(slightly long)
Been reading about the BJP tamasha over flag hoisting at Kashmir. There’s a pretty good post about it on Greatbong.
Unfortunately, this is just one more incident in a long series which is unlikely to have any end in the near future. That is why I am going to stick my neck out and say – “If a majority of the Kashmiris do not want to be part of India, let Kashmir go! Let them be independent”
Why are we in Kashmir in the first place? Apologies for the history lesson but as most of us will remember, about 600 independent princely states were made part of India by Sardar Patel in a short time. In most cases it was critical as they would have created enclaves within the country and made things very difficult. However, if I remember my maps correctly, in 2 cases – Travancore and J&K – it would not have created territorial issues. They could have been independent states not completely bordered by India – Travancore would have had a sea coast and J&K, a border with Pakistan. They could have been independent countries without affecting India much. Travancore acceded on its own but we needed a military issue to force Hari Singh to sign over to us – albeit one initiated by Pakistan.
And why did that happen? Why did we want to get into J&K? I was reading a book by Ramchandra Guha about modern India in which he says that initially Patel was not very keen on getting Kashmir to accede. However, at some point, Jinnah extended a hand to Junagadh to join Pakistan – which only had a direct sea link to Pakistan- merely since the ruler was Muslim. The Junagadh issue played out on its own timelines. But Jinnah’s invite irked Patel enough to feel that if Pakistan felt having a Muslim ruler was enough to join Pakistan, then a Hindu Hari Singh was reason enough for J&K being part of India. When Hari Singh did ask for help, Patel was ready to give it as long as it acceded to India.
As I said, I got this in a book by Ramchandra Guha and I am willing to go with this for now. The moot point to me is that there was no real strategic reason for us to be in Kashmir. If India’s northern border had been with Pakistan in Punjab and with J&K in Punjab and HP, life would not have been disastrous. Nonetheless, we went in and today J&K is a part of India.
So, should it remain as such? Well, as I said- I see no reason for that – other than the inevitable loss of face. What if J&K were given independence? One possible argument against giving them independence would be that there are just minority elements which create all the hoo-haa and we would be playing into the hands of extremists by succumbing to them. A fair point. And to that, I would say, then let’s have a referendum in J&K- do you want to stay with India or not? If the majority says yes, that itself would be a great help in managing the extremist elements in the state. If the majority says no, then let them go.
Would we really want to be in a position of forcefully staying somewhere when the locals do not want us? Is that any different from the British being here in the early 20th century? If the majority of people in Jammu and Kashmir do not want us, we shouldn’t be there.
There will be a number of arguments against this thought. Let’s look at some of them which might come up
1. Majority! What majority – there are no Kashmiri pundits left now so any majority is a false majority
Yes, there are no Kashmiri pundits left. And I agree that if they were there, then the chances of a yes vote would have been much higher.
But the fact that the Kashmiri pundits are not in the valley anymore, while tragic is nonetheless a reality of the last 20 years. I know 20 years is a short time in the life of a nation but do we really expect this to change? If we have a game plan to flood the valley with pro Indians and change the demographics in our favour…and live with a bit of unrest while it happens, I could go along with that. But there seems to be no such intention. If we are going to have to deal with the current population of J&K, then deal with them now.
2. But Jammu and Ladakh might want to be with India while Kashmir doesn’t
Fair enough, perhaps the referendum can be held in each of the 3 regions separately. Could be tricky, especially if the entire state comes out as “no” but these regions come out as “yes”. But can be handled, I think.
3. Why do we always give “special status” to J&K? First, Article 370 and now a special referendum. Who do they think they are?
To an extent, that is fair. However, one must admit that J&K is slightly different from the rest of the country. But, if that is still an issue, go ahead – have the referendum in all the states. I am fairly certain that apart from J&K and just perhaps Nagaland, you are going to get an overwhelming yes.
4. Are you really sure of that? There is a good chance that vast areas of the country will want to secede. You could be balkanizing India!
I honestly do not think that would happen. The advantages of staying in India vastly outweigh “going it alone” in almost all cases. Even in J&K, if one could get away from the rhetoric, I think the locals would find that they would be better off within India than outside.
But, if the reality is that vast parts of India do want to secede, then it will eventually happen. If Balkanization of India is wanted by its people, it will happen. If we do it by a referendum it will be more peaceful. Else, it will be bloody, long drawn out and painful. But it will happen if that is what is desired. And if every second state actually wants independence, then we are not really India, are we? For what are we continuing with the farce?
But I am fairly sure it will not happen- because I do not think that such a ground swell exists.
5. But Kashmir could go and join Pakistan
Let them! If that’s what they want to do, let them. What are we worried about? That we will have a “Muslim led enemy” at our borders which would be against our “Hindu rashtra”. News for all of you –we already have that situation!
6. We can’t let Kashmir go, it would be a vindication of the 2 nation theory – since Kashmir is the only Muslim majority state in India
The 2 nation theory died when Bangladesh separated from Pakistan. It showed that language could override religion in some cases.
