I'm back, Jack!

Why is it that people who couldn't care less about voting in a country where they can make a difference, are so politically involved in one where they can't?

That's the thought that came to my mind when I saw a lot of people around me encouraging people to vote for the US election today. Now, let me clarify that I am not saying that these people didn't vote in their native countries. I, personally have not voted in my native country. It was just a greater question in my mind.

Why is it that people who may not vote in India, will be politically involved in the US? I don't know if I have the answers, but I do have some thoughts on it.
Every politician is a scoundrel. (Yes, I am a cynic)It is a lot easier, however, to be swayed by a scoundrel wearing a business suit & talking in a language you understand about issues which you are familiar with, rather than a candidate who wears a "loincloth" and screams in an uncouth manner in a language you may not be familiar with about issues you don't care about. Sure, charisma palys a huge part, but it stems from what I said above.

There is, however, a bigger question at hand. The question pertains to the participation in the political process of a country where one does not have the right to vote. Is this correct?

Let us consider this - if a large enough immigrant community comes into a country (legally) to seek a living (e.g. - on a work visa) & then participates and influences the political process in that country. Potentially, this has an impact on the fundamental right to choose, of the bonafide citizens of that country. The question is a simple one - act towards others the way you would want them to act towards you. If you are legally in a nation where you do not have a right to vote, you are essentially a guest there. If you attempt to influence the political process there, aren't you essentially overstepping your limits? That is why I disagree with the right of people who cannot vote in a country to attempt to influence the political process there.


Edited to add :
Never finished this blog in the first shot (that's what I get for blogging while watching TV). I just wanted to add - By the same token that a non-citizen should never attempt to influence the political process of a country, once you are a citizen of any country, you should have all the rights, unquestioned, of a "natural" citizen. This includes the right to being Prime Minister/President, whether or not you were born in that country.

Secondly, if you work and pay taxes in any country, but are not a citizen, you should not have the right to directly influence the political process (e.g. - by taking out protest marches/delegations to meet government executives). You should only be able to indirectly make your stand felt. (Through your employer if you are working somewhere, or through your embassy etc. in other cases)

A dash of class

For ages, this blog has not been taken seriously by it's readers. It has been a place for mirth and enjoyment, but not the place one goes to when you need to read something serious and awe-inspiring. Today, we shall attempt to change that with this. For those interested in the original pdf of the above images, please leave a comment here and I shall make sure it reaches you. (Click on each image above for enlarged version)

The greatest batting you will ever see in your lifetime!

Few of us saw Sir Viv Richards at his peak. They say he gave the ball a mighty thump. However, the footage that we see of him today is poor, as it does not give one the true feel of his power. Yesterday, if you tuned in between lunch and tea for the Test between India and South Africa at Chennai, you probably had your best chance of seeing Sir Viv again.

There was a familiar banner at the ground yesterday when the opening partnership hit 200/0 - "South Africa - please take two wickets today, we want to see Sachin!" At the start of the day, it felt like a funny slogan, by the end of it, Graeme Smith might've seriously considered reporting the banner to the match referee!

This is an era of great Indian batsmen - Sachin, Laxman, Dravid & Ganguly.
Each a sight to watch when in full flow Yet, if one can find one flaw, it is that once they get going, you sense the outside chance that they might play a rash shot, or mistime something, or, worst of all, get out to a "soft" dismissal. In short, there's always this slight fear/hope at the back of your mind that they might get out the next ball.

Yesterday, Sehwag unwrapped an an innings that not just put to rest any such fears, it obliterated it! Some might say it was a flat, dead track & that the bowlers lacked penetration. They don't know what they're talking about. Yesterday, was singly the greatest, most brutal, savage butchering of a Test bowling attack ever recorded.
It's not as much that he scored quickly, it was the utter disdain with which each ball was treated. Let me re-emphasize that "each ball" - I mean that quite literally. Beyond a point, South Africa ran out of ideas, and just waited for the Earth to turn so they could get off the field. Bowlers trundled in, threw the ball at the batsman, and immediately turned back.

