On #NotInMyName - and those who protest a protest

It’s been ages since I last penned my thoughts on this blog.

Not for want of material – there’s been plenty.

But I’ve just not had the motivation to compile my thoughts in a coherent manner and put them up here. It’s so much easier to just tweet them randomly. I do tweet quite a bit. That way I get my thoughts out of  my system. But I’m not sure this is always the best way to get thoughts across, even if a topic is well-threaded. I guess, to some extent,  it depends on the topic too.

Today I decided I’d take the “hard” way out on a topic that’s bothering me a bit. So instead of taking the easy Twitter route, I’m putting down my thoughts here, on this blog post.

I want to talk about the #NotInMyName protests against mob lynching that took place a a couple of days ago. They happened in various cities across the country and in London.

Thousands participated in these protests, despite rain and traffic. Without these hindrances, and had it been on a weekend, there’s every reason to believe the participation would have been even higher. People of all age groups could be seen – suggesting the youth and elderly both felt strongly enough about the issue to brave the odds and be physically present at the protest venues.

There was physical presence from the Hindi film industry (Bollywood) too in the form of Shabana Azmi. In Bangalore, Girish Karnad could be seen in the protests. Others, like Diya Mirza and Varun Dhawan, expressed solidarity through Twitter.  There might have been others – I wasn’t keeping track of this.

But this post isn’t about who was present, or who supported the protests.

It’s about those who didn’t.

I believe there is a significant number of persons who had reservations about the protest and didn’t support it one bit. Forget their not being present at the venues, they were fairly vocal in their objection to the protest itself.

I’ve tried to understand the reasons for this. I even put out a Twitter poll before the event to try to get a sense of the reasons, but, given my very limited reach, there were only a handful of responses. Too small a sample size to be of any use.

To my simplistic mind, these protests were against lynching. So anyone who’s against lynching would naturally identify with the cause. So even if he or she couldn’t be physically present, he or she would support it online, or, at least in spirit.

But things are rarely that simple in the real world, are they? That’s one reason I feel increasingly out of place here – but that’s a discussion for another day.

Yes, things are usually not black-and-white in this world – I’ll be the first to concede that. Binaries are not just simplistic, but even dangerous because they lock you in, without considering you might not be entirely with, or against, one of the arguments. There are many intermediate points between two ends of a spectrum, between a Yes and a No, creating various shades of grey. The world might be becoming digital - but issues aren’t. They’re still nuanced – and that nuance must be respected.

I get all that, I really do. I read a fair bit of political and social commentary, hopefully getting different perspectives on a subject to enrich my understanding of it.

 But I wonder whether we sometimes don’t just overdo it.  And, as a result, end up with nothing to show.

Sure, it makes for fine copy. You get appreciated for your intellect, and for your analytical abilities. But what have you really achieved, other than throw another spanner in the works?

So I think it might be useful to take a step back and look at an idea for WHAT it’s trying to do, instead of being immediately dismissive of it. Or worse, finding some reason to  run it down. Fact is, nothing being perfect, there will usually be a reason that can be found. Certainly if one searches hard enough. That’s how critics often make a living.

Let me put this in the context of the #NotInMyName protests.

Broadly, from what I could gather,  the objections to it took the following forms:

1.      How dare you use the #NotInMyName hashtag

2.      All this is a waste of time anyway, we all know it’s not going to make the slightest difference

3.      This is all agenda-driven. These guys are trying to make it look like the situation is much worse than it really is.

This isn’t an exhaustive list – they were just the most common reactions I came across. If there were any other reasons for objecting to it,  I’d be happy to know.

Let’s examine each one now.

1. Use of the #NotInMyName hashtag

I totally agree with those objecting to it. If you’re against lynching of all types, this doesn’t say it clearly.

This hashtag, taken at face value, implies, it’s meant for Hindus to use to protest against “Hindutva”, which is responsible for recent incidents of lynching of Muslims by Hindu bigots. That’s what this implies.

 Technically, that excludes the lynching of the Kashmir police officer, Ayub Pandith, because he wasn’t lynched by a Hindu mob.

Technically,  that makes Hindutva the target of this protest, no one else. This, while savarna Hindus themselves have been responsible for countless lynching of Dalits over centuries. Now they find  fault with Hindutva bigots but if they have look into the mirror, they’re as much worthy of being a target of protests, as the target they protest against.  The irony of this #NotInMyName tag didn’t escape Dalits.

Personally, I’d have preferred to use an action-oriented hashtag like #StopLynchingNOW. Yes, it doesn’t have the ring of a #NotInMyName – but it’s far more inclusive and far more direct.

 A #NotInMyName tag says, “I don’t endorse what’s happening”.  A #StopLynchingNow goes further – it says “I don’t endorse what’s happening AND I want you to stop it RIGHT NOW”. It demands action – in that sense, it goes a little bit further than just a “disclaimer” protest.

