The World as I found it!

Don’t Dare Despair!

2006-06-27T13:47:00.000-07:00

I wrote this article the day after the 2004 US General Election. The article reflects the angst of many liberals, but oddly enough, some of its key points remains relevant as we enter another election season. This essay was published by the Oakland Institute; and a shorter version, as an op-ed in UCSC's Currents Magazine.

Americans who read the fine print on the state of the economy, the mismanagement of the Iraq war and the corruption in the White House have every reason to be disappointed with the results of what has been appropriately described as the Apocalyptic Election. The specter of four more years of the same, and of the escalation on the war on our environment and civil liberties is enough to send a shiver down the spine of any thoughtful citizen who shares the Great American Ideal. Understandably, the seemingly abrupt extinguishing of the candle of hope has produced a wave of despondency. Yet, this, if anything, is time to re-commit, re-group, and galvanize the sheer potency of people power. Given the gravity of the issues that face the nation, the slogan for the moment is simple and compelling – Don’t DARE despair!

A quick glance at some basic ground realities provides a starting point. At the outset, the diverse multitudes that take refuge in the democratic camp are united as perhaps never before. The almost genetic predilection toward chaotic dissent and mutual recrimination caricatured so tellingly by Monty Python in The Life of Brian has mercifully remained unexpressed so far in this election season. Second, despite all the talk about an irrevocably divided nation, the fact remains that in states as varied as North Carolina, Montana and Colorado, the electorate awarded Democrats significant victories in the State legislatures even while looking elsewhere for the national ticket. And let us not forget that barely two electoral cycles ago, Bill Clinton won Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Tennessee and West Virginia. To talk about a divided nation and write off the South in what was an extremely close and complex election, the outcome of which will take months to fully grasp, is to be needlessly knee-jerk. As the dust settles on Election 2004, pollsters and strategists will doubtless get busy exploring the scope and dimension of every potential and possibility. However, if there is one thing to learn from the Republican success in this election, it is that people power does matter. Indeed, but for the passion and commitment of the rank and file of their diverse coalition, Mr. Bush might well today be riding dirt bikes in Crawford. Yes, we in the liberal democratic camp tried hard, and we must congratulate ourselves on this - but let us face it – they did more. Our response, therefore should be sustained activism - not cynical analyses that engender either paralysis or despondency. Everyone of us matters, every little contribution counts. And we dare not despair.

The goals for the democratic camp are obvious. In the short and medium terms, we have to do our best to defeat the White House Oligarchs as they attempt to push through their pet projects. We also need to reclaim lost ground in Congress and the Senate in 2006. It is important here to remind ourselves of what exactly is at stake. Put simply, the War on Terror is guise to wage three other potent and deadly wars– against innocent foreigners, against the poor and elderly at home, and against the environment at home and abroad. The continued offensives in Iraq, like the one currently underway in Fallujah, are illustrations of the first war. By all accounts, such campaigns inflict untold suffering on innocent people. In the process they also increasingly alienate the entire Arab and Islamic world against us, thereby contributing to the growing terrorist litter. An example of the second war is the proposal to dismantle Social Security. This scheme has the potential to wreak havoc on the lives of the millions of middle and lower middle class Americans who toil day and night to fill the coffers of the big corporations. As for the third war, what is more symbolic and material than the Alaska drilling proposal and the recalcitrance over Kyoto? There is work to be done, and most definitely, no time to despair.

The first thing that every one of us has to do to realize these goals is to take the responsibility to ensure that the issues that we all feel are so fundamentally important for our nation and our future, do not disappear into obscurity – but that they frame every political decision contemplated in the next four years. Mr. Bush and his portly deputy have not lost time claim the popular mandate. We, the people, have to make sure that the question of what exactly the mandate is - is highlighted and remains at the fore of the public debate. To this end, we need, first and foremost, to hold the media to task, and ensure that they do not quickly divert attention to some other topic, as is their wont. One way to attempt the seemingly impossible here is to organize a relentless campaign with the media – thousands of letters to editors, phone calls, petition drives, to let the editors know that we care about issues and that we demand serious, investigative reporting. Similar tactics, and also newer ones, such as internet blogging, can be employed with regard to our representatives who will listen if they sense that there is real and tangible public outrage that could potentially upset their re-election chances. It is important to remind ourselves that almost half of the electorate voted against Bush in Election 2004 and that a sizable proportion of the rest chose his ticket in the context of a campaign framed by mind numbing fear. It is therefore very much in the realms of possibility to forge newer coalitions – across party lines, on specific issues, be it Social Security or Alaska oil drilling. It is indeed possible to galvanize people and unite them on the issues that matter tangibly and in real terms. Americans may have differences on cultural matters and on how to fight the War against Terror, but all the opinion polls in the run up to Election 2004 indicated that the country also shares a great many concerns. Our task, as liberal democrats, is to unite the people over these issues by building issue based coalitions – and thereby challenge, or limit the scope of the mandate claimed by Mr. Bush. Those amongst us who are social entrepreneurs need to lead, organize and mobilize. Every one else must join the various groups, participate and pitch in. Those of us on the coasts must reach out to the Heartland, just like our predecessors did in the context of the Civil Rights movement. We have our task cut out, and do not have the luxury to despair.

Whilst we re-group, we will also do well to recognize that for every Redneck who would like to eliminate “towel heads”, there are probably two or more who exercise their franchise in the belief that they are acting morally and justly in keeping with their faith. These genuinely God fearing people can, in principle, be touched by messages that appeal to the gospel. Rather than shy away from the Church, here is an opportunity to invoke the primordial messages of innate goodness that exist at the core of every religion. Rather than fight to keep the Ten Commandments off the City Square or government buildings or courtrooms, here is an opportunity to hold those who scream “religion” to account on their own terms. History is replete with examples of religious institutions acting on behalf of justice and fairness – one need only look at the Civil Rights struggle in the deep South to see several such instances. Then, as now, there are two diametrically opposed interpretations of the scriptures; then as now, there is an opportunity to forge coalitions and messages to enable the side of justice and emancipation to triumph over those of oppression and tyranny. We can choose to let Bush and co. gallop away in to the sunset on their hobbyhorses of patriotism and God. We can equally use moral suasion and religious commandments to show the believers in the Bible belt that Bush and his cronies are perhaps the best illustration yet of the famous Johnson quotation, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” To do all this implies repairing broken bridges and fixing abandoned roads – and indeed none of this can be done in one day. But again, Rome was not built in a day. We need to act now and think generationally. And if we are really concerned about our country’s future, it is absurd to waste time in a state of despair.

I have every confidence that a combination of Republican hubris and misrule, effective new strategy gleaned from hindsight and some plain old fashioned luck can once again bring the Democrats in to the centre of governance. I am also sure that as we speak there are many politicians plotting and hatching just such comeback schemes. However, while we give them our support, we need to ask whether the goal of all our political energy is to merely bring back the Democratic party. I refer here to the constant refrain about the need to be centrists, and to be in the “mainstream” in order to stand the chances of succeeding in the electoral game. I can indeed appreciate political strategy and can hardly blame politicians who propound “centrism” as the way to displace the far Right. Indeed, politicians can only work within the cultural parameters afforded them by the societies they work in. The question is: What do we want our polity to be? Should politics be based on values or on expediency? The Republicans have, over the past three decades, answered this question clearly and unequivocally and as a result appear consistent and principled, and to some, inspirational.

