India: A story of one man’s obsession

At last I found a sensible article on the Indian national media. This is that sort of article which makes the difference between a good journalist and a crap one...Here is goes:

India: A story of one man’s obsession - India in Pakistan 2006: HTCricket.com

by Pradeep Magazine

"Hindsight is the best friend of an armchair critic. In a world where interpretations abound and the final verdict depends on the results achieved, India's embarrassing defeat against Pakistan must have left all those who believe in Greg Chappell's "futuristic vision" somewhat uneasy in heart and mind.

It is not his fault that India lost. Even before the team left for Pakistan, it was understood that Pakistan was a better team and in their home conditions, it wouldn't be easy to beat them.

Yet, the past few months have seen so many innovative ideas being introduced into the static world of Indian cricket that somehow, they created a grandiose illusion that this team was invincible. And the media played a significant role in creating this illusion.

Though most experiments were done in the one-day format, the feeling that India was heading for a new dawn and habits of old were being eradicated with an iron hand by a man who knew every nuance of cricketing grammar, changed even inveterate cynics into believers.

After he gave "marching orders" to Sourav Ganguly and made the world believe that the former Indian captain was the source of all the ills affecting the team, India fell in love with him. They loved a man who had come to India to challenge its "star system" and after the team's one-day wins, that too in great style against Sri Lanka, Chappell acquired god-like status. No one questioned his complete obsession with Ganguly and his one point agenda to keep the man out of the team.

Politics and intrigue

Politics and intrigue became the buzzword in this fight to the finish. A nation fed on soap operas lapped up this new serial and no one cared what effect it would have on the team. And it was bound to have an effect.

After all, the players are not "commodities", as some would like us to believe but men with emotions and feelings. And once in Pakistan, the drama began all over again. Right from first Test to last, all we did here was to report on whether Ganguly was playing or not and how the team management was being "forced" to include him in the playing XI.

So much so that the specialist openers became redundant and Rahul Dravid, against the wishes of everyone including Chappell, decided to open in the interest of the team. Simply, he did not want the world to accuse him of making Ganguly a sacrificial lamb.

It came to such a pass that it seemed that India's whole strategy revolved around Ganguly --- for some to keep him out somehow and for others to somehow include him. As one team official put it, "this is something we could have well avoided. Whatever any one might say, it did have an effect on the morale of the team and on an important tour like this, where was the need to make this into an issue once he was in the team?"

The team might believe it was neither coach nor captain who made this into an issue but the media --- which stoked the fires of controversy by getting obsessed with the whole Ganguly-Chappell equation.

Ganguly’s image

In Pakistan, Ganguly is a larger than life figure. They respect him as a player and more than that, as a captain. Younis Khan summed up what Pakistan feels about the whole issue in his press conference by saying, "I am a great Ganguly fan and he batted well here. India should back him."

What is very strange about the whole drama is that now, even Rajsingh Dungarpur, who was seen almost violently opposing Ganguly's inclusion, says "Ganguly's behaviour on the tour has been impeccable." According to an official, "He has been one of the best behaved boys in the team and the players respect him and are not hostile towards him. Yet, an impression is being created that he is a hate figure and no one wants him."

No one for sure knows what views Dravid holds on the whole issue. He has studiously avoided getting into any controversy and weighs his words carefully whenever any question on Ganguly is put to him. From his perspective, as he has repeatedly emphasised in his press conferences, "We are here to pick the best XI that helps the team to win."

Ego clash

To an outsider, it may appear that he does not want to annoy Chappell or may even agree with him, but one thing is sure --- Dravid would not want to be seen as a party to any plan to humiliate or insult his former captain. Whatever the pros and cons of the whole issue and whatever the cricketing merits of the debate, there is no question that this Test series got hijacked by this unnecessary "ego" clash.

It was unnecessary, as in the end, when Ganguly finally got a chance to play on the most difficult wicket of them all, he batted extremely well and despite not going on to make a big score, showed that he still can bat.

This makes everyone here wonder --- what was all this fuss about?

There are a lot of important questions India needs to answer if it has to become a strong team. Its medium pace bowling is mediocre, the spinners can't deliver outside of India and not just Ganguly, there are other seniors in the team too who are probably at the end of their career.

That is all the more reason that India should not allow one man's obsession to destroy a team, which, not so long ago, was one solid unit. And it should also learn to treat victory and defeat with equanimity and not let passion dictate reasoning."

