Dravid vs Alpha Male

Rahul Dravid has been one of my favorite cricketers ever since he made his debut in international cricket. The venue was Singapore and the year 1996. He played 2 ODIs and scored 3 and 4 runs in 4 and 7 balls respectively. He played just a handful of deliveries and yet I knew I was looking at a batsman with technique and style bar none. In those 7 runs and 11 balls (9 effectively) he somehow announced to me his class as a batsman. As an avid believer and eager disciple of the purity of copy-book batting technique, I was a fan of the man.

I remember discussing the tournament at the Naval club in Bombay the following weekend with my Dad and his friends over some good old Peter Scot whiskey (The touted Indian Black Label). One "uncle" in particular was focusing his ire on the incompetent fool who had replaced Kambli on the team and the selectors for so obviously picking someone through the quota system. He was talking about Dravid and like 95% of our cricket crazy nation, his yardstick for measuring a player's ability was the scoreboard of the latest game. I told him that I thought Dravid showed glimpses of greatness and will go on to become a star. I was summarily dismissed as a naive 18 yr old by that gathering.

Of course, our selectors promptly dropped him from the team for his "poor showing". God knows how many new comers have been given one or two chances and banished forever if luck wasn't with them at right that moment. Even a fool with some degree of cricketing experience knows that for a batsman getting the runs on the board on a given day, depends a lot on luck. Luck which unfortunately wasn't around when players like Amol Muzumdar were given their fleeting chances in the limelight.

Anyhow, Dravid wasn't destined to live with the bad luck of Singapore. He got his chance against England in a test series. The selectors had pulled a couple of very surprising moves by including Dravid and Ganguly in that squad. The newspapers were going to town about the disastrous selection, but I was looking forward to seeing more of that brilliance that momentarily shone in Singapore.

The rest, as they say, is history. The series marked the arrival of two of the towering peaks of Indian cricket that would stand out majestically for more than a decade. Ganguly got a hundred, and Dravid a 95 in one of the most memorable duo-debuts ever. That inning and his 148 against South Africa in Johannesburg meant that Dravid was now making a serious pitch to join Tendulkar, Warne and Jadeja on my cricket poster wall.

10 years later Dravid is the captain of the Indian cricket team. I still continue to admire the batting of the man they call "the wall" but I have come to realize that while he is the most dependable foot soldier in the battalion, he is not a Commander. He can be a Tenzing Norgay, but never a Edmund Hillary. Always destined to succeed as a follower, as a second fiddle.

This realization brought into perspective the debuts of Dravid and Ganguly. Both were brilliant, but Ganguly eclipsed Dravid. This can be brushed off as mere coincidence, and it may well be, but one can't help notice the similarity between that event and the natural personality of these individuals.

Dravid is the hard-working intelligent kid - Kid 1 - we all knew in high school - the one that did all the homework, sat on the first bench, raised his hand in class and slogged to earn his academic ranking. Ganguly on the other hand is the cocky latent genius of the class - Kid 2 - that has fun with the wild kids and occasionally ignores homework but when exam time comes around he easily outdoes the performance of other bright kids like Kid 1 and no one knows how. All the kids like Kid 1, rarely does anyone have anything bad to say about him. Even the kids from the rival school have nothing against him and he is probably gracious when he meets them. Importantly, he doesn't inspire passion and emotion in the people who know him. Kid 2 on the other hand has a polarizing affect on people - his friends would gladly risk injury to aid him in a school yard brawl and his enemies are vary of his reputation as a worthy adversary. He doesn't back away from a fight and will gladly take the battle to the enemy camp. The kids from the rival school hate his guts and spend time and energy plotting revenge. His school mates see this attitude in the rivals and that galvanizes their resolve. In sport and in battle this cocktail of emotions and hormones brings about the best in men. This illustrates why Ganguly is a great captain, and Dravid a horrible one.

Dravid is not a natural leader of men. A natural leader of men has to be Alpha in nature. Dravid's nuptial decisions remove any doubt about his non-existent Alpha tendencies. He was in effect India's most eligible bachelor. He could have had any woman he wished for, and then some. What did he do instead? He wasn't linked or seen with any woman through his bachelorhood and he settled for a girl selected by his mother in an arranged marriage setting, and (at the risk of sounding shallow) the evidence suggests that he didn't even push forth a criteria for physical attractiveness. Obedience towards parents, respecting and accepting the decisions made by your elders... are all admirable qualities that could shine brightly as medals if imbibed by most Indian men, excepting one maverick breed - "Alpha males" !

An Alpha male does not follow, he leads. He does not sit around to be given his lot in life, by anyone. He takes what he desires. He creates his opportunities and certainly does not squander those presented to him. By playing the quiet obedient son and turning his back on limitless opportunities in testosterone heaven, Dravid displayed many great qualities, but simultaneously announced that he was no Alpha. Not even a Beta. Such a man cannot captain India.

I blame him for not trying hard enough against Bangladesh in the world cup. A win-at-any-cost India would have pulled out the stops in dismissing the Bangla boys in their run chase. No niceties, rather the short-statured teenagers would have to pass through fire and brimstone. Instead, Dravid's India had to play the gracious big brothers on the field. Even after the stunning loss, instead of seething with feelings of revenge, retribution and cold resolve, Dravid walked over to the Bangla camp to gift Tameem a bat for his batting display. Greatness befitting a saint, a social worker, Mother Teresa perhaps, but the captain of a sport played by men? Not in my book. "Winning isn't everything, it is participation that counts". This stupid jingle was invented to satisfy losers and wimps. A real sportsman rephrased it subsequently - "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."

India earned the rare distinction of a series win in England recently. I do not attribute that to Dravid's leadership. The first draw was a stroke of luck with the rain gods preventing certain defeat. The second powered by brilliant batting performances and some great bowling. Everything went right for India in this game and I didn't see any evidence of captaining brilliance inspiring the win. Nevertheless it can be considered a good game for Dravid the captain. The third showcased some more brilliance in batting and India had a great chance to emphatically win 2-0. Instead Dravid's personality shone through once again to paint India as a nation of pacifistic risk averse gentlemen. He did not enforce the follow on and he was never going to have the time to bowl England out in the 4th innings. Meaning, he was shooting for a draw. A 1-0 scoreline coupled with a rain earned lucky escape meant a paper victory for us, but barely. I would have hoped that we took on the 2% risk and backed ourselves to come good on the 98% chance for victory that a follow on would have afforded us. Not in Dravid land though, we eschew risks, eat Jam and vegetarian food and spread the joy of loving thy neighbor.