The liberal democratic camp, on the other hand, has consistently compromised. We have been complicit in perpetrating the excesses of globalization, the loss of jobs, and the despoliation of the environment. We are also guilty of tolerating, if not abetting, corporate scams on ordinary people. It was in our watch that a social welfare system that lifted millions of common folk from poverty was thoughtlessly destroyed. And it is a liberal democrat who is the most faithful foreign ally of the Bush regime. The question we all need to ask is: “What do we stand for?” Are we are or we not a coalition that represents the aspirations of common people and stands for justice and equity? Are we or are we not an alliance of people who aspire to the higher ideals of freedom and liberty for all? If the answer to either question is “yes,” then we should not be cowed down by concerns of being on the fringes of mainstream culture. If we are indeed principled, and truly believe the values we profess, our task must be to re-shape our world brick by brick, edifice by edifice, song by song, idea by idea. Let us not forget the far Right were out in the boonies of popular culture but a couple of decades ago. For all our disdain for some of what they stand for, let us recognize their discipline, their organization, and their commitment to a set of core values and principles. Popular culture is not and has never been a static entity. On the contrary, it shaped by blood, sweat, tears, and inspiration. We have our work cut out, and definitely no time to despair.

Democracy, Security, and Citizenship

2006-06-27T13:34:00.000-07:00

Random thoughts on the recent events

This article was written in the immediate aftermath of the tragic events of 9-11, for a student-organized event at UCSC. It was subsequently published in several places, including the journal, Capitalism, Nature, Socialism.

"Those who control the past control the future. Those who control the present, control the past."
- George Orwell.

I am not a security expert, nor do I claim the remotest knowledge of the dynamics underlying the present crisis. I speak as a human being, shocked, shaken and numbed by the barbaric brutality on display during the past month. I also speak as a citizen in a democracy. As a citizen, I have lots of questions – about the causes of the recent tragic events, about justice and accountability, but perhaps most important, about my own responsibilities in this dark hour.

At the outset, I believe it is a great tribute to the spirit of liberalism and tolerance here in the Bay Area that the prevailing climate is not one of a lynch mob. Indeed, events such as the one here today, with multiple views presented and heard, are exemplary of the moral heights that the spirit of democracy can attain. I have no doubt in my mind that it is such committed engagement that holds the key to peace and security for citizens worldwide.

Opinions differ on who the perpetrators of the September catastrophe actually are. Yet, the mocking malice of the former Saudi millionaire on television two days ago leaves even the most skeptical observer of international news with a certain moral certitude. That television performance, justifying the events of September 11, and threatening future hell was, for me at least, proof enough that what the world is dealing with here is a genocidal criminal. Regardless of how one spins it, I can not accept that any genuine lover of god, or of freedom, could contemplate, leave alone execute, such an atrocity. As an ex-colonial subject, I can not help but notice that if anyone has genuine cause for grievance, for economies plundered, for cultures destroyed, for freedoms extinguished, it is the people of the third world. Yet, none of the anti-colonial struggles attempted to annihilate their oppressors. My own country of origin, for example, in breaking the yoke of colonialism, taught the British, and the West in general, the meaning of civilization. The same can be said for contemporary South Africa, and for many other regions of the world.

It is true that many a freedom movement has used violence as a part of its strategy. Indeed, there is room, even in the many pacifist doctrines, for the concept of just war. Yet, I believe that it is an insult to the revolutionary anti-colonial freedom movements to compare them with the perpetrators of the recent atrocities. The words, holy war, and the deeds - attacks on thousands of innocent people - do not constitute a revolutionary struggle, but a nihilistic, genocidal attitude. It is an attitude stemming from supreme arrogance and hubris, a lack of introspection, a disavowal of responsibility, and an anti-ideological certitude that justifies mass murder. It is also a mentality that promotes the hijacking of not just aircraft, but god, religion, culture, language, science, and art – all for its nefarious ends. It is, moreover, a mindset that brooks no debate or dissent, one that thrives by suppressing free expression.

It is a tribute to the liberal spirit that the events of September 11 are being sought to be explained with reference to history and context. I salute this spirit. At the same time, I have no doubt in my mind that the perpetrators, whoever they are, are not heroes, or freedom fighters or advocates of justice, but egotistical, maniacal, killers, like the Hitlers and the Stalins and the countless other demagogues produced by Europe and elsewhere during much of the twentieth century. Any true lover of freedom has a moral duty to resist these demagogues.

All this having been said, I can not, as a citizen, also help but notice the systematic perversion of the emancipatory ideals that underlay the anti-colonial struggles of the peoples of the United States and the third world. I refer to the erosion of the principles of democracy and freedom, and to the deliberate narrowing of the idea of security. From my non-expert vantage point, there seem to be five trends that characterize world history during the past two centuries. Each of these trends, I believe, is every bit as scary as the acute catastrophe of 9-11, and in some respects, frame it – even though I can not, for the reasons expressed earlier, accept them as explanations of the recent events. Let me elaborate.

At the outset, it is clear that for all the media illusion to the contrary, imperialism, as a practice, is alive and well. It may not quite be practiced as it once was, with colonial powers carving out Africa amongst themselves in a conference at a European capital - though it often gets quite close. But little has changed in the foreign policies of the governments of the Western world. The game is still about controlling the world’s resources – oil, cash-commodities, and access to warm sea ports. Even third world aid and international development are but tools toward this end. The story was and is one of unbridled greed, supplanted by ever sophisticated instruments of thought control. Twentieth century history is rife with examples of the overthrow of democracies that do not serve the interests of Western imperial hegemony. Indeed, those who proclaim the virtues of democracy and freedom the loudest have been among its worst abusers. It is nothing but a joke to watch the BLAIRisconi’s of the world talk about emancipation and freedom. For all the propaganda effect they have in their home countries, the net moral effect they have on the rest of the world is of less worth than the dropping of a worthless critter.

A related trend stems from the fact that for every Bin Ladin, there is a story of a Western governmental backer. I hardly need to belabor the fact that Bin Ladin himself drew a great deal of his early power from Western assistance, and this is true for the Taliban, to some extent, Saddam Hussain, and countless others the world over through out the past eight decades. (It must be said here, though that each of these people equally used the West for their own ends). Each of these cases is a story of short term opportunism, to gain access to resources in a region, or to put out of action governments, often democratically elected, whose policies are too nationalistic for the interests of the West. Each of these cases is also a story of the West turning the Nelson’s eye when their protagonists abuse every civil liberty in the books. Moreover, each of these cases is about doubly punishing innocent citizens of these lands – first in the hands of tyrants and despots who serve the short term interests of the West, and then in the hands of ever more evil bombs that reduce innocent souls to mincemeat. Indeed, each of these cases teaches us that it is foolish to imagine that one can chop off the left hand and cherish the right. Also, ultimately, the means do come to haunt the ends.

A third trend in recent world history is that of universalisms. They come in various forms. Some come in assumptions of civilizational superiority, whether religious, or cultural. The Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi’s recent remarks, as well as several recent opinion editorials in the Wall Street Journal are, quite frankly, at the same level of despicable arrogance as the pronouncements of the Taliban. Other types of universalisms dictate how personal lives are to be led. The assaults on the woman’s right to choose and on the rights of gays in the United States are no better than by those in Afghanistan that seek to wrap women in the burkha. Yet other types of universalisms dictate how societies run their economies. The post-cold war world era has produced a new evangelism, headquartered in the IMF and the World Bank, whose high priests dictate policies to sovereign states without as much as an attempt at a decent field visit. The result: unprecedented starvation amidst a glut in food production, and growing destitution the world over. Indeed, for most people in the world, security is about basic access to food and water - security that is denied them despite the abundance of food. Again, it is those who shout freedom the loudest who refuse to acknowledge that access to food is a basic human right. In the meanwhile, entire intellectual traditions of political economy, such as the German ethical school, and several varieties of socialism, have been systematically erased from the academia and policy think tanks, while at the same time, those disciplines, such as anthropology and geography, that offer insight, on the basis of grounded studies, are marginalized by policy makers. Little wonder that the new deal, which was constructed on the advice of experts from a diversity of humanistic disciplines was dismantled in one rhetorical flourish by smart mathematical modelers disguised by economists - suits who perhaps never bothered to venture into the rough side of DC.