Maybe this would have caused less resentment amongst those who objected to the protests because the tag itself put them off.

Personally, I believe the protesters didn’t mean to exclude anyone.  They were protesting just as much against the violence towards Ayub Pandith as they were for Junaid and others. This was even visible in places where Ayub’s name was specifically mentioned.

But there are enough folks out there who will exploit every slip you make, however unintentional. Times now are such (pun entirely intended).

One thing I will say though in favour of Dalits who rejected the protests. For centuries, they’ve been at the receiving end of the worst types of atrocities from the upper caste. How many upper-caste folks  have protested at Jantar Mantar or Town Hall for them, demanding rights for Dalits?

When Dalits do protest in their own way, every effort is made to quell their protest, as if they’re committing a crime. In fact, many upper-caste don’t even want to acknowledge the issues Dalits face.

So maybe at least some Dalits saw this #NotInMyName protest as being for the right cause,  but not with the right people. To be honest, I can’t blame them. I’d like them to have participated – but the platform probably wasn’t one they feel comfortable with.

Moving on, to point 2.

2. It’s a waste of time, it’s not going to make a difference anyway.

This attitude too, I can understand. I don’t agree entirely with it – protests HAVE made a difference in the past, though a large number end up being just an expression of discontent, rather than being a catalyst for change.

The thing is, in a democracy, apart from casting his vote every so many years (once in 5 years, in India), a citizen really doesn’t have much power to influence policy just on his own. Even if he approaches his representative, he’ll most likely be told “get me x number of signatures to prove there’s a mass demand for this”. That is, if he is given a hearing at all.

That is why we have petitions made in public interest, which seek  to get as much public support as possible. The power, and credibility, lies in numbers.

The same applies to protests on streets. If there’s a sizeable number on the streets for a cause, there’s a chance it’ll be considered by those sought to be influenced.

Of course, there’s every chance it won’t. Much depends on the attitude of the authority. The more receptive and responsive, the more likely it will work. I leave it to you to judge how receptive and responsive this government is, with regard to this particular issue.

(Aside:

PM Modi today made a statement condemning killing in the name of cows. Some see this as a “victory” of the #NotInMyName protests.  There might well be  some truth in this, especially since international media like BBC and New York Times covered the protests – and we know how sensitive the government is to anything that might tarnis its international “stainless” image.

My own take on this is – I couldn’t care less.

My skepticism, honed over 40+ years of following politics and listening to politician-speak, makes me reject all talk, and focus on action. Action always talks louder than words – so, if you don’t mind, I’ll applaud when I see gau-rakshak violence actually stop.

By the way,  I’ve never asked “why didn’t the PM condemn Dadri or A or B?” I don’t believe in it. What will  we get? “Kadi ninda”? We see it ALL the time. In my entire life, I’ve never seen “kadi ninda” solve any issue –yet it’s the first thing everyone expects, and leaders often offer, in a situation. Sure, we shouldn’t drape a criminal in the tricolor, but I think we should have slightly higher expectations of governance from our leaders than just words. )

Back to this issue.

Even if this particular protest is seen as futile, the fact that it elicited so much response, ON THE GROUND, is itself noteworthy. We’re used to armchair warriors, typing furiously, but reluctant to get out of their armchairs. That this made some of them actually go on the streets is a victory of sorts in itself.

Was this the right issue to pursue? Weren’t there better issues that should have been protested more? Like farmer suicides. Or demonetisation.  Valid questions that were asked.

The thing is, it’s not either/or. One can protest this AND protest farmer suicides. One doesn’t have to run down one protest by doing whataboutery with another. Besides, it is often a series of protests over time that makes an impact, rarely just one isolated protest.

Moving on to point no.3

3. This is agenda-driven. The situation isn’t as bad as it is being made out to be.

Maybe I should add a line “These people are Modi-bashers anyway.”

Maybe another one “Where were these guys when lynching was happening during UPA? Why were they silent then?”

This point really doesn’t merit too much discussion. I’m a bit tired of every critique being turned into an “anti-Modi” accusation. Surely some of us are better than that?

How bad does a situation need to be? How many deaths are “ok” to happen, before a protest can get their nod?

As for those who say “why didn’t you protest during UPA-time lynching”, one approach to counter this would be to show numbers. Indiaspend did come up with numbers to show that cow-based lynchings have gone up in the last couple of years.

Even so,  I’d rather just say “Yes, maybe we should have protested then too.  But you know what? Just because we didn’t protest then, is no reason not to protest now.” Two wrongs don’t make a right.

For me at least, it’s not about a BJP govt or a Congress govt or any party’s govt.  It’s about the issue. And we need to keep raising the bar on ourselves too – if we failed in the past, we need to learn not to repeat those mistakes again.

This is about lynching – my simple mind asks, how can any protest against it be wrong?

And THIS is what has been bothering me. (I did start this post by saying that something was bothering me.)