Let’s also not forget that perhaps the best counter to the 2 nation theory is that for 60 years, more Muslims have lived in India than they have in Pakistan, so this is really not major, in my mind at least.
However, even if we do not accept that, should we foist ourselves on a set of people (those of Kashmir) when they want to be independent; just to prove Jinnah wrong – that would be stupid!
7. We can’t let Kashmir go, after all the sacrifice of our armed forces, our police and even politicians
I am not belittling the work done by these people. But the point still remains that if the people of J&K do not wish to be part of India then why force them to be. Why have more of your armed forces and police keep making sacrifices for a people who don’t want to be part of you.
And the sacrifice of the forces does not reduce nor does their lustre get diminished by this – that doesn’t happen even if you are routed. The Light Brigade is still remembered for its bravery, though they were massacred. The lives of Indian soldiers lost in the ’62 war were not in vain – they died defending their nation and that counts- even though we lost the war. Similarly, the sacrifices of our people will be remembered but we need to move ahead.
8. We can’t let Kashmir go, that would be a loss of face after maintaining for 60 years that it is an integral part of India
It is difficult to argue with what is ultimately an ego issue. The only point I can make is that as an integral part of India we can give them the right to choose if they wanted to be with India. If they choose not to be, we should honour their desire to be so
I realize that this argument gives every crackpot the right to want to leave. Tomorrow, I could decide that I will secede my bedroom from India! But such cases are likely to be facetious and need not be taken genuinely. And if the whole of India goes into the referendum, we will know either way.
9. Pakistan/Terrorist organizations would rig any such referendum and make it vote for independence
The state remains Indian till we choose to free it. Any blatantly unfair elections need not be binding on us. And, indeed any such actions, in view of the world media would only help India, not make it any worse.
I am sure there are many more arguments but to me the bottom line remains that if the Kashmiris want independence, we are fooling ourselves into believing that we can keep them with us. We are spending a huge amount of resources and are achieving precious little. And unlike, say British rule of India, we are, correctly, not even exploiting the state. What’s the point! If the majority of the people there want to be with us, there is still some reason for supporting your people. But if not, it is futile. Ask them if they want to be independent. If they don’t, use that information effectively in diplomatic and non diplomatic efforts. If they do, give it to them!
Monday, 31 January 2011
Saturday, 22 January 2011
I don’t drink, live with it!
I don’t drink! Alcohol, that is. I don’t drink beer. I don’t drink rum. I don’t drink whisky. I don’t drink vodka, tequila, gin, etc. I don’t even drink wine (though, to be fair after having had ice wine, I might on occasion be willing to make an exception just for that). It’s not that I have never had alcohol. I have tasted beer, rum, whisky, etc. I never liked its taste – not any of them (other than ice wine). This, added to the belief that drink is harmful to health, has made it more or less certain that I don’t drink.
People are continually surprised that I don’t drink. Especially when they hear that I come from an armed forces family, with everyone else in my family quite willing to have a drink. They find it really strange that I don’t drink- particularly since liquor can be available so cheaply to me.
But, if they were just surprised, that would be fine. Unfortunately, a great many of them, try to show me the errors of my way by insisting that I drink. Even people I have known for years will say – “just one drink, yaar. What difference will one drink make? Dil rakhne ke liye pee le – ek ghoont.”
And then with others there’s the emotional blackmail - “yaar, I just got /promoted/. At least now you have to have a drink” (replace “promoted” by “engaged”, “a new job”, “admission” or a 100 other things. There’s always a reason to drink…especially a “once in a lifetime” occurrence for them – which happens every few months- which is meant to be reason enough for me to drink). And when I keep refusing, they get hurt!
Imagine the irony of it – you are forcing me to do something I don’t want to do…and when I successfully resist, you get aggrieved. It’s like a thief being annoyed that a householder tried to stop him from robbing the family jewels –“look at the nerve of the guy. I was peacefully getting along with the opening of the safe and he sneaks up from behind with a gun and says ‘hands up’. Whatever happened to ‘atithi devo bhava?’”
I can still deal with the friends- if nothing else works, one just tells them to go take a walk . The real problem happens when the parents of friends try to get me to have a drink. In some cases, the parents themselves drink, so they perhaps believe that they must offer it to everyone around. More interesting is when the parents themselves do not drink but have a son or daughter who does drink. Maybe they feel that I am saying no out of respect for them - perhaps they cannot believe that their son/daughter has a friend who does not drink. One could get a statement like – “we don’t mind it if you drink…we are quite open minded”. Clearly, if one refuses to drink, they go away with the impression that this person is just being polite and is actually a drunkard of the highest order.
But the worst can be at work events- if you have got a pushy boss…or worse, a pushy client. I have never had a really pushy boss or client, so I have been lucky. But I have had some of them give me a look when I order an orange juice at the bar.
