Raj Thackeray - Important Enough to be Discussed At This Time?

These are some random thoughts that are popping up in my highly confused mind. Please bear with their at-times-incoherent nature or relative immateriality.  

Open up Google Talk and chances are that you'll see at least three status messages pointing out Raj Thackeray's silence after the November 25-27 terror attacks in Mumbai and the role of mostly non-Marathi NSG commandos in the counter-terrorist operations. Same goes for email and sms forwards.  

People are highlighting the fact that many non-Marathi commandos placed their lives in harm's way and some embraced martyrdom, saving a city that Raj wants to brand as a Marathi city. My question to these people is - is this not the exact manner in which we would expect Raj to react? Promote regionalism and forget what those martyrs died for - protecting human lives irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, and REGION.  

In my view, whenever Raj speaks up regarding these attacks, he will talk about martyrs like Karkare, Kamte, and Salaskar, emphasize their being Marathi and malign the spirit with which all these heroes sacrificed their lives. I believe, Raj is showing respect to the martyrs before he begins exploiting their roots. By talking about the reverse point of view, even just to highlight the worthlessness of Raj's perspective (if it can be called one), sane people are committing the same mistake - focusing on the wrong attributes of heroes, whose courage should be narrated to kids in school.  

If anyone of the NSG commandos and other security forces who battled for 50+ hours were to be asked - "What did you fight for?", "Mumbai" or "Maharashtra" or "any region" as a reply would not even strike them. I believe they fought to save valuable human lives and to protect India's sovereignty (symbolically at least) and not to make a point to Raj Thackeray. Ironically, even the terrorists would have had "India", "India's financial capital", "Indian, American, British, Jewish lives" in mind and not "a Marathi city".  

It seems to me that by propagating these anti-Raj messages through various media, we are proving that we are as regionalist as he, and just like him we cannot value the true spirit, which motivated these martyrs.  In my view, the lessons from these terrible events are that we need to value human lives, be vigilant in our day-to-day life, and most importantly value the Indian ethos, of which Mumbai is a splendid example of. If we do not learn these lessons as a country, unfortunately these heroes' sacrifices are going to be futile.  

Lastly, I would just like to say that I am proud to be a fellow countryman of citizens like Karkare, Kamte, Salaskar, Major Unnikrishnan, and countless other courageous men and women, who consider the country's sovereignty and the lives of its citizens and guests, before their own lives. Jay Hind!

Manifestations of Insecurity

Yesterday, I was watching a documentary - Indyeah on one of the "knowledge" channels offered by Tata Sky. The film was about what Mumbai went through on July 26, 2005 and the days following it, and how people of Mumbai combatted it. Today, after returning from office, I turned on the news channel to see MNS party workers bashing up North Indians in the metropolis. Two stories, from the same place, but so different. On that fateful day in 2005, many great "marathi manush" might have sought help from these "bhaiyas" who are getting beaten up because of their identity.

If the media coverage is to be believed, this might be a result of two insignificant (in Mumbai) political parties pitching their political battles on the streets of Mumbai. I also hope (just like the media believes) that this sporadic violence that occurred over the last two days will not spiral into something big and sinister. Now, I don't understand much of national politics, leave aside Mumbai politics. News of racial violence is also commonplace in India. My point in writing this piece is not to delve into either of these. All I want to present is my half-baked opinion that racial violence (and disputes at large) result from a very basic instinct of human beings - insecurity.

For all the great "marathi manush" talk from Raj Thackeray, he is just exploiting the insecurity the under-previleged in Mumbai. He is positioning himself perfectly for the bottom of the pyramid. Bad news for Raj is that he is not the first one to do so. Many star politicians and statesmen have trode on the same road - some attaining success, some failure.

Unfortunately or perhaps characteristically, we find simply too many examples of this exploitation within our own country's history. We accuse Britishers of divide and rule policies. The division was just a derivative of the insecurity exhibited by our forefathers. India's economic policies before 1991, and some followed still, had their roots in the insecurity of the country's government and the babus that ran/run it. When Assamese candidates were beaten up (and killed) because they enrolled for Railways exams in Bihar, we again saw insecurity (job-related) raise its ugly head. When ICFAI tries to ban the CFA (offered by CFA Institute, USA) in India, it again is insecurity (status and enrollment - related). Reservation is just another name for insecurity. So what am I doing citing all these examples?

Do I wish to condemn insecurity, or the insecure? Certainly not! Insecurity is simply a basic trait of living creatures. It is exhibited by prides of lions and packs of hyenas alike. I would stretch the argument to say that it is an absolutely essential trait. At some emotional or intellectual level, subconsciously or consciously, I too might be and am, insecure. So when does insecurity stop being ugly and starts being benign? Simply put, when it pushes the insecure to raise up the bar, so that there is nothing to fear from the intruder.

