim, who have been pinpointed by the media and also by investigating agencies, tend to avoid trial and extradition on the excuse that due to the manufactured public opinion, it is difficult to ascertain a fair trial in such a jurisdiction.

This is not to say that the media should be manacled or even that restrictions should be imposed through suitable legislation (e.g. a Bill banning ‘sting operations’ which is to be tabled in the forthcoming session of the Parliament). It is the responsibility of the media itself to exercise the divine freedom more meaningfully instead of obstructing the process of law.

Coming to the second issue of what is the moral duty of a lawyer in a legal system. In an adversarial legal system like ours, where a lawyer is the key player in the court, it is important that for a fair trial, a lawyer be ensured to the accused. It is a fundamental ethic of legal practise that a lawyer cannot be afforded to be given the freedom to reject a weak case simply because of that defect in the case. Under any circumstance, the innocent cannot be allowed to be prosecuted, even at the cost of the failure of locating finally who the criminal in a particular case was.

Justice Chaudhary et al

It seems important to think about the present condition of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, considering relations with any other country in this era seem to depend on the working of the Constitutional institutions in that State. Very briefly, the Chief Justice of Pakistan was suspended for alleged charges of misconduct, which he could not explain despite being given a hearing by the honourable Pakistan General. The action of the General of suspending the Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Choudhary has received almost unequivocal condemnation worldwide, and made the judge a hero.

This picture with the sacked Pakistan Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary highlights the sorry state of institutions in the neighbourhood.

The present issue has been consuming a piece of my mind for quite some time. And I write an opinion on this partially because of this consumption having reached a saturation point; and also because of the recent interaction of the Justice (Retd.) Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan and his views on the same issue.

Let me first present a case for the General. Possibly he was ill-advised and did not foresee that his order of suspension of the country's top judicial figure will result in such an adverse reaction both from the Bar and the Bench in the country and also from other democracy-respecting nations. That is all can be put forward in the General's favour.

Making all possible efforts to avoid passionate argumentation, it is important now to analyse three things. Firstly, why did such an event occur in Pakistan and is only the General guilty? Secondly, can any parallel of such an attack on the judiciary be found in India and what were the reactions to it? And thirdly, on a broader plane, will this prove to be fatal for the General? It might be possible that some of the comments might be borrowed from Justice Rehman Khan. Be that as it may, it will still be useful to jot his views down and supplement them with my own.

An answer to the first question is prima facie quite simple that the General removed the judge in a shabby manner, though on a deeper thought one seems to realise that the judiciary is equally culpable to have brought about such a situation in which the executive can bully the judiciary. (See, Deccan Herald, March 13, 2007)

Pakistan has faced three coup-de-etats by Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf (in chronological order). The first Constitution of Pakistan came into force in 1956, but was suspended in 1958 by Ayub Khan. Then in 1973, another attempt was made, but the Constitution was put in abeyance by General Haq in 1977. In 1991, Constitutional rule was restored again but in 1999, the present General took over. In other words, all attempts to have a democratic constitutional rule in Pakistan have been nipped in the bud by these coups. The judiciary could have raised its voice against such a military takeover by annulling it and declaring it unconstitutional, which it failed to do. Even in 1999, the Musharraf coup received judicial sanction. So, blaming the judiciary for past inaction will not be wholly unjustified. Weak institutions owing to a possible lack of democratic and liberal culture may be reasons for a dismal constitutional working in Pakistan.

The second question is of simulating the Pakistan situation in India. An example of an attack on the Indian judiciary which comes immediately to one's mind are the two supersessions (one of three majority Judges of Fundamental Rights case to appoint Justice Ray in their stead in 1973 and the other of Justice Khanna, the sole dissenting judge in Habeas Corpus case to appoint Justice Beg in 1977), in which the executive displayed its muscle by breaking a convention of appointing the seniormost judge as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, and Mrs. Gandhi received great personal ridicule for having acted too despotically to satisfy her own ends. On both the occasions, the superseded judges resigned in protest immediately. In Pakistan, attack on the judiciary are not uncommon and Supreme Court judges have been removed in the past. In Indian constitutional history, there is not a single member of the higher judiciary who has been removed. A possible exception is that of Justice Jaffer Imam who was convinced to resign in the early 1960s due to an illness which affected his mind. Pakistan judges (not only Supreme Court but also High Courts) should have stood up against such a brassy attack on their esteem and honour. It is a matter of principles and most of the judiciary relinquishing their posts would have ensured the General to learn a lesson. The judiciary which is the only organ upon some faith still remains could have become the symbol of people's dignity, which has long been tampered with by military tyrants in Pakistan.

As regards the third question of whether this will prove to be fatal for the General, it appears that a comment on this would be too early, although if the issue aggravates and does not wash out of the public memory (which is quite likely,), and international pressures are put on the General, he might have to go. After a cursory look at the political system prevailing in Pakistan, it seems really queer how anything like this could exist. The real executive (the Prime Minister and his Council) is an astonishing burlesque because it has absolutely no powers in the real sense except to act on the directions of the General. Pakistan displays a new form of the parliamentary system of democracy.

On the whole, the situation is deprecable and disheartening.

Domestic Bulletin

Sadly, I will have to postpone the discussion on competitiveness and aggressiveness, mostly because of some other issues that occupy my mind right now. Things back home don't seem promising, chief concern among them being the health of my Ma. She's feared to have been suffering from pneumonia. I just hope that this fear is just as baseless as the scare of me suffering from typhoid last year. I just cannot seem to relieve my mind from the tension of her bad health. Honestly, God must fix this; and charge anything from me, if he so desires. Dad's professional ambitions don't seem to be supported by good fortune, atleast so far. I just pray that this bad phase for both of them does an exeunt as early as possible.
My sister's exams are nearing a close, finally. I just hope that she does absolutely spectacularly and stuns us all with her performance in the boards.
Had a sudden craving to go to town today.

Murder?

It feels terrible. I have to confess that I just murdered two of my blogs, supposedly in a fit of anger, and now repenting it.

Though I am happy that I confessed that to K. I propose to redeem the crime by regularly posting on this blog. She's probably right in saying that I shouldn't have erased my precious pieces of writing just because I didn't like a part of my past. It seems so awful that there existed a huge iceberg three or four days ago and all credit to her, it was broken. I'm committing too many crimes these days. Lying, troubling people, murdering creations, and the list is endless. On crime, came across this wonderful quote in Ian Fleming's Goldfinger:

"Prohibition is the trigger of crime".

The cerebrum in my brain is so screwed up that thinking and writing seems to be the only answer. Circumstances in the present don't seem too conducive for retaining faith in God. But there doesn't seem to be an alternative. Reminds me of John Milton and his unflinching faith in God. So where do I begin with?

Let me introduce the blog picture for the moment. It's a daffodil which I presented to K. I have always had a liking for daffodils because of several reasons. One because they remind me of my uncle singing the poem by Wordsworth of the same name when I was very young. And two because of the inward eye that that poem reminds of. Most of this beautiful world's treasures are captured by that inward eye.

Then I would now reason out why I am called Bjorn Borg for the moment. I think he's one of the greatest people this world has ever seen. Spectacular player apart, he was one of the few successful players of that era who were more gentlemanly and less aggressive. Most others - James Connors, John McEnroe -- over-competitive, over-aggressive.

On competitiveness and aggressiveness in the next post. Hope this blog survives the wrath of my temper.