A colleague of mine, Mark, gave me this advice a few years ago for work get togethers – “Never order an orange juice, Sancho- rather, go for a coke. People will think you are having a rum and coke and let you be”
In a sense, that is fairly sound advice. It could avoid some slight discussion and a lot of déjà vu for me. However, the fundamental question still remains – why can’t people let teetotalers be? Nobody would keep pushing a vegetarian to have non vegetarian food. No one would try to force onions on a Jain if either one knew that he did not have such food or if he said so. Many people I know refuse to eat seafood and normally, beyond a casual “why is that?”, most people don’t care. Why then this urge of drinkers to ensure that non drinkers are made to drink? Psychologically speaking, what are the deep-rooted neuroses which cause drinkers to try and make others drink?
Whatever it is, if you are one of them, I urge you to desist. Take a deep breath and say to yourself “There are others who do not drink. And it is fine. It is not my job to convert the entire world to be followers of Bacchus.” Remember that tolerance is not just about other’s religious views. It is about being okay with people who have different views from you – in any area of life. And it is about living harmoniously and happily with all such people. It is about agreeing to disagree. I don’t drink. Live with it!
People are continually surprised that I don’t drink. Especially when they hear that I come from an armed forces family, with everyone else in my family quite willing to have a drink. They find it really strange that I don’t drink- particularly since liquor can be available so cheaply to me.
But, if they were just surprised, that would be fine. Unfortunately, a great many of them, try to show me the errors of my way by insisting that I drink. Even people I have known for years will say – “just one drink, yaar. What difference will one drink make? Dil rakhne ke liye pee le – ek ghoont.”
And then with others there’s the emotional blackmail - “yaar, I just got /promoted/
Imagine the irony of it – you are forcing me to do something I don’t want to do…and when I successfully resist, you get aggrieved. It’s like a thief being annoyed that a householder tried to stop him from robbing the family jewels –“look at the nerve of the guy. I was peacefully getting along with the opening of the safe and he sneaks up from behind with a gun and says ‘hands up’. Whatever happened to ‘atithi devo bhava?’”
I can still deal with the friends- if nothing else works, one just tells them to go take a walk . The real problem happens when the parents of friends try to get me to have a drink. In some cases, the parents themselves drink, so they perhaps believe that they must offer it to everyone around. More interesting is when the parents themselves do not drink but have a son or daughter who does drink. Maybe they feel that I am saying no out of respect for them - perhaps they cannot believe that their son/daughter has a friend who does not drink. One could get a statement like – “we don’t mind it if you drink…we are quite open minded”. Clearly, if one refuses to drink, they go away with the impression that this person is just being polite and is actually a drunkard of the highest order.
But the worst can be at work events- if you have got a pushy boss…or worse, a pushy client. I have never had a really pushy boss or client, so I have been lucky. But I have had some of them give me a look when I order an orange juice at the bar.
A colleague of mine, Mark, gave me this advice a few years ago for work get togethers – “Never order an orange juice, Sancho- rather, go for a coke. People will think you are having a rum and coke and let you be”
In a sense, that is fairly sound advice. It could avoid some slight discussion and a lot of déjà vu for me. However, the fundamental question still remains – why can’t people let teetotalers be? Nobody would keep pushing a vegetarian to have non vegetarian food. No one would try to force onions on a Jain if either one knew that he did not have such food or if he said so. Many people I know refuse to eat seafood and normally, beyond a casual “why is that?”, most people don’t care. Why then this urge of drinkers to ensure that non drinkers are made to drink? Psychologically speaking, what are the deep-rooted neuroses which cause drinkers to try and make others drink?
Whatever it is, if you are one of them, I urge you to desist. Take a deep breath and say to yourself “There are others who do not drink. And it is fine. It is not my job to convert the entire world to be followers of Bacchus.” Remember that tolerance is not just about other’s religious views. It is about being okay with people who have different views from you – in any area of life. And it is about living harmoniously and happily with all such people. It is about agreeing to disagree. I don’t drink. Live with it!
Monday, 17 January 2011
"Where were you" Moments
A “where were you” moment is a point in time about which one asks later – “Where were you when so and so happened”.
Of course, this is very context dependent. For example, someone my dad’s age will have very different such moments. It is likely to include moments such as “when India gained independence”, “when Gandhiji was shot”, “when Emergency was introduced”, and such like.
Further, it would depend on where you grew up and lived, though some such moments would transcend such geographical boundaries. So, something like 9/11 would probably transcend the entire world whereas something like 7/7 would probably be of not so much importance to anyone outside the UK, maybe outside London.
But there are other moments which transcend geography and are really points in life. These are not so much “where were you” moments in the literal sense– such as driving a car for the first time- you were surely in the car. In such cases it’s not just about where you were but about the emotions which went with the event. This is true for even the actual “where were you” moments. It’s not just about being on the way to office when 9/11 happened –it’s about what happened when you heard about it, what were your emotions, what did you do as a result, etc. And it’s not necessarily a point in time. – it could span time- such a watching a film for the first time – which is a roughly 2 hour time. Hence each such “where were you” moment is a small microcosm over time when the event defined happened.
I have tried to put down such moments which I believe are “where were you” moments. A few points before we get to the list.
