Saturday, May 19, 2012
A@&£ hole in one
Over the last few weeks I have been bored to death by several golfers, most of whom have taken to the sport in their late 30s. Their insistence on rambling endlessly about the sport to people who have little or no interest, is annoying to say the least. The most passionate sports followers tend to be soccer fans. But even they are largely sensitive in social situations.
The first thing golfers tell you in praise of their sport is the whole zen-like experience of "competing against yourself". So who do you jog against? Or lift weights against? Granted the options I mention are more physically demanding but we are discussing a Sport I thought.
80%(or maybe 90),of people on a golf course have never played any sport with any skill all their lives (this bit is India-specific). Not even the school cricket or soccer team, just for context. So naturally those with a modicum of athletic ability or ball-sense tend to excel. I once told a single- digit handicapper that he was in the top 10 per cent of players worldwide. His blush turned to immediate annoyance as I pointed out he didn't stand a chance of being in the top 50% in any other sport he dabbled in. The denominator counts.
What perplexes me is a bunch of people I know religiously show up at the golf course twice or even thrice a week. Several of them "never had time" beyond work in the years that I have known them. And yet, at a professional phase when work is meant to increasingly eat into personal time, the glamour of the golf course seems to breed exemplary time management.
And then we have golfing jargon. My favourite is something called " muscle memory". Apparently that's what gives you a consistent swing. So what gives you a consistent serve action in Tennis? How else did Kapil Dev bowl the same way for most of his cricketing life? But you won't hear a tennis player or cricketer mouth such gibberish. They just get on with the Sport.
I have held this view for years. Some friends have dragged me to the course more than a few times. The picturesque courses and the therapeutic effect parts of a golf course have are un- deniable. But then, I better not kid myself I am playing a "sport". Maybe if and when I am not in physical shape to play a real sport, golf it shall be. Or if I have a boss who places disproportionate weightage on golfing handicap. The quality of my work seldom gets me anywhere anyway.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Unsociably Yours
For the 2nd straight weekend we watched a movie at a cinema. I have long maintained that frequency of movie watching is inversely linked to quality of social life. In our case, it certainly holds true at least since we moved to Mumbai. Must concede I am a conversation- over -loud music person. Both of us are not fans of large dos and while I do indulge in Dumb Charades, Pictionary and the like, it's not really my scene. What compounds the matter further is being in the reverse situation while in Delhi and I look for half an excuse to retreat there on every 3-day weekend.
The irony is we probably have more people we count as friends in Mumbai than any other city in the world (well I have lived all my life in India but "world" sounds cooler ). And yet I struggle to create a "group" here. It's impossible for us to invite 8 of our friends together and not worry about somebody stepping on another' s toes or or an inebriated argument escalating into something more serious.
Heterogeneity is the thing I miss most. In Delhi our circle of friends comprised lawyers, journalists, the odd bureaucrat or politician, entrepreneurs and some people from the corporate world. 90% of people we know here are associated with the financial services industry. In turn, the people they seem to know are also the same! In the former, nobody competed with one another in any form. That made for way easier evenings. The diversity of conversation topics was an added bonus.
In Delhi one made friends thru friends. One got invited basis interaction at a common friend's place. In Mumbai that seems to happen only if your kids go the same school. (we have been fortunate with one exception ). People seem to guard their social circles with Masonic zealousness.
Some of our friends have moved here from other cities. We hung out together there too. Now, conversations inevitably move to budgets for home purchase, music systems, and the like. Either I didn't notice the materialistic streak earlier (which is unlikely),or it is the M-factor at work.
Coming back to the movies, "Kahaani" is a must-watch and "Paan Singh Tomar" can be given a miss.
The irony is we probably have more people we count as friends in Mumbai than any other city in the world (well I have lived all my life in India but "world" sounds cooler ). And yet I struggle to create a "group" here. It's impossible for us to invite 8 of our friends together and not worry about somebody stepping on another' s toes or or an inebriated argument escalating into something more serious.
Heterogeneity is the thing I miss most. In Delhi our circle of friends comprised lawyers, journalists, the odd bureaucrat or politician, entrepreneurs and some people from the corporate world. 90% of people we know here are associated with the financial services industry. In turn, the people they seem to know are also the same! In the former, nobody competed with one another in any form. That made for way easier evenings. The diversity of conversation topics was an added bonus.
In Delhi one made friends thru friends. One got invited basis interaction at a common friend's place. In Mumbai that seems to happen only if your kids go the same school. (we have been fortunate with one exception ). People seem to guard their social circles with Masonic zealousness.
