Think... before you 'Support Anna Hazare'

Over the last couple of days, it seems like everyone has decided to 'support Anna Hazare'. I find myself in a very small minority who do not want to support Anna Hazare. Let me explain why, and hope you will think this through as well.

What exactly is happening here? Anna wants his version of the Jan Lokpal Bill to be implemented. No problem so far. Anna wants to fast unto death in New Delhi if this doesn't happen. This is a problem. Fasting unto death is not permissible by law, because it effectively becomes suicide - which is not permitted by law.

Moreover, this method of protest is unconstitutional. I quote none other than BR Ambedkar here:

"If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us."

People are saying Anna is being denied his democratic right. That's Bullshit. He was never denied permission to protest - and that's all his democratic rights are.

He does NOT have a right to fast unto death. He also does not have unlimited rights to protest anywhere he wants, for any duration of time, and with any number of people. It is a free country, but freedom does not mean you have an unconditional right to do absolutely anything you please - you have to behave in a responsible manner. By refusing to comply with any conditions whatsoever, Anna is not trying to exercise rights that exist, he is simply breaking the law. It is especially ironical that he is breaking the law, to achieve the objective to getting his Jan Lokpal Bill being included in ... the law! This is sheer hypocrisy. And, everyone is supporting this?!

Anyway, let us ignore for a moment the fact that it is illegal, and consider the reality that most people want him to be allowed to carry on with his fast unconditionally. What happens then? The government either lets him die (which they can't, realistically), or submits to his demands about all aspects of the Lokpal Bill. What will this mean? The government - which is properly elected by the majority of the people of India through free, fair elections - will not have the final say when it comes to making laws. Law could be dictated - through blackmail - by any individual or group that seems to have 'popular support'.

This issue is not about the contents of the Bill. The issue is - who has decision-making authority? The government has a formal mandate from the People of India, and operates within the law. Anna Hazare does not draw his power from any formal, organized process, and is not accountable for his actions or their consequences to anyone, through any mechanism. Can he allowed to over-rule the government? Once the precedent is set, who is to say it will not happen again, or be misused? Do we really want to weaken the parliamentary system that is the very cornerstone of our democracy? Who takes responsibility for the consequences?

The media is calling the government's actions 'murder or democracy'. But actually it is Anna who is trying to subvert the democratic process. They are likening him to Gandhi. Gandhi fought for the freedom and dignity of all Indian people. Anna is only being stubborn about his version of the Bill. Gandhi was always willing to have constructive discussions with the Govt of the day. Anna is not - he just wants to dictate terms. Finally, Gandhi fought against foreign rule that was against the wishes of the Indian people. Anna is fighting a govt. elected by the people of India. Likening Anna to Gandhi is absolute nonsense.

I understand the people are frustrated and want to make a stand against corruption. But this has to be done in a proper, thought-out manner and will take a lot of time and concerted effort to achieve results. Taking to the streets shouting slogans in support of Hazare and his methods is NOT the solution.

Let's now consider the root cause of this whole thing - the Jan Lokpal Bill and the contentious issues. The myth being perpetrated is that a new institution, with the PM and MPs under it's ambit is going to be some sort of panacea against corruption. And getting the PM and MPs and the Judiciary included with the Lokpal's ambit is a cause great enough to court arrest and die for.

Horseshit. Corruption is not limited to a few hundred politicians. In a broad sense, it encompasses anyone doing something 'wrong' for personal gain. Anyone can be corrupt, and the truth is that most people are. To really reduce corruption - all of us need to have much stronger civic sense and value systems. In a country where most people don't respect queues, and votes can be purchased by offering a saree, a color TV, or some such little incentive - fighting over whether the Lokpal covers the PM and MPs is a matter of mistaken priorities.

Dealing with corruption, in any case, has never been about setting up institutions - it has been driven by the integrity of a few good men. TN Seshan did of lot of cleaning up of the electoral system. How many other election commissioners can you name? Santosh Hegde brought down a Chief Minister and took brought other ministers to the law. How many Lokayuktas - before or after him - in Karnataka or other states - can you name? Anna Hazare & India Against Corruption itself are not institutions, they're just people with integrity. Good people don't need designations to do good work. And designations or institutions don't guarantee good work either.