• As with all such lists, the usual caveat exists – if done at some other point in time, the list might be slightly different. Also, this is based on my experiences in life and hence is skewed towards India and my life in India.
• Since, I turn 35 later this year, I decided to have 35 such moments. Some are actual moments (25) and some are points in life (10). One could argue this ratio- if you feel like doing so, see the point above. While reading the list each should be preceded by the words “Where were you when”, but remember it isn’t just about physical presence.
• There are different reasons for the events in the list- some are just too big to ignore, some are personal memory. Each of you will have his/her own list which I think will intersect with mine in some ways.
• Finally, when I was making the list, I was trying to ensure that too much similar stuff does not get into the list. But eventually, similarities had to be there. I thought long and hard about whether there really should be 2 Sachin Tendulkar moments. But eventually, I was compelled to keep both – they are truly “where were you” moments for me. It’s 12 years since the first one and I still remember it vividly and I am sure the second will remain as vivid.
So, here’s my list
01 1983 India won the Prudential World Cup
02 1984 Rakesh Sharma went to space
03 1984 Indira Gandhi was assassinated/ Delhi riots occurred
04 1986 Maradona scored the second goal against England, ‘86 Mexico quarter finals
05 1988 Mahabharat was telecast, if not in front of the TV
06 1990 Rajiv Goswami tried to immolate himself
07 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait
08 1990 Berlin wall fell
09 1991 Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated
10 1992 Babri masjid was destroyed
11 1992 Bombay riots happened
12 1993 Bombay blasts happened
13 1995 Ganesh drank milk
14 1997 Princess Diana died
15 1998 Sachin Tendulkar played the desert storm innings (the league game, not the finals)
16 2000 The 2000’s began
17 2001 Gujarat earthquake happened
18 2001 Godhra rioted
19 2001 9/11 happened
20 2005 Bombay floods happened – 26th July
21 2007 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released
22 2008 Lehman went bankrupt
23 2008 Usain Bolt ran the 100 m in 9.69s
24 2008 Bombay Taj was attacked
25 2010 Sachin Tendulkar scored 200 in a one-day game
26 Your spouse agreed to marry you/you agreed to marry your spouse
27 You realized that Santa Claus (or its cultural equivalent) was not real
28 You had your first drink/smoke
29 You swam through the middle of the pool with no inflatable tube and with nobody for support
30 You figured out that the stork did not deliver babies
31 You first watched/read porn
32 You first drove a bicycle
33 You first drove a car
34 Your child said its first word
35 You realized that your parents are fallible
So, that's my list. Did it bring up memories? Writing this post brought back a lot of memories for me...I hope it did the same for you.
Of course, this is very context dependent. For example, someone my dad’s age will have very different such moments. It is likely to include moments such as “when India gained independence”, “when Gandhiji was shot”, “when Emergency was introduced”, and such like.
Further, it would depend on where you grew up and lived, though some such moments would transcend such geographical boundaries. So, something like 9/11 would probably transcend the entire world whereas something like 7/7 would probably be of not so much importance to anyone outside the UK, maybe outside London.
But there are other moments which transcend geography and are really points in life. These are not so much “where were you” moments in the literal sense– such as driving a car for the first time- you were surely in the car. In such cases it’s not just about where you were but about the emotions which went with the event. This is true for even the actual “where were you” moments. It’s not just about being on the way to office when 9/11 happened –it’s about what happened when you heard about it, what were your emotions, what did you do as a result, etc. And it’s not necessarily a point in time. – it could span time- such a watching a film for the first time – which is a roughly 2 hour time. Hence each such “where were you” moment is a small microcosm over time when the event defined happened.
I have tried to put down such moments which I believe are “where were you” moments. A few points before we get to the list.
• As with all such lists, the usual caveat exists – if done at some other point in time, the list might be slightly different. Also, this is based on my experiences in life and hence is skewed towards India and my life in India.
• Since, I turn 35 later this year, I decided to have 35 such moments. Some are actual moments (25) and some are points in life (10). One could argue this ratio- if you feel like doing so, see the point above. While reading the list each should be preceded by the words “Where were you when”, but remember it isn’t just about physical presence.
• There are different reasons for the events in the list- some are just too big to ignore, some are personal memory. Each of you will have his/her own list which I think will intersect with mine in some ways.
• Finally, when I was making the list, I was trying to ensure that too much similar stuff does not get into the list. But eventually, similarities had to be there. I thought long and hard about whether there really should be 2 Sachin Tendulkar moments. But eventually, I was compelled to keep both – they are truly “where were you” moments for me. It’s 12 years since the first one and I still remember it vividly and I am sure the second will remain as vivid.