We lost the 3rd one dayer against England yesterday, not because of a lack of aggression, but because we picked an incredibly dumb team. Our batting ended at number 6! 5 tail-enders in a modern day one day team? I'm beginning to think that Dravid's problems as a captain are not limited to lack of "Alpha-ness". They seem to be broader than that, touching areas of core strategic competency. Would someone please put Dravid the captain out of his misery, and let him do what he does best - be a worker ant extraordinaire. Captaincy needs to be restored to Ganguly. While he plays out his cricketing days in a final flourish, some of the younger players with Alpha tendencies like Yuvraj and Zaheer need to be groomed to step into his shoes.

May I have your First Name Sir?

Staring at the stack of print-outs of details of 50 rental properties, I worked out a strategy to get through the pre-screening process as quickly as possible. I wanted a 6 month lease, 2 bedroom, in a months time, washer-dryer in-house, etc etc. My sequence of questioning was designed to first put forth those criteria that were least likely to be met. So the plan was - "Hi, can you do a 6 month lease on your 2 bedrooms?". If yes, "Do they have washer-dryers in-house?". If yes, "Any available in September?". Having met all these conditions, we could talk about the gloss. If any fails, I would crush the paper into a ball, and execute a perfect basket into the bin at the far corner of room. Ah, this way I could be done pretty soon, right? Property 1 - Agent: "Hi this Ehsooos (Jesus) at ButtMunch Breeze Residences , can I find out where you heard of us?" Me: "Err..... sure, apartments.com" Agent: "Excellent, and can I get your Last Name please" Me: "Err...I'd like to know..." Agent: "Can I get your last Name please" Me: "Fine. Tandon" Agent: "Done Done?" Me: "No, Tandon.... with a 'T.... T A N D O N'" Agent: "DANDON? " Me: "No no .. Tango Alpha Nancy Delta Oscar Nancy" Agent: *Long Pause*......... Alright sir, now can I get your first Name Me: "Look, I'll get to that in a second, can I first ask you a simple question" Agent: "Can I get your first name sir". At this point I am wondering if the son of god at the other end is even comprehending what I am saying. I decide to jump right into the questioning. Me: "Do you do 6 month leases on your 2 bedrooms?" Agent: "Can I get your first name sir" Me: (*GODAMAN MF&%*$* SON OF A #@#$*) "How does it matter? Answer the question" Agent: "Yes, but can I get your first name sir". Me: "OH GOD".... Click..... He hangs up. I'm staring at the phone wondering what Jesus' parents were thinking when they named him. Surely they could see ungodly signs as he grew older. Surely they knew that they had to change his name. But being me, I'm not done with this guy. I call right back. He picks up again. Agent: "Hi this Ehsooos at ButtMunch Breeze Residences , can I find out where you heard of us?" Me: "Tv show - Cops". We obviously recognize each others voices, but neither of us show it. Agent: "Umm... ok, and can I get your Last Name please" Me: "Sure, Christ." Agent: "Christ?" Me: "Yes... C H R I S T. You want the phonetics?" Agent: "Can I get your first Name?" Me: "Ehsoos. Its spelt J E S U S". Agent: *SILENT* Me: "Hllo?" Agent: "Sir, I need your real name" Me: "And I need your supervisor" Agent: "Sir, he will ask you the same thing" Me: "Then I will give him the same answer. It's my name and I'm proud of it, silent J and all". Agent: "Ok hold on" Supervisor: "Yes sir, what can I help you with" (Aah, finally someone who might give an answer to my questions) Me: "Yes, I am looking for a 2 bedroom for a 6 month lease. I just want to know if you have any and if yes I can give you my name, address, height, weight... whatever". Supervisor: Sure, can I have your phone number please. AAAAAARRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHH Me : "Sigh ...... XXX-XXX-XXXX" Supervisor: "Let me get someone who can help you." Agent 2: "Yes sir, may I help you" Me : (for the umpteenth time) "Yes, I'm looking for a 2 bedroom for a 6 month lease." Agent 2: "Sorry sir, we don't do 6 month leases, but we could do a 10 month if you'd like. Shall I set up an appointment for you to come take a look?" This is one of those times I wish I didn't have to cancel a call using a puny little button. I wish I had one of those old cradle type phones just to do justice to this call by banging that sucker down. Oh well.... maybe I will have better luck with the others. Maybe I can be John Smith or Chris Roberts....

Toppling Saddam was a mistake

Toppling Saddam was a mistake, even Bush knows that.

Ah, the naivety of “democracy-installers”. In 2003 when a generous part of the U.S administration, moronic opinion mongers from Fox news, and roughly 3/4th of the country was talking about how toppling Saddam through a war and installing democracy in Iraq was the answer to world’s problems, I looked around to see if I was dreaming, or were retards actually outnumbering the sane. Lawyers, PhDs, highly accomplished professionals; I exchanged views with numerous people and defended what was so obvious to me. War must be used as an absolute absolute last resort given its innate vicious nature, and clearly we hadn’t exhausted all options with Iraq. Wasn’t it so predictable that a war would exacerbate the scourge of terrorism by spawning more hate? Hate – the weapon of mass destruction that hit the U.S on 9/11! Surely anyone familiar with the culture and history of the Muslim world and with at least half a brain could see that democracy cannot be installed in the middle-east. And even if it could, was it desirable to do so? What kind of government would be elected by a population comprising of several fundamentalist groups? Sadly, more often than not, I had to shake my head in disbelief, and walk away from a futile argument.

Let’s examine the main arguments for this war. They are broadly five in number and have shared “Argument #1” status in turn, only to be pushed down the heap in time.