The CBI has - in the past - unearthed various scams and punished the guilty. The CVC - another authority - has in the recent past investigated the 2G scam, the Commonwealth Games and so on. Maybe having one more institution - the Lokpal - will help, but it is NOT a one-shot solution to the corruption problem. Unless it has the right people, it will become as ineffective as all other bodies.

Another major bone of contention is whether or not the Judiciary should be within the ambit of the Lokpal. And here I disagree with Anna - I feel it shouldn't. The Judiciary is - at least on paper - independent, impartial, and comprises men of the highest integrity - all the things that the Lokpal is supposed to be. Why, then, should we not trust them, and trust the Lokpal more? An independent judiciary is an imperative for any sovereign democracy. If we are going to be cynical about them too, why not the Lokpal then? Where do we draw the line? The challenge is ensuring that the existing bodies work the way they are supposed to. Creating new bodies is not the solution.

But then - I forgot - I don't have a right to disagree with Anna. He's on a fast unto death. Everyone must accept his Bill as is, or go flash yourself. Democracy, discussion et al be damned.

Lastly - I am going to question the man himself. Anna does not seem to have any faith in our institutions, and wants to use methods that are not permitted by the law. And his aim is to pass a law to create an institution. Am I the only one who sees the inherent contradiction here? Should we really pose so much faith in a man who own actions seem to be contradicting the very ideals he's ostensibly fighting for? He may be a good man, but is he qualified to do what he's trying to?

Also the TV channels are screaming themselves hoarse 'Why can't the govt. let a 70 year old man fast in peace?', portraying Anna as a harmless, innocent victim. Then they play the video message where he uses rhetoric such as 'second freedom struggle', and exhorts everyone to court arrest. This message is very provocative, and the fact that it was recorded well before his arrest, proves that there was a lot of planning & premeditation. Hardly consistent with the 'harmless, innocent, old man' image the media is trying to portray.

Sadly, people like Dr. Subramanyam Swamy, who do real good like taking the 2G case to court, receive little support from the media. Perhaps because Dr. Swamy - a Harvard professor who offers cold, hard logical arguments rather than the ill-considered, emotional rhetoric of Anna Hazare or Baba Ramdev - simply doesn't sell with Indian TV audiences. The media would rather show you an interview with a teenage boy who's bunked school to join the 'support Anna movement' - because it resonates well with their story about how 'all of India is with Anna' - even though the kid isn't possibly qualified to understand all the complex issues involved here, and should really be told to go back and attend school. They won't tell you about Takhat Singh Ranawat - a batchmate of mine from IIT Madras, who joined the IFS and was one of the 5 officers on the Lokayukta team that prepared the report on illegal mining - because he's actually doing good work, and his story won't feed the emotional frenzy that gets TRPs like Anna does.

So, the next time you are asked to click a button, or go out and carry a candle to show your support for Anna Hazare, just think twice.

Response to most common comments etc.  in followup post here.

Of God. And Man.

Act 1

22 April, 1998. It's a hot summer afternoon in Sector 15, Chandigarh - at a relative's place where I'm spending my summer holidays. Everyone's settling down around the TV. Being Punjabi, the uncles are making the customary jokes about the new Sardar kid called Harbhajan Singh.

India are about to take on the mighty Aussies in Sharjah. They must play well to qualify for the finals - either a win, or a loss by a small margin. "Gilchrist, Ponting, both Waughs, Warne... vs. Ganguly (a noob then), Mongia, Azhar, Venkatesh Prasad... Man to man, Australia are a much better side", comments Ravi Shastri, "but India have Tendulkar." He says it in a rather deadpan manner (not quite the 'mera paas maa hai' style most Indians usually prefer), as even he has no idea just how prophetic those words would prove over the next few hours.

Sachin single-handedly takes India to the final. Two days later, everyone's hoping for another miracle, but not really expecting lightning to strike twice in the same place. But it does, and Sachin goes one better this time. He actually wins it for India, inspite of another horrific umpiring error.

A couple of years earlier, Sachin had top-scored in the '96 world cup. In the semi-final vs. Lanka, India need 252 to win. It looks very get-able. When Sachin gets out, India are a healthy 98/2, looking on course for the win. They collapse to 120/8 before the match is abandoned due to crowd trouble.