The fourth trend has been the steady diluting of democracy. At the outset, this exalted concept has been reduced to the problem of representation, at the expense of serving as a crucible to nurture various forms of diversity The very idea of a melting pot, as opposed to a concept of unity amidst diversity, and, the huge fuss over the teaching of Spanish, as though a language would somehow challenge our spirit of citizenship of nationalism, are recent examples of how democracy has become increasingly monochromatic. Moreover, in the wake of Bhopal, an accident that killed as many as the September 11 disaster and left more destitute, it is also evident that our existent notion of democracy leaves little institutional space for popular worries – over issues such as nuclear risk and bio-safety - to be systemically addressed. And to add injury to the insult, the very oligarchs who are responsible for our foreign policy conspired to deny the popular vote during the last presidential election. Indeed, our very pride, as a democracy, has been scoffed at, and opportunistically abused.

Last, but by no means the least, there is the trend of institutionalized forgetting. In the world of media spin, in a context in which all our sources of information are controlled by four corporations, there is indeed little scope for we the citizens to learn the truth about anything. Needless to say, few Americans have to this day seen the suffering wrought by the waywardness of the "smart" bombs in Iraq in the last Gulf War.

On the other side of the coin, we have all lost the ability to listen, to reason, to negotiate with empathy. Gone is the fireside story, the parable, the village tribunal. All we have instead are variants of Aarnie in the various Hollywoods of the world, celebrating blood and gore, imploring even small children to take up arms and massacre. Sadly, we as a society have forgotten the simple, time tested technologies of disciplining our own children, and find it expedient to send them off in droves to prisons where they do not belong.

In conclusion, I unequivocally condemn the perpetrators of the September 11 massacre. I also feel it is important for me to introspect and search. This event is not about Islam versus Christianity or the East versus the West. Instead, this is about citizens versus insatiable demogogic and oligarchic appetites. It is about we, the people, about our rights, our sovereignty, our democratic aspirations. Our ideals have been appropriated, our goodwill abused by those who represent us – regardless of where we are from, East or West, or what faith we espouse, Islam or Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism. If there is one thing we need to do, it is to take back our rights, and carefully nourish our ideals of freedom and democracy and justice for all. Moreover, we need to do this in partnership with our brothers and sisters from every race and nation in this world, build bridges, re-learn the ancient art of listening. For, at the end of the day, the world is round, and what goes around, comes around. Whatever we do, let us not enter into a holy war - whatever the provocation. Instead, let us brandish our humanity and grace, and turn the other cheek in the hope that one day, it will result in a kiss.

The Ram Guha-Arundhati Roy Saga

2006-06-27T12:51:00.000-07:00

In which Lord Ram Gave it Those Ones!

This is an article published by Tehelka.com in 2000, when, in the wake of an important Supreme Court decision on the Narmada Dam case, a large volcano of social protest erupted internationally. This essay raises the question of the place and propriety of academic critiques of activists, with particular reference to Ram Guha’s critique of Arundhati Roy’s non-fiction. (Interestingly, given Ms. Roy’s own subsequent comments on Guha, one might quite easily be able to revert the argument!).

A reputed journalist once wrote to me and asked a simple question for a column he was about to write. Why is it, he asked, that Indian environmentalists are so routinely at each other’s throats? At that time I did not quite know how to respond. Sure enough, his observation is valid – and applies not only to environmentalists, but to just about every Indian professional, including journalists and the academics that have encountered. Yet I have found it difficult to pin the reasons down and afford an explanation. Until now.

On November 26, Ramachandra Guha, a historian and social commentator, wrote a piece in the reputed newspaper, The Hindu, in which he attacked the novelist and activist, Arundhati Roy, for her writings and utterances on the Narmada dam controversy. He ended the article with a statement that conveys the vitriolic essence of his polemic: “I am told that Arundhati Roy has written a very good novel. Perhaps she should begin another. Her retreat from activism would – to use a term from economics – be a “Paretto optimum”: good for literature, and good for the Indian environmental movement.”

Guha’s column, needless to say, has drawn considerable attention. On December 17, for example, The Hindu published no less than thirty letters in response. Twenty-two of these sang Guha’s praises, while eight expressed some reservations. Clearly, if this were a mob trial, Guha would win, and Arundhati Roy, lynched (as some might argue she already has been). Curiously though, 20 of the 22 pro-Guha letters were written by men, many with Ph.D.s and academic reputations. Of the 8 contra letters, five were by women and three by men.

Luckily, we do not live in an era of show trials and mob justice and there are many among us who like to partake of civilized discourse and consider controversial issues with care. Let us therefore systematically examine Guha’s argument. In essence, he makes five inter-related points. Roy, he argues, is a new kid on the block and “as a work of analysis, it (her piece on the Sardar Sarovar dam) was unoriginal.” Secondly, he declares, “Her vanity was unreal.” Next, he describes her writing style as “self-indulgent,” “hyperbolic,” “irresponsible;” “stream of consciousness;” “romantic”; and characterized by “a conspicuous lack of proportion.” Fourthly, he describes her as an “anti-patriot,” akin to a “super-patriot” such as Arun Shourie. Both, he argues, “think exclusively in black and white” and “arrogate to themselves the right to hand out moral certificates.” Last, but by no means the least, Guha attempts to seal his argument by comparing Roy unfavorably with two “genuine” “novelist-activists,” – George Orwell and Shivram Karanth who, he claims, are “men (who) wrote with a proper sense of gravitas, in a prose that was lucid but understated, each word weighed before it was uttered.”
Let us examine each of these propositions carefully. Consider Guha’s first argument. Granted, Arundhati Roy is a new kid on the block in the Narmada dams controversy. But so what? I remember being constantly advised as a doctoral student many years ago, that if there is something worth saying, it is worth saying again. Needless to say, this advice is particularly relevant to the world of political writing. Since when has activism been only about stating “original” things, as opposed to acting on and mobilizing around passionately held beliefs?

As far as I can tell, Roy has never claimed that any of her writings were original. Rather, all she has been doing is lending her voice - as a citizen (albeit with celebrity) - to a cause that she happens to believe in. What exactly is wrong with that? Her style might well turn off some and Guha’s response, as well as those of the many men who wrote in support of him, testify to this. Yet, at the same time, it manages to motivate several others. Indeed, many who had been neutral on the controversy, have become new converts to the cause of the environmentalists in the valley and their wider cohort who, for more than two decades have been painfully building the case against large dams. Is this not the way with most political writing? Guha’s second statement is a bit more puzzling. “Her vanity is unreal,” he says. For someone who makes so much about the need for careful scholarship, what, exactly, is Guha basing this contention on? Does he tell us something about Roy the person that speaks to this issue? Or, does he have privileged access to Roy’s psychological state? If he does, he is certainly very discrete in suppressing such valuable and relevant data. Instead, Guha relies on one paraphrased extract from Roy’s writings to drive home his message. Roy, he writes, “quoted, without irony, the judgement of her friend that after having written one successful novel she had seen it all, that a barren stretch of life lay before her until the final meeting with her Maker. She spoke of how she had disregarded the advice of those who she insisted that the tax man would come chasing her were she to write against the bomb.” If Guha is accurate in paraphrasing Roy and if, further, Roy is read strictly literally, the case can be made that Roy displays a hint of vanity.