Some of our friends have moved here from other cities. We hung out together there too. Now, conversations inevitably move to budgets for home purchase, music systems, and the like. Either I didn't notice the materialistic streak earlier (which is unlikely),or it is the M-factor at work.
Coming back to the movies, "Kahaani" is a must-watch and "Paan Singh Tomar" can be given a miss.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Smelling not-so-good Coffee
Recent elections in U.P. and Punjab have ensured regional satraps dig in their heels firmly. This growing trend is bad news for the country since we are set to witness a reinforcement in the parliamentary elections.
An alliance begins with horse-trading and most regional parties walk away with a couple of plum ministries. Since the chieftain has to be based in the kingdom, an incompetent (and often inexperienced) stooge is typically placed in the capital. This leads to a serious compromise on administrative efficiency. A DMK is content with ministries like Telecom and Shipping so that coffers could be filled. Mulayam or a Jayalalitha will probably insist on an additional portfolio like Home given their extraordinary penchant to control the law and order machinery.
Given that anti-defection laws are restricted to parties and not alliances, a coalition breeds pockets of irresponsibility. So if a matter of national import runs at cross-purposes to regional interest, there is petulant stone-walling . This has been a significant contributor to the policy-making freeze that we are currently gripped by. The intra-coalition tug-of-war that such trade union tactics cause are beginning to hit at the root of the federal system. Mamata Banerjee has converted this into an art form and her subsequent electoral success will encourage many others to follow suit. This has serious consequences for industrial growth and expediting economic reform.
Regional leaders who are in the opposition in Parliament see a sporadic need to assert themselves as first-among-equals. They often tend to pick up irrelevant issues and rabble rouse them to a point of national distraction. Naveen Patnaik's passionate opposition to the proposed terrorism prevention structure is a classic example. Here is a CM who watched quietly as Naxals systematically took control of nearly half the state. There was no administrative or political will to curb the menace. But instead of setting his house in order, his advisers goaded him to pick an issue and create enough noise to position him as a "statesman" worthy of fighting a battle that went beyond state boundaries. Nitish Kumar does the same albeit with a more nuanced style. The Govt is left with no choice but to take two steps backward lest they create a 4th (or 5th) front.
One of the primary reasons for this phenomenon is the Congress' policy of weakening any strong local leader. In doing so, they have left the royal family intact but with a vastly eroded empire. The BJP on the other hand has created a structure with multiple state-leaders all of whom are consolidating their state bases impressively. But it has left them with nobody with national stature.
Unfortunately, no easy solutions come to mind. But amidst all the noise around the need to smell the coffee with the growing strength of regional parties, it is important to be concerned about the consequences. There are hardly any positive outcomes.
An alliance begins with horse-trading and most regional parties walk away with a couple of plum ministries. Since the chieftain has to be based in the kingdom, an incompetent (and often inexperienced) stooge is typically placed in the capital. This leads to a serious compromise on administrative efficiency. A DMK is content with ministries like Telecom and Shipping so that coffers could be filled. Mulayam or a Jayalalitha will probably insist on an additional portfolio like Home given their extraordinary penchant to control the law and order machinery.
Given that anti-defection laws are restricted to parties and not alliances, a coalition breeds pockets of irresponsibility. So if a matter of national import runs at cross-purposes to regional interest, there is petulant stone-walling . This has been a significant contributor to the policy-making freeze that we are currently gripped by. The intra-coalition tug-of-war that such trade union tactics cause are beginning to hit at the root of the federal system. Mamata Banerjee has converted this into an art form and her subsequent electoral success will encourage many others to follow suit. This has serious consequences for industrial growth and expediting economic reform.
Regional leaders who are in the opposition in Parliament see a sporadic need to assert themselves as first-among-equals. They often tend to pick up irrelevant issues and rabble rouse them to a point of national distraction. Naveen Patnaik's passionate opposition to the proposed terrorism prevention structure is a classic example. Here is a CM who watched quietly as Naxals systematically took control of nearly half the state. There was no administrative or political will to curb the menace. But instead of setting his house in order, his advisers goaded him to pick an issue and create enough noise to position him as a "statesman" worthy of fighting a battle that went beyond state boundaries. Nitish Kumar does the same albeit with a more nuanced style. The Govt is left with no choice but to take two steps backward lest they create a 4th (or 5th) front.
