Wake up and shout...

This year the 15th Lok Sabha elections will take place in India. Elections would be held in 5 different phases with the results expected in mid-May. The Election Commission of India estimates 714 million legitimate voters this year. All the voters work towards selecting a Prime Minister to govern the country in its best possible interests. This is what is meant by democracy, something we are so proud of despite the diversity in India. But does this really happen?? We vote for parties which in turn align and re-align themselves multiple times and select candidates which they feel comfortable with. Is that really what citizens of this country bargain for when voter cards are issued to them? Certainly not..
Take the 2009 elections into perspective. The extraordinary turn of events and power of democracy enables almost every leader of a political party, big or small, to dream for the coveted Prime Minister position. I have shortlisted the names of a few who seem to me the most probable and powerful contenders to lead the country:

1. Manmohan Singh from INC (Indian National Congress)
2. L. K. Advani from BJP (Bhartiya Janta Party)
3. Kumari Mayawati from BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party)
4. Sharad Pawar from NCP (Nationalist Congress Party)
5. Ram Vilas Paswan from LJP (Lok Janashakti Party)
6. J. Jayalalithaa from AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam)

It’s amazing to see so many contenders for the PM position and shows that any politician can dream of something big if he plays down his cards well. Ideally in country like U.S. and U.K., votes of the citizens get transformed into the selection of the right premier, as they vote directly for the candidate. But in India the voters don’t have any control on the coalitions and vote of confidence of the MPs they select. Never do the MPs ask the people about the use of their vote of confidence. Basically we can attribute this to the two tier politics. People elect the lower strata i.e. MPs and the MPs in turn select the leader of the country, the higher strata. In the early days of democracy we used to have clear majorities of a single political party, in the days that Congress ruled the entire country, and so the leader was more or less selected by the people. But lately the scenario has changed to a great extent and no single party is capable enough to form the majority in Lok Sabha. Hence it leads to coalition of multiple parties and thereby the party with the highest bargaining power pulls the strings. This is not fair for the voters as was the case in 1990 and 1996:

1. 1990 – Chandra Shekhar was selected as the PM with the help of outside support of the Congress although his group held a meager 60 seats.
2. 1996 – H. D. Deve Gowda is sworn in as the 14th PM of India just coz he was elected as the leader of a group of small regional parties, called as Third Front, who collectively had the majority in the lower house.

In the above cases it is clear that the country never voted for both of them to be the PM, but the events post-elections helped them to get the post. Also it was noted in both the cases that the government was highly unstable and collapsed soon after due to internal differences. In recent times, we have seen the government back out of several of its pre-election agenda in fear that the parties in coalition can withdraw their support as they don’t support the same cause. This has led to neglecting of several key issues and it’s ultimately the people who suffer.

So is it time we took a deep and hard look at our election process? Should we move into presidential form of government where the people directly elect the President of the country? US has over the years successfully implemented this form. Other alternatives may include asking voters to vote for MPs as well as the PM of their choice. This may seem complicated and would be something entirely new. The constitution when written by our fore-fathers was made according to the situations at hand. Since then the situation has changed a lot and hence alterations are needed to our constitution.

Mind you no party will take the onus of going for the change we recommend. Coz this would lead to a considerable disadvantage for them and hence the mantle of this lies entirely on the citizens of India. I would like to urge all the citizens to review our policies and voice in strongly so as it is heard by one and all. Maybe the majority strength in us would lead to these self-obsessed political leaders to listen to us and take actions… for a change for the country. After all,

“We are creatures of circumstance for the most part.” -- Malcolm Gladwell

Amaze India ... always

Indian cricket never ceases to amaze me. It may be for its sheer brilliance, or for the heart and passion, or for the ability to make a contest out of nothing. Yes, you read the last part correctly and it was not something I misquoted. In recent years the Indian ‘Men In Blue’ Juggernaut has not only grown in size and respect but also set out to reinvigorate its troubled image. Indians are historically believed to be lazy and mediocre ground fielders and not good in running between wickets. Well with the current influx of young and hard-working talent the scenario is entirely different. Not only can we boast of some of the best outfielders in the current cricket fraternity but also some of the quickest runners between wickets. These issues, however basic they might seem, form the base for reaching excellence on field. There are many other aspects which have been new to Indian Cricket in recent years.