I keep asking myself – how can you NOT support a protest against lynching?

I totally accept the points made by those against the #NotInMyName hashtag.

I even accept that, as one standalone protest, this one might not make any difference.

But…but…does that mean the protest against lynching is wrong?

People are being killed – shouldn’t we all be united against this killing? So some people want to organize a protest against it – must we weaken their efforts by running them down?

If power truly lies in numbers, we’re doing our best to ensure we aren’t united. Guess who wins when we are not united?

Yes, we have our differences.  Show me one cricket or football team, with 11 players who are in perfect harmony with each other. There are differences between players, their background is different, their conditioning is different, they have egos – and yet, when they have a cause that brings them together, they keep all that aside. They need to, because they need to fight for a bigger cause. They need to try and win the game – together as a team.

We know that those who fought for India’s freedom from the British had differences between themselves too. But they didn’t let these come in the way of their collective struggle – the British would probably have liked to see them break up, and thus break their resistance.

We have a lot of differences amongst ourselves – and I don’t mean to trivialize any of these. They might well be valid too – but there are times when we need to park them aside and unite for a purpose.

A citizen protest against lynching (or rape, or any crime) is one such purpose.  Unless one supports the crime, this isn’t the time to let one’s differences come in the way.

Heck, even the US teamed up with Russia/USSR to defeat Hitler in the Second World War. And we know how ideologically different the US and Russia/USSR were, otherwise.

Which is why I was disappointed.

While those in the protest said they felt exhilarated by it, the protests against the protests showed me, as if I needed evidence,  the fault lines in our society. The hate, the contempt, the mistrust we have for each other.

Once again, this isn’t about BJP or Congress or any government.

It’s about us – and how we’re letting hate into our lives.

There’s a LOT of work we need to do on this front. 

And we need to do it NOW.

Otherwise, if we let this hate get the better of us, it will destroy us.

On Punjab elections, and why what should be a victory for AAP feels like a defeat

We live in times of instant gratification.

Just look around us.

T20 is the flavor of cricket today. Test cricket is “too slow” for these busy times.

(Typical conversation:

 This goes on for the WHOLE day?

No, not one. Five.
 Five? Five full days?

Yes. And even after that, it could be a draw. No winner or loser.

You want to kill me? Kill me NOW.)

News too has imbibed this supreme sense of urgency, an outcome of this instant gratification urge. Every outlet, in its rush to be “the first” to break the story, is happy to just push it out there, not fact-checked, unedited. As long as it is “the first”.  People’s attention span probably ensures  they’ll just skim through it anyway – assuming they go past the headline first. And news comes at them at such a rapid pace anyway, they’ll forget this piece the moment the next one appears in their inbox, or is delivered on social media.

That’s the world we live in today. And that’s ok – these are fast-paced times.

Patience isn’t a virtue anymore. In fact, it is probably scorned upon.  (See cricket discussion above).

But this also means we sometimes miss the essence of something significant because we are too caught up in our instant gratification trip. It’s not happening fast enough for our minds to appreciate any movement at all. So we conclude, nothing is happening . But it’s happening in ITS time, not ours. Something we will appreciate only if we give it ITS time.

Ok, let me stop talking in this Deepak Chopra-esque lingo and come straight to the point.

I am referring to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and its evolution.

When the results of the Punjab Assembly elections were announced today, there was a huge sense of  disappointment amongst AAP supporters. Many of them had worked incredibly hard for the party, giving it their everything. They'd even guarded EVMs, fearing they might be manipulated during the 5-week waiting period between voting and counting. 

AAP came in with "just" 20 seats out of 117. This, when at one time, a few months ago, they were talking of 80+ seats, even 100 seats!

That’s quite a comedown!

The incumbent, the Akalis, did even worse. Expectations from them were very low anyway, so they probably matched, or even surpassed, these low expectations.

The runaway winner was the old hand, the Congress Party. Thanks to a leader the electorate largely trusted, Capt Amarinder Singh. And of course, the organization at ground level that this grand old party has.

So AAP ended up a very distant second. But, even so, having come in second, it is the main opposition party in the Punjab Assembly.

This made me think.

Was I expecting AAP to sweep Punjab? Not really. I certainly expected them to do much better than they did, but I never once underestimated the other two big parties.

 Both Congress and the Akalis are entrenched parties, with cadres loyal to them. They’ve both fought many elections before and are surely aware of the tricks of the trade, especially how to woo the electorate. Both are deep-pocketed and can comfortably call upon resources from outside Punjab whenever required.

Compare this with AAP. It’s a 4-and-a-little-something year old party, with very little experience of contesting elections. Although it did contest general elections in Punjab in 2014, this was the first time it was seeking votes from Punjab voters to govern them in their own state.

AAP’s footprint, at least that which could have been relevant to the Punjab voter, was almost entirely in Delhi. It might claim to have a good report card to show for its two years in Delhi – but it was still a relatively unknown commodity for  the Punjab voter.  Many of the AAP candidates must have been new names for the voters.

