Th Strange Choice!

We witnessed a lot of hype over Hillary Clinton’s nomination to run for the post of Presidential candidate from the Democrat Party in the US recently. It is indeed an achievement for any human being whatsoever to rise to the position of being a semi-finalist in the race to be the world’s most powerful person. And for this alone, she should get a lot of respect from the public in general. But to claim that she was a messiah for women kind and that she was a solitary female representative in a male world is ludicrous at the least. Yes she is a woman, but then dare we forget she is the wife of Bill Clinton who was America’s President not so long ago, and in fact still remains among the most popular ones ever.

Now late us take the case of another woman leader in a different part of the world. The name is Mayawati Naina Kumari, presently the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. She was born in the lowest rung of society, and is now the leader of India’s largest and perhaps most influential sate. Here I’m not trying to be an advocate of caste politics or dalit-socialism, but I’m only trying to gauge the mind of the so-called feminists who have put personalities like Hillary Clinton now and others like Indira Gandhi and Isabella Peron in the pasta s feminist icons. Mayawati had an economically impoverished childhood, and is not conventionally pretty looking a quality often required for women to reach the top in patriarchal societies. And yet presently she is the most powerful person in one of the most backward-patriarchal parts of the globe. I’m not suggesting that Mayawati is a morally superior personality, but if seen purely as a female symbol surely none can have better credentials. Perhaps her not being dressed elegantly could be a reason for this lack of appeal to the modern working women who then look for falser idols. Indira Gandhi’s suave English and Hillary Clinton’s Caucasian American look better fit into these stereotypes of so-called ‘breaking the glass barrier’ and all that.
But the truth is that if I had been a feminist, Mayawati would definitely have been my idol. She has consistently managed to kick men around successfully starting without a base point to launch her campaigns. Indeed without seemingly powerful intimate relationships of blood or flesh.

Kunti's Rescue Act!

It was a fatal night. Her dark body, mesmerizing as it was stood in front of the brothers, not in reality but in thoughts. They twitched at every sway of her hips. She was born as destiny’s child and now was her chance to finally fulfill her father’s wishes.

It was the night before Draupadi’s Swayamvar. She was to choose her own husband. Yudhishthira was struggling to keep up his usually restrained self, and kept dreaming about her the whole night. Bheema would fell demons with ease, but her thoughts and the fear of not winning her made him look like a child. Nakula and Sahdeva, forever obedient to their elder brothers and wanting their good could not avoid a slight selfishness that night. It was written in the stars that she would be Arjuna’s, but that was hardly a consolation for him under the silver shafts of moonlight. The Pandava brothers for once stood divided!

Draupadi’s father Drupada was in a fix. He ‘knew’ that fate would conspire to make Arjuna the husband, but he could not be sure. Competing for the prize were also Karna, Duryodhana and Dussasana, among the finest archers the world had ever seen. And indeed on the day of the Swayamvar they would all gather as would the Pandavas in their disguise. Karna was denied Draupadi’s love as he was a ‘son of a charioteer’, or so she thought. Thus hurt would rankle him throughout his life, and would have devastating consequences. As Fate had it, Arjuna was adjudged the winner of the archery contest and Draupadi was his wife; much to Drupada and her own relief.

Draupadi would go on to divide the house of the Kurus as no one else. She added venom to a fire already burning, but the poison would end up destroying the entire house and indeed all of Kshatriya kind. This was pretty much her role, as she was born to aid Krishna in bringing about the Kaliyuga.

But has Kunti’s crucial role as a peacemaker been ignored? It was as if she intervened to stop the Pandavas themselves breaking up over Draupadi. Bheema, Yudhishthira, Nakula and Sahdeva all desired her. Bheema ended up as possibly her biggest lover, always there when it mattered. In the Kuru Sabha after the dice game, he was the only one to stand up for her dignity and honour. Kunti’s singular act was to speak out the words- “divide the alms equally among you”. Did she actually not know what the alms were?

The brothers thus ‘divided’ Draupadi equally among themselves. She was now common to all five of them. The envy of The Kauravas would lead to a cataclysmic earth-shattering war. What would have happened had Kunti not intervened? Perhaps envy would have torn the Pandavas right through. It is speculation but maybe Bheema’s Gada would then challenge Arjuna’s Gandiva. Or maybe, Bheema would have joined Karna to fight Arjuna!!! Unthinkable it seems, but then again we saw what then happened to Duryodhana and Karna. Self destruction reigned in. Amazing to think of what all could have happened, but to me Kunto remains the unsung hero (ine) of the Mahabharata War. Prudence or maybe luck ensured that she would save her own sons from strangling each other out, long before the end of the Yuga.

T-20...Cricket or Not?

A lot is being made out of this new apparition of the game cricket-Twenty-Twenty. People are still not resolved in their conflict whether this format of the game has any resemblance to the ‘gentleman’s sport’ begun in England. I have an altogether different view of the matter. I feel that it may not be cricket but it is definitely less ‘sinister’ than the ‘gentleman’s game’.