But still we struggle for enough spark in the bowling to clean up the tail and finish off the match when need arises. This was evident on Sunday, when the New Zealand’s 9^th wicket partnership of 83 runs scared the hell out of the team as well as their fans (yours truly). The scare was nowhere in sight when Butler became the 8^th wicket to fall, as it was a question of ‘when’s India gonna win it’ rather than ‘who’s gonna win it?’ The match was in India’s control and it was steam rolling through the opponent. It seemed that this would be a rather disappointing end to McCullum’s 1^st match in-charge, after a really promising start from the Black Cap’s openers. But without Ishant Sharma and with out-of-form Zaheer, Indian bowling lacks the bite needed to scare off batsmen and give in to hostility.

Then on Kyle Mills and new boy Tim Southee started plundering the bowling attack from Praveen and Munaf. They not only scored runs, but scored them in style. Munaf in particular was dealt severely and was treated with some huge sixes. So much so that Munaf struggled with pressure and bowled two high beamers in an over, to be eventually removed from the attack. Actually this was a blessing in disguise for India as Yusuf came in to replace him and quickly dismissed the dangerous (funny word to be used for a tail ending batsman) Kyle Mills. Mills had scored 54 from 32 balls with 3 huge sixes. And to add to the fun, the reaction from Zaheer Khan (who completed the catch to dismiss Mills) said it all. He was overjoyed and aggressive at the same time relieved. He threw the ball hard into the ground, pumped his fists and shouted abuses at a departing Mills. That was really hilarious to watch as it seemed India had picked up the wicket of the great Sir Don Bradman, that too on a duck. The joy and relief was evident on all the members which makes us realize that they were struggling on the field at that point of time. In the end, the match as a whole was a fun to watch for an Indian or neutral supporter. Maybe the viewer would have lost interest midway through the New Zealand innings when India had almost cleared off the home side. But the way Mills-Southee partnership brought the equation – 142 runs from 72 balls to – 59 runs from 30 balls was a treat for one and all.

Earlier in the day, Indian batting was a lesson on good clean hitting and can be used even for baseball techniques. Little Master was so ever so close to get highest runs in an innings, but was denied by his fragile aging physique. If successful, this record would have been the most cherished among all his feats as he would surpass a Pakistani to it.

I would like to thank the brilliant Indian team for not only winning the match but doing so after giving all the entertainment and getting every viewers invested money & time worth every moment.

It’s you and only you who care!!

--- FOREVER YOURS FAN

Pics courtesy www.cricinfo.com

Divergent Dreaming a.k.a. Dev D

Advice: Must watch for the entire GenX population, especially for those who crib about standards of bollywood film-making and doubt the un-appalling skills of hindustani movie makers.

Bakar: I heard about DevD for d 1st time when one of my friends informed me dat d popular movie review website, imdb.com, has poured in more than 8.0 stars for the movie (now it has risen to 9.0). Dat was phenomenal and at same time shocking considering the hype abt the movie was not around. Then came in other almost perfect reviews and left me wondering, wat d hell is so special abt this movie.
All that anxiety was relaxed yesterday after I saw the movie and could not stop praising the direction and acting. Anurag Kashayp (maverick director) has created a masterpiece for Indian cinema. This could well become a benchmark for other contemporary movie makers. Abhay Deol has proven again that he is among the best 'ACTORS' in the current crop of macho superstar 'HEROES'.

Indian new age cinema to its best, DevD captures the aspects of aggression, confusion and vice-fallen world of youth. Over the years all these have stained the so called golden generation of India. Nevertheless the discussion is abt celebrating a bookmark in cinema. Some noticeable sub-plots have been the way egos of Paro and Dev are misunderstood by both, how d Delhi MMS scandal shatters the life of Chanda, the anger and vices surrounding Dev and the emotional heartwarming scenes, which every now and then tugs the hearts of viewers. Surprised, yes the movie has loads of emotions in it besides booze, drugs and hookers. Scenes of when Dev curses Paro and decides not to continue his relationship with her or when Chanda gets a reply from Dev abt how much he loves Paro and not her, make your heart melt.

Kashyap has used unusual style of cinematography, with power packed music (courtesy Amit Trivedi: listen to Pardesi, Ek Hulchul Si and Emotional Attyachar-rock version) and really innovative editing to tell the story of a self destructing, self addicted youth, in a re-imagined format. To add to this impressive campaign he has Abhay Deol in a strong performance and also witty one liner every now and then making even the most serious public laugh off their seats. All this brings in the realistic nature in the movie which makes one more deeply engrossed. Even though people know the plot of Devdas, the story has been told in such a manner it is almost impossible to foresee. Kudos to Kashyap for getting just inspired from the age-old Devdas-Paro-Chandramukhi triangle (we all have seen other inspirations in past, which turn out to be exact copies).