Compare this with the Congress and SAD. In 2012, Congress got about 40% of the voteshare, even more than SAD's 35%, though SAD won the elections. So this time even if there was huge anti-incumbency in Punjab, wouldn't it be natural to expect these anti-incumbency votes to go to a party that is already extremely well-entrenched in the state? That has a very strong local leader in Capt Amarinder? 

Why would a voter pick an untested name from an untested party over a familiar, trusted, one?

On what basis then were the predictions of 80-100 seats for AAP based? 

Based purely on euphoria from seeing crowds at campaigns held well before election date?

At least if these crowds had assembled just a few days before election date, one could have made a case for AAP having a realistic chance of winning.

There were probably many reasons for AAP’s less-than-expected performance. I don’t want to dwell on them here.

 I do want to however dwell on the expectation itself. That's because I strongly believe the disappointment stems from this expectation.

Otherwise, getting 20 seats in a state you're contesting for the first time, against two formidable opponents would normally be considered a victory for a new party.

I think it all started with the Delhi landslide.

67/70 is mind-blowingly phenomenal by any standards.

But it is also ripe for the creation of illusions.

Had AAP won Delhi with a more modest 40/70, nobody would've been throwing numbers like 100/117 in Punjab. That is an obscene domination, but when you’ve seen 67/70, a 100/117 looks, well,  doable.

Which, for the party itself, is just fine. You contest to win. And to win every seat you contest.

But when the “new normal” being talked about becomes 80/117 or even more, you’re just setting yourself up for disappointment.

After all, Delhi is history, Punjab is a fresh election. You need to start from scratch to win over every single voter all over again. One vote at a time, building up to one seat at a time, building up to a majority. It is a painstaking process, requiring huge amount of investment of time and money.  Unlike other deep-pocketed parties, AAP largely depends on volunteers for both their time and money.  It was going to be a real tough ask to harness these resources for 117 constituencies.

Seen this way, AAP should have been an underdog to start with. That it wasn’t, is down entirely to unrealistic expectations, whether created by the party itself or by others.

Also seen from this bottom-up angle, that AAP has managed to get 20 seats, contesting for the first time in Punjab state elections, should be  seen as positive by the neutral observer. Until now, Punjab had seen mostly a bi-party contest. This time, a third party entered the fray – and ended up being the main opposition party in the Assembly.

This might serve as a good experience for AAP in Punjab. By the time the next state elections come along, AAP might have settled in better in the state, and  broadened its base. This is part of the evolution process of a political party.

Which brings me to the evolution of AAP, as whole.

And brings me back to the point I started this piece with. On these fast-paced times and the concomitant lack of patience to allow things to evolve.

Sometimes it’s hard to believe that AAP is not even 5 years old. Compare this with entrenched parties, who’ve been around for decades, with strong organization structure and cadres around the country. AAP is nowhere close to this at the moment.

Yet, the buzz is all about where AAP is going to contest next, and how it is going to “shake” the biggies in that state. Gujarat next? Then what?

Much as I appreciate the excitement that seems to follow any AAP indication, or even speculation, of contesting elections,  I think we need to temper our electoral expectations on AAP. Enough of this hype.  It’s not like other parties are sleeping and are just going to let AAP walk all over them.

Yes, by all means, AAP should contest every election it wishes to, if it has the resources to do so. Even if it wins one seat (or, as in the case of Goa, not even that one), it might be a first step to making its presence known in that state. It might have a small vote share which might not translate to seats, but is an encouraging vote of confidence from those few voters.

But, for heaven’s sake, keep the hype down. Put in all the effort to win – but don’t go about making statements like “we’re going to sweep it”. Your volunteers might need pumping up, but there are better ways of motivating them.

Otherwise you set yourself up for situations like today. 

What should be seen as a victory of sorts in Punjab – becoming the second largest party, and therefore the main opposition party – now feels like a defeat.

All because of hype and unrealistic expectations.

AAP is still evolving. It’s still very early days for it – we don’t know how its footprint will be 5 years from today, 10 years from today. It might have a significant presence in many states by then. It might be in government in a few, maybe the main opposition party in others. Especially given the state of the Congress party at the moment, AAP might become the biggest national party after the BJP.

Or it might not. Already, based on just today’s results, some have written the obituary of the party. Somewhat reminiscent of what happened after the LS elections of 2014.

All of this is, of course, in the realm of speculation.

What AAP can do is keep doing its job, and building credibility as a party. This might not win it elections  in the short run, since it is still very much an outsider, fighting for mind space against entrenched parties with established cadres and networks.

But as it gains credibility, as its work gets talked about more, as it builds more institutional strength and capability, it has every reason to hope for more electoral gains too.  This might take time but if it is on the right track, it should eventually see results for all its good work.