Even if this were the case, how, exactly, is Roy’s supposed vanity, “unreal”? Surely, Guha provides no evidence to support such a serious claim, nor does he elucidate a method to investigate it further. In essence, he either wants us to believe him because he said so, or he himself is letting loose a hyperbolic polemic. If the former is true, then it will be truly sad, for a scholar who accuses a novelist of writing with “passion without care,” should surely base his statements on factual accuracy and a commitment to method, not to speak of basic fairness. If, instead, the latter is the case, then surely, he delegitimizes his own argument. To move to Guha’s next point, it is obvious that he does not like Roy’s writing style. But then, style is a matter of both taste and training. What appeals to some does not appeal to others. Besides, different traditions of literary training emphasize different qualities. While it is certainly important for genres and intellectual traditions to converse with and thereby cross-pollinate each other, it is disingenuous to demand, as Guha does tacitly, that certain modes of linguistic expression and argumentation are illegitimate.

Having assigned both Guha’s and Roy’s writings to my undergraduate classes, I often discover my students find the work of the former labored and that of the latter exhilarating and liberating. This is not to deride either genre or claim that either lacks validity – but just to point out that different styles of writing appeal to different audiences and serve different purposes. Indeed, as a teacher, I consider it my duty to help my students appreciate the internal logic of these very different methods and rhetorical styles. A related issue concerns the language Roy employs. Guha accuses her of being hyperbolic. But is not the very point of deploying language for political purposes to do just that? Imagine what would have happened had Mark Anthony in Julius Caesar begun his famous speech by saying, “Ladies and Gentlemen – In the wake of my boss’s assassination, I am here to socially construct your emotions so that your appendages in turn deploy themselves and dispatch yond Cassius and his conspiratory cohort to the other realm!” He would have probably got a few rotten eggs thrown at him – and surely Shakespeare would have sounded awfully like a trite post-modern academic! The point simply is that the very essence of the use of metaphor and the hyperbolic in language is to provoke, excite, mobilize.

Indeed, this point was not lost on our first prime minister who described dams as the temples of modern India or his daughter who proudly ushered in a “Green Revolution.” Are these not hyperbolic uses of language and, given the controversies surrounding them, do they not display a “lack of proportion?” Surely liberals and “the left” have a right to invoke such language too! It is important to note here that in making this attack against Roy, Guha disrespects the average reader – who, one can argue with considerable historical support, knows to sift the grain from the sand. Colorful language entertains, and entertainment is at the essence of any successful political campaign. In deploying the language she does, Roy is not a reckless renegade but part of a classical tradition of political satire that goes way back in several traditions of human history. Guha is thus engaged in a polemic against polemic – an inherently self-contradictory enterprise. A similar set of comments apply to Guha’s characterization of Roy as a quintessential “anti-patriot.” What exactly is Guha claiming when he accuses Roy of being exclusively black and white? Surely, he recognizes that drawing extreme contrasts is a time-honored method of drawing public attention in politics and religion alike, not to mention systems theory, which argues the unit of information is difference?!

Why, then, should a political writer not set up a polemic of contrast? And again, why should they not pronounce moral judgments? Where would art or science be if practitioners reserved their moral sensibilities for quiet conversations in their bedrooms? Thank God Tolstoy was not an Andropov and Marx not a bland neoclassical economist! Again, what method does Guha the scholar use in comparing Roy with Orwell and Karanth? Surely, they lived and wrote in different times and contexts. What, then, are the criteria for the comparison? Is he implying, romantically perhaps, that their age was somehow superior to ours? Or, is he saying, as he seems to, that the only valid method of political expression is understatement or that the only measure of lucidity, an unmetaphorical realism? If this is indeed what he is contending, surely Orwell would be the first to part company! Moreover, how ironical that the scholar who did so much to draw our attention to the cultural politics of monocultures among the trees of Garhwal would now be such an ardent policeman of a literary monoculture of the most boring variety?

Don’t get me wrong. This is not a piece in defense of Arundhati Roy. I disagree with some of her formulations on both the nuclear as well as the Narmada controversies. At the same time, I find a lot of her work admirable. Again, I have gained a great deal from the lucidity of Ramachandra Guha’s scholarship in environmental history and have, over the years, admired him as a scholar and a gentleman. Yet, I find that this particular piece by Guha does not engage with ideas, but rather with purported intent, which, in turn, is unsubstantiated neither by fact nor effective analytical criteria. Even in the one point of tangible engagement he does make – wherein he argues that a better resolution to the controversy would be to heed concrete engineering proposals to reduce the height of the dam – he fails to do justice to Roy’s proposal that the dam be left unfinished – as a symbolic testimonial to the failure of the technological hubris it represents. It is indeed possible for reasonable people to disagree over such issues and I do not for a moment dispute the right or indeed the duty of citizens to engage and criticize the views held by others. After all, it is constructive debate that sustains a democracy. However, the sprit of such engagement ought to be a primordial sense of respect, fairness and grace. What I find objectionable about Guha’s article is his employment, instead, of innuendo and character assassination as a component of his rhetorical strategy. Little wonder that so many of his supporters in the columns of the Hindu were government officials who ardently support the dam, corporate lawyers and other pro-dam business interests, and even one member of the ministry of defense. For a self-advertised “progressive” Guha has managed to mobilize a rather strange band of bedfellows!

Like many, I cannot help wonder where Guha’s article came from. It may be masculine angst, as one of the female letter writers in The Hindu suggested. Guha is hardly alone in that territory – I frankly know few men, myself included, who do no suffer from this malaise! It may also be an unstated turf battle – between an established environmental social scientist and a celebrity upstart who threatens to upstage by changing the terms of reference of the script. Again, it may have its roots in a primordial and unexamined residue of a tradition of political indoctrination that drew sharp distinctions between reform and revolution, between the right and the wrong way of political mobilization and writing. Or, it could be a Brahmanical commitment to Truth – which does not allow for multiple perceptions of reality or for the legitimacy of diverse modes of political action. It may be all or none of the above. Indeed, I have no knowledge of where Guha is coming from. What is absolutely evident, however, is that whatever it is, Guha’s piece is arrogant, self-righteous and condescending at the same time as it is unbalanced, unfair, and, above all, ungracious.

To return to the beginning, this sorry episode serves to highlight a sordid facet of the psyche of many Indian environmentalists (and indeed other professionals). Tragically, we are quick to judge, condemn and reject – often, without taking the time to communicate or understand. Activists dismiss academics as denizens of the ivory tower; academics condemn activists as being unoriginal or simplistic; men condemn women and women men, as this sad case illustrates; those in the grass-roots reject their urban counterparts and vice versa – all amidst personality clashes, turf battle and contests of egos that are bigger than the collective psyche of the nation. Meanwhile forests continue to disappear, people continue to perish in avoidable disasters, urban pollution makes the infamous fogs of London and Los Angeles seem like utopias and the entire countryside progressively resembles a gigantic wastebasket. If there is anything I learn, it is that the most important environmentalist struggle is against our own inner selves. There is no way we can hope to save the world without humility, respect, and above all, grace.