Nice and sensible article. Although, I personally do not agree with his view about Dravid - who, in my view, is trying to pose neutral, but in all probability (and possibly all certainity) he has a clear hand behind the mess - who can sit so long as the captain in the waiting?

Newcastle United sack Graeme Souness

It isn't a surprise.

Souness took over after Boby Robson was sacked in a terrible manner, although he took Newcastle United from the ruins after Gullit departed to finish second, third and fifth in the English Premier League for three consecutive seasons. Newcastle finished 14th last season under Souness, and currently at the 15th position, just six points clear of the relegation zone, with Souness admitting that they are in the relegation battle. Newcastle collected only one point out of a possible 18 since their last win on December 17th 2005 against West Ham United...since then it was all downhill. Yes, Souness had lot of injuries in the team - Owen, Parker, Dyer, Emre, Solano, Taylor, Carr - all have been injured. But that's the job of a good manager - you improvise with the available players, inspire them, and go forward - or atleast try. Under Souness, Newcastle missed the passion, the urge to compete...with £50 million spent within 18 months, Newcastle only went backwards.

I do feel sorry for the man - he has been honest, but he hasn't been able to motivate. BBC paints a clear picture of his time at the helm of NUFC.

Sacking Sir Bobby was a blatant mistake, I just hope this isn't so - especially at this stage of the season.

And call it luck or just coincidence, both my favourite teams are undergoing the same problems...Mohun Bagan and NUFC...although in two different leagues...in two different parts of the world...

Seventeen seconds, and Dravid makes another volte-face...

This man is a disgrace - Rahul Dravid.

May be he is one of the best cricketers in the world, surely the current best player in the Indian cricket team (sorry, the BCCI-XI), but as a captain? Or as a leader? Or as a human being? Each day, he is proving that what I wrote in a previous post, is infact the truth, the only truth and nothing but the truth. He is a human, an ordinary human being - not a good human, with all the human instincts - the most basic of them being selfishness and greed. He wanted to be the captain, and he would sink to any depth for that.

India lost to Pakistan in Karachi, one of their heaviest defeats, and Dravid is not ready to accept his mistakes. Once he says - "It's against my nature to speak about any individual's performance" (read Ganguly's performance) - within seventeen seconds, he makes a volte-face, and starts talking about Yuvraj Singh. Okay, Yuvraj played well, scored a hundred (fighting? I doubt it. His hundred came when all hopes were gone, and there was no pressure what so ever at all) - but this man, Ganguly, playing under immense pressure, was the second highest scorer in the team. He atleast tried to fight - which our so called "world-beater" batting line-up couldn't do...all the big names caved in showing a spineless display of batting.

The same question comes back over and over...why isn't there an uniform criteria for every individual? With his current form, does even Sachin merit a place in the team? I guess not. But, does Dravid have the courage to drop him? I know he doesn't. It's easy to drop Ganguly, to humiliate him, because he will get the backing from Kiran More, Greg Chappel, and a large section of the media...almost all of whom have some personal vendetta here.

A month on, Engalnd is to visit India, and I'm sure Ganguly will be excluded from the team on some grounds (how much does it take to create a reason anyway). But the rest, even with their spineless display, and despite the ratings provided by TOI and BBC which won't count in the minds of Dravid, Chappel and More, will stay. Sachin is a so-called giant, so he has to stay. Laxman is in the good books of Dravid, yeah a friend I guess - so he will stay. Rahul Dravid will stay as the captain, even though he allowed Paksitan a free ride from 39/6, till another Dravid is created to kick him out - and I hope he gets the taste of his own medicine.

Another fact which will remain intact as well is - with the same group of bowlers and batsmen, Ganguly was able to steer India to a famous 2-1 victory, the only Indian captain in the past fifty odd years. And Geoff Boycott will still say that he is the best Indian captain...

Marxism is not about blind faith – Part II

Continuing from my previous post...

ABP: You have called the current Pakistani political system a "Khaki Democracy". Will Gen. Musharraf be able to carry on with it?

TA: There is no reason whatsoever why he can't carry on with it. General Musharraf is one of the closest allies of Washington. Just a few days back, the American Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, announced in Pakistan, that all Islamic countries should learn from Pakistan. Why on earth would Musharraf have a problem when he gets such a generous certificate?

ABP: But the religious leaders (mullahs) are infuriated.

TA: Certainly. They are not able to digest Musharraf's volte-face. And the economy of the country is literally sold out...

ABP: Then Musharraf must be under immense pressure?

