Indian Premier League has been in the news ever since it was launched. Whether it is for making cricketers a mere ‘commodity’ in the market, or the cheer leaders, or the tax concessions that it is enjoying, or the sacking Vijay Mallya has done… or (how can I forget!) the Harbhajan-Sreesanth incident, IPL is always in news. The latest is the dropping TRP ratings.
Money binds people together better than nationalism. Or how do we explain people from different countries, who till recently spew venom on the ones from other countries, coming together and gelling so well and delivering results? The way each one cheer the other and hold well as one team is something very unique. May be in the absence of such obscene amount of money, would we have seen the same?
May be because of money, but that IPL provides an opportunity for people from diverse culture and nationalities could come together and understand each other, play the game well and appreciate each other is something special. May be this will help the future Test and ODI series to be more amiable.
In the absence of IPL would we have ever known the depth of quality players that we have in this country? It seems that India could have two equally formidable cricket teams – at least two T20 teams. All of a sudden we are watching young cricketers playing at par with the senior ones and excelling as good as (sometimes better than) the senior ones.
Who would think of having an IPL of say kabadi, or hockey?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Binayak Sen: Beyond the Case
There are three things I understand from the year long confinement of Binayak in Raipur jail.
The state seem to have become immune to any kind of non-violent protest and it does not care about the scathing attack it is subjected to by civil society groups, Nobel laureates, professionals, social activist, students…. It also does not care how its wily intentions are known to one and all, how, in normal course, it will not stand a chance in a court of law, and the possible ‘bad name’ the arrest of Binayak could bring to Chhattisgarh government.
What does this indicate? That it is time to look into the effectiveness of our strategies while seeking to amend the way governments function? That the forces which bring together and sustain the governments are so powerful and demanding that their support is what any government would go for, and would not go to any extent to keep them in good humour.
Secondly, having faced severe opposition by the people evicted for development projects in the recent past - sometimes successful, sometimes not, some turning violent, others not – the State needs a new strategy to evict people to the ever growing demands of the industries. Large-scale evictions for development projects and the subsequent actions by the State to ‘tackle’ the protestors have come for heavy criticism.
Maoism came handy for the Chhattisgarh government. ‘For their safety’ thousands and thousands of tribals were evicted from their natural resource rich villages and moved to police camps. The fate of a large number of them are unknown – may be they fled to other states. Companies have already started getting those lands. A few years later, in all likelihood, we will see a large number of industries and mining activities going on there. Forced evictions are getting more and more complicated to fight against.
Thirdly, it tested the capacity of the civil society, the media, judiciary and the international organisations to rally behind Binayak and to make an impact on the government. It brought together diverse groups together in India, a chain of programs were held in different countries, a prestigious award was given to Binayak, Nobel laureates were mobilised in support…. How much did it impact the government/s would be seen in the coming days.
However, Binayak’s is yet to become a symbolic case of the government curbing the civil and political rights of a large number of social activists / journalists and dealing with voices of dissent. One wish this to be a case to bring together a large number of people and organisations together to speak against the increasing violation of rights in the name of Maoism, terrorism, bomb blasts and national security.
Connecting with an earlier point, it could also be time for the social movements and civil society organisations to come together and re-strategise the way they want to engage with the State. May be, it is time to think about hitting the governments hard where it matters to them – electoral politics.
The state seem to have become immune to any kind of non-violent protest and it does not care about the scathing attack it is subjected to by civil society groups, Nobel laureates, professionals, social activist, students…. It also does not care how its wily intentions are known to one and all, how, in normal course, it will not stand a chance in a court of law, and the possible ‘bad name’ the arrest of Binayak could bring to Chhattisgarh government.
What does this indicate? That it is time to look into the effectiveness of our strategies while seeking to amend the way governments function? That the forces which bring together and sustain the governments are so powerful and demanding that their support is what any government would go for, and would not go to any extent to keep them in good humour.
Secondly, having faced severe opposition by the people evicted for development projects in the recent past - sometimes successful, sometimes not, some turning violent, others not – the State needs a new strategy to evict people to the ever growing demands of the industries. Large-scale evictions for development projects and the subsequent actions by the State to ‘tackle’ the protestors have come for heavy criticism.