The best example that comes to my mind is that of the Indian economy. Since 1991, the way the country's business community have overcome their own sense of insecurity and that of the government, by matching their international counterparts head-to-head, is phenomenal to say the least. In 1991, the government was reacting to the economic situation. Today policy makers and politicians have the opportunity to be proactive. Instead of keeping the intruders out, they should be allowed in. The insecure should be given an opportunity to become stronger. In education and government jobs (and God forbid, in private sector too) the reserved people do not get to improve their standards because their lower standards are subsidized by policy. This applies in every case, where at present insecurity is being exploited, primarily for short-term gains.

But for his short-sightedness, Raj would be exhalting the "marathi manush" on his confidence and courage, not propping him up on stilts of straw. So would Delhi High Court allow the americans to conduct their CFA and tell ICFAI to raise its standards to a matching level. So would all the politicians hoot for removal of reservation, not an increase in the same. But then short-sightedness is too pervasive a disease for such wishful thinking.

Some disclaimers- I think of Marathi people in the same way as I think of all human beings and races - as great. My references to "Marathi Manush" are not disrespectful to the Marathi people. Rather they are a reference to the MNS politicians' stupid arguements in justifying the violence. My examples are all India related, as they are close at home and top-of-mind. In no way, I consider that insecurity is an Indian characteristic. All peoples and countries exhibit it, albeit at different levels, which I believe are commensurate with their position in a giant Maslow's pyramid. As I mentioned, this is really a half-baked opinion, so there might be a lot of example of fragmented logic in here.

Murder of sportsmanship and good umpiring.

I was just reading an article by Peter English, criticizing Australia's attitude on the last day of Sydney Test match on cricinfo. I kind of agree with the author there. Aussies did not behave in a manner a Champion and honorable team should have. Three instances that killed the spirit of the match -
1) Michael Clark stands after edging one to the first slip (second innings).
2) Ponting impersonates fifth umpire and raises the finger for Ganguly and spine-less Benson does not even look at Bucknor or the radio.
3) Ponting appeals for a catch that has been grassed during the dive. If he believes that he had taken that one neatly, he should appeal to Cricket Australia and ICC to count one WC lesser in Australia's bag, as they would never have won the 1999 version, if Gibbs or Hansie Cronje (yeah fixers) had adopted the same attitude.

This match eroded a bit of the large amount of respect that I had for this champion side. 16 wins on the trot is a great feat, but I hope this one was an exception in terms of attitude, because this one reeked of the same foul scent that lesser teams like Pakistan did when they played in Sharjah.

Coming to the real villians of the match - the three umpires. It's time VRS be introduced by ICC, and a large amount be paid to Steve Bucknor, so that he does not screw up any more interesting cricket battles. Mark Benson would do well to enroll in some courses in basic umpiring, because the manner in which he umpired could not have inspired confidence in either of 13 players on the field and nine off it. It sure did add to age-related deficiencies of Mr. Bucknor. The third umpire on the other hand needs to be taken to the optometrist. I am sure he needs spectacles as badly as anyone on this planet. There was clear daylight between Symonds' foot and the ground.

Now since the article that I referred to in the beginning of this blog, talks about so many "would-have-beens", I tried to see, what could it have been:

Let me just forgive the wrong "out" decisions given by the umpires over the last five days. Consider the wrong "not-outs" only (wrong according to me):

1. Ponting given out on 30 when he nicked a flick into Dhoni's gloves, subtract 25 runs from Australian total - 448.
2. Symonds given out when on 31, subtract 131 from Australian total - 317, and a first overseas test wicket for a 19 year old hones trier.
3. Tendulkar (I know people are going to boo me for this), I believe, survived a very close LBW shout around 50, and going by TV replays, he could and should have been adjudged OUT. Subtract 104. Indian total - 428. lead of 111 and not 69.
4. On Day 4, Mike Hussey edged one to Dhoni when on 48. Subtract 97 from Australian total - 304. Lead -193 and not 332.

Here I have assumed that rest of the wickets would have panned out as they did in reality. That might not be the case and Aussies could have been bundled out by 250, India by 350 and Aussies again by 250, because three of the four instances I have considered resulted in long partnerships after the dubious decision. But since there is no way of guessing the partnerships that followed, had these dubious ones been given properly, I stick to my reasoning above.

I am definitely disappointed that India lost today. But had the grit of Anil Kumble and Rahul Dravid and majesty of Tendulkar, Laxman, and Ganguly been beaten by the cunning bowling of Brett Lee (he's my new fast bowling hero btw), or by imperious stroke making of Ponting and party, it would have left me anticipating WACA on 16th.

Instead, now, I feel stupid that I got up at 4:45 am sharp every day, just to see how low could ICC's elite panel of umpires stoop. Everyday there was some performance that made my day, though:

1. RP Singh's bowling on the first day was a joy to watch.
2. LAXMAN - written on the whole day.
3. Ganguly, Tendulkar, Bhajji, and Ishant Sharma - amazing batting display.
4. Hayden's stroke making was too imperious to miss.
5. The expression on Kumble's face throughout the 103 balls he faced. A friend messaged me that she loves him. For that expression, the whole nation loves Jumbo.

Just hoping to see better umpiring standards in Perth, because Durban, Kingston, and Trent Bridge over the last few series, all point to a better-than-expected Indian performance there.

Cheers