TA: He is under pressure. And he is trying to perform a tight rope trick - a balancing act. But there is no imminent danger. Because, today the army is influential over the entire economy and society. Business, industry and even the agricultural sector is taken over by the ex-army officials. Because of this, the control of army over the country is deep-rooted. And this is where the crisis for democracy lies. And again, it doesn't necessarily mean that all the problems will be solved if Musharraf goes. The comparatively secular political parties are in no better state for reviving democracy. Even the Muslim League is a "Khaki Muslim League" now. The militarization is too wide-spread.

ABP: What is the reason behind this militarization?

TA: America had a big role to play even there. The "mujahids" were the creation of the CIA and ISI. A large section of the youth were trained and sent to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union. When many of them started returning to Pakistan after the Soviet troops were withdrawn in 1989, they were utilized in the Kashmir Valley, to fight India. The elected government turned a blind eye, indirectly encouraging the military officials, and the ISI. At that time, the military didn't have direct control over the administration, and the elected leaders could have put a stop over this craziness. No one did. Leaders like Nawaj Sharif or Benazir Bhutto embraced corruption quite shamelessly. And the result was inevitable. No one except few blind followers of Nawaj Sharif came out in protest against the military coup in 1999. Musharraf gladly used these circumstances, and the society turned more and more "khaki".

ABP: The civilian society was growing stronger after the return of democracy following Zia's death...

TA: It was, but it never fulfilled the goal. The civilian society in Pakistan is still too weak. The media rather enjoys much more freedom in Musharraf's reign. Even the Nawaj Sharif administration didn't give so much freedom to press. And this didn't even exist during Zia or Ayub's reign. The civilian society had very little impact on the Pakistani system. Yes, a lot of NGO's have cropped up - but I would prefer calling them "WGO - Western Governmental Organization". Because they do not receive any funds from the national government, they do not have to act on orders of the Pakistani administration, but being funded by the western governments, about ninety percent of them are eager to implement the policies of the western countries.

ABP: Do you think there is an alternative in this global socio-political situation?

TA: There is. The political changes in some Latin American countries raise high hopes. The Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez, is being able to assemble his countrymen against the American dominance. Thousands have joined protests answering his call, and I have seen it myself. Despite American sanctions, and a post-Soviet world, Fidel Castro's Cuba has been able to maintain its revolutionary image, has attempted to walk on an alternative development path. Such large scale improvements in education and health sector as in Cuba is quite uncommon even in the industrially-developed capitalist countries. I have seen in Pakistan, after the earthquake, about eleven hundred Cuban doctors in areas like Mujaffarabad, even though Cuba does not have a direct diplomatic relationship. And about half of them are women. They have been extremely helpful in the rough terrains. No other country has sent so many doctors.

ABP: You are visiting Kolkata after a long time. A Left Front Government is in power here for almost three decades. A section of observers maintain that despite criticising the economic policy of the Indian Government, the Left Front under Buddhadev Bhattacharya is practically following the same path, this Left Front is more like Tony Blair's "New Labour". What is your view on this?

TA: To tell you the truth, I am severely shocked and frustrated this time. There are so many shopping malls, was it really necessary? Is this really development? It seems like a copy of the American style. Rather, have a look at the European countries, like France - have you seen anything like this there? They have shopping centres, cafeterias - but in their own way, their own style - not as replica of other countries. Yes, I am pleased that a Left Front has been able to govern West Bengal for such a long period. Because of this, communal forces have not been able to poison the society here, as they have done in Gujarat. It is also true that the Left Front Government has to work within the constraints of a federal system. Even then, I don't think that it should be impossible to search for alternative paths. The leftists in this state should learn from the Latin American countries, who have stood up in retaliation despite tremendous pressure from America. Kolkata has always been the place for alternative thoughts, Kolkata has shown the way to the rest of the nation. I wonder why the situation has changed so much...This is the place where Ritwik Ghatak, Mrinal Sen, Satyajit Ray created their masterpieces, but, today, even in films, all I can see is an attempt to copy from the Hollywood...

ABP: Do you still believe in the Marxist philosophy, even at this stage of capitalistic globalisation?

TA: Certainly. It is possible to find an answer in the Marxist philosophy. But you have to be cautious - if Marxism becomes a religious belief, or a blind faith, if it turns into a secular religion, there will be no differences between that and a non-secular religion. Secular or non-secular religion - both can be dangerous. And Marxist politics should not rest upon blind faith. The Marxist politics should constantly search for new directions, do experimentations, should encourage new thoughts. Why did the Soviet Union fall apart, or why did China opt for a capitalist economy - these are important questions, and the Marxist politics of today should seek answers to these.