In between, there will, of course, be electoral hits and misses. These just need to be taken in its stride, without getting carried away - or agitated - about a hit or a miss. After all, an electoral result is not an absolute reflection of one party, it is relative to how voters perceive others in the fray.

So my advice to AAP would be, just be grounded. And patient. It might be frustrating at times, but play it like a Test match. Build the capabilities that enable you to be that “lambe race ka ghoda”. 

Where you’re in government, let your work speak for you. Where you’re in opposition, be a tough opposition, demanding performance from the government. Either way, the winner will be the people of that state or constituency.

This is what is in your hands.

The rest should just follow. And will, in due course.

The Demonetisation Saga

"Demonetisation Saga", this thread

Let's see, where it has led

“Couldn’t have done better”, they said

Yet in queues, people falling dead

“No pain, no gain”, they said

Ever smug, not a tear shed

 “Minor inconvenience”, they said

Across the country, havoc spread

“For long-term good”, they said

What good ,and when, left unsaid

“Think of soldiers at the border”, they said

Just another way, to mess with your head 

“Kept it top-secret”, they said

But clear signs some did know ahead

“The corrupt are quaking”, they said

It’s the poor who’re breaking instead

“Will eliminate black money”, they said

Looks like it’s turning white instead

“Just go cashless”, they said

Nonchalant, as cash-heavy India bled

“Give us fifty days”, they said

Soon made it hundred-and-eighty instead

“Worked on it for ten months”, they said

So it wasn't a "rush of blood" to head

While "success" stories to us are daily fed

All we can do is keep banging our head

***

Namma Bengaluru (Our Bangalore)

The purpose of this poem is not to criticize, but to reflect.
Not just on WHAT we are doing, but HOW we're doing it.
Ask ourselves: Even if what we're doing makes sense, is this the best way?

---------
I remember a Bangalore green

Its roads lined with trees

Its weather, everyone’s envy

All day, a cool breeze

‘Twas the pride of India

Its Garden City, no less

Who could’ve thought this city of charm

Would end up in such a mess

But the state and people alike

Gave in to their innate greed

The once “pensioners’ paradise”

Was left to go to seed

Aye, a city must grow

To modern times, adapt

If only this were done with care

The changes would’ve been apt

But now just bricks and mortar

Stack up each corner and nook

Broken pavements, traffic and crowds

Anywhere you look

The summer sun now burns

As it does the city taunt

No escape from me, it says

Try as hard as you want

Oh, how the heart now yearns

For that cool breeze of yore

But the sad truth for one and all

Is, it’ll return no more

The Mumbai gangrape and our outrage - some thoughts!

(At the outset, I'd like to say that while most of this piece refers to rape, it applies just as much to VAW (Violence Against Women). And in fact, it applies not just to women but to men too. It needs to be seen in its broadest sense, even if most of the context seems to be, quite understandably I would think, women-related.).

There’s been another gangrape in India. This time in Mumbai.

The entire country is outraged.

Mumbai? Supposedly India’s safest city? That too in broad daylight?

And the girl was accompanied by a male colleague?

How could this happen?

Within a couple of days, we have more rape stories. Like this , this and this .

Over the next few days, as the outrage continues, I expect the media to keep unearthing more stories of rapes.

The subject will be hot for a few days, so it makes perfect business sense for the media to keep rape in the news.

Till, like any product that has reached its sell-by date, this topic is also discarded by the media and replaced in its space by the latest hot topic.

That’s how things work in the media world.

The fact is the truth has long since stopped being absolute. It has become what we are told it is.

The fact is before the Delhi gangrape last December, rapes used to happen in India every single day.

The fact is that after the Delhi gangrape, rapes have been happening in India every single day.

The fact is that a few months after the Delhi incident, the media moved on to other topics.

And, in a sense, the foot went off the pedal.

During those early days following the Delhi rape, there was intense pressure on the government and the police to be seen to be doing something. 

The Delhi police chief held press conferences, explaining what actions he and his staff were taking. The CM of Delhi felt public pressure as there were protests in the city. The government constituted a 3-member commission, headed by Justice JS Verma, to look at stronger anti-rape laws. The commission submitted a 630-page report within 29 days. This led to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.

The topic of women, their empowerment, their safety was so hot that even the Finance Minister had special provisions in his budget for women. Including the setting up of women’s banks and a Nirbhaya fund for women.

But then the foot went off the pedal.

As it will, once this Mumbai case also goes off the media radar.

For a while, there will be debates on TV channels with “experts”.  There will be a lot of people active on social media – on their blogs, on Facebook, on Twitter – outraging and, like the “experts” on TV, discussing what ails the system and what needs to be done.  There will be talk of the “death penalty” and “fast track courts”. There will be protests and candelight vigils.

And then, undoubtedly, something else will happen and capture everybody’s imagination.  And that will suddenly become the debate topic, the blog topic.