Some Thugs and Their Fantasies

2006-06-27T08:44:00.002-07:00

Revising History and Brainwashing Students

This is a version of an article published by The Telegraph, Calcutta, in 2001, in the wake of a controversy in India over the then government's decision to revise history textbooks. I include this essay here because of recent attempts by Hindu nationalists to revise history textbooks in California.

The Bharatiya Janata Party led government’s decision to delete sections from history textbooks has drawn many a comparison with the much-maligned Taliban. To the extent that the action smacks of intolerance, this comparison is indeed valid. However, when seen against the backdrop of other events — for example, last year’s revocation by the government of a commitment to publish a commissioned series of books on modern Indian history by senior scholars — there seems to be a wider pattern, with an uncanny similarity to those of a group of people who wrote one of the darkest chapters of 20th century history.

I refer to Adolf Hitler’s Germany, and its claims of racial supremacy and historical grandeur, which were buttressed with theories of individuals such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a late 19th century British philosopher who, in works such as Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, postulated the racial superiority of an ancient northern European people.

With the ascent of Hitler to the German chancellorship in 1933, Heinrich Himmler and his lieutenants in the SS began to systematically advance their fantasies. They created a division, the Ahnenerbe (“Ancestral Heritage Society”), with the task of providing scientific evidence to support their theories. To this end, they sponsored expeditions to the far reaches of the earth and actively recruited university professors from the most prestigious German universities. There was even an Ahnenerbe expedition to discover the lost city of Atlantis, a supposed home of the Aryan race.

The Ahnenerbe’s search for evidence to support their theories became more and more frenzied as time wore on. At the end of 1942, while German soldiers were freezing to death at Stalingrad, the Ahnenerbe was ransacking southern Russia for archaeological evidence. It also trawled the death camps for skulls to buttress its far-fetched racial theories. Moreover, its members conducted criminal medical experiments on Jews in concentration camps, all to prove racial differences and thereby, the superiority of the Germanic “Aryan” race. Although the head of the Ahnenerbe, Dr Wolfram Sievers, was brought before war crimes tribunal, found guilty, and executed on 2 June, 1948 many of the top archaeologists employed by him returned, unpunished, to university life, only to re-emerge as leading academics in post-war Germany.

The Ahnenerbe’s quest to re-write history by sponsoring unscientific and crackpot research was matched only by the attempts by the SS to destroy any historical accounts not in accordance with their own. History text books were modified, and libraries across Germany raided to purge them of material not to the liking of the SS bosses. Large book burnings were organized, with precious books and manuscripts from the country’s leading libraries removed and burnt in public squares. Today, outside the prestigious Humboldt University in Berlin an inscription attributed to the poet, Heinrich Heine, stands as sordid reminder of the consequences of such actions. The inscription, “Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings”, proved prophetic, as the holocaust that killed millions of Jews, Roma, Poles and other minorities, was executed in earnest.

To return to our times and the Indian subcontinent, the rhetoric of the BJP and the Sangh Parivar has already taken the lives of many innocent minorities in India. Many of these victims, for example, priests and nuns from South Indian churches, had been engaged in genuinely socially productive activities, such as education, healthcare, and rural development. Against this backdrop, Nazi Germany is a sombre reminder of the manifold evils that might result in the future if the Central government’s attempts to alter the way history is taught and interpreted succeed.

While it is not good historiography to compare two totally different contexts, it is hard not to notice many similarities. There are, in both cases, the claims of true Aryan heritage, the belief in racial superiority and a harkening back to ancient history to reclaim purity and a golden age. There is, at the same time, a pathological hatred for the “Other” — in the Nazi case, the Jews and other non-Aryans, and in the case of the BJP extremists, Muslims, Christians and other minorities. There is also the BJP and the Sangh Parivar turning their back on historical evidence when it does not suit their fantasies, and a fanatical commitment to appropriate scholarship and scholars in order to serve their perverse ends. Equally noteworthy is the tacit rejection of the message of syncretism and nationalist identity promoted by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) books. This was based on the principle of truth and pride in multi-cultural diversity. It must be pointed out here that the NCERT history textbooks were not a result of the imagination of a few zealots, nor the ideology of a political party, but the result of a careful summarization, by leading scholars, of painstaking research conducted by the world’s leading Indologists. What we are witnessing now is a harking back to the view of history as seen and felt by one group to the exclusion of others — including true facts as agreed upon by leading scholars of Indian history worldwide.

Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of independent India was the erection of a democracy that respected and celebrated cultural diversity, and a commitment to truth, as enshrined in the national motto, Truth always Triumphs. For 50 years, it was this spirit of truth, tolerance and syncretism that attracted the world to India. Indeed, this spirit, and that of pacifism and non-alliance, has been our power, and has helped project our real strength — that of a nation of civilized, cultured and tolerant people, who can stand tall against outfits like the Taliban and proclaim that we are proud to offer an alternative to mono-cultural religious or nationalist jingoism.

Sadly, the disavowal of truth and tolerance witnessed in the shameful act of the destruction of the Babri Masjid, reduced, in one fell swoop, the respect the rest of the world had for us. That incident is testimony to the damage that the distortion of history, such as being attempted in the attempts at changing text books, can do, for it shows that fantasies can inspire fatalities.

To get back to where I started, it is hard not to notice the irony in the current Indian administration’s critique of the Taliban. What an irony indeed that both regimes chose to insult that paragon of pacifist virtue, the Buddha — the BJP government, by assenting to the re-invocation of the sage’s name in connection with the nuclear tests; and the Taliban, by physically destroying the Bamiyan treasures. If the current administration’s attempts at distorting history succeed, India will no longer be remembered as the land of the Buddha or Asoka, nor for the tolerance and civility of its peoples. Rather, it will go down the same route as the Nazis and the Taliban — and will be known around the world, and in history, as a nation of thugs. It is the solemn duty of all genuinely patriotic Indian citizens to prevent this hijacking of our history and heritage.

On War, Peace and Cricket

2006-06-27T08:35:00.000-07:00

Reflections on the India-Pakistan World Cup Encounter

By Ravi Rajan

I wrote this essay during the last Cricket World Cup, which, as many of these events go, turned out to be a microcosm for political and ideological skirmishes. I took some flack for writing this, but continue to stand up for the argument.

Like millions of my compatriots, I was up all night – from midnight to eight thirty in the morning - watching the wonderfully unscripted drama unfold on the cricket field in Pretoria. And like millions of my compatriots, I watched with bated breadth, as Pakistan took hold of the early contest, then India, then Pakistan, and then, in a finale that could have been the envy of writers and directors in either Hollywood or Bollywood, the drama of victory, as India overturned the tables and romped home with 38 regulation balls yet to be bowled. Again, like millions of my compatriots, I broke out in celebration – high fives and all – as Dravid’s pull crashed into the boundary ropes.

Like many cricket lovers, I will forever savor many wonderful moments of this electrifying match – the excellence of Anwar; the pyrotechnics of Tendulkar; the captaincy of Ganguly and the leadership of Younis; and the countless stupendous moments of breathtaking batting, bowling and fielding by the players of both teams. But when all is said and done, my two most lingering memories of this match will probably be those that happened off the pitch. They couldn’t strike a greater contrast. The first was the sight of the two teams lined up on the ground before the match, with the players shaking each other’s hands and wishing each other the best. The second was the email buzz after the game – in which cricket was sadly reduced to a proxy war.