You could see that Sehwag didn't care a hang whether he got out, he was going after the ball - everybody knew this & no one could do anything about it. Nothing epitomised it as much as the last ball before tea. Everyone knew that Sehwag would, in all probability be going for it. He thumped Ntini's ball over extra cover, and turned back to the pavilion as the ball left the bat, as if saying "Frankly, I don't give a damn!". It was batting free from burden - of pressure, of statistics, of match situation, of bowling attack, of opposition. It was Zen. It was batting Nirvana. There was just the ball and Sehwag, and that's all that mattered!

The history text book comes to life!

Just finished watching Jodhaa Akbar. The first thing that struck me was the length - 3hrs & 42 mins. One of the longest films ever! What struck me more was how it didn't ever feel that long. The story was by no means fantastic, but it was somewhere between being a documentary and a film. A notable point was how historically accurate the movie was (well, it tallied with the versions of history I know, and extrapolating from there, it must be pretty accurate - other than the name of the title character).

The movie begins with the Second Battle of Panipat. What was good about that was the pains which the director seems to have taken to get his facts right & he sets the tone pretty well. As a battle, it was decisive, for without it, there would have been no Mughal Dynasty (& no Taj Mahal!). As a war scene, somehow, it was better than the Lord of the Rings, in that you could feel that this battle actually mattered to you, and you knew the ramifications of its result(no effeminite long haired skateboarders here). One stray arrow changes the course of an entire nation's history - it's fascinating when you think about it that way.

The only issue I had was the characterization of Akbar. He is portrayed as a "man-who-can-do-no-wrong" when it came to administering his subjects. Somehow, that seems too good to be true (although it may be true).

There is a scene where Akbar decides to wander amongst his subjects - this was really interesting as it tried to show how the common man felt when Akbar (or any pre internet era monarch) reigned. Firstly, they would have no clue how he even looked. Frankly, the common man didn't seem to give a damn, which, when you think about it, isn't too different from today. It makes you realize that the common man was not something out of a textbook, he was just as any Indian you know today is.

It seems, however, that Ashutosh Gowarikar must have saved a bundle on paying his editors, for, simply put, there doesn't seem to have been any done! The song "Khwaja" makes you wonder what the director was thinking!

Hrithik does a very good job in portraying Akbar, and Aishwarya, well....the less said the better.

Overall, it's a really good film, especially if you remember any of your high school history, as it literally brings those pages to life. If you're expecting to watch an edge-of-your-seat, masala movie - I'd suggest Troy.

Neuroscience - the solution to the Bhajji-Symonds argument??

The cricket world is in an uproar with regards to the Harbhajan - Symonds issue. While many blame racism, I beg to differ - the answer lies, but obviously, in the realm of neuroscience!

To help you better understand, you need to first be aware of the facts. These are outlined below.

"This is what happened before our confrontation," Symonds said in the Herald Sun. "Brett Lee had just sent down a delivery and Harbhajan took off down the wicket. When he was returning to his crease, he decided to hit Brett on the backside. I have no idea why he did it.

"I was standing nearby and when I saw what happened, I thought, 'Hold on, that's not on'. I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your team-mate so I stepped in and had a bit of a crack at Harbhajan, telling him exactly what I thought of his antics. He then had a shot back, which brings us to the situation we're facing."

Now, many believe that the basic problem is that Symonds accuses Harbhajan of calling him a "monkey" - a racist term. However, I think the crucial point has been missed by one and all.

Let us proceed logically, Symonds says "....he decided to hit Brett on the backside. I have no idea why he did it......"I was standing nearby and when I saw what happened, I thought, 'Hold on, that's not on'."

This raises two obvious questions.

1) Brett Lee was allegedly hit in the rump (touchy, derriere, JLo etc.) by Harbhajan.
Brett Lee did not complain about anything (that we are aware of). Why? Is it because his he really enjoyed it? Or perhaps, his nerve endings are a little off?