So, here’s my list
01 1983 India won the Prudential World Cup
02 1984 Rakesh Sharma went to space
03 1984 Indira Gandhi was assassinated/ Delhi riots occurred
04 1986 Maradona scored the second goal against England, ‘86 Mexico quarter finals
05 1988 Mahabharat was telecast, if not in front of the TV
06 1990 Rajiv Goswami tried to immolate himself
07 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait
08 1990 Berlin wall fell
09 1991 Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated
10 1992 Babri masjid was destroyed
11 1992 Bombay riots happened
12 1993 Bombay blasts happened
13 1995 Ganesh drank milk
14 1997 Princess Diana died
15 1998 Sachin Tendulkar played the desert storm innings (the league game, not the finals)
16 2000 The 2000’s began
17 2001 Gujarat earthquake happened
18 2001 Godhra rioted
19 2001 9/11 happened
20 2005 Bombay floods happened – 26th July
21 2007 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released
22 2008 Lehman went bankrupt
23 2008 Usain Bolt ran the 100 m in 9.69s
24 2008 Bombay Taj was attacked
25 2010 Sachin Tendulkar scored 200 in a one-day game
26 Your spouse agreed to marry you/you agreed to marry your spouse
27 You realized that Santa Claus (or its cultural equivalent) was not real
28 You had your first drink/smoke
29 You swam through the middle of the pool with no inflatable tube and with nobody for support
30 You figured out that the stork did not deliver babies
31 You first watched/read porn
32 You first drove a bicycle
33 You first drove a car
34 Your child said its first word
35 You realized that your parents are fallible
So, that's my list. Did it bring up memories? Writing this post brought back a lot of memories for me...I hope it did the same for you.
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Why the "Global Warmers" have got it wrong?
I don’t know about the other parts of the world but in the UK a major theme is that of “carbon footprint”. Everyone talks of it and of how they are trying to reduce it. Correction – organizations talk of it all the time, the media talks of it a lot- I am not sure how much the people bother about it.
The “carbon footprint” and its continuous increase is one of those nuggets of information which the global warming lobby uses to convince people of the imminent dangers if things are not set right now. Not imminent danger but imminent catastrophe! And that just maybe where they are going wrong.
We have all heard of imminent catastrophe before. Many times!
About 12-15 years there was this huge catastrophe waiting to happen. Aeroplanes were going to fall out of the sky. Pacemakers were going to stop working. Electrical systems were going to fail. In essence, Armageddon was upon us!!!. Then 1st January 2000 came… and went. And the Earth continued on its axis around the Sun and nothing really happened.
Around 2004, I think, the world went crazy about a bird…and the flu it was going to spread. Hundreds of thousands of birds were culled. In spite of that, health officials warned of a possible death of 150 million people. A UN health official said "It's like a combination of global warming and HIV/Aids 10 times faster than it's running at the moment,". The US stockpiled on the vaccine and in general there was panic. But not too many people died.
In 2009 swine flu was the flavour of the season. I remember landing in Bombay and being stunned by the number of people wearing “gas masks”. Again, this too did pass.
So, I believe there is now a bit of fatigue about the "imminent dangers" of global warming.
Let me say, that I am not a “global warming denier” as many people are. I do believe that man affects the environment, generally negatively, though one can debate the extent. Indeed, I am quite paranoid about not wasting energy and doing things efficiently. I insist on switching lights off when leaving a room. I absolutely hate it when I see people brushing their teeth while the sink continues to flow. I almost always prefer to use public transport over personal transport; though that might also have to do with spending the last decade in 2 cities – Bombay and London- where the public transport is decent and the roads are congested. I am quite comfortable with wearing a light sweater and turning the heat up less, rather than cranking it up and roaming around in shorts in the middle of December. In general, I am particular about not wasting energy –at times to the extent of being stingy.
None the less, I am irritated about hearing about global warming all the time. And it’s beginning to sound like the boy who cried wolf.
There is one difference between global warming and the cases above. It is much more long term. The results in the other cases were immediate. The world was expected to stop - not in 2100 but 2000, just a few years away. If I were to die of bird flu, I was going to die in the immediate future. Hence scaremongering works. If I choose to ignore the scaremongerer, I do it at my own peril because I will see the effects in my lifetime…or by its end. That, unfortunately is not true for global warming. This makes scaremongering easy to ignore. But, it also makes genuine concern easy to ignore. If I turn up my heating today by 5 degrees, it might mean a tribe in Central Africa getting less rainfall 50 years from now. I really don’t care! Even if I do turn down my heating, it’s as a salve to my conscience that I am doing my bit – I still don’t care about that tribesman in 2061 because it’s too abstract. In effect, it’s just trying to make me feel guilty- nothing else.
So, what is the net effect – you are asking people, generally in the advanced world to change their lifestyles – often in disadvantageous ways – especially economically – in wait for some distant disaster- which is unlikely to affect them or their children- in a context where over the last decade many such forecasted disasters have proven to be red herrings. It almost wants to make me re-think my views on global warming! What impact are you likely to have on a nay sayer who does not want to be made to feel guilty about all the evils in the world.
And, of course, none of this is helped by the various controversies generated due to occasional shoddy research by bodies such as IPCC. The kind of research which has shown to be wrongly motivated is perhaps not enough to detract from the reality of direction indicated by the research. But it is enough for those who are already sceptical to remain sceptical.