One of the primary reasons for this phenomenon is the Congress' policy of weakening any strong local leader. In doing so, they have left the royal family intact but with a vastly eroded empire. The BJP on the other hand has created a structure with multiple state-leaders all of whom are consolidating their state bases impressively. But it has left them with nobody with national stature.
Unfortunately, no easy solutions come to mind. But amidst all the noise around the need to smell the coffee with the growing strength of regional parties, it is important to be concerned about the consequences. There are hardly any positive outcomes.
Friday, September 16, 2011
A bit too "Fast"
Narendra Modi is in the news again for a series of avoidable reasons. Firstly a Supreme Court judgement which has no real legal implication and is perhaps more procedural. Modi's subsequent gesture of proceeding on a fast is uncharacteristic and incongruous with his image of a leader who puts outcome over symbolism.
But why are the Gujarat riots of 2002 so politically significant a decade from occurrence? From the looks of it, it is the only available stick to beat Modi with. It also has to do with Modi's continued relevance and electoral success. I would argue that a sole electoral loss would ensure oblivion for Godhra. Ironic but eminently possible. The BJP has a cliched retort by referring to 1984. This pitch was strangely subdued in the Narasimha Rao era. The return of the Gandhi family ensured this weapon, however rusty, was brought back into the armoury.
In the interest of political maturity though, it is important to bury 2002 and move on to more relevant issues of governance. Several leaders are guilty of the acts of omission that Modi is accused of. Each of them have created a political divide sharp enough to last a few generations. Lets leave 1984 out since its been done to death. V P Singh gave a whole new dimension to caste based politics. His contribution to societal degeneration went way beyond the Mandal agitation that is the most vivid memory of those times. It spawned a whole new regressive thought process and set the meritocracy clock back by a few decades. Narasimha Rao, however progressive, played the religion card at Ayodhya to stoke a dormant volcano. While the move backfired in the medium term, it created a flank that was existent but hitherto of little value. A whole bunch of saffron clad touts milked it for decades.
If we were to shift to the economic arena one has examples galore of unacceptable tolerance of malignant political acts. Singrur is a classic case in point of a state government pretending to be hapless when caught in a bind on vote bank versus development. This when the state is on the brink of ruin. At least 3 states are witnessing a steady, irreversible decline in their industrial fortunes owing to sheer lack of political will to take on the Maoist menace. Not only do we witness indifference to loss of lives, there is little concern at the lawless existence of a parallel government thriving through extortion.
Comparable levels of guilt across the political spectrum do not absolve Modi in case he is indeed culpable. However, it may be prudent to reconcile to a significant "downgrade" amongst the polity and plump for the "least worst". While Gujarat was always progressive, it has galloped in the last decade leaving most other developed states far behind. The government is considered decisive and "right" thinking. It is only in this term that one hears murmurs of corruption and it could well be a case of misplaced propaganda. It may not hurt to have a leader of this stature in the national arena (lack of acceptance amongst the Reality TV watching couch potatoes notwithstanding).
In my view though, Modi is jumping the gun by showing his hand a little too soon. A few more years of operating below the radar may have ensured smoother sailing in the longer run. His current gameplan of acquiring statesman status through "sadbhavna" will ensure intra-party knives get sharpened before time. He needs a year or so of judicial calm before attempting to shed the hawk image that he wears comfortably (to a point of being scary).
But why are the Gujarat riots of 2002 so politically significant a decade from occurrence? From the looks of it, it is the only available stick to beat Modi with. It also has to do with Modi's continued relevance and electoral success. I would argue that a sole electoral loss would ensure oblivion for Godhra. Ironic but eminently possible. The BJP has a cliched retort by referring to 1984. This pitch was strangely subdued in the Narasimha Rao era. The return of the Gandhi family ensured this weapon, however rusty, was brought back into the armoury.
In the interest of political maturity though, it is important to bury 2002 and move on to more relevant issues of governance. Several leaders are guilty of the acts of omission that Modi is accused of. Each of them have created a political divide sharp enough to last a few generations. Lets leave 1984 out since its been done to death. V P Singh gave a whole new dimension to caste based politics. His contribution to societal degeneration went way beyond the Mandal agitation that is the most vivid memory of those times. It spawned a whole new regressive thought process and set the meritocracy clock back by a few decades. Narasimha Rao, however progressive, played the religion card at Ayodhya to stoke a dormant volcano. While the move backfired in the medium term, it created a flank that was existent but hitherto of little value. A whole bunch of saffron clad touts milked it for decades.