Medical science tells us that the backside has a lower concentration of nerve endings than most other parts. However, people still manage to feel it when they are hit on the Beyonce. How is it then, that Brett Lee, a supremely fit athlete, did not? One must, therefore, logically conclude that there is a problem with his nerve endings, a problem for pure neuroscience!

Another major point is that Symonds thought "..it was not on....I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your team-mate".
Now, why did Symonds think it was not on? We have seen the Aussies celebrate wickets on TV, and slapping the hindquarters is one way of congratulating your teammate (watch it next time if you don't believe me). Perhaps Symonds felt his territory was being threatened? It would certainly make sense, as team bonding is a valuable tool. Perhaps he felt Bhajji and Brett might become very good friends after that (chaddi-buddies/langotiya yaars, if you will), and this might take away some of Brett's hostility? Obviously, Brett Lee did not think there was any such danger, as his lack of action later proved.

One must, in the end, not forget what started the whole thing, "...Harbhajan took off down the wicket. When he was returning to his crease, he decided to hit Brett on the backside...."
Why did Harbhajan do this? Did he felt he could reduce Brett's hostilities by befriending him? Perhaps, in the light of what transpired, it was a deviously calculated ploy to elicit the necessary response from Symonds - Australia's best batsman in the first innings. We are all aware that teams today watch videos of their opponents before games to strategize. Perhaps this was one of those cunning stratagems? Whatever be Bhajji's intention, we may never ever actually know!

Perhaps, then, it's not just a matter for neuroscience, we must consult the psychologists as well!!

The Sydney Fiasco (BollyLine)

Ok. Here's my $0.02 about the whole Sydney fiasco.
Firstly, there is the umpiring. Bad decisions are part of umpiring. The human element makes that inevitable. Having been at the receiving end of some shockers throughout the match, I give India credit for the way they not only stayed in, but strangled the Aussie run machine in spite of a weak bowling attack. They also kept their calm thorough the umpiring throughout the match and got on with the game.

I do not believe Andrew Symonds or Ricky Ponting did anything wrong by not walking. Never in cricket history has anyone walked consistently, and asking them to do so is being naive and irrational. A batsman is perfectly entitled to stay until the umpire gives him marching orders. Yes, even if he is clean bowled, there is nothing that prevents him from staying, aside from looking extremely foolish. Symonds had 4 lives today, tomorrow, he could get 4 bad decisions. None of this reflects in any way on the integrity of the player in question.

I did not personally have any problem with the Dravid decision - it was lousy, but it happens. The Ganguly matter is not so straightforward. Since the captains had agreed before the Test series that they would take the opposing captains word on the catches, Ponting signaling "out" is perfectly justified. I do not believe Ponting or Clarke are cheats, and I believe Clarke was genuinely certain that he had taken it cleanly, and Ponting knows Clarke well enough to take his word on it.

The problem I have with that decision, is what Mark Benson (the umpire) did. Now, according to the rules, he is supposed to consult with the square leg umpire first (a ridiculous notion, given that Bucknor was standing miles away, and would have been no use), and, if still unsure, go to the third umpire. This is procedure. By not following it, he has shown what can only be termed incompetence. Even allowing for the fact that he may have been aware of the agreement between the captains prior to the series, making such a call on the fifth day of a close Test match, given what had transpired on the first four days, was - stupid.

I believe India is to blame for the loss. If your tailenders cannot survive 2 overs to draw a Test match, against the bowling of a part timer, you don't deserve to win. That's pretty plain.

The most controversial issue - the alleged comments by Harbhajan towards Symonds. Personally, I'm pretty sure Bhajji must have probably said the M-word, after being provoked by Symonds. Bhajji isn't the most calm character on the field, and has a rather limited vocabulary at heated moments. What I find ridiculous is Ponting's decision to report it to the match referee. I think he's acting a little precious. Being called a "b****rd" may be a term of endearment in Australia, but it is not so in the subcontinent or England. The Aussies are very clearly aware of this fact. Yet, I am sure that term is used fairly liberally. You don't see the Indians complaining to the match referee every time they play the Aussies now, do you?