1. Saddam has WMDs

2. Saddam has links to Al-Qaeda

3. Saddam sponsors terrorism

4. Saddam is a murderous bastard to his own people

5. Democracy is needed in the middle-east.

Correction… let’s not talk about the WMD argument because enough has been said about it and was so lame that even the establishment soon dropped it like a hot potato. Of course, the erudite pit bulls...err…journalists at Fox news were the last to abandon citing it as a justification for war. The most pig-headed of them still chirp about how the WMDs had existed but then disappeared - tugged by hump back whales on their annual migratory path from Iraq to Antarctica. Saddam knew all the secret whale whistles you see, Osama taught him those when the two of them partied with Putin and Chiraq in Belarus.

Argument number 2 – links to Al-Qaeda. No matter how many times you repeat a lie, and no matter how vehemently you repeat it, you cannot elevate it to the status of a truth. Dick Cheney is probably the last Republican to hold on to this argument, so I am guessing it was his brain-child. This argument was unsubstantiated to say the least and at odds with the history of two men – Saddam and Osama. The former a secular indulgent materialistic dictator and the latter a hard-line austere Muslim. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, Osama effectively called him a “mother-fucker” (with the mother being holy Arab land). The 9/11 commission reported that Osama was supporting the Kurds in anti Saddam movements. Over the years, Arab media reported several Bin Laden speeches where he criticized Muslims that do not follow strict Islam, and Saddam was often at the receiving end. Saddam was a secular who had a Christian Deputy Prime Minister -Tariq Aziz- and that put him squarely at odds with Osama. Their core value system was different and hence this argument seemed wild right at the onset. However, if the Bush administration could prove the argument, I would believe it because stranger things happen in this world. The “proof” according to Bush and Co., was that Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. Well that argument was soon found faulty because Atta was in the US at the time of the purported meeting. I ask, even if there was proof of a couple of Iraqi intelligence officers meeting Al-Qaeda operatives, does that prove complicity of Saddam and Al-Qaeda? It doesn’t, much like a couple of rogue US senators selling out to lobbyists and big money doesn’t prove that the US government is for sale. There were a couple of other lame claims about the “link”, but nothing that was substantiated and nothing that could over-ride the obvious conclusions derived from the animosity between Saddam and Osama.

Argument 3: Saddam sponsors terrorism. This one was partly true, but it is a classic example of a half truth twisted to brainwash gullible people. The devil lies in the details. By all records, Saddam sponsored only one organization that could be labeled “terrorist” – Hamas. Hamas is a Palestinian militant organization involved in a never ending fight with Israel. Hamas has never attacked any US interest, and even though it hates US for supporting Israel, it isn’t any threat to the US, unless of course Jerusalem is the 51st state (as some powerful NY lobbies see it anyway). And again, Saddam’s reasons for supporting Hamas are not Islam ideological, they are plain and simple retributive. In 1982, Israel raided Iraq without provocation and bombed its nuclear plants and ambitions into oblivion. Saddam cannot be expected to forgive Israel for that transgression into Iraq’s sovereign territory, and his support of Hamas was payback for that day. It’s called a proxy war and has been waged around the world by many countries, several times by the US. Not very different from what the US did in Afghanistan by arming/paying the Afghans to fight the Russians, or arming/paying Saddam to fight Iran. A proxy war which is entirely a bilateral issue between Iraq and Israel was twisted into a nice catchy phrase by the Republican spin doctors – “Saddam funds terrorism”. The objective of course was to induce Americans into visualizing Saddam paying a bloke to blow up their neighborhood bake sale, and hope that this fear made them hit “Bush” at the voting stations. It worked!

Argument 4: Murderous Bastard. Yes, Saddam ruled with an iron fist and many Iraqis suffered under his rule. Suffering however, is relative. To put it in perspective, the history of the region must be examined, or in this instance Iraq’s present can be examined too. Iraq is made up natural enemies juxtaposed with each other. Give them an opportunity, and they will go at each others throats. These forces have to be kept at bay with an iron fist. This is not to say that Saddam’s rule was perfect, but in a relative world, it was the lesser of the evils. Saddam’s biggest plus, and an unparalleled one at that in the middle east, was his secularism. Christians practiced their religion without fear, women wore skirts and worked without fear of persecution. How are the Iraqis that are kidnapped by American trained rogue Iraqi police or by militias, and the women who are threatened if not wearing a veil, better off today? Of course, everyone had to add Saddam to their list of Gods, but having done that, the average Iraqi could go about his life without having to worry about the government. Fundamentalist Muslims weren’t allowed to become larger than life figures. This was ensuring that Iraq wasn’t a hotbed for Islamic terrorism. All in all, while some people suffered under the ego of a dictator and his sons, there wasn’t any viable option to better the situation externally. Even if there was one, is it really the prerogative of the U.S.A to rid countries of cruel dictators? Also, isn’t it understandable that a proud people would rather be ruled by a cruel but effective dictator from among their own than bear the ignominy of a foreign country bombing their infrastructure to the stone-age, 19 year old foreigners patrolling the streets for years with the authority to intimidate and arrest anyone or raid any home without a warrant and in rare but real cases stoop to the moral murkiness that rapes and kills young girls? While by any means, that doesn’t characterize the U.S military effort in Iraq but human weakness when acted upon by the catalytic action of war can make beasts of men, and for every 1 vile action of a US troop, a thousand virtuous ones are forgotten. Surely, the US had to know that before they dreamed of being greeted with flowers and remembered as messiahs?

“Saddam gassed his people” said Bush 42 in 2003. So Saddam is guilty for the actions of his military which killed civilians. Fair enough, I agree that he is. But then by the same logic guess who is responsible for the civilians killed in Fallujeh by the use of white phosphorous, a chemical agent banned in war? Children, men and women incinerated on the spot, in their clothes, a macabre sight. George Bush? The ranking General in Iraq? The platoon commander in Fallujeh? “No one” they say because it is war and they had to do what they had to do. Double standards?

Argument 5: democracy is needed in the Middle East. I have just one word for proponents of this argument – “Palestine”. Palestinians had elections and they elected HAMAS. A democracy is inherently flawed in that it is only as good as its people. Not to say that the people of the middle-east aren’t worthy of exercising their franchise. The point is that the western world is not ready for the kind of governments that will emerge through free franchise in the Muslim world. Any guesses on who among Musharraf and Bin Laden would win a one-on-one presidential race in Pakistan? Let’s put it this way – it probably depends on the voter turnout from the northern part of the country. Scary? You bet. Some things are best left untouched, like a rare secular dictator in the Middle East. What will the US do if Muqtada-Al-Sadr gets voted to power in Iraq in two years? Operation “Shock and Oh-Crap”???