I wasn't around when a conceited PM claimed 'Indira is India'. But I was around in the early 90's, and Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar WAS India. Or at least that's what every Indian wanted to believe.

Our lives sucked because we lived in India. We were a poor nation. We had bad roads, erratic power supply, generally poor quality of life, and - worst of all - very few opportunities to create a better life for ourselves. Everything 'abroad' seemed like a dream - pretty landscapes, good roads, fast cars, nice clothes, air conditioning, soaps that actually felt and smelt nice. If we could, we would ALWAYS buy an imported product - they were invariably of a higher grade and better quality. Somehow, where they came from - they were actually cheaper than the shit we got here! All of this affected the nation's psyche. While the British ruled India, they told us we were inferior. Even 50 years after they left, we'd not been able to prove them wrong. As a nation, we didn't quite believe in ourselves.

Our cricket team - which we followed passionately, and believed represented the best of the nation - actually strengthened this feeling. Whenever they traveled overseas, they'd simply be blown away by opponents on fast, bouncy pitches. They were physically dominated by their opponents, and just looked sad and hopeless. Of course, when teams came to India - we were able to beat them. But watching the likes of Narendra Hirwani or Venkatapathy Raju turn slow deliveries on crumbling pitches didn't make up for the body blows our batsmen took overseas. It was like watching a Mercedes struggle on a country road. Far from being a source of pride, one almost felt apologetic about the means being used to win.

Then Sachin came along. He attacked fast bowlers. He scored hundreds on bouncy pitches, collaring hostile bowling attacks. It wasn't just the runs - it was the way he dominated the opposition. He looked calm, confident and let his bat do all the talking. Nothing could faze him. Whatever the circumstances, Sachin could win. And Sachin wanted to win.

It helped that he came from a middle-class family, and remained level-headed in spite of all his achievements. He set the standard all of us aspired to. As the Indian economy opened up, and Indians started coming across new opportunities in every sphere - he provided us self-belief, and taught us to be ambitious. He was the role model for the new India.

Over the next few years, he would go on to achieve one record after another. His hunger was insatiable, and the consistency of his performance at the highest level was unmatched. He earned the title of 'God of cricket.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 2

Ritesh Sharma shares an article titled 'The Truth about Sachin Tendulkar' on Facebook. The article asks some tough questions. I 'like' and 'share' it further, as does our friend Shreyas Gopinath. A lot of people get pissed. "How dare you say anything negative about Sachin?", they ask. It's not the first time this has happened. I've been critical of Sachin on several occasions in the last year or two, particularly during all IPL seasons. Here I shall try and explain why.

To really get what I'm saying, you first have to accept that Sachin is not God. He may have earned a title some years back, but he is very much a mortal - just like you and I. When he walks out on a cricket field, he is there to do a job and he has responsibilities - just like you and I.

Unfortunately, in Sachin's case, that responsibility is to be a role model, and perform miracles, and set a standard that everyone can aspire to. To keep the legend alive. If Sachin regresses to mediocrity, he will not just let himself down - he will break the hearts of hundreds of millions who have looked up to him and worshiped him since the 90s. He cannot become ordinary. Not fair to the man, you may say. But when the alternative is letting down hundreds of millions - the concept of 'greater good' comes into play.

Sachin is just not up to that responsibility any more. He is no longer the Indian cricket team.

There was a time when teams spoke of their plans to get Sachin before a series with India. Today, if there is one man they consider the 'big threat' - it is Virender Sehwag. Ironically, Sehwag was inspired by Sachin, and even looked and played like Sachin early in his career. But today, Sehwag is the bigger phenomenon. He's become the aggressor - the one who tries to dominate opponents and entertain the public even in the toughest circumstances.

In the Indian ODI team these days, there are usually 7 batsmen - and at least 6 of them can win matches single-handedly. Sachin is one of them, but he is no longer the only one.

Some may say Sehwag is unreliable, or inconsistent. Fair point. But Sachin isn't Mr. Reliable either. While the likes of Sehwag, Yuvraj, Dhoni and Pathan have been the aggressors in ODIs recently, the likes of Gambhir and Kohli have provided the solidity. Far from being the cornerstone, Sachin doesn't even play in all ODIs.