The only real absurd thing in the match was Proctor's decision against Bhajji, based on hearsay. Whether Bhajji actually used it is irrelevant, you need to prove it, and you cannot take one man's word over another's.

I felt the Indians overreacted to the whole thing a tad. All they had to do was file an official complaint against Bucknor & Bensen with regards to the umpiring. They could also just have appealed Bhajji's ban within 24 hours (a procedure allowed by the rules), which would have ensured the ban would be suspended till the hearing. Creating a ruckus only makes you look like a bully - never a good idea. Muscling Bucknor out was unnecessary. Even if he did umpire and give bad decisions in Perth, he would have only hastened his own end.

Instead, the Indian team is now in a position where they have lost focus slightly - not a good idea. Based on their performance in the last test, I believe this team is good enough to square the series. However, given the drama that has ensued, I now have my doubts regarding their focus.

Lastly, I found Kumble's conduct as a captain fantastic. Staying around to shake hands with the umpires and the Aussies after a heartbreaking last over, and a rough Test match, shows a man who genuinely believes in the spirit of the game. He does not just talk the talk, he walks the walk. (FYI - The Indians have no "signed" personal code of conduct) No one can ever argue with that!

We lost

Another Sydney Test match comes to a close. Australia have won their 16th consecutive Test match. India have lost yet again.

India had the world champions Australia down at 6/134 on the first day.
We lost!
India were trailing Australia by 118 runs with 3 wickets in hand, and ended up with a lead of 69.
We lost!
VVS Laxman scored a brilliant counterattacking century.
We lost!
Tendulkar made the most measured, intelligent century of his career.
We lost!
Harbhajan had the world's best batsman out first ball for the 5th time.
We lost!
Ishant Sharma & RP Singh had the Aussies crawling at 2 runs per over.
We lost!
The Aussies took 1 full day to score 282 runs against an attack of Sharma,Singh, Singh & Kumble.
We lost!
The best team in 130 years had to wait with 8 minutes to go on the 5th day of a Test Match on their Home Ground for a victory against an Indian team with an inexperienced bowling attack.
We lost?

Enthusiasm

Enthusiasm - it's fantastic, isn't it? What you can do when you are motivated to do it. It's infectious. The effect on a group of people is evident - they get inspired to do new things, or to do simple things differently.

Think of any group dynamic you've had - you probably were driven by the enthusiastic person - the one who would, for some inexplicable reason, decide to do something because it could be done, leave aside how much sense it made at the time. These people were probably the ones who ended up dragging you to new experiences, they made life interesting. Somehow, you could never quite seem to figure out how or why they did what they did - but you were glad they did it al the same.

It's kind of hard to understand people who aren't enthusiastic. People who you know will never say "Yes, let's do it!" Their expected response is always "No!" These people are never fun to hang around with - to put it simply, they are killjoys. It's not like they'll have anything to do themselves, it's just that they don't want to do whatever it is you want to do. Ordinarily, this would be put down to having different interests, but when they do it repeatedly without an apparent reason, you wonder why they even exist?

Self enthusiasm - the enthusiasm that does not serve to infect a group of people, is nothing but vanity, fear or cowardice - a self centredness that will never do any good.

Being enthusiastic can be difficult, it can be tiring. There are fewer unpardonable things than repeatedly destroying the vivacity of an enthusiastic person. Enthusiastic people are pretty amazing! They're the kind of people you never want to not be around - when you reach that stage, you know you are a pretty enthusiastic person yourself!

So, here's to the enthusiastic people - people who'll never give up trying something new; people who'll never stop trying to make others start something new; people who'll amplify any small idea you have until it seems the best idea in the world, and, by doing so, will crush any negativity left in you! May you live long and prosper!