More than four years and hundreds of thousands of devastated lives later, a majority of the US population now believes that this war was unnecessary. Hindsight is a bitch ain’t it? Agreed we live in a plug and play world, but it was a no-brainer that the Iraqi population would not quite “play” in response to the US war machine “plug”. No-brainer to a few that is, while a majority got it wrong. What should this majority do now? What should the Sean Hannitys and Bill O Reillys and John Does from red states do now? For starters, be man enough to admit that they made a mistake in judgment and as such admit bearing a part of the burden of each crime and each death committed in the course of this war. But how will that happen when the atmosphere of “pass the buck on” is all pervasive in this administration? When things weren’t going right, George Bush needed a fall guy and the first unlucky target was George Tenet. “George Tenet delivered incorrect intelligence hence George Bush is blameless.” “How could George Bush take a chance with that kind of reporting from Tenet?” Bull-crap like that makes for idiot-impressing rhetoric when coupled with a thrusting finger on Fox news, but doesn’t stand up to the most basic analysis. Did George Tenet assimilate the information himself? Was he dressed in an Arab robe infiltrating the Bedouins of Karbala? No, obviously not. He delivered information collected by his subordinates. So if he is guilty because his subordinates misreported, pray why isn’t George Bush guilty when his subordinate George Tent misreported? The buck stops at the top! Period. Anything else is an excuse.

Since Tenet there have been many fall guys. When will the man himself take the blame? And maybe when he does, his followers may find the stomach to do the same.

Saddam is now dead and buried. Convicted by a kangaroo court in a trial that wouldn’t have resulted in anything but a mistrial anywhere else. It’s supposed to be ok because he 1. deserved death 2. Did not offer his citizens even this much of a trial. While the former is a largely acceptable opinion, since when have opinions justified verdicts? Isn’t unbiased justice the point of conducting a trial? Otherwise why didn’t the US set up a massive global online poll and convict Saddam based on that. The second point tries to justify one wrong by giving the example of another. The cliché doesn’t need to be stated.

What should be done then to fix this virulent quagmire that the US finds itself in? It goes back to the man himself – Bush 42. He needs to call a global press conference and apologize. He needs to accept that his administration made a mistake and that he is responsible for the hate directed at America from around the world. He needs to shield his citizens from this hate by taking it on himself. He needs to somehow make the Arab world believe that America regrets this action and will work towards fixing it. Then through the UN and through lots of money (which will still be a lot less than what is being spent now) an Arab peace keeping force needs to be put together that can take over from the US. The US forces need to leave, because no matter how noble the US men and women on the ground are, if you are an Iraqi who’s son is 6 feet under because of a not-so-precise ammunition, you will do whatever you can to payback in kind. And there are plenty of those around.

The above is the best bet in the short term. It will take a hell of a man to do what I propose for Bush. Yes, the Republicans can forget about winning an election for the next 2 decades, but the best possible outcome for the American citizens will have been achieved. So, it is America’s best interest versus the Republican Party’s future. You and I know which one will hold priority.

In the long term, the US needs to do a few things:

1. Really really strengthen its borders. In the amount it has cost to wage this war, 8 million police officers could have been hired. You do the math.

2. Solve the Israel-Palestine issue without a bias. It will be hard, but the US can shake off the influence of the Jewish Lobby and do what is right.

3. Reduce or eliminate foreign oil dependence.

4. Shake off the arrogance and make genuine friends around the world. The US donates more money than any nation in the world, emphasize that fact. Highlight the values of this great nation – freedom, opportunity, equality etc. Set up a sustained PR campaign to improve the image of America around the world.

No one can really afford a failed Iraq. Bush has a year or so to change the way history will look back at him, and by association at America. For the sake of Americans and all the unparalleled achievements of this nation over hundreds of years, I hope he reaches in deep within himself and finds the courage to do the right thing.

Murali the Dacoit

Bishen Singh Bedi, not know for his discretion, did the cricket world a favor by mouthing what many cricket gurus believe, but shy away from stating. His statements :

1. Murali is a Thief, a Burglar, a Dacoit !!
( haha ,,, this one had me in splits. )

2. I have a picture of Murali somewhere. He resembles a javelin thrower.

3. His action belongs in a darts tournament.

4. I have never seen Murali chuck while he is bowling. But then again, I have never seen him "Bowling".
(good one Bedi sahab. This one would've done Sidhhu proud )

5. Its too bad his arm is bent. There are people in this world who are blind. We don't let them fly airplanes, so why let Murali bowl ?

6. Murali is the best shot-putter in the history of cricket.

Michael Holding endorsed these opinions by saying " I agree 110% with Bedi" . Of course, its easier to endorse than to be the proverbial "one to bell the cat", but this action of his should bring out more frank opinions that were hidden behind the cloak of political correctness till now.

The responses coming from the Sri Lankans are so predictable. They are devoid of any thought and reflect only one emotion - "Murali is the only good thing to happen to our nation (LTTE doesn't count man ). Doesn't matter if he cheats, without him our country has nothing to boast of so let's ignore the merits of the allegations. Lets not introspect and see if there is a problem, lets just blindly back him ". This was made clear by the news sometime back.

"Sri Lanka Cricket president Mohan de Silva said he had asked the ICC to increase the tolerance limit to possibly 15 degrees for all bowlers. The tolerance limits set by the ICC are five degrees for spinners, 7.5 for medium-pacers and 10 for pacemen."

The nuts wanted the ICC to increase the tolerance limit by a factor of 3 to accommodate their national treasure ? How stupid is that ? Tomorrow they will ask for permission to let Chaminda Vaas bowl from 10 yards, or Sangakarra keep wickets on a freakin horse !