Here is an example of a more extreme comment, posted on the ESPN Star webpage: “hey u stinkin pakis. how ru? i hope u all have not committed suicide after seeing ur players being *****ed by Indian maestros. well what more to say. where r all those ******s pakis who were saying "india is gonna loose". where r they. are kahan gaye woh kutte? why dont u speak now. i can understand. ur tongue is slipped into ur stinkin ****** u ******s. just pack ur bags and go home and ***** ur mothers and sisters whores.!!! unko jaake apni haar kii daastaan sunao!! three cheers for india. they have done it again. hip hip hurray!!! hip hip hurray!!!hip hip hurray!!! congratulations to all the indians from me who supported india and wrote against these stinkin slaves of Mr.Bush.!!!” Ironically, the penname of the author of this rant is: “sunnyshiningindian.”

Reading such sentiments, I can’t but help feel for the 22 young men brave enough to take the field sporting the colors of their national teams. Here they were, boys who had spent much of their adult lives perfecting the art and science of cricket, and indeed learning from each other – witness the words of gratitude of the Indian pacemen, Ashish Nehra and Zaheer Khan for their Pakistani mentor, Wasim Akram – being forced, against their wishes, to bear the angst of thousands of hateful, spiteful people. As they lined up to face each other in the pre-match ceremony, these unwilling gladiators knew that what they were about to embark upon was after all just a game – and that, like any between evenly matched sides, it could go either way. And again, every one of these twenty two wonderfully talented men knew deep down that defeat in this match could mean just about any unimaginable thing – from brickbats to attacks on their lives and property – from zealots back home.

On the night of the game, I had gathered with a group of cricketers to savor the game. Like connoisseurs of good wine, my friends had a taste for the good thing. They appreciated the nuances and subtleties such as the changing ground and atmospheric conditions – grass, soil, moisture – that give this game an extraordinary diversity and unpredictability absent from the homogenized, orchestrated, and canned Americanized sports. Like passionate sport lovers anywhere, they had a deep knowledge of the history of the game. And being cricketers themselves, and subcontinentals to boot, they knew and appreciated the talent, hard work and sacrifice it takes to make it to the world’s highest stage. While each had a team he supported, there was no absence of admiration for any cricketer who performed – regardless of whether he played for Australia or for the minnow teams such as Namibia or the Netherlands.

Against this backdrop, I could not help but be struck by the contrast between the passion of my mates, on the one hand, and of those among the correspondents spewing hate on the internet chat rooms, on the other. How can the same game evoke such contrasting sets of emotions and meanings? Needless to say, it is not just cricket, or indeed an India – Pakistan contest, that provokes such fervor. In soccer, for example, the periodic bloodbaths unleashed by the infamous “hooligans” from England, are testimony to the fact that the human species, seen in evolutionary terms, is a tad young. Again, the so called “soccer-wars,” in which two countries – Honduras and El Salvador actually went to physical war in 1969, has been explained by the anthropologist, William Durham, in terms of the politics of resource scarcity that was symbolically transformed onto the football field.

Arguably, the fervor behind the violent emotions in India-Pakistan cricket encounters has both these elements – primordial tribal loyalties, on the one hand, and simmering day to day conflicts for survival, on the other. However, the increasing ferocity of the violence – whether verbal, as illustrated by the quotation cited earlier; or the physical – for example, the attacks on the homes of the Indian cricketers following the defeat to Australia two weeks ago or the riots between Hindus and Muslims in Indian Gujarat following the Pakistan match, forces a more wide ranging analysis. One can argue that there are at least three sociological phenomena that frame the sheer intensity and the potentially catastrophic fervor of subcontinental cricket following.

At the outset, cricket is but one manifestation of the mainstreaming of hate more generally. The Talibalization of Pakistan, and the “Sanghification” of India during the past decade has meant that it has become increasingly legitimate to openly preach hate and commit crimes against the constructed “other.” The state has, in both countries, been either incapable or unwilling to contain those who spew hate. Secondly, hate groups in both countries have become spitting images of each other, and have also, in the process, begun to mass-produce and mass-market their divisive rhetoric and violence. In each country, the masses have been either mobilized to kill, paralyzed by fear, or numbed into indifference. Last, but by no means the least, the unending proxy war being fought at the border, and the ceaseless stream of body bags that arrive week after week into the villages and muffasil townships, has created a climate of sheer anger and disgust on both sides. Put simply, people in both India and Pakistan want the stalemate broken somehow. Cricket, as the only visible sport at which both nations excel at the international level, has, in this context, become the ultimate proxy war – one in which the stalemate can be broken, and that too, within a matter of eight hours.

Predictably, the euphoria of a cricket victory is always short lived. Defeating the Pakistanis in Pretoria will not stem the flow of Indian, or for that matter, Pakistani blood in Kashmir. With news of the next carnage in the battlefield, the cricket victory will be forgotten. And the next time that the two nations meet on the cricket pitch – they will be watched, as they were this time, not only by overzealous fans, but also by the millions of massed soldiers on both sides of the border. It will take a rocket scientist to predict that the tornado of vitriolic hate will once again touch the cricket field.

To people on both sides of the border not yet smitten by the passion of pathological hatred, it is evident that the state of affairs is, to put it mildly, far from healthy. Indeed, many, especially the cricketers, have spoken out for peace or at least for reason and sanity. It is significant that a day before the India-Pakistan world cup match, Wisden, the torch bearing trade journal named for a Victorian cricket mercenary, carried an article by Sanjay Manjrekar, a former Indian international cricketer, on the camaraderie between players of the two sides. Particularly noteworthy is the following quote: “Off the field we have always been great friends. No two international teams have the kind of interaction before a match that the Indians and the Pakistanis do. You may be friendly with the odd Australian or South African player and exchange pleasantries with a lot of others, but the camaraderie and kinship between Indian and Pakistani players is real. It has always struck me how open and forthright the Pakistanis are about their feelings: some of them have shared their deepest secrets with me after just a couple of meetings.”

As a member of the Indian diaspora, I have myself been struck often by the effusive warmth of Pakistanis. On at least three occasions Pakistani, cab drivers in England and the United States refused to accept their fare, and on one memorable day, a Pakistani cabbie, driving me into downtown Manhattan from New York’s La Guardia airport, insisted on giving me a free sight-seeing trip of the city. And who can forget the rousing applause that the Pakistani captain, Asif Iqbal, received from a full house Eden Gardens audience as he walked off the ground having played his last innings; or indeed, the standing ovation that the Pakistani cricket team got from the spectators at Chepauk after it had defeated India in the opening test match of the last series played between the two sides. And again, who can ever forget the sheer anticipation as the two countries braced themselves for the visits of Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Mussharaf? It is almost as though beneath every gun shot or a bomb blast, there is a warm embrace and a rapprochement waiting to happen. Despite the efforts of the hate mongers on both sides, ordinary Indians and Pakistanis have not quite attained the seemingly irreproachable hostility of the Israelis and the Palestinians. When I think of these moments, I do tend to get carried away by the image of a gaggle of doves perched on a large nuclear bomb, waiting to peck away at its wires.

I am however a realist, and know that the emotive equation has the potential to tilt either way. But what will it take to coax the pendulum toward peace? Being a soft liberal, I had taken it for granted that such a shift in attitude could only be brought about by well meaning progressives. As it turned out, a sharp conversation at an upscale restaurant in downtown Palo Alto a couple of hours before the match forced me to re-think my premises. During the dinner, the conversation meandered, touching cricket, the world cup, Indo-Pakistan relations, and sectarian violence in India. My interlocutors were Indian liberals like myself. As I read it, there were three trends that overlapped across the opinions expressed on each of the topics.