Cricket developed in England in the 18th century. It was then played by the land owning gentry of the country. ‘Gentleman’ is in fact a very cleverly disguised term to describe the ‘idle rich’. They were people who owned vast swathes of land and had to do little work to sustain themselves as the peasants tilled the land. Only that class at the top of the pyramid could logically play a game for 5 days. Even then results were not always produced, so the game became a means to satisfy the ‘leisure’ time. In fact, even working rich like the merchants were not allowed initially. Later when they did get inducted, separate pavilions were in store for the ‘gentlemen’ and ‘workers’. And soon the game became a further propaganda for England as it was introduced to some of the colonies as a means of ‘elevating’ the local rulers. Even here a discrimination was done, as the colonies at the ‘lowest’ level were not ‘fortunate’ enough to be introduced to the sport. So while Indian Rajas became active participants of cricket, African tribal chiefs or Caribbean ‘blacks’ would never be privy to it.

Now the game has changed beyond that. Commercialization has made it possible for cricket to become a sport of mass popularity in countries of the Indian sub-continent. Players are being drawn from different economic classes. Twenty-Twenty in such a scenario becomes an extremely democratic form of the game. It ends in about three hours and thus suited to people busy in their lives and working to meet their various needs.

So yes, W.G. Grace may be turning in his grave to see the world’s eyes resting on the Indian Premier League at the height of the English summer, yet we have to understand that the world has changed and cricket has to evolve accordingly. The gentlemen who developed the game were never so gentle after all.

Carrot and the Stick?

It is that time of the year now, when we look back on yet another season of great football. We are gearing up towards another Champions League final and looking forward to the summer internationals. However, we knew all along that this summer would be different. In addition to the movement of players from one club to another, we will also be able to witness perhaps one of the most high profile summers in managerial appointments. Football has become very tactical, with the spontaneity of previous more innocent ages missing. The manager has to now make all important decisions. He is saddled with enormous pressure from top and bottom. Thus club owners and chairpersons are extra cautious in appointing the right person.

Sven-Goran Eriksson has just become the first high profile sacking. But then we also hear Frank Rijkaard getting the boot. Eriksson is someone whose methods have bored us, while Rijkaard’s teams have given all true football fans the real joy. Yet there is somehow a feeling that Sven is the unfortunate one. Rijkaard’s job was anyway on the line. We had been looking forward the whole season to see who would get the job amidst this merry go round of managers. The final appointment of Josip Guardiola is in many ways an anti-climax. Big names were touted like Jose Mourinho, Guus Hiddink and Luiz Felipe Scolari. But as we take a look back at Guardiola’s career, we can somewhat gauge this perplexing appointment. Guardiola is a Catalan true to heart. The blood of Catalonia runs in his veins and at times of trouble he might just about be the one to salvage a little pride for Barcelona Football Club once again. He was the Barca captain supreme, a natural leader of men and someone who would anchor the team together. The likes of Figo and Rivaldo may have enchanted the crowd more but his toe crunching tackles in the middle of the park were equally important. He has no experience at the top level of management, but has done well at the youth level helping bring the likes of Bojan Krkic and Giovanni dos Santos.

Guardiola’s appointment somehow takes me back to Real Madrid’s appointment of Jose Antonio Camacho a few years back. Real had just ended 2003-04 trophy-less, and needed the local passion and flavour. Camacho was deemed the right man. Yet, Camacho left within a few weeks at the start of the next season. Real were mired so deep in trouble that, that even he could not rescue them. Barca have similar problems, though they admittedly have an owner who is ready to sell the top stars if the team improves.

The recent plight of Barcelona F.C. in many ways offers a very good case study for modern management. Frank Rijkaard was one of those modern track suited managers who would come to the training ground and play with the boys. A sense of camaraderie existed between the players and the coaching staff. This went well at the club’s peak but once problems started, Rijkaard had little power to avert the situation. A great player he was who would teach the boys, but he was never one who could wield the stick alongside the carrot. Clubs like Manchester United have produced one great team after another in recent times is to a large extent because of the manager, Sir Alex Ferguson who belongs to the old school and keeps a belief in the distance between him and the players. Two years back Barcelona were on the brink of immortality before this self destructive streak set in. Ronaldinho was on his way to try and be a Pele, but he has suddenly been found considering himself bigger than the club. Frank Rijkaard’s managerial credentials were certainly on a high till mid 2006 at the team he had built right from scratch, but now all big clubs will consider twice before offering him the post. His man-management skills have certainly taken a beating.

Ultimately we all cry out for him and his team. In 2006 we thought this was going to be the best team for a long time to come. Barcelona was playing superb football and watching them was a delight. It was Total Football reinvented all over again, art at its highest. Yet now they perish. Perhaps now they need the stick of Guardiola much more than Rijkaard’s carrot.