Ok, lets set aside the angry rhetoric for a while. Lets analyze the matter at hand

They claim he has a bent arm, a birth defect. I ask, how in the world does his arm straighten fully when throwing in a flat one to the keeper from the deep outfield ? Yes, his crooked, sympathy evoking arm straightens !!! If that is the case, why doesnt he keep it straight when he balls ? Answer : because sometime during his childhood in Kandy, he learnt how to ball like this, and figured it fell in a grey area as per cricket laws, and decided to ride his luck. Look how far its taken him. So, in short, we know he CAN straighten his arm, its not like he has it bent when walking around on the field. Nevertheless, he has some freakish defect which allows him to ball with his arm bent and wrist cocked like a catapult. Is that reason enough for him to be above the law ?

Fine, his action has been cleared under electronic supervision by experts. It is one thing to ball with sensors on your arm in front of inspectors, and come out clean, and quite another to do it in the absense of such motivation, in the heat of a game, repeatedly, ball after ball. Mind you, the "repeatedly, ball after ball" criteria, is paramount. His action, although "legal" at most times, is very susceptible to being "illegal" around 10% of the time. And I think that is unacceptable. In my opinion, it is very likely that he straightens his arm more than the limit around once every over. How is the naked eye to know ? After all, he was cleared by a committee !! The solution is to put his arm in a L-Shaped removable cast. He wears it when he balls, so that he cant straighten his arm, consciously or otherwise.

If a ball is delivered with the arm bent to begin with it is very difficult for umpires to pick out a 'chuck'. With the success of Murali chances are that many other bent arm bowlers will come along. Will every one of them be put through lab tests or not? Will umpires be able to judge when they chuck? I imagine not, and hence by setting the wrong precedent with Murali we are opening the gates to chuckers paradise. Hence the rules should be amended to enforce an action where the arm must be kept straight to the naked eye during delivery. Apparently most bowlers straighten by a few degrees but if it is not visible to the naked eye, it should be good enough. If a lot of straightening occurs at the point of delivery, the umpire is in a good position to spot it and call it. That cannot happen if the arm is bent to begin with.

All in all, never mind the sympathy factor that poor Murali evokes. Too bad that he studied in a school run by Benedictine monks, or that his arm is bent or that he is Sri Lankan and he never got laid till his 500th wicket ! His bowling action is bullshit, and all this bargaining with arm bending angle limits, is a dangerous game that could lead to cricket mutating into something else.

The ICC has relented and increased permissible arm straightening to 15%. They say it is the threshold at which chucking is visible. Who is to say that in a few years, another defective arm will not come out of Sri Lanka and ask for it to be made 20% ? From the news reports, there already is a misguided kid in Lanka who imitates Murali and is pretty good at it. Maybe eventually they will have a freak who bowls out of his arse and bags 5000 wickets before someone asks the question " Is that legal ? "

I hope someone with guts takes over the ICC and returns sanity to the Sri Lankan madness. No more concessions to Murali and umpires should be able to call him at their discretion. More importantly, all the wickets he took with the "doosra" to date, should be obliterated from the record books. In fact, all his 530 wickets should be studied closely and the dubious ones removed from the record books. THAT will put his figures in perspective, and give Shane Warne his rightful crown.

On a lighter note, what are the odds that this page shows up high on the Google search results when "Murali" is the search criteria ? That way, Murali could stumble upon this while trying to google himself, haha. ( wishful thinking on my part, but then if Murali has managed to fool the world for so long, anything can happen. )

Dude, you're getting a Dell (PHONE RAKH BHENCHOD)

Remember that dopey but convincing geek who drawled "Dude, you're getting a Dell"? Too bad Dell fired him. Rumor had it that his image was too "gay" for the company's liking. Of course the company had to maintain a crisp clean corporate image. That very image is upheld by the countless call center soldiers on Dell's payroll.... upheld by cool Hollywood names, Dravidian-Floridian accents, sweet waiting periods that let you enjoy entire music albums and the occasional background chatter that breaks the monotony of the wait.

"Phone rakh naa bhenchod, khatam kar" !! Translated - "Put the phone down sister-fucker, get done with it" (with friendly annoyance in tone).

The call to Dell had been especially lengthy and mundane till this point. 'Ken' had put me on hold for the 9th time, only this time he forgot to hit the mute button. And there it was... the capstone of the chatter. The call center friend - GI Joe - beckoning sister fucking Ken to get done with the call (and me) and join him and Barbie at the tea stall. It was after all 530 am Indian standard time. "Oh yeah", I thought, "listen to GI Joe and double step on this call Ken. But why are you fucking your sister when you have Barbie? Could it be that the Indian Ken and Barbie are in fact siblings?? Incest? At a Dell call center "??? If they could fire their star mascot for sounding gay, surely they will guillotine Ken for incest?

Ken got back on the call oblivious that I was onto his dirty little secret. He had no clue as to why I was chuckling at his grave diagnosis of my optical drive. We worked out the details of sending the notebook back for repair and before hanging up came the customary "can I help you with anything else". I couldn't resist. I said "Yes Ken, please tell me which Dell customer service manual has Phone rakh bhenchod in it?" I could almost hear the thud of his jaw dropping on the other side. Ken panicked, stuttered, fumbled and managed a lame one - "Oh that must have been some cross connection Sir". "Yes Ken, it surely sounded like one... why would any professional from a clean company like Dell mouth such profanities while calls are live to customers." At this point Ken probably realized that if in fact this conversation is reviewed for the "quality assurance" promised to us, he would be neck deep in shit. Out came a few apologies and a bit more fumbling for words. At this point I felt sorry for the guy and backed off. Ken is a super dude, but even he has to be given some slack after staying up all night talking to people about plug and play instead of indulging Barbie. This Ken and his pals were probably 19, 20 tops, still in college.

I don't blame those kids cause kids will be kids. It's the people who set the standards of operations in these scourge-of -our-times places that I have a problem with. In the long run it doesn't matter if you knock a hundred bucks off your closest competitor. If you keep dishing out crap in the name of customer service, very soon every customer that can afford to shell out 100 bucks more to go to the next shop, will.

Earlier in the conversation Ken kept trying to get me to trouble-shoot my device before he would accept a repair order (within the warranty period no less). He wanted me to get a Phillips screwdriver and unscrew the monitor hinges and some bs on those lines. I asked him if it would make sense if he called his car dealership within the warranty about getting an appointment to fix a problem and they asked him to troubleshoot by removing the carburetor and reporting back to them. Poor kid understood exactly what I meant, but company policy made him insist on my compliance.