At the outset, there was a sense of what can perhaps be described as the anti-politics of atonement. One close friend at the dinner, whose intellect and judgment I have long admired, to take an example, stated that she was going to root for Pakistan. This was no knee jerk statement. I knew, having worked with her over the past few months, that it grew out of a deep felt angst (that I fully share) about a particularly ugly manifestation of Indian nationalism. In declaring her support for the Pakistan team, she was, in my book, trying to atone for the sins of her compatriots. Very admirable, very Gandhian, and ironically, quintessentially Hindu! However, I couldn’t help but think at that time of the consequences of an Indian defeat. I couldn’t help wonder how many Muslim lives would have been lost in riots that might have ensued. As it happened, my fears were well founded, as mobs clashed in the Indian state of Gujarat in the aftermath of the match, resulting in arson, and at least one reported death of a Muslim person.

Against this backdrop, I couldn’t help wonder: “What do sentiments such as those expressed by my friend, achieve?” Obviously, in the company of like-minded friends, they engender emotions ranging from a friendly stare to a pat in the back. But what if such sentiments are stated in the public sphere – such as they are by many Indian “progressives” who offer unequivocal support for “the Kashmir struggle” – and in the process find a simple villain – the Indian state – in a complex history of conflict? I can’t help think that they will only serve to marginalize the liberal voice further, for a nation fed daily, and if I might add, with true, stories of body bags from the border is simply not prepared to accept that its side is the sole perpetrator. In the absence of Mowglis in the contemporary subcontinental political jungle, is it good strategy for the few with the ability to be vocal and heard, to put forth a message so out of tune with the raw and naked emotions on the ground?

A second, related trend in the conversation can perhaps be described as the politics of scapegoating. The complex multivariate history of the rise of sectarian violence in the subcontinent was sought to be explained, by another friend at the table, with reference to specific causes, such as the aspirations of particular castes. While he was indeed correct in pointing out the significance of the correlation between the interests of certain upper caste groups and sectarian politics, it is also important to notice other trends, some contrary, and others, such as the alliances between sectarian parties and lower caste groups, that are arguably contradictory. As with the case of the anti-politics of guilt and atonement, uni-linear analyses serve only to scapegoat, and in the process, to conceal the more complex realities that demand and deserve more than “radical” expressions of dissent.

In some respects, however, it was the third trend that I found most disturbing. In rather crass caricature, it can be described as an inability to listen and converse. Facts and arguments that were contrary to one’s core assumptions, such as the afore mentioned case of the reasons behind the rise of sectarian violence, were either ignored or dismissed. This was by no means the first time I have sensed such a response from Indian “progressives” in the Bay Area. Barely a few months ago, an attempt at intervening in a debate on the Kashmir question was similarly brushed aside. In each case, instead of engaging the message, the messenger was attacked, in the time and tested fashion of the Indian Left, for failing to toe the party line. A tactic in both instances was to laugh away an argument by referring to it as “academic.” Then and now, there was a palpable anti-intellectualism, juxtaposed with an almost apodictic self-righteousness. There was only one truth, and it was, one couldn’t help feel, already revealed. To oppose this truth was to be a heretic.

Walking out of the restaurant, it became evident to me that many Indian progressive liberals suffer from several critical disabilities that prevent them from being effective catalysts of social change. To begin with, they sound, in many respects, almost exactly like the people they deplore. Like their nemeses – the religions fanatics, they fail to reason with those whose opinions they do not agree with, choosing instead, to use a lyric from an old folksong, to deny, defy, or crucify. Sadly, unlike their opponents, they neither have the power, the resources, the medium, the idiom, or the method, to communicate with the masses. In the end, they end up being just another shrill voice in the din, a cacophonic tin drum amidst the triumphant clashes of cymbals and trishuls, a school of Walter Mitties dreaming the revolution while the world spins on the forefingers of the zealots they plot to depose. Indeed, one can’t help wondering: if an elite is incapable of even dialoging with fellow travelers, leave alone the masses, however wrong their interlocutors might be, what good can they really do?

Is everything lost? I must admit that on the drive to the match, it did indeed seem that way. But then, that wonderful act by the players of the two teams before the match – the simple, beautiful, banal, mundane, and yet profound act of shaking hands before and after the game – showed me that there is a different future to dream. I can’t help suspect that this is a future in which self-professed “progressives” will have but a side role. In this future, it won’t be reason that will drive passion, but the other way round. In this future, emotions, raw and naked, will rise in concert. They will force the masters of reason and rhetoric not to enslave the masses, but on the contrary, to be enslaved by the people and for the people. But again, I am a realist. I realize that while the young boys who represented India and Pakistan on the cricket field on March 1 have shown the way; trodding their path demands courage, and perhaps most important, an army of everyday catalysts who can enable a billion symbolic handshakes. Are there any takers?

Socks Han-Sorted!

2006-06-27T08:28:00.000-07:00

Socks Han Sorted

There is a tradition in the Santa Clara Cricket Club for a designated team member to write a match report in the aftermath of a game. I have written a few in my time, but there is something about this one that resonates far beyond the boundary ropes. I vividly recall that lovely day of Cricket, and the sense of hope it produced...

It is only while driving back from the ground that I realized that I had been to a village very close Hansot, and, as a matter of fact, that I had had an absolutely diabolical cup of tea there - with goat’s milk. This was way back, almost two decades ago, when my friends and I, all in our late teens or early twenties, belonging to an environmental group called Kalpavriksh, walked and rode to all corners of India, in a bid to understand and act upon impending environmental crises.

What has this piece of autobiographical trivia got to do with cricket? I would never have predicted back then that two decades later, I’d be playing a cricket match with a bunch of expats from Hansot, and that too in the San Francisco Bay area. Talk about life being sometimes stranger than fiction!

Yes – the Hansot cricket club consists of people who emigrated from one small village near Surat and Ankleshwar, about 22 years ago. This club is essentially one large joint family. During partition, a portion of them crossed the borders in to Pakistan, while the majority stayed on in India. There are now about 350 members of that family, from both sides of the border, in the Bay Area alone. Everyone we played were uncles or nephews, fathers or sons – in all, three generations of them! They were once an A division team, and with a new ground in Daly city, they are back, with a newer generation blended in with some of the old stars, including one former Ranji player.

The Gilroy ground was as picturesque and billiards table like as ever, although it must be said, the mercury was about 200 in the shade. The vines were all neatly pruned and pinned, with no grapes ready for harvest. And we were all there at about 10, the team from Santa Clara, as well as the joint family team from Daly City. Shabab, the ever so responsible and organized captain that he is, went out to look for the caretaker in order to get the phone number of the Pizza delivery company. He had barely turned his substantial behind when Vaibhav, eager to get on with it, insisted that one of us go out to toss. I must say, I was rather against this idea, because, knowing that the law of averages would favor Shahab winning the toss, I felt that it would be a good bet to wait for him. There was also the small matter that he is the captain of our side. And then, I proposed that we enter into a contract with the opposition that should we loose the illegal toss, Shahab would come back and toss again.

Needless to say, none of my thoughtful ideas were accepted and in the event, we ended up loosing the toss, and first strike, to the joint family. To be honest, the toss didn’t seem a terrible loss, at first, given that we had the openers pegged. If the score card maintained by our dear Hansoties is to be believed, the openers fell to Naseem and a gentleman called John, and further, that their number 4 batsman was out, bowled by Naseem. It is quite noteworthy that, according to their scorecard, their batsmen were actually bowled, as opposed to “bold,” the term apparently in favor among the Santa Clara scorers.