I feel the global warming argument has to change. It has to focus on some positives. Green activists tell us that good environmental sense is also good economics. They tell us there are millions of green jobs to be developed over the next few years. They say that any upfront expenditure will repay itself over time. But they never focus on these issues. These are always secondary sentiments. The primary thought always is “do this or else the world will get destroyed!” Why not focus on the positives which going green can give us.
It’s not as if there are no precedents for this. CFL lamps require more up-front investment but the running costs more than make up for that and save energy over all (there is a mercury angle to this but recycling takes care of that). And their usage is increasing. Similarly, insulation in terms of double glazing, lofts, etc has start-up costs but pays for itself in reduced heating bills. Again, this is something which is picking up in cold climates.
This then, to my mind, needs to be the future of managing global warming campaigns- focus on the positives. Campaigners will struggle to find positives in all issues. But if enough positives are being bandied about, the odd bad news can be legitimately slipped in. So, urge people to car pool by reducing the congestion charge by GBP 2 for cars carrying more than one passenger in office times. It might mean a bit of hassle for people but might reduce the cars on the road. Perhaps, focus on how recycling will keep the local parks open for the children because the council will not need more space for landfill - even though it means more effort for people to recycle.
These are perhaps bad ideas but I am sure there can be better ones. The bottom line remains that green campaigners need more carrots and less sticks! That is the way this battle will be won…for all our good.
The “carbon footprint” and its continuous increase is one of those nuggets of information which the global warming lobby uses to convince people of the imminent dangers if things are not set right now. Not imminent danger but imminent catastrophe! And that just maybe where they are going wrong.
We have all heard of imminent catastrophe before. Many times!
About 12-15 years there was this huge catastrophe waiting to happen. Aeroplanes were going to fall out of the sky. Pacemakers were going to stop working. Electrical systems were going to fail. In essence, Armageddon was upon us!!!. Then 1st January 2000 came… and went. And the Earth continued on its axis around the Sun and nothing really happened.
Around 2004, I think, the world went crazy about a bird…and the flu it was going to spread. Hundreds of thousands of birds were culled. In spite of that, health officials warned of a possible death of 150 million people. A UN health official said "It's like a combination of global warming and HIV/Aids 10 times faster than it's running at the moment,". The US stockpiled on the vaccine and in general there was panic. But not too many people died.
In 2009 swine flu was the flavour of the season. I remember landing in Bombay and being stunned by the number of people wearing “gas masks”. Again, this too did pass.
So, I believe there is now a bit of fatigue about the "imminent dangers" of global warming.
Let me say, that I am not a “global warming denier” as many people are. I do believe that man affects the environment, generally negatively, though one can debate the extent. Indeed, I am quite paranoid about not wasting energy and doing things efficiently. I insist on switching lights off when leaving a room. I absolutely hate it when I see people brushing their teeth while the sink continues to flow. I almost always prefer to use public transport over personal transport; though that might also have to do with spending the last decade in 2 cities – Bombay and London- where the public transport is decent and the roads are congested. I am quite comfortable with wearing a light sweater and turning the heat up less, rather than cranking it up and roaming around in shorts in the middle of December. In general, I am particular about not wasting energy –at times to the extent of being stingy.
None the less, I am irritated about hearing about global warming all the time. And it’s beginning to sound like the boy who cried wolf.
There is one difference between global warming and the cases above. It is much more long term. The results in the other cases were immediate. The world was expected to stop - not in 2100 but 2000, just a few years away. If I were to die of bird flu, I was going to die in the immediate future. Hence scaremongering works. If I choose to ignore the scaremongerer, I do it at my own peril because I will see the effects in my lifetime…or by its end. That, unfortunately is not true for global warming. This makes scaremongering easy to ignore. But, it also makes genuine concern easy to ignore. If I turn up my heating today by 5 degrees, it might mean a tribe in Central Africa getting less rainfall 50 years from now. I really don’t care! Even if I do turn down my heating, it’s as a salve to my conscience that I am doing my bit – I still don’t care about that tribesman in 2061 because it’s too abstract. In effect, it’s just trying to make me feel guilty- nothing else.
So, what is the net effect – you are asking people, generally in the advanced world to change their lifestyles – often in disadvantageous ways – especially economically – in wait for some distant disaster- which is unlikely to affect them or their children- in a context where over the last decade many such forecasted disasters have proven to be red herrings. It almost wants to make me re-think my views on global warming! What impact are you likely to have on a nay sayer who does not want to be made to feel guilty about all the evils in the world.
And, of course, none of this is helped by the various controversies generated due to occasional shoddy research by bodies such as IPCC. The kind of research which has shown to be wrongly motivated is perhaps not enough to detract from the reality of direction indicated by the research. But it is enough for those who are already sceptical to remain sceptical.
I feel the global warming argument has to change. It has to focus on some positives. Green activists tell us that good environmental sense is also good economics. They tell us there are millions of green jobs to be developed over the next few years. They say that any upfront expenditure will repay itself over time. But they never focus on these issues. These are always secondary sentiments. The primary thought always is “do this or else the world will get destroyed!” Why not focus on the positives which going green can give us.