Maoism came handy for the Chhattisgarh government. ‘For their safety’ thousands and thousands of tribals were evicted from their natural resource rich villages and moved to police camps. The fate of a large number of them are unknown – may be they fled to other states. Companies have already started getting those lands. A few years later, in all likelihood, we will see a large number of industries and mining activities going on there. Forced evictions are getting more and more complicated to fight against.
Thirdly, it tested the capacity of the civil society, the media, judiciary and the international organisations to rally behind Binayak and to make an impact on the government. It brought together diverse groups together in India, a chain of programs were held in different countries, a prestigious award was given to Binayak, Nobel laureates were mobilised in support…. How much did it impact the government/s would be seen in the coming days.
However, Binayak’s is yet to become a symbolic case of the government curbing the civil and political rights of a large number of social activists / journalists and dealing with voices of dissent. One wish this to be a case to bring together a large number of people and organisations together to speak against the increasing violation of rights in the name of Maoism, terrorism, bomb blasts and national security.
Connecting with an earlier point, it could also be time for the social movements and civil society organisations to come together and re-strategise the way they want to engage with the State. May be, it is time to think about hitting the governments hard where it matters to them – electoral politics.
Friday, March 07, 2008
'We gave them back'
There are many things we liked about India beating Australia and bringing the cup home. Dhoni's captaincy, his innovation in teams composition as well as bowling changes, Sachin's masterly stroke, the rise of Ishant, Praveen and Robin, Harbajan surviving the assaults of both the team as well as media... there are many.
But the one which is most said both by the media and by the players are that 'we gave them back in their coin' (who said this of late..... wasn't it Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, referring to Nandigram violence?).
While it satiates our instincts, the danger of picking the thorn with another thorn, to take an eye for eye is that you can become the same in future, what you oppose now. If unchecked at this stage and if the media does not restrain from glorifying the verbal duals and the non-cricketing ‘revenge’ that we took on Australians, India could, in future what Australians are now.
Projection of a macho team, who shows more boxing gestures in the ground than gestures of joy, is good for a media, always looking for ‘action’ and ‘news’. And it suits the never ending advertising world. A Harbajan, Yuvraj or Sreeshant would surely be the favorites than a Praveen or Rohit.
Falling into such a trap could only make the team a bunch of ‘fearsome’ guys, which would be known more for the gestures, slangs and fines than the cricketing skills. BCCI and media have an important role to play here.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Loan Waver
It is sad to see that some economists are ridiculing the farm loan waver. Some go to the extend 'advising' the middle class not to repay there mortgage or loan, and to hope that one day it would be waved!
There are many problems with the present loan waver announcement. But what it does is, it acknowledges a serious problem in the farm sector (it took nearly a decade and lives of over 100,000 lives for that); that governments cannot eternally play to the tunes of the lending agencies and that of the corporations and need to face the realities of rural India; that, democracy is (still) good - it makes every Chidambaram to seek votes once in five years!
Inherent are some problems with the announcement that it may not really wipe the tears of all farmers as it is made to believe. Fundamental among them seem to be the absence of any measures to eliminate those factors which lead the farmers to take loans, leading them to a debt trap and eventually suicides. Unless those factors are addressed, the circumstances for the farmers to take loans would continue to be there, repeating what has been happening all these years, and even as I write this blog!
Then, after years, in an election year, loan waver package would be announced; and economists would continue to ridicule it!!
There are many problems with the present loan waver announcement. But what it does is, it acknowledges a serious problem in the farm sector (it took nearly a decade and lives of over 100,000 lives for that); that governments cannot eternally play to the tunes of the lending agencies and that of the corporations and need to face the realities of rural India; that, democracy is (still) good - it makes every Chidambaram to seek votes once in five years!
Inherent are some problems with the announcement that it may not really wipe the tears of all farmers as it is made to believe. Fundamental among them seem to be the absence of any measures to eliminate those factors which lead the farmers to take loans, leading them to a debt trap and eventually suicides. Unless those factors are addressed, the circumstances for the farmers to take loans would continue to be there, repeating what has been happening all these years, and even as I write this blog!
Then, after years, in an election year, loan waver package would be announced; and economists would continue to ridicule it!!
Returning after long....