That is the nature of news.  Mediapersons love to tell us that it’s about the people – but actually it’s about the story.

And a story has a shelf-life.

The fact is that the people who CAN make a difference are just not doing it.

Society at large, the government, the police force, the media – we are all part of the problem.

As a society, we create a mindset where women are objectified. Where they are not seen as human beings, but as a set of body parts. We have the advertising industry thrusting female body parts at us to sell products that have nothing to do with women at all. We have men glorified as “macho” men depending on how many women they can “conquer”. 

This objectification is sweeping in its ramifications - we have the man whistling at the girl walking past and passing lewd comments, we have the male office colleague staring at his female colleague’s body lustfully , we have men groping and grabbing women in public spaces. Each of these men is not seeing the woman as a human being, he is seeing her as an object.

So we as a society need to first change ourselves. In right earnest. Coming down strongly on anything that suggests objectification. I know some will think I’m making too much of a deal of this point, some may even consider objectification a way of life in today’s society, but I do think its role in how men see women cannot be overstated.

Another thing we really need to do as a society is to try to understand the mind of (potential) rapists better.

Now, although some women may not agree, not every man is a pig. There are thankfully still many men out there who respect women for who they are. We need to see why these men respect women - and others don’t. Is their upbringing different? Are their living conditions different? Is it to do with social circles they move in? Is it that acts of rape happen more under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

If we are to reduce rape, we need to reduce the conditions under which this happens, in every possible way. Nobody is born a rapist – but somewhere along the line, rapists and potential rapists get created.

There's much more we can do as a society.

For example, bringing up our children to respect all others, regardless of gender (or other discriminatory societal grouping).

For example, not tolerating patriarchal behaviour, regardless of where we see it happening.

The fact is, we are just not doing enough. 

As a society, our end-objective is to ensure that men and women are both seen and treated as equal human beings, with their sex being only a biological differentiator. It is much easier said than done, no doubt – but I believe it is very much doable. And the onus is very much on us as a society. We keep making demands on our government but there is a lot we can do ourselves.

Talking of the government, it is of course one of the government’s primary functions to provide a certain level of security for its citizens. Clearly, this is not working well enough at the moment. And although there have been some changes in the laws recently, clearly more needs to be done.

And not just on the legislation front. Much more needs to be done at the ground level. Police reforms have been talked about for ages, but somehow it keeps going off the radar. If we need deterrence against crime, we need criminals first and foremost to be brought to book. Only then can the law kick in at all.

While various political parties will keep pointing fingers at each other, I believe the best way to get the government to act is to make personal security an election issue. Governments, even in a democracy, have been known to have scant respect for the common man – until they feel that their existence is at stake. So the common man needs to hurt the government where it hurts – and that is usually at the polling booths.

Then there is the media.

I am sometimes amazed at how much power the media has – and how poorly it has used this power. The media is supposedly the fourth estate – it is supposed to safeguard the interests of the public. And it can do SO much. Governments may not care about the voice of the common man – but there is not a politician out there who would want to run foul of the media. The media has been known to make or break personalities. And politicians need the media to build their image and to carry their message to the public.

With all this power, the media could support the fight for equality of the sexes by supporting and promoting the right messages to the public. By coming down strongly on all things patriarchal and discriminatory. By following up on stories and ensuring that appropriate pressure is put on law enforcement agencies to book criminals. And pressure is put on the judicial process to ensure criminals are not allowed to get away lightly. 

Fighting crime (of which VAW / rape is a part), using its power, could be one of the media’s most responsible actions. 

One thought. If we can have an NDTV Profit channel to discuss money, maybe we could even have an NDTV Crime channel? Or a Times Crime or Zee Crime channel? Or a Doordarshan Crime channel? Surely there's enough 24 / 7 material for a full time crime reporting channel?

I know much of what I am saying will be dismissed as wishful thinking. We live in cynical times. And yes, going by evidence on the ground, one can hardly blame the cynics.

Yet, I think we have the solution only in our own hands. Things are not going to change overnight – but they are also not going to change with these debates on TV or these candlelight vigils.

As a society, we talk too much. Maybe it’s time all of us backed up that talk with some action.

(I recognize that this blogpost is also another of those blogposts written in the aftermath of the Mumbai gangrape.  The very blogposts that I have referred to earlier in this piece. The point is not that we should not express our views – of course we should. The point is that we need to do much more than just “outrage and move on”).

RIP Cricket (1877-2013)

Once upon a time

Not so long ago

There was a sport called cricket

That I loved to follow.

With bat and ball

And stumps and bails

Runs and wickets

And legends and tales.

The Ashes and Bradman

Sobers, and games tied

I read up on them all

With eyes ever wide.

Marshall to Gavaskar

Chandra to Richards

The magic, sheer magic

Of contests revered.

Was simpler back then

Little money, less support

Players, made but a bit

The game, much a sport.