It’s not as if there are no precedents for this. CFL lamps require more up-front investment but the running costs more than make up for that and save energy over all (there is a mercury angle to this but recycling takes care of that). And their usage is increasing. Similarly, insulation in terms of double glazing, lofts, etc has start-up costs but pays for itself in reduced heating bills. Again, this is something which is picking up in cold climates.
This then, to my mind, needs to be the future of managing global warming campaigns- focus on the positives. Campaigners will struggle to find positives in all issues. But if enough positives are being bandied about, the odd bad news can be legitimately slipped in. So, urge people to car pool by reducing the congestion charge by GBP 2 for cars carrying more than one passenger in office times. It might mean a bit of hassle for people but might reduce the cars on the road. Perhaps, focus on how recycling will keep the local parks open for the children because the council will not need more space for landfill - even though it means more effort for people to recycle.
These are perhaps bad ideas but I am sure there can be better ones. The bottom line remains that green campaigners need more carrots and less sticks! That is the way this battle will be won…for all our good.
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Anatomy of a batsman in India
I was sitting with Anita just after the new year and she asked me what my new year resolution was. Much like Hacker’s “no policy” policy, over the years my general new year resolution has been not to have any resolutions. And I have been pretty good at sticking to it. But for some reason, this time I told her that I would start a blog this year. So, now I am going to try to live up to that this year.
The question of course, is what do I write about? I guess, logically one should write about things one is comfortable with, one enjoys, and so on. So, in my case that would probably mean I would end up writing about cricket, old hindi film songs, books and such like. Which is a good enough place to start with, I guess.
There is a test match which has just ended between India and South Africa and it’s been a good one. (There is actually one also going on between England and Australia but that is quite frankly, second rate stuff. Though if English newspapers are to be believed, not only are they the only countries playing cricket but it is the finest cricket being played since 1877!) Dale Steyn on day 3 was phenomenal and Kallis on day 4 was outstanding. I was wondering how the Indian batting would cope up. Post Kallis it was very unlikely that we would win but we needed to draw. Otherwise, we would be back at the same old situation of India not travelling well and Indian batsmen failing the “real test” – batting on Australian and South African wickets. Thankfully, that did not happen.
Which really brings me to the point I want to write about. Why is it that the “real test” of a batsman – especially an Indian batsman – is always in batting in Australia and South Africa. Sure, it’s difficult to bat there but isn’t it difficult to bat anywhere? Some pitches are easier and some tougher. Overall, isn’t it tricky everywhere? A standard answer to that is that Australian and South African pitches are fast and bouncy whereas Indian pitches, by contrast are slow, dead and very easy for batsman to play.
Now, that unfortunately is an argument I cannot countenance. Why is playing quality pace on a fast ground any more difficult than playing quality spin on a slow pitch rank turner? How many batsmen could have played Gavaskar’s 96 in his last test at Bangalore? How many batsmen could have managed Tendulkar’s 136 against Pakistan in Chennai in 99? Yes, both these innings ended in losses for the team but we are talking batsmanship here. Or take for example, Tendulkar’s and Laxman’s fifties against Australia on that minefield of a pitch in Bombay in 2004(?) when the test ended in 2 days. Those 2 innings effectively won the game for India- and most batsman would have found it difficult to play those innings. Why then are bouncy pitches in Australia and South Africa the benchmark, why not rank turners in India?
Of course, one could argue that, in spite of the odd turner, pitches in India are inherently batsman friendly. But is that a fair argument?
I had a look at the record of the top non sub-continental players in India (assuming that conditions would be fairly similar for Pakistanis and SL). The below table contains all such batsman who have scored more than 7000 runs in test cricket (why 7000? Quite arbitrary; it just gave a decent sample size) and have played in India. There are 25 such players and I have calculated the ratio of their india average to their overall batting average as well. Admittedly sample size in the India case is small but that has to be lived with.
The table is very instructive.
Source: Statsguru, cricinfo
Almost 60% of them have averages in India which are more or less similar to their career averages (+-20%). That is somewhat against the theory that India is very easy for batsmen. Clearly most batsmen tend to play just as well in the rest of the world as they do in India. In fact, one could almost say that India is very representative of the entire test playing world and is not a place for batsmen to salivate. It is quite likely that if we looked at "career vs India" records for Indian players they would be very different and not so representative. But I feel that in that case a fairer comparison would be to check players' records in their home countries with the rest of their careers.
Further, of all those players above who don’t average around their career figures, surprisingly those who average higher in India are all pre 1990 players – an era where batting was not so easy. All those who do average less in India than their careers are all post 1990 players (other than Haynes) – again making a mockery of India’s so called easy, dead pitches in the last few years.