If we were to shift to the economic arena one has examples galore of unacceptable tolerance of malignant political acts. Singrur is a classic case in point of a state government pretending to be hapless when caught in a bind on vote bank versus development. This when the state is on the brink of ruin. At least 3 states are witnessing a steady, irreversible decline in their industrial fortunes owing to sheer lack of political will to take on the Maoist menace. Not only do we witness indifference to loss of lives, there is little concern at the lawless existence of a parallel government thriving through extortion.
Comparable levels of guilt across the political spectrum do not absolve Modi in case he is indeed culpable. However, it may be prudent to reconcile to a significant "downgrade" amongst the polity and plump for the "least worst". While Gujarat was always progressive, it has galloped in the last decade leaving most other developed states far behind. The government is considered decisive and "right" thinking. It is only in this term that one hears murmurs of corruption and it could well be a case of misplaced propaganda. It may not hurt to have a leader of this stature in the national arena (lack of acceptance amongst the Reality TV watching couch potatoes notwithstanding).
In my view though, Modi is jumping the gun by showing his hand a little too soon. A few more years of operating below the radar may have ensured smoother sailing in the longer run. His current gameplan of acquiring statesman status through "sadbhavna" will ensure intra-party knives get sharpened before time. He needs a year or so of judicial calm before attempting to shed the hawk image that he wears comfortably (to a point of being scary).
Friday, July 15, 2011
This isn't about Cricket
In a few hours from now, the verdict on presidency of the Mumbai Cricket Association shall be pronounced. A prominent politician is pitted against a cricketing legend. Over the last several months there has been much clamour for sportspersons to run sports bodies. This is misplaced and owes itself to the standard loathing for all things "sarkari" as opposed to any serious logic.
Indian cricket owes its current importance in the ICC to the likes of Jagmohan Dalmiya , an astute administrator but certainly not the world's best known cricketer. His absence of a cricketing track record was no impediment to his accomplishment as a sports administrator. And each time one is tempted to delve into corruption around sale of TV rights, IPL teams, CWG et al, think Match Fixing, Ball Tampering or even "the Hand of God". In an ideal world sportsmen are meant to uphold the values of fairplay and integrity. But bring in the dimension of commerce and they are often no different from politicians, bureaucrats or any other tribe the world loves to hate.
Internationally there are enough and more examples of successful sports federations like FIFA and International Olympic Association that are run by administrators with little or no sporting achievement. Some of these associations have often been the hegemony of a powerful personality for decades but rarely has the cause suffered. Wimbledon is organised with remarkable efficiency each year without Bjorn Borg or Pete Sampras being at the helm. There is no reason why Indian sport should be any different.
This applies to dimensions of sport apart from administration. Coaching and Commentary come immediately to mind. While we have some successful sportsmen excelling at both, there are enough and more examples to the contrary. For every Ravi Shastri and Geoffrey Boycott, we have a Harsha Bhogle or Henry Blofeld. These specialist commentrators have played cricket at some level but they shall seldom be referred to as "former cricketers".
Lastly, where shall Mohammed Azharuddin fit? Cricketer, Politician, Match-fixer or All of the above" ???
Indian cricket owes its current importance in the ICC to the likes of Jagmohan Dalmiya , an astute administrator but certainly not the world's best known cricketer. His absence of a cricketing track record was no impediment to his accomplishment as a sports administrator. And each time one is tempted to delve into corruption around sale of TV rights, IPL teams, CWG et al, think Match Fixing, Ball Tampering or even "the Hand of God". In an ideal world sportsmen are meant to uphold the values of fairplay and integrity. But bring in the dimension of commerce and they are often no different from politicians, bureaucrats or any other tribe the world loves to hate.
Internationally there are enough and more examples of successful sports federations like FIFA and International Olympic Association that are run by administrators with little or no sporting achievement. Some of these associations have often been the hegemony of a powerful personality for decades but rarely has the cause suffered. Wimbledon is organised with remarkable efficiency each year without Bjorn Borg or Pete Sampras being at the helm. There is no reason why Indian sport should be any different.
This applies to dimensions of sport apart from administration. Coaching and Commentary come immediately to mind. While we have some successful sportsmen excelling at both, there are enough and more examples to the contrary. For every Ravi Shastri and Geoffrey Boycott, we have a Harsha Bhogle or Henry Blofeld. These specialist commentrators have played cricket at some level but they shall seldom be referred to as "former cricketers".