Well, there is no particular reason that I am returning to blog. 4 years back I got excited with this, but later (as happens with many other things!) I lost interest in that. But am back. Not with any bangs, nothing special, just dropping by to meet an old friend. Let's see how long will we be together this time!
Friday, October 08, 2004
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Missing the Point
There was something totally amiss in the recent discussion on the foreigners in Planning Commission panels. Bereft of any interesting topics after Sarvarkar and the National flag, the media took good advantage of the situation.
There are only 15 foreigners against 415 “pure Indians” was the argument in some sections of the media. Yet another was that most of these 15 “foreigners” are “Indians” by virtue of being a Baijal, a Sudipto, a Mehrotra, or a Prabhu, irrespective of whichever institution they are representing.
The context of the controversy is the decision of the Planning Commission of India to set up 19 consultative groups to review the Tenth Plan and its invitation to the representatives of World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Mckinsey & Co etc to be members of these panels. An influential ally of the ruling UPA government, the Left raised objections to the inclusion of representatives of multilateral funding agencies and consultancy firms.
Where the media missed the point in this controversy was that, instead of going into the merits (and demerits) of foreign agencies in India’s top most planning agency, it tried to project it as a ‘Left versus Rest’ fight. Being the speck in the liberalisation-privatisation-globalisation eye, it is easier to make a villain out of the Left.
Whether a Shetty, Sharma or a Singh, the members of these institutions are meant to further the interests of the institution they are representing. The publicly announced positions of the Bank and ADB, favouring privatisation of water and many other core sectors are enough indication of their interests.
Additionally, by including members of institutions run and dominated by other nation-states, we are putting the sovereignty of our nation at stake. Further, the inclusion of representatives of institutions lobbying for drastic change in India’s polices and priorities will be an endorsement of their positions. Abolition of free education, free health and public distribution system etc are few of the long-standing demands of these multi-lateral donor agencies
Media also failed in seeing the defeatist attitude of our power elite, who lacks confidence in our capability and capacity. Today we ask for advice to run our house; tomorrow we may ask them to run it.
The credibility of the Left, who invites and favours multinationals in the states run by them, was also not questioned. Unless the Left learns to ‘walk the talk,’ their contradictions will haunt them to hell.
Though the panels have been dissolved, the discussion in the media could have been much healthier than posing empty questions like, “why the Left is afraid of foreigners?”
There are only 15 foreigners against 415 “pure Indians” was the argument in some sections of the media. Yet another was that most of these 15 “foreigners” are “Indians” by virtue of being a Baijal, a Sudipto, a Mehrotra, or a Prabhu, irrespective of whichever institution they are representing.
The context of the controversy is the decision of the Planning Commission of India to set up 19 consultative groups to review the Tenth Plan and its invitation to the representatives of World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Mckinsey & Co etc to be members of these panels. An influential ally of the ruling UPA government, the Left raised objections to the inclusion of representatives of multilateral funding agencies and consultancy firms.
Where the media missed the point in this controversy was that, instead of going into the merits (and demerits) of foreign agencies in India’s top most planning agency, it tried to project it as a ‘Left versus Rest’ fight. Being the speck in the liberalisation-privatisation-globalisation eye, it is easier to make a villain out of the Left.
Whether a Shetty, Sharma or a Singh, the members of these institutions are meant to further the interests of the institution they are representing. The publicly announced positions of the Bank and ADB, favouring privatisation of water and many other core sectors are enough indication of their interests.
Additionally, by including members of institutions run and dominated by other nation-states, we are putting the sovereignty of our nation at stake. Further, the inclusion of representatives of institutions lobbying for drastic change in India’s polices and priorities will be an endorsement of their positions. Abolition of free education, free health and public distribution system etc are few of the long-standing demands of these multi-lateral donor agencies
Media also failed in seeing the defeatist attitude of our power elite, who lacks confidence in our capability and capacity. Today we ask for advice to run our house; tomorrow we may ask them to run it.
The credibility of the Left, who invites and favours multinationals in the states run by them, was also not questioned. Unless the Left learns to ‘walk the talk,’ their contradictions will haunt them to hell.
Though the panels have been dissolved, the discussion in the media could have been much healthier than posing empty questions like, “why the Left is afraid of foreigners?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)