Then along came the merchants

With dollars in their eyes

One mantra on their lips

Monetize, monetize, monetize.

Fair game indeed, why not

For the times were not the same

And he, who goes not with the flow

Has only himself to blame.

But then, alas, disaster

For it all went just too far

The greed, it killed the sport

A million cuts, many a scar.

So died the game called cricket

A business now in its place

In the quest for money and more

The game died, nary a trace.

R.I.P, cricket (as I knew it).

On Spot-fixing, the IPL and the BCCI

It’s been a while since I’ve written on cricket.

Not because there hasn’t been anything to write about – but because most of my own thoughts have been expressed, far more eloquently than I could have managed, by a host of far more knowledgeable writers. I’ve therefore restricted myself to enjoying reading those articles, instead of sharing my own little wisdom on them. I see no point in just amplifying the noise on a subject for the sake of contributing sound bytes.

Having said that, why then this article? That’s because, on the recent spot-fixing drama, there are some elements that I didn't quite find sufficiently (if at all) discussed in all the material that I came across. Of course, it's possible that I've missed something out there.

I’ve read a fair number of articles on the subject. And heard some other views too. They range from the extremes of “ban the IPL” (Sharad Yadav) to “it’s just three dirty men” (BCCI chairman, N. Srinivasan). In between, there are a whole host of views.

What I do notice – and very unsurprisingly – is a lot of IPL-bashing. And a lot of BCCI-bashing. For many, the IPL and the BCCI almost seem to be interchangeable, such has become the IPL’s influence on Indian cricket.

Before I go on, I think I must first state unambiguously where I stand on the IPL.

I do have some issues with the IPL. I don’t like the excessive commercialism, the loud commentary, the hype, the artificiality around it. And I must be honest – I find it difficult to respect batting when mishits and top edges go for a six. It is the worst form of an unequal contest between bat and ball that you can imagine. That both sides in the match operate within the same framework, isn’t exactly compensatory consolation. In the forty years that I’ve been following the game, the contest between bat and ball has always been holy.

But I’ve made my peace with the IPL over the years. And now, during IPL season, I enjoy it for what it is. I don’t compare it with other forms of cricket. And, if I manage to ignore all its irritants, I do often enjoy its thrills and tension. Test cricket will always be special for me – but the IPL has found its relevance too in my cricket following pursuits.

Now, onto spot-fixing and the IPL.

I think it is a bit unfair to make the IPL THE villain of the piece. It has its weaknesses but it is not THE reason we’re having spot-fixing. The IPL is just a tournament – and now the world’s most popular cricket tournament. So what do we want to do – ban it? We need to realize that cricket is competing with other sports (and other forms of entertainment) for eyeballs. The IPL, for a few weeks every year, attracts millions of followers of other sports/entertainment options to cricket. How is that not good for the game?

The problem lies elsewhere. It lies in not realizing significant underlying fundamental weakness in a system. Let me give an example.

Think of an unhygienic kitchen. If the hottest-selling item is soup – and  a large number of customers who’re complaining of food poisoning happen to be soup customers - just removing the soup from the menu isn’t going to help. The complaints will continue – they will just come from customers of other products. The soup was never the problem. The problem was the unhygienic kitchen.

The soup is the IPL. The BCCI is the kitchen. And the food poisoning is the fixing.

Let’s admit that there was spot-fixing before the IPL. And there will be spot-fixing after the IPL, if nothing else changes.

What needs to be done is to build strength in the system to prevent food poisoning.

For its part, sadly, the BCCI’s reactions to the whole drama have been entirely predictable. Starting with “expressing shock”, then soundbytes like “strictest action will be taken against the three involved” (at that time there were three known perpetrators, amongst the players). Of course the BCCI is “fully co-operating with the police”.

The overriding tone of the BCCI has been to defend the IPL, protect its image, to blame everything on “these three dirty men”, to play the age-old game of stating the problem to be way too complex - “we do our best but we cannot possibly monitor 200 players”.

All oh-so-predictable, anybody could have written the script and given it to the media, without their bothering the BCCI bigwigs at all.

What I'd have liked to have seen discussed more is some of the following: 

1)  The system and the players

It says a lot about what I think about cricket and cricketer ethics in today’s day and age, that the news of the spot-fixing scandal broke out a few days ago, I didn’t have the slightest sense of shock or surprise. Contrast this with April 2000. When the Cronje story began unraveling (and Indian players, including one of my then-favourites, captain Azharuddin, began getting named), I remember being STUNNED. In denial. Sick in the stomach. Depressed for months.

This time, with the Sreesanth episode? Nothing!

At the most, I can only say that I was disappointed that Sree had done this. I rated him as one of the better opening bowlers we’ve had in Test cricket in recent times – and would have been happy to see him back in the Test side. So I was disappointed that he chose to take this short-cut route to riches.

But I wasn’t surprised.