IMPRESSIONS

Ask any passerby on the streets about Russia, and the response is predictable. It was a great nation, most powerful in the world at par with USA, but now much reduced in size, and shrunken in terms of power and prestige. This is the usual response. Yet, is this completely true? Has Russia slid from being the world’s most glorious power to now being a mere trifling? Let us examine this theory.

At the time of the ‘greatness’ of USSR, all the ‘republics’ within the Soviet were to have their own SSRs, thus the nation was an amalgamation of all these ‘local’ units. But while Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan and all the other ‘republics’ have their own authority, Russia was denied an SSR. There was only one reason for this, and that was to deny another rival body to the supreme communist party. Russia contained 90 per cent of the land area of the Union and 72 per cent of the population. A local Russian body could easily oppose the centre. And most of these policies were framed at the time of Stalin’s Comradeship, clearly explains this fear, as he himself was a Georgian. The Russian people constantly faced discrimination of a sort in their own country. Crimea was Russian till as long as recorded history exists, yet it was ‘given’ over to Ukraine in order to appease the Ukrainians, now proud possessors of a naturally very prosperous piece of land. Russians also lost the land of their forefathers in the Steppes, as the Kazakhs were distributed highly fertile cotton growing soil, while the original tillers were packed off as slave labour in Siberia. Many were even transported to the Baltics or elsewhere as part of a ‘melting pot’ strategy. And to crown all this, the Russian Orthodox Church, the lifeline of the Motherland was stripped down naked, people forbidden to worship their gods. Yes, Russia may have been at the head of a powerful empire, yet the people may not have been colonizers.

We now come to the present scenario. Siberia produces oil, Oligarchs travel the world’s capitals as some of the richest men on earth, Russian ‘beauties’ are now amongst the luminaries of the fashion world and what’s more, Russians are even good at Lawn Tennis, a traditionally upper class sport. Under Putin’s leadership, the country is showing signs of an economic improvement from the doom and gloom of the nineties. St. Petersburg, barring the Cyrillic script on the sideways, actually appears a modern version of Detroit. And all this somehow makes the situation a bit scary.

Russia is a wounded nation. Misguided young people may want to change their nation’s destiny, and want to reclaim the imagined glory the nation possessed barely 20 years back. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s. Now I shall not go so far as to suggest such cataclysmic a consequence for the whole world, yet Russia’s recent military manouvres near the western border and its claim to the North Pole, suggests a growing self-belief. The self-belief may not always have the best desired results.

The world requires Russian oil. And Russia requires the foreign wealth to keep pouring in. And the nation’s future is still in the hands of the people themselves. Russia may end up once again churning out deadly weapons as its primary focus. Or she could prove to be a glorious chapter in the history of free enterprise.

IMPRESSIONS

To remove or not to?

The word ‘socialist’ is these days creating a massive ruckus in public. People all over the country are debating the validity of the inclusion of this S word in our Preamble, and thus its significant presence in our constitution. Powerful politicians and ‘liberal’ journalists are clamouring for the word to be dropped from the great document altogether. However, now that we are in this position, let’s just explore the meaning of the word ‘socialism’.

Does this word only mean an economic principle in which the means of production are owned by the public? Did Karl Marx himself have this narrow definition of this rather old word? Thus, is a socialist also necessarily a communist? Can a capitalist never work for the society and be termed a socialist entrepreneur?

To me, the word has utopian connotations. A socialist state is one where every individual strives for his/her own betterment at the same time benefiting society around. A capitalist owning vast swathes of personal wealth thus qualifies as a socialist if he/she invests in products deemed procurable by people while the workers too enjoy at least reasonable working conditions with some amount of personal social security. Our country is now experiencing growth as never known before, surely soon to touch the remarkable double digit growth figure. The dream socialist state which Nehru envisaged never came to fulfillment. Instead, Manmohan Singh’s dream economy based on individual enterprise is apparently working better. But this to me does not render the word socialist as anything dangerous, to be confined to the dustbin.

To an extent, the apathy of today’s policy makers and the free press can be understood. Communism was perhaps the biggest lie of the 20th century. Human beings were denied basic liberty and instead of enabling the labourer to rise, it expected all people to behave as labourers. We all know about the Gulag camps in Siberia, the forced hunger deaths of the 3 million Kulaks in Ukraine, the liquidation of all the Russian church personnel in Russia and indeed a lot more. Yet, organized communism definitely served one good purpose. The former capitalist nations could no longer remain as ‘capitalist’ if you like as before. They had to modify in fear of a labour uprising on Leninist lines. Thus, the working classes in America and Western Europe experienced reforms as never before. The labour class was now coerced into a coalition ironically to protect the interests of the largely well established liberal economies.

Thus, let us not totally abandon the word socialism from our lexicon. Our industrial growth and Forex reserves might be at an all time, the rupee might well be gaining ground, but this does not qualify us as anti-social. One would like to believe that the rise of India is not exclusive of any group in the country and benefits everybody. In that case, we might as well still swear by our preamble, and continue to include the word ‘socialist’ along with the so far less controversial ‘sovereign’.