With three wickets gone cheaply, the game seemed in the bag. And at least one of the batsmen in the crease looked a tad, shall we say, untutored? Lest you accuse me of elitism, I am referring simply to the tutoring about how to hold and use a cricket bat. But then, this gentleman was joined by a fella called Munna, who sported a yellow cap. The onset of this partnership coincided, approximately, with a double bowling change, and what followed was murder, or perhaps more accurately, mayhem.

One can’t say that there was anything particularly wrong with the bowling – it was just that the hitting was so clean. Munna, with his clean eye just destroyed the Santa Clara first change bowlers with a belletristic pyromania that was a joy to behold, while on the other end, Azim, the “untutored” feller, went agricultural with telling effect. In what was actually a relatively short time but seemed quite long owing to the heat of the mid-day sun, these two made 91 and 60, respectively before their partnership was finally broken.

It should be noted that the two first change bowlers did not bowl particularly badly. There were a few bad balls, but a number of good ones too, and both Vaibhav and Fazil managed to sneak in at least one good and tidy over each. But on this day, against two batters in murderous mood, they, and the two bowlers following them – Shahab and Arul, had to do what we all did – watch a blazing fireworks display.

As often happens, a bowling change broke the partnership. Sam Chopra, who has a deceptively innocuous run up, bowled a tight, accurate over, and that’s all it took, in the end, to get Munna, bowled, while he was on the threshold of a century. Azim hung around a bit more, and a couple of their subsequent batsmen got in to double figures, but tight bowling by Sam (2 wickets), yours truly (one wicket) and David (three wickets), quickly ran through the rest of their order. (I am not giving actual bowling figures because I don’t think the Hansoties did a good job of recording all the bowling accurately).

With 242 to win off 40 overs, we went in to the tent for lunch. We had ordered Pizzas, while our opponents from Hansot, had brought lovely home cooked food. Needless to say, our tongues salivated at the prospect of their goodies, and noticing the state of our fellows, I did perhaps my only smart deed of the day. I went up to the Hansoties and offered them our Pizza. As an old man once said, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and this law held true, once again, as we were offered their yummy delicacies.

Our batting was opened by Shankar and Fazil, and the way they negotiated the opening overs it did seem as though the would give us a nice start. Sadly, that was not to be, as Fazil was out, caught behind, of a very good late swinging ball from Naseem that took his glove. Arul went in, and he too looked in good nick, as he tried to build a partnership, before he perished, bowled (bold?) Wajid, for 6. In went Vaibhavman, and he got to double figures, ten, to be exact, before he decided to lift his head and heave, only to find his furniture disturbed. He was followed by Ashok, who also made 10, before being out caught behind.

I may have got the sequence wrong here – I think it was Shankar who got out before Ashok (the scorecard does not record this), but for the record, Shankar scripted a typically composed and organized essay of 20 before he was given out caught behind off what seemed to the batsman as well as the square leg umpire to have been a ball that brushed the pad without taking the bat. Given his terrific work behind the stumps, and the fact that he was actually on the ground from 10 AM to almost 4 PM, Shankar would certainly be among my picks for the player of the game from our side.

Perhaps the person who could knock him off that pedestal is Sam. Now, I’ve seen a number of eccentrics in my line of work and I’ve myself been often accused of being one, but this guy is special, and I’ll recommend him to the eccentric’s hall of fame any day. Consider this. The fellow always umpires with his “box” in place; and wears hiking boots so that he can field with his feet without fear of getting hurt – and thereby avoiding tiring things like diving to field the ball. On this day, we all agreed, he was blessed with that wonderful Feline gift – Lives. Indeed, had TS Eliot been alive to watch Sam, he may well have added to his Old Possum collection – with one on Sam, the swinging cricket cat. Anyway, just as Sam made 42, blessed with four lives, and just as we began to feel that he’d make a century given that in theory he, like all true Felines, would have at least 5 more lives left, he managed to get himself out, of all things, LBW! Can things get worse than that?

Sam was given good company by David, who poses at the non-striking end with a stance worthy of the delectable Disney character that we all love, and who in the end made 10, before also being bowled, not bold, by Saqib (arguably one of the few q’s not succeeded by a “u”.) But before he got out, or for that matter, “in,” Shahad quickly went in and out, running himself out needlessly when he was all promise having made a well judged single. And, with Naseem out after Shahab, in went yours truly, with about 11 overs remaining of regulation time.

I was told that I was to play my natural game, and that’s exactly what I did. I have a theory. In this league, at least when faced with c division bowling, all one has to do is religiously leave balls that are outside the off stump. Of course you can be Sam and heave such balls over the mid-wicket fence, but my theory applies only to ordinary mortals like me. So, you leave these balls, and play the ones on the stumps with a straight bat. What do you think happens next? The bowler tries extra hard to get you, and what does he do? Bowl more wides. So, with almost no effort, one can milk the bowler for at least 3 – 5 wides an over, and to add to his misery, a few leg byes to boot. And that is what I did, while on the other end, David, and Janak after him, took on the bowling.

Of course, the morons on our team bench are strategically challenged, and didn’t quite appreciate the brilliance on exhibit out there in the center. Like hooligans, they cheered when I took a run attributed to the bat, as though only that form of scoring mattered. Sadly, just when I was giving them what they wanted – meaty strokes from the bat, I went and got myself run out, and so ended a brilliant innings of Walter Mittyesque cricketing luminosity. There was a bit of resistance after that, with the last pair swingin’ it out there, and in the end, Socks landed up with 184, 58 short, but with our heads held high. We’ll live to fight again, and resume our winning ways.

In passing, let me return to Hansot. They played well, and in the end one partnership and two batting efforts took the game away from us. But what struck me more was the fact that this is a family from both India and Pakistan. They played Hindi film music in the breaks, spoke to each other in Gujarati, and were utterly gentlemanly for the most part (no drawn guns to speak of here). Some of them were obviously Indian, others obviously Pakistani, and here is the funny bit – there was really no telling which was which! Looking at this family straddling nationalities I couldn’t help, once again, feel exasperated at the politicians on two sides of the border who keep people who share a culture so utterly needlessly apart. Who cares about passports and nationalities if we can all eat the same food and sing the same songs, and better still, play cricket together? Do we have to come all the way to America to do this?

Welcome!

2006-06-25T15:59:00.001-07:00

Those acquainted with Ludwig Wittgenstein’s colorful aphorisms will no doubt recognize the delightful phrase, "The World As I Found It," from his terse meditation on the relationship between language and the world. (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 5.631).

The phrase is very apt for what you will read here, for this will be a blog describing the world as I find it - and about the passions, the conflicts, the joys, and the sorrows that engulf our wonderful planet. To get going, it will pillage from my own cupboard of ramblings, essays that I wrote almost stream of consciousness in response to world events over the past few years. Over time, it will track and provide some meta-commentary on news in arenas such as the environment, science and technology, world politics, education, and sport. After the initial flourish, I’ll aim to post at least one essay a month, and might add some more in the interstices of time.

A few statutory warnings! First, the entries may reflect my liberal vantage point, and probably, my pacifist and environmentalist biases. Second, the essays and commentaries are written from a non academic perspective, and as such, lack the caution and rigor I like to bring to my academic work. Last, but by no means least, views expressed here are mine alone (and sometimes, mine only at the time I wrote them!), and most definitely not that of my employer, friends, colleagues, or for that matter, my cats.

There is, however, nothing I value more than passionate disagreement. So, feel free to joust!

Ravi Rajan
Santa Cruz, CA