So here is company policy, obviously designed to penny pinch and save technician labor by giving the customer a crash course in IT 101 and making an unpaid technician out of him. That I have a big problem with. If I felt blind sighted by this imagine the 80 year old grand mother who got a Dell for Christmas being asked to run diagnostics and take her hard drive apart. Unbelievable! At the very most the damn troubleshooting should be a polite one-time request, and no more.

Dude, will I get a Dell again? Yeah, possibly. As long as the company dishes out decent quality products at bargain prices and the competition is hardly better, I guess I can cope with poor customer service. But then, I am a pragmatic buyer with a large threshold of emotional tolerance. There are plenty of emotional buyers out there, and customer service shenanigans are likely to turn them away. Michael Dell shouldn't be pushing them away. It hasn't affected his company just yet but does he really want to find out how close Dell can get to the tipping point without actually tipping over?

Why Hindi should be India's national language

The adoption of Hindi as a national language has been resisted by some regions of India for about 60 years now. While I always knew that some of these "resistors" have a hatred for Hindi, I was recently surprised by the intense level of that hatred harbored by a citizen - Rajeev Srinivasan. His hate for Hindi has spilled over to a hatred of the people of the Hindi speaking belt, and as such he is an embodiment of an "anti-Indian". These are 2 articles written by him on the oft debated subject.

www.rediff.com/news/2000/oct/05rajeev.htm

www.rediff.com/news/2000/oct/04rajeev.htm?zcc=rl

Rajeev Srinivasan went rabid with these articles. He tries to garb his hate with weak reasoning and ridiculous logic. He goes to the extent of blaming north Indians for enslaving India, and tries to ridicule their struggle against invaders and the British. This is my attempt to unmask his hate and also make a case for Hindi as a national language. I sent him this essay via email, and I haven't heard back. If you have time and the inclination to read his articles before you get to my essay, it might help in setting the context for you. It isn't necessary though, since I quote from his writings quite liberally. -----------------------------------------------------------------

Rajeev Srinivasan,

I agree that disliking Hindi in itself is not evidence enough to label you “anti-Indian”. The rest of your article however, provides ample such evidence and I will show you how exactly. However, there is one other possibility. That you are a rabid, virulent person with a severe inferiority complex, and that you find solace and purpose in voicing caustic opinion. That’s better than being anti Indian I suppose. Take your pick and read on.

There are two parts to this essay. The first is a countering of Rajeev’s fallacies on a factual level. The second is a presentation of my case for Hindi as a national language.

Let’s start with a factual examination of the article.

Bullshit: India has no single "National Language". There are two "Official Languages", Hindi and English.” Kindly read that lovely document, the Indian Constitution. Even the Nehruvian Stalinists couldn't get Hindi to be declared the National Language.

Fact: There is only ONE official language – Hindi. I took your advice and read that lovely document called the constitution. Excerpt:

Article 343. Official language of the Union.
(1) The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script.
The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement:

(And yeah, I’ve been through the amendments as well. No elevation of English to the status of Official language has transpired since.)

English was included in the Official language chapter as a “side-kick” if you will. A 12th man in cricketing terms. The authors of the constitution clearly had the phasing out of English and the promotion of Hindi on their minds. Now I’m sure you will be quick to point out that you don’t really subscribe to their ideas, but you should have thought of that before you put you foot in your mouth by holding up the constitution as a pillar of your argument.

If there is any doubt, let’s makes clear what the constitution suggests.

Article 344 speaks of a commission that needs to be appointed to do the following:

(a) the progressive use of the Hindi language for the official purposes of the Union;
(b) restrictions on the use of the English language for all or any of the official purposes of the Union;

And yes, there is Article 351

351. Directive for development of the Hindi language. It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms, style and expressions used in Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages.

So basically, the constitution doesn’t exactly sing like you said it does, does it?

Moving on,

Bullshit: How many Northern states -- if I remember right, education is a state subject -- implemented the three-language formula? Answer: zero. They have had the formula where it is Hindi, English (Hinglish?) and Hindi as regional language, not a regional language from the South or West or East as the intent was.

(Rajeev is complaining that the dravidian states have the burden of an alien 3rd language and the northern kids have a cake walk.)

Fact: Dude, you were probably on crack when you wrote this, or assumed that the people who read stuff off the internet, are severely retarded. “Zero!” screams the Rajeev man. How much time has he spent checking his facts? Exactly. Zero!!

Ok, which state qualifies as northern to you? How about J&K? There children must choose between Urdu (including writing in the Urdu/Arabic script), Dogri, Sanskrit, or in some schools, a hip foreign language like French, as the third language. Delhi offers Sanskrit and French as the third language. And these are the state boards I speak of, not CBSE. You want me to bring you course details from Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra etc? Or were you referring to Tibet when you spoke of Northern states? Sorry dude, it isn’t part of India. Being the son of a military officer, I have studied in schools in 4 different states, including Kerala and J&K. I know what I’m talking about.

You speak of the need to incorporate a regional language from the South or West into the syllabus in North India, in keeping with the “Intent” of the 3 language formula. Wrong again!! The intent was for kids to learn “their mother tongue” in addition to Hindi and English, not for Assamese kids to speak Marathi. In the case where the mother tongue happens to be Hindi, Sanskrit is most often the third language used.

Bullshit: My poor parents had to read a hindi time table in Trivandrum

Oh Please! I’ve lived in Cochin for 2 years and I know what the odds are to find a Hindi speaking soul there let alone railway time tables. Ok, if I stretch my imagination, it is possible that the Malayalam/English tables were sold out/used up, and all what was left were the unwanted Hindi ones. Couple that with the ability to mangle a half truth and add a dash of sympathy and authenticity by throwing in parents instead of a “friend” or a “colleague”, and you have a nice tale.