Lastly, where shall Mohammed Azharuddin fit? Cricketer, Politician, Match-fixer or All of the above" ???
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Bye Bye Ramdev?
While the jury is out on the political wisdom behind the abrupt and "forcible" end to Baba Ramdev's Ramlila Maidan farce, the Government deserves to be commended for acting courageously for once.
Firstly, the egg on the PM's face with Anna Hazare's well-timed populist maneuver is still fresh in public memory. To bend again would plumet the Prime Minister's Office to irrversible indignity. Hence, after the initial attempts at conciliation firm measures were called for.
A larger threat is to the roots of our democratic foundation. There is a defined process to represent the voice of the people. If anyone with a fan following is permitted to drive a policy or two through ransom, it shall prove debilitating. The odd yoga teacher, film star or even cricketer ought to restrict themselves to their chosen line of work. Alternatively, they ought to formally plunge into the political process. Currently, the Baba Ramdevs of the world are leveraging their cult following whilst escaping the cynicism that is reserved for those who officially don Khadi.
The question that shall be asked (albeit hypothetically) is the government's possible response to a similar call by a minority leader. Frankly, that shall be the true test of the PM's intent. The current act could either be the first signs of a firm fist. Alternatively, it could merely be an attempt to scuttle a possible saffron resurgence. Despite my not-so-complimentary views about the current ministry, it seems largely like the former to me. In any case, it doesnt seem like this show is over yet.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Unjudicious Encroachment
The Supreme Court striking down the CVC appointment is being welcomed in several quarters. In my view, this could set a dangerous precedent even though the spirit of the decision may be somewhat in place (given the CVC digging his heels in firmly). While the Court has been careful to explain that it is dealing with just the "legality of an appointment" which lies outside its purview, the subsequent explanation around "illegality" is shallow. The court seems to be hiding behing clever wordplay while not-so-subtly encroaching into executive domain.
The Courts have decided to take a view on an appointment which is always likely to have an element of subjectivity. In appointments to the Supreme Court itself, there are cases of Judges being elevated despite dissent within the collegium. There are well publicised cases of elevation of Judges after dissenting collegium members retired. In another, an overlooked Judge wrote to the President and was subsequently elevated ostensibly in the interests of diversity. Not to say these appointments were incorrect. The moot point is the subjective element that is bound to creep into most of these appointments. Hence the assumption of superior "judgemental" (pun unintended) ability seems inappropriate.
Independently, there are strong noises about at least one (if not two) retired members of the higher judiciary. One of them holds an equally important constitutional post. He too has taken stonewalling to a new high in the wake of official confirmation of ill-gotten wealth by kin. A HC Judge against whom impeachment proceedings have been initiated is taking refuge in farcical procedural gaps in the proceedings. The Supreme Court is expected to be way more active in ensuring their own brethren are not allowed the luxury of impunity whilst they seek to be conscience-keepers of all arms of the government.
Encroachment into Executive domain by the Judiciary has been prevalent for a while now. Parts of it have been welcome in the wake of ineffective executive intervention. Currently the Judiciary is threatening to cross the line once to often. That it is seen to be doing so without applying the same principles to itself will ultimately lead to complete dilution of credibility.
The Courts have decided to take a view on an appointment which is always likely to have an element of subjectivity. In appointments to the Supreme Court itself, there are cases of Judges being elevated despite dissent within the collegium. There are well publicised cases of elevation of Judges after dissenting collegium members retired. In another, an overlooked Judge wrote to the President and was subsequently elevated ostensibly in the interests of diversity. Not to say these appointments were incorrect. The moot point is the subjective element that is bound to creep into most of these appointments. Hence the assumption of superior "judgemental" (pun unintended) ability seems inappropriate.
Independently, there are strong noises about at least one (if not two) retired members of the higher judiciary. One of them holds an equally important constitutional post. He too has taken stonewalling to a new high in the wake of official confirmation of ill-gotten wealth by kin. A HC Judge against whom impeachment proceedings have been initiated is taking refuge in farcical procedural gaps in the proceedings. The Supreme Court is expected to be way more active in ensuring their own brethren are not allowed the luxury of impunity whilst they seek to be conscience-keepers of all arms of the government.
Encroachment into Executive domain by the Judiciary has been prevalent for a while now. Parts of it have been welcome in the wake of ineffective executive intervention. Currently the Judiciary is threatening to cross the line once to often. That it is seen to be doing so without applying the same principles to itself will ultimately lead to complete dilution of credibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