In tests, Sachin's average is on par with others like Kallis, Dravid, Ponting - yet his reputation is much bigger. Why? The aggressive, match-turning innings have mostly been played by Sehwag. And when the going gets really difficult, and someone has to grind it out - it's usually been Rahul Dravid, and often VVS Laxman, but rarely Sachin in recent years. Whether you look at his records in ODI finals, chases in knockout games, or the second innings in test matches, particularly batting fourth, Sachin's record is weak. He's never got a 300 in tests. I could go on.

When Sachin was put on the pedestal by Indian cricket fans, he was the first (often only) line of attack, and the last line of defense. Hell, he even took a few wickets and won matches with the ball once in a while! But today's Sachin is none of these things. He's just a good batsman who accumulates runs carefully, and piles on the records, some of which are rather meaningless.

What irks me the most is the feeling that he could have done so much more if he really tried. I remember a 175 he scored against Australia in an ODI not too long back, when everyone else struggled. A couple of times in the last World Cup, he was able to out-pace Sehwag's scoring rate. So, there isn't much doubt in my mind about how destructive he could be, if he tried. But more often than not, he is happy to play second-fiddle to Sehwag. He plays well within himself, for records, rather than giving 100% to try and win. Nearly every time he gets close to a 50 or a 100, he slows down and plays for the record, and this sometimes costs his team. Case in point - his two 100s in the recent world cup were scored against England and South Africa - and these were the only two matches India did not win! Coincidence? Not entirely. Certainly not if you start noticing patterns - his maiden century in the IPL was also scored in a losing cause, batting first.

For me, whether or not Sachin is a match-winner today, whether he plays for the team or for personal records - none of these is the point. The fact that his ability and motives are being questioned is what disturbs me. I do not want to see his legacy tarnished. I would rather see him retire gracefully, and leave us with the memories of the '98 Sharjah Desert Storm, the upper-cut six off Shoaib Akhtar, the century with which he revived India's faltering world cup campaign in '99 - right after returning from his father's funeral, his ODI double-hundred and so on...

Indian cricket no longer needs the player, as much as India needs the legend to stay alive.

IPL 4 - A Few Thoughts...

I've missed Lalit Modi.

Yes, you read that right. And no, I'm not high. I guess an explanation is in order.

I do NOT miss Modi's annoying lisp. I do not miss his Lalaji personality. And I certainly do not miss his long unnecessary speeches (only the anticipation of an exciting T20 game to follow could keep one awake thru one of those). The reason I've missed Lalit Modi is that he had a special knack for getting things right, which this edition of IPL would've cried out loud for, if it had a voice.

Think back to the first season. The IPL had already been preceded by the ICL - which had no more success than Kapil paaji's many attempts to sound fluent in English. In spite of Zee's money, Kapil's experience, stars like Inzamam-aloo-Haq, and phenomenal desi talents like Reetinder Sodhi and Wrong-un Gavaskar, it barely registered on the radar, and sank without a trace. Now, IPL was conceptually more-or-less the same thing, and yet it turned out to be a phenomenal success! The key difference? Lalit Modi.

Season 2 was moved to South Africa with less than a month's notice. Note - an Indian (technically) domestic tournament - played in South Africa - and yet a huge success! This was the kind of logistical super-achievement that any biz/enterprise would be proud of. Also, the dismissive-ness with which Modi tore to shreds the sarkari red-tape that often frustrates ordinary people, was a source of joy as well. I don't remem too much of season 3, but it was good as well. Modi was in charge for these 3 seasons, and deserves a lot of credit for their success. The fourth season of IPL was going to face more challenges than the earlier ones. It needed Modi.

Some people might say he's corrupt and was a 'bad man' or whatever. I neither agree nor care. For one, he doesn't look like Gulshan Grover. But really, to me corruption is a problem when my (tax-payers) money is involved. I work hard to earn it, and I don't like it when one-third of my earnings end up financing a 40' LCD TV in the kitchen of some relative of Kalmadi's. Also, while this may not strictly qualify as corruption, I fume every time I read about the govt. blowing up my money to keep the awful travesty called Air India afloat. But as far as Modi and his dealings are concerned, I don't think taxpayers money was involved. These were dealings between private companies and individuals who were all working for profit or personal gain - and are none of my business. So, I don't care what really happened with the IPL franchises' finances and Modi, and neither should you.