And the prize winning Bullshit is: Hindis needed to revolt, as they were the slaves of the British, not the rest of us. quick look at a map of British India will confirm that 50 per cent of the country was under British rule and the rest under Indian rule (not exhaustive lists):
1. British provinces: Sind, part of Baluchistan, the Punjab, United Provinces, Central Provinces, Bihar, Bengal, Assam, Bombay, Madras.
2. Indian provinces: NWFP, Kashmir, Rajputana, Patiala, Kutch, Junagadh, Baroda, Rewa, Manipur, Sikkim, Cooch-Behar, Tripura, Kalahandi, Bastar, Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin
The entire Hindi belt, with the honorable exception of Rajputana, was enslaved by the British. Half the South, that is the large states of Hyderabad, Mysore and Travancore-Cochin, was under Indian rule. Naturally, those under Indian rule didn't need to revolt, but the others did. This meant Sikhs, Bengalis, Marathas, Tamils and Hindis.

Fact: Now this one deserves an award. An award for the singular most nonsensical piece of journalism. EVER. For starters, India was divided into states that were DIRECTLY under British rule, and states that were INDIRECTLY under British rule. There was no such thing as an Independent Indian province. The Indian provinces listed by Rajeev were Princely states where puppet rulers sat on ceremonious thrones and who willingly lifted their skirts to be anally abused every time a British Governor visited them for taxes. Case in point – Hyderabad. Their last resistor – Tipu Sultan was killed by the British in 1799 and replaced with a puppet ruling family that paid obeisance to the queen. Cochin in 1791 and Travancore in 1795, both accepted British suzerainty. Again, puppet governments that jumped and danced when the British band played, and in return retained a “title” to append to their name.

So that’s your idea of Indian rule huh? And that’s why the south did not need to fight back? And do you know why most of the British provinces you list, were under Direct British rule? Because they fought!! Against the odds and against the most powerful army in the world at the time (well, almost). If they were content with puppet rulers, you would still salute the union jack, just like your “Indian Rulers” did.

I am not advocating reckless endangerment of life by revolting when you can stay alive by being diplomatic instead. It’s justifiable, as long as the intent to fight when the time is right, stays alive. But, the idea of portraying a “continual, meek, surrendering diplomacy” as your triumph in life, and the zealous fight of the underdog who preferred death to surrender as stupidity, can only stem from a malignant mind.

Bullshit: But even if Hindis contributed, I could argue it was the Hindis who got India enslaved in the first place. Who failed to build the Great Wall of India at the Khyber Pass? Who lost again and again at Panipat? Who let Ghori walk away from the First Battle of Tarain? Who allowed Aurangazeb to murder the gentle Dara Shukoh? (If Dara had lived, the Mughals would have stayed on in power, and they were less odious than the loathsome British.) Who screwed up the First War of Independence in 1857? Who caused Partition? Do the names Mir Jafar and Jaichand mean anything to you? It has always been the Indo-Gangetic Plain dweller. People in glass houses and all that.

Fact: Feel lucky that the people of North India fought when they did. Even if they lost, the damage done to the enemy army and the geographic expanse of India, kept South India safe. And what is your point anyway? That the Malayalee army was extremely macho and capable and would have done a better job by hurling cauldrons of Rasam at the enemy? Then how did Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan ravage Kerala in the 18thcentury?

I’m not trying to play a holier than thou game here. I’m trying to show you that most of India was a pacifist nation, ill prepared to face Islamic and British Invasion. Had the Dravidian belt been in the north, they would have faced the brunt. So just feel lucky and don’t look down at the guy who took the bullet that could have just as easily taken you.

There is more bullshit in that article that can be refuted at a factual level, but I will move on to presenting my case for a national language and then speak of why the choice should be Hindi.

What is a national language?

- Ideally it is a medium of conversation and literature that the whole country can understand and indulge in.

Why do we need a national language?

- A language binds its users by an invisible thread. As a diverse nation, we need to have a bond bred by commonality to tie together various ethnicities and communities. A natural choice would be to use language as the medium.

What will happen if we have no national language?

- What we see in India today is what will continue to happen. There still is prejudice, mistrust, hate and resentment for other communities. How is this to disappear if we can’t even speak a common language? Even Rajeev agrees that we need a common language.

Which languages are the contenders?

- To establish a national language in a country that speaks hundreds, is no easy task. Theoretically, we could hunker down and invent a new language and spread it far and wide to a billion people. Or, we could be practical, and pick one of the popular ones and minimize the effort needed to propagate it. Enter the contenders – Hindi and English.

Why Hindi and not English?

- English is the global language of choice and good English education is easily available in India. It’s useful, no doubt. So let’s make it the “Utility Language” of India or some such thing. Nothing more. It is a foreign language and a will never shake off that status. A “National” language has to be home grown. Or else we might as well hand out the Bharat Bhushan to David Beckham.

Is the choice of language open for Debate?

- Sure it is. Imposing of Hindi on the nation against the will of a sizeable population is undemocratic. There needs to be rational debate with the motive being – doing what’s best for the unity of the country. Should it make logical sense for Telugu to be declared the national language, I will accept it willingly and learn it too. The reality though is that the only language that makes logical sense right now is Hindi, and a large part of South India has refused to accept that. My hypothesis for the reason behind this is that they felt disenfranchised when Hindi was declared the official language without consulting them. This ego blow transformed into a hatred for Hindi which passed down from generation to generation. Once you hate a language, there is a very real risk of hating the people who speak it. This is what needs to change if the South Indians are to influence and stir national debate on this topic. I repeat - democratic debate is most welcome. But not when you have strong prejudices! Right now, voices like Rajeev’s are too laced with hatred and bitterness to be heard objectively.

Coming back to you Rajeev, there was a pervasive element of divisiveness in your email. You resent the North Indians, period. Your reasons are yours alone to know, but know this – ideologies such as yours are extremely dangerous to the fabric of my country. No, I am not referring to your resentment to Hindi alone. That topic is open for debate and rational thoughts are welcome everywhere. It’s the caustic resentment against north Indians that you have, that manifests itself all over your article, which makes you a dangerous person. Bear in mind, there is a north Indian posted at the Military Base in Cochin, and in a hypothetical world, should there be a LTTE insurgency affecting Kerala, he will not cower under his desk just because Kerala isn’t his state. It is his state. And similarly many south Indian soldiers are ‘Indian’ while manning outposts in the North East. If however, it were YOU posted at the border in Banihal, Kashmir, and taken captive, something tells me that you will be explaining to the enemy why South India isn’t responsible for the animosity between the nations. I pity people like you.