Whatever be its record in box-office in weeks to come, DevD has surely symbolized the shift in Indian directors mindset when it comes to all those non-conformists like Kashyap. Abhay has created a niche of his own as an offbeat-movie-unconventional-actor. Performances from the two ladies Mahi Gill & Kalki Koechlin are also credible. DevD presents art of cinema as never before and I came out of the theatre wanting for more of those witty spontaneous one-liners, the fits of anger and misery from DevD and the opportunistic music.

I almost forgot to applaud Kashyap for his last roll of dice in the movie, by keeping Dev alive, showing him move on with Chanda and in doing so changing the basic fact which made Devdas a legend.

WATCH OUT TARANTINO, IT’S TIME FOR A COUP!!

Video on board

Go go go go ... ggggooooooo !!! Well this is not a chant for a football or any other sports team. This is a call for human race. Its a call to GO GREEN. But this ain't easy as it seems... simply calling is tough. Nobody seems to be convinced that we are on the wrong track and would confront Satan himself up front. I made a video on the same theme for a competition in the college (using the easy and friendly, yours faithfully - youtube.com). Posting the video here with a hope of grabbing attention of all the viewers.

More on rescuing the planet later... for now its only the video

Awestruck...

I have been an ardent tennis follower since the days of aging volley maestro Stefan Edberg, boom-boom Becker and returning of a certain United States of America as a tennis power. This dawn was brought about when 4 youngsters turned pro within a span of 4 years namely Michael Chang, Jim Courier, flamboyant Andre Agassi and a tall thin teenager from Wahington D.C., Pete Sampras. Little did the tennis fans knew that this team from U.S. would bring their own country to the peaks it conquered during the days of Connors, Mcenroe and others.

The speed of Chang, solid consistency of Jim, the hard baseline grilling of Agassi and hard serve with soft volley technique of Sampras awed the entire world. The entire world appreciated the fact that all these players hitting the top of men’s tennis were young and fit and moved the focus towards physical stamina along with the tennis skills. Chang and Courier won over fans with their ability to withstand long tough matches with their high fitness levels. Agassi had a nagging habit of preempting the opponent’s shot and so had the advantage of being early in position for the next shot. Of the four, Sampras stood out with a different characteristic. His game depended more on skill, power and his ability to hit winners from almost anywhere in the court. He had a powerful serve and was able to hit aces even on his second serve. Many pundits still believe that his second serve is the best ever in the game. Sampras had a serve and volley style of play and used his deft touches to win points in a hurry. This allowed him to win over matches in quick time.

His style of play along with the charm and humbleness he brought upon the court won me over as his staunch supporter. He never brought emotions on court and simply played the game with a calm cool composed attitude that was admired even his opponents. He was destined for greatness in all aspects on which legends are measured. By the time he said goodbye to tennis in 2002, Pistol Pete was the greatest legend of all time and held numerous records, including the highest number of grand slams won (14). Meanwhile his good friend and opponent, Agassi, had ensured his name in history books by completing a remarkable comeback and winning the French Open. By doing so he completed a career grand slam. His fitness and the number of years he played high quality professional tennis formed a benchmark for aspiring youngsters.

Talking about records, it took 35 years for someone like Sampras to emerge and break Roy Emerson’s record of highest number of Grand Slams. In 2002 I was assured that at least another 20 years for another legend to emerge and break my idol’s record. Till that time I could relax and enjoy the glory days of Sampras-Agassi rivalry. My assumptions were holding true as years from 2000 to 2003 saw different winners at each of the grand slams. There was no clear dominance and it was all about peak in form during the Grand Slams. I and almost the entire tennis fraternity failed to notice a teenager from Basel who had ended Sampras’s winning streak at Wimbeldon. As 2003 proved, this win was not by chance or due to Sampras’s form and he went on to win Wimbledon for his 1^st grand slam title.

This young energetic lad by the name of Roger Federer decided that world tennis needed a champion and started working towards it. His style, finesse and class matched, and at times exceeded, that of Sampras. Never before had the world seen a player dominate any sport as Federer did in mid-2000s. His game was based on the flawlessness which he brought upon court. Emphasis had increased more on power from baseline than deft touches near the net. He had an all round game which complimented the change of style in men’s tennis. He increased the levels of tennis to never before heights and was quickly setting newer records, surpassing my favourite in every aspect. There was no competition in terms of temperament and handling pressure. The Roddicks, Hewitts and Safins of the world were completely helpless and waited for a rare lapse of concentration from ‘FedEx’.