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's look at some things that've gone terribly wrong with the format this year:

1. Too many teams, too many matches. The first 3 editions - with 56 matches in the league stages - had seemed long enough. Nobody wanted to keep track of two more teams, and 14 more matches. There was interest in the first week or so, because people were suffering from cricket withdrawal symptoms right after India's WC win, but it was going to be difficult to sustain. You CAN have too much of a good thing.

2. The auction. Sport needs continuity and rivalries. Throwing all the names into a hat every couple of years disrupts the relationships with fans. Yes, there should be some player transfers, but there has to be some sort of balance between change and identity.
Also, having a pecking order is important. Teams that do well consistently earn more prize money, develop bigger, loyal fan bases, and attract the best players. Success becomes a chain reaction. Big money may be the catalyst that starts it, though history has shown time and again that big spending isn't enough to ensure success. The IPL formula of fixing a common budget may allow all teams to be almost-equally competitive, but in the long run, it doesn't help if there are no 'big clubs' and no 'underdogs'.

3. The retention and auction rules. This could become a case study for how NOT to do things. While everybody else got shuffled around and teams changed beyond recognition, the two finalists from last year - CSK and MI - still looked pretty much the same, with the highlight being Symonds joining Bhajji to better understand the subtle differences between Mumbai, monkey, and maa-ki.
Ambani, as usual, used some jugaad to get the retention rules custom-made for his franchise. So, while Delhi ended up spending 1.8 mil on Has-been Pathan, and RCB wasted the same on Saurabh Dhoni-wannabe, MI got to retain all of Sachin, Pollard, Bhajji and Malinga for just 4.5 mil! The most ridiculous part of this is - MI could negotiate much higher amounts with these players, but would have a fixed 4.5 deducted from their budget irrespective of what the players were actually being paid. This beats the whole purpose of having a budget cap, and made no sense whatsoever. Especially to Vijay Mallya.

4. Total breakdown of the local link. The earlier editions had the concept of an icon player for each team, and local players from a 'catchment area'. So Punjab was led by Yuvraj Singh, and had guys like Sunny Singh, Sunny Sohal, VRV Singh, Manvinder Singh Bisla and so on. For better or worse, it looked and felt like a Punjab team, and being a Punjabi, I really supported them. This year, Zinta & co have pulled together a bunch of Aussies, a couple of UP fellas and someone called Paul Valthaty (Mallu? Konkani? What?) to play for them wearing - what the owner says he wants it to look like - an Arsenal uniform. I don't know how the English do it, but I just couldn't get myself to accept & support this team of imports.

5. The choice of new franchises. I don't understand why Pune has one, if they have to play in Mumbai. Why not add an Ahmedabad, or a Kanpur, or an Indore? All these cities have good stadia, and massive support for the game. It would also create interest among local players. Pune is like Man City to Mumbai's United. They played a 'home game' against MI in Mumbai - and that's just messed up.
Even more messed up was the DJ/MC trying to get people in Indore to yell 'Kochi... Tuskers... Kochi... Tuskers'. Now, Kochi is physically, linguistically, culturally, everything-ally more distant from Indore than just about every other franchise. If I was a cricket fan in Indore watching an IPL game, I would definitely feel great WTF-ness about KTK being shoved down my throat as a 'home' team.

And yes, that atrocity called Pune's desi-folksy 'cheerleaders'. I think the players deliberately performed badly because they were embarrassed by their 'cheerleaders'. If I was batting with the knowledge that those things would get up and do their thing every time I hit a boundary, I'd rather get out. Does anyone have a better explanation of how that batting line-up ended up being 40/4 in just about every match? They're probably also the reason why Rahul Sharma bowls with one eye closed.

6. Scheduling. Smaller issues aside, why did the final have to be the day after the 2nd qualifier? Why couldn't RCB be given a day's rest? The result: we got robbed off a good contest, partly because the Bangalore team looked tired, and I have nothing to do on Sunday night. Not saying RCB would've won, but a Sunday final would've made so much more sense.

Basically, this was the longest IPL, the only one without any super-overs, dominated by Gayle, and eventually won - like everything else - by Dhoni. Overall, below expectations. And I'd like to believe Lalit Modi would've made a bit of a difference...