ABP: During the sixties, the protests over Vietnam War, the Prague Spring, the revolutionary ideology were able to create a different backdrop. The voices of the likes of Edward Said, Noam Chomsky or yourself were inspiration for thousands. Who would inspire the new generation in this changed world after you?

TA: Revolutionary intellectuals have always been rare. It's easy to be a conformist. And that is why many people choose the traditional way of life. But, the human race has started facing the new problems with a new outlook. We are seeing different forms of protests, new ways of movement in different parts of the world. I am still enthusiastic about interacting with our young generation - these are the ones who will find the answer. It's the revolutionary voice which helps the world progress. Modernism is not synonymous with the American way of life, rather it is a way of justifying the reality with logical reasoning.

The interview ends here. I hope to post some of my thoughts on these issues very soon.

Marxism is not about blind faith – Part I

Anandabazar, one of the most popular Bengali Daily, published an interview with Tariq Ali on January 26th, 2006. A typical Tariq Ali makes us think about the issues around us. I am trying to reproduce this interview for people who will miss it because it was published in bengali.

ABP: You are saying that Iraq has become a colony again, although America has been saying that the situation in Iraq will improve after the elections. What's your view on this?

TA: The situation is Iraq hasn't changed even a bit. Even if America withdraws its troops in near future, there is a possibility that the nation will break into three parts. The northern area is a stronghold of the Kurds, and the southern part is influenced by Iran. In this situation, if the America-backed administration grows stronger in the central region, it will guarantee more American control over the oil fields of West Asia. What's more to being back in the colonial period?

ABP: Is it Iran’s turn now?

TA: It will not be possible to do similar things like Iraq in Iran – like overthrowing the government by sending armed forces. America may be able to destroy the nuclear sites of Iran by selective bombardments, but that will increase the adversity between these two nations to a dangerous level. Further, a section of Iran’s religious leaders indirectly supported the aggression over Iraq and Afghanistan. America will heavily risk its security if it attempts to attack Iran.

ABP: Is there no way to stop America from attempting to establish its own control over nation after nations, and thereby the entire world?

TA: The situation might change only if the influential countries in different regions of the world stand up against this together. In Latin America, this tendency is present in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia – apart from Cuba. If Brazil works together with them, America may find themselves in a tight situation in Latin America.

ABP: What do you think about Africa?

TA: Unfortunate. There was high hope that South Africa would be able to take leadership in Africa after the end of apartheid. But sadly, Johannesburg has converted into a big supporter of the “Washington-pact”.

ABP: In Asia?

TA: There is not a single country in Asia who can stand up to this. India was once a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, but unfortunately, the elite Indians have bowed down in front of the “Washington Consensus”. The less you say about Pakistan, the better. China doesn’t have a stable foreign policy, or, may be they are trying to view the international political situation with a long term approach. A few leaders like Mahathir have raised their voices against Washington, but that was too little to help. A South Asian Union would enable unrestricted business, travel, and exchanges between the countries in this region. That would allow them to stand up against the American imperialism together.

ABP: Would you include Afghanistan and Myanmar too in this South Asian Union?

TA: Why should I mind? But, in order to form this union, you will primarily need India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Because China’s economy is complimentary to the South Asian economy, it’s necessary that China gets closely attached to this union. Only then we will be able to find an answer to America’s dominance. Otherwise there is no way out of the mess created by this “Washington Pact” for the past one and half decades.

ABP: This would require advances in the Indo-Pak peace process. What do you think about the current improvement in the relations?

TA: The bilateral relationship is improving slowly, but not as expected. The defence expenditures of both the nations are still huge, which is practically unpardonable. Only a fraction of this could have caused a vast improvement of educational infrastructure or health and medicinal infrastructure, which would have had an effect on millions of peoples’ lives. Although the steps being taken for the improvement of rail and road links are likely to increase the goodwill amongst the people on both sides of the border. If the Kashmiris on both sides of the LOC had more means of exchange, it could have changed the nature of the relationship, and moreover, the families separated because of the adversity between the two nations would have had a chance to reunite. Neither Indian, nor the Pakistani government has been able to advance much in this respect. If we can’t leave the past (1947) behind, we will remain engulfed in the black hole we are in now.

Continued in Part II…