As Federer created his own legacy and dynasty of followers, somewhere in the large islands of Mallorca, a warrior was getting ready for conquering the all-mighty ruler. Rafael Nadal was introduced to the tennis world at the age of 18, when he defeated the then world no. 2, Andy Roddick in Davis Cup finals and helped Spain lift the title. A year later his rise gained trajectory when he won the French Open title. His aggressive behind-the-baseline game founded on heavy topspin ground strokes, consistency, speedy footwork, and tenacious court coverage is widely admired. His athleticism, stamina and speed around the court are the abilities envied by many, which help him to constructs winning plays from seemingly defensive positions.

Rafa was considered a clay court specialist in his earlier pro years and was regularly a thorn in Federer’s claim to capture the Grand Slam in Paris. As Roger became a perennial no.1, Rafa became a perennial no.2 in tennis rankings. Their rivalry was defined by the exquisite contrast in styles and temperaments, Federer the cool gentleman from Switzerland and Nadal the muscular matador from Spain. Soon Nadal was the testing Federer’s seemingly flawless game like never before and forced Federer to search his arsenal for newer weapons. Nadal had the answer to every question raised by Federer. At times he not only replied back, he also posed a question of his own.

I used to enjoy this rivalry as it was fresh and much needed. Also Federer’s quest for Pete’s record was getting slowed, much to my joy. Unbeatable on clay, Nadal was still learning the game on other surfaces, the only problem for Federer was, he was learning too fast. Very soon Nadal began challenging Federer on the grass courts of SW19, and slowly raised his game.

Then came the year 2008. Nadal continued his dominance on clay and headed to Wimbledon finals against world no. 1 Roger Federer. At a much needed time he shifted gears and forced Federer to move his. But this was not to be and the test put up by the Spaniard was too much for the Swiss maestro. After ending the Swiss dominance in Wimbledon, Nadal very soon ended his reign as the no.1 player in the world. While doing so Nadal dispelled demons in the head of the once un-derail able Fedex.

Despite all the factors, I still had reasons to believe that we have not witnessed the down slope of Federer and that he would be back soon. All my thoughts were proven wrong yesterday, after I witnessed another chapter in perhaps the greatest tennis rivalry ever. After one of the most grueling matches in his short career, where he defeated Fernando Verdasco in more than 5hrs, Nadal was back on court in the finals against Federer. Nadal was facing the possibility of going down the books as Federer’s 14^th victim in a grand slam final. But all this hype didn’t faze him as he defeated the king on the hard courts of Melbourne. With the win he dented Federer’s confidence and also became the only man to beat the Swiss in all three surfaces, a feat so far considered impossible. It is this hard truth which utterly and pitifully led Federer’s mind giveaway control to his heart and break down to tears.

Nadal, apart from his mental strength and physical stamina, possesses a brilliant tactical brain. The way he exposes Federer’s weakness on the backhand and forces Federer to go for low-percentage shots, is worth admiring even from his staunchest critics. I, like most other fans, was left awestruck by his level of stamina, grit and his ‘never say die’ attitude. Nadal forces his opponents to go for extra winners and in doing so mercilessly tests their fitness levels. When he finds them tired or restless he steps up his level and creates magic for the entire world to applaud. Nadal needs to be ranked alongside greats like Michael Phelps or Lance Armstrong who have exceeded excellence in sport by means of their physical ability. I do not doubt Nadal’s tennis skills, but it’s his indefatigable body that allows him to accomplish the feats. The way he has nurtured his game and improved his arsenal over the span of 5 years is a benchmark for many.

I don’t reason that Pistol Pete’s (my favorite) reign at the top of grand slam ladder is short lived and Federer will pass him soon to create his own legacy. But in his way stands a gladiatorial shadow posing a string of searching questions. The extent of Federer’s immortality depends on the manner he handles his greatest challenge ever. Nadal on the other, just 22, has the entire world before him to conquer and setup on a journey of legends.

I am happy till the time Federer’s conquest is delayed. For now I can simply admire the brilliance of human physique and leave with one daunting question which excites me the most –

“Once Federer is on top, how long will his reign last against the youthful conquistador?”