Forward to 19 people or your left eye ball will develop a goitre

Damned Chain Emails.

@uthor - Unknown, but I wish it were me.

Ever feel like tearing your hair out when you open a brainless chain email? Well, don't curse, just copy-paste this letter and send it back to your buddy. For good measure, do a reply all, so that his\her embarrassment is complete. Now he\she may not remain a friend of yours after that.. but what the hell. At least mankind will be one person smarter.



Very serious letter from a friend, dogged by loads of chain-mails...

Hello, my name is Ganpatrao Taalibajao.

I am suffering from rare and deadly diseases, poor scores in my exams, extreme state of temporary virginity, fear of being kidnapped and executed by anal electrocution, and guilt for not forwarding out 50 billion fucking chain letters sent to me by people who actually believe that if you send them on, then that poor 6 year old girl in Arkansas with a breast on her forehead will be able to raise enough money to have it removed before her redneck parents sell her off to the traveling freak show.

Do you honestly believe that Bill Gates is going to give you and everyone 5 cents if you send "his" email to 1000 people ? How stupid are you ?

Ooooh, lookyhere ! If I scroll down this page and make a wish, I'll get laid by every Playboy model in the magazine ! What a bunch of bullshit.

So basically, this message is a big FUCK YOU to all the people out there who have nothing better to do than to send me stupid chain mail forwards.

Maybe the evil chain letter leprechauns will come into my home and sodomize me in my sleep for not continuing the chain which was started by Jesus in 5 A.D. and was brought to this country by his apostles on the Titanic and if it makes it to the year 2010, it'll be in the Guinness Book of World Records for longest continuous streak of blatant stupidity. Fuck them. If you're going to forward something, at least send me something mildly amusing. I've seen all the "send this to 50 of your closest friends, and this poor, wretched excuse for a human being will somehow receive a nickel from some omniscient being" forwards about 90 times.

I don't fucking care. Show a little intelligence and think about what you're actually contributing to by sending out forwards. Chances are it's your own unpopularity.

THE FOUR BASIC TYPES OF CHAIN LETTERS: Chain Letter Type 1:

(scroll down)


































Make a wish!!!


































No, really, go on and make one!!!


































Oh please, they'll never go out with you!!!


































Wish something else!!!



































Not that, you pervert!!




































Is your finger getting tired yet?







































STOP!!!!



Wasn't that fun? Hope you made a great wish!
Now, to make you feel guilty, here's what I'll do. First of all, if you don't send this to 5096 people in the next 5 seconds, you will be raped by a mad goat and thrown off a high building into a pile of manure. It's true! Because, THIS letter isn't like all of those fake ones, THIS one is TRUE!!

Really!!! Here's how it goes:

*Send this to 1 person: One person will be pissed off at you for sending them a stupid chain letter.
*Send this to 2-5 people: 2-5 people will be pissed off at you for sending them a stupid chain letter.
*Send this to 5-10 people: 5-10 people will be pissed off at you for sending them a stupid chain letter, and may form a plot on your life.
*Send this to 10-20 people: 10-20 people will be pissed off at you for sending them a stupid chain letter and will napalm your house.

Thanks!!!! Good Luck!!!






--------------------------------------------- Chain Letter Type 2

Hello, and thank you for reading this letter. You see, there is a starving little boy in Baklaliviatatlaglooshen who has no arms, no legs, no parents, and no goats. This little boy's life could be saved, because for every time you pass this on, a dollar will be donated to the Little Starving Legless Armless Goatless Boy fromBaklaliviatatlaglooshen Fund. Oh, and remember, we have absolutley no way of counting the emails sent and this is all a complete load of bullshit.

So go on, reach out. Send this to 5 people in the next 47 seconds.

Oh, and a reminder - if you accidentally send this to 4 or 6 people, you will die instantly.

Thanks again!!






--------------------------------------------- Chain Letter Type 3

hi there!! This chain letter has been in existence since 1897. This is absolutely incredible because there was no email then and probably not as many sad pricks with nothing better to do. So this is how it works: Pass this on to 15,067 people in the next 7 minutes or something horrible will happen to you like:

*Bizarre Horror Story #1

Miranda Pinsley was walking home from school on Saturday. She had recently recieved this letter and ignored it. She then tripped on a crack in the sidewalk, fell into the sewer, was gushed down a drainpipe in a flood of poopie, and went flying out over a waterfall. Not only did she smell nasty, she died.

This Could HappenTo You!!!

*Bizarre Horror Story #2 Dexter Bip, a 13 year old boy, got a chain letter in his mail and ignored it. Later that day, he was hit by a car and so was his boyfriend (hey, some people swing that way). They both died and went to hell and were cursed to eat adorable kittens every day for eternity.

This Could Happen To You Too!!!

Remember, you could end up just like Pinsley and Bip. Just send this letter to all of your loser friends, and everything will be okay.





--------------------------------------------- Chain Letter Type 4:

As if you care, here is a poem that I wrote. Send it to every one of your friends.

Friends

A friend is someone who is always at your side. A friend is someone who likes you even though you stink of shit, and your breath smells like you've been eating catfood. A friend is someone who likes you even though you're as ugly as a hat full of assholes. A friend is someone who cleans up for you after you've soiled yourself. A friend is someone who stays with you all night while you cry about your sad, sad life. A friend is someone who pretends they like you when they really think you should be raped by mad goats, then thrown to vicious dogs. A friend is someone who scrubs your toilet, vacuums and then gets the cheque and leaves and doesn't speak much English... no, sorry that's the cleaning lady, A friend is not someone who sends you chain letters because he wants his wish of being rich to come true.

Now pass this on! If you don't, you'll never have sex ever again.







--------------------------------------------- The point being?

If you get some chain letter that's threatening to leave you shagless or luckless for the rest of your life, delete it. If it's funny (like this one ...hehehehe !!), send it on.

Don't piss people off by making them feel guilty about a leper in Botswana with no teeth, who's been tied to a dead elephant for 27 years, whose only saviour is the 5 cents per letter he'll receive if you forward this mail, otherwise you'll end up like Miranda. Right?

Now forward this to everyone you know otherwise you'll find all your knickers missing tomorrow morning.