Finally, look at some of the players who have not performed so well in India – Ricky Ponting, Brian Lara, Graeme Smith…now I am not suggesting that these are not great players. They are! But hasn’t India been their real test…and haven’t they failed it? Why is that when discussing their careers, nobody says- “oh, they are not really good players because their record in India is very poor”? It doesn’t even get raised…because batting in India is anyway supposed to be very easy. But on the other hand, every Indian player is always scrutinized about his record in Australia or South Africa.
So, the bottom line to me is that hard bouncy pitches are not all that great in themselves and should not be a end, just for their sake. Batting on all kinds of surfaces requires skill and what matters is that tests produce results and ideally last at least into the 4th day. But if we are going to have bouncy pitches elsewhere let’s get some turning tracks as well - because good cricket requires all sorts of pitches – fast, slow, bouncy, skiddy, rank turners, everything. This variety in playing conditions is one of cricket’s unique pluses and let us not belittle one form over another.
The question of course, is what do I write about? I guess, logically one should write about things one is comfortable with, one enjoys, and so on. So, in my case that would probably mean I would end up writing about cricket, old hindi film songs, books and such like. Which is a good enough place to start with, I guess.
There is a test match which has just ended between India and South Africa and it’s been a good one. (There is actually one also going on between England and Australia but that is quite frankly, second rate stuff. Though if English newspapers are to be believed, not only are they the only countries playing cricket but it is the finest cricket being played since 1877!) Dale Steyn on day 3 was phenomenal and Kallis on day 4 was outstanding. I was wondering how the Indian batting would cope up. Post Kallis it was very unlikely that we would win but we needed to draw. Otherwise, we would be back at the same old situation of India not travelling well and Indian batsmen failing the “real test” – batting on Australian and South African wickets. Thankfully, that did not happen.
Which really brings me to the point I want to write about. Why is it that the “real test” of a batsman – especially an Indian batsman – is always in batting in Australia and South Africa. Sure, it’s difficult to bat there but isn’t it difficult to bat anywhere? Some pitches are easier and some tougher. Overall, isn’t it tricky everywhere? A standard answer to that is that Australian and South African pitches are fast and bouncy whereas Indian pitches, by contrast are slow, dead and very easy for batsman to play.
Now, that unfortunately is an argument I cannot countenance. Why is playing quality pace on a fast ground any more difficult than playing quality spin on a slow pitch rank turner? How many batsmen could have played Gavaskar’s 96 in his last test at Bangalore? How many batsmen could have managed Tendulkar’s 136 against Pakistan in Chennai in 99? Yes, both these innings ended in losses for the team but we are talking batsmanship here. Or take for example, Tendulkar’s and Laxman’s fifties against Australia on that minefield of a pitch in Bombay in 2004(?) when the test ended in 2 days. Those 2 innings effectively won the game for India- and most batsman would have found it difficult to play those innings. Why then are bouncy pitches in Australia and South Africa the benchmark, why not rank turners in India?
Of course, one could argue that, in spite of the odd turner, pitches in India are inherently batsman friendly. But is that a fair argument?
I had a look at the record of the top non sub-continental players in India (assuming that conditions would be fairly similar for Pakistanis and SL). The below table contains all such batsman who have scored more than 7000 runs in test cricket (why 7000? Quite arbitrary; it just gave a decent sample size) and have played in India. There are 25 such players and I have calculated the ratio of their india average to their overall batting average as well. Admittedly sample size in the India case is small but that has to be lived with.
The table is very instructive.
Source: Statsguru, cricinfo
Almost 60% of them have averages in India which are more or less similar to their career averages (+-20%). That is somewhat against the theory that India is very easy for batsmen. Clearly most batsmen tend to play just as well in the rest of the world as they do in India. In fact, one could almost say that India is very representative of the entire test playing world and is not a place for batsmen to salivate. It is quite likely that if we looked at "career vs India" records for Indian players they would be very different and not so representative. But I feel that in that case a fairer comparison would be to check players' records in their home countries with the rest of their careers.
Further, of all those players above who don’t average around their career figures, surprisingly those who average higher in India are all pre 1990 players – an era where batting was not so easy. All those who do average less in India than their careers are all post 1990 players (other than Haynes) – again making a mockery of India’s so called easy, dead pitches in the last few years.
Finally, look at some of the players who have not performed so well in India – Ricky Ponting, Brian Lara, Graeme Smith…now I am not suggesting that these are not great players. They are! But hasn’t India been their real test…and haven’t they failed it? Why is that when discussing their careers, nobody says- “oh, they are not really good players because their record in India is very poor”? It doesn’t even get raised…because batting in India is anyway supposed to be very easy. But on the other hand, every Indian player is always scrutinized about his record in Australia or South Africa.
So, the bottom line to me is that hard bouncy pitches are not all that great in themselves and should not be a end, just for their sake. Batting on all kinds of surfaces requires skill and what matters is that tests produce results and ideally last at least into the 4th day. But if we are going to have bouncy pitches elsewhere let’s get some turning tracks as well - because good cricket requires all sorts of pitches – fast, slow, bouncy, skiddy, rank turners, everything. This variety in playing conditions is one of cricket’s unique pluses and let us not belittle one form over another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)