The IPL had got him good money - but when your aspirations exceed your ability to support them through legitimate means, you seek other means.

Sree had got used to the fast lane - money, fame, celebrity status, an expensive lifestyle. And on the cricketing front, life was going in exactly the opposite direction. The more he “needed” that wealth, the less his chances of getting it through normal cricketing efforts. His chances of getting back to the Indian side were fast receding. Not only for performance reasons but also because of his “terribly difficult person” image. And he was 30.

Imagine, then somebody comes along and tells him “Why do you worry? Bowl one bad over, and I’ll give you 50 lakhs”.

Come on! It’s the IPL – matches are played daily at such a frenzied pace. Where games are totally loaded in favour of batsmen, with short boundaries and a lot more. Where even the best of bowlers often go for sixes and fours.

Who’s going to notice an over going for 15 runs? So many overs go for much more than that.

And once the game’s over, it’s time to move on to the next. Nobody even remembers yesterday’s game. Yesterday’s gone.

All you see is the 50 lakhs in front of your eyes. That’s real – everything else is make-believe.

And hey, you don’t have to feel ashamed or awkward. It’s happening all the time – happened last year too. It’s so easy to do, it’s almost a no-brainer.. Think about YOUR future. If you don’t secure it NOW, when you can – when are you going to do it? You think your franchise cares about where you are in 5 years’ time? You think anybody cares?

So THIS is the player dilemma.

What would I do if I were in Sreesanth’s position?

Speaking purely for myself, I know I wouldn’t have gone with the offer (I say this because I HAVE refused very attractive financial deals in the past purely because they would have troubled my conscience). But that’s me – and I don’t have material aspirations like a Sreesanth does. So instead of using myself personally as a yardstick, I’m going to generalize a bit.

I cannot help feeling that many people – especially those with aspirations far outstripping ability - would probably do what Sreesanth did. It is JUST SO EASY to do. And there’s SO MUCH MONEY to make.

No, I’m not defending Sreesanth here. I’m just trying to be a little more realistic than some of those moral policemen out there. Suddenly Sreesanth has become devil incarnate – all I’m trying to say is it could just have been any A, B or C.

It is the SYSTEM that has weaknesses. An individual – while having his own mind – can easily fall prey to this system if he is not strong enough.

We keep talking about Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Kumble and Laxman as examples of cricketers who didn’t fall for the bait. We need to realize that these are successful, secure cricketers with long careers. They have received affection from millions of fans, for years – and have internalized this love. That has also made them strong – and relatively less vulnerable to being manipulated by devious third parties.

But that’s just five cricketers. There are many more out there – and many in domestic cricket – who do not enjoy this luxury. Of financial success. Of love. Some have an early sense of rejection. What’s to say they don’t have aspirations? In today’s India, aspirations seem to be everything – just look around you at the advertisements in the media.

THESE are the people most vulnerable to manipulation. Cricket can be cruel. Only eleven can make a team. You feel like a reject if you aren’t in that eleven. Especially if that happens on a consistent basis.

The IPL just happens to have many players in this category. They wouldn’t make it to the national team – but they enjoy recognition and fame for a few weeks every year, thanks to the IPL. And of course they make good money, better than they’d otherwise have made. But that may just fuel their aspirations to a different level altogether.

So I repeat – when legitimate means are insufficient to bridge the aspiration-ability gap, in many cases, illegitimate means will be resorted to, if they come with acceptably low (in this case near-zero) risk. The ends will justify the means.

2) Corrective measures

a) Be realistic about effectiveness of “mentoring”: After this broke out, the first thing I heard from some BCCI campists was “we need to improve mentoring”. I yawned. Had this been the year 2000, I might have bought this. At that time, there might have been a genuine case of fixing - and the shady-bookie menace - catching everybody on the wrong foot. The whole concept might have been new for some.

Today, in 2013, it is known to one and all involved with the game that this is THE biggest menace in the game. If a player is smart enough to win an IPL contract, he is smart enough to understand what is right and wrong. So now we need to “educate" a cricketer that if you don’t bowl like a bowler normally would, it is a wrong thing to do?

Yes, there are some cricketers out there who are suddenly thrown into the world of riches and glamour. Yes, they need to be cautioned about its negative side too. That they may have undesirable people trying to associate with them. And these may try to make them do things that go against the grain of the game that has made them what they are.

So let's have THIS level of mentoring. But we don’t need to make it sound any more effective than it really is. Repeated emphasis on it only tells me that the BCCI is trying to avoid other, more difficult to implement, solutions to address the issue.

Look at it this way. If a Rahul Dravid, considered THE role-model for one and all to uphold the spirit of the sport, can have his own team mates selling their souls behind his back, what chance does some “mentor” have? The intoxication of money, coupled with the near zero-risk, will drown any well-meaning mentor’s words in an instant. Maybe I’m being a bit skeptical here but I don’t think players quite have as much respect for other players and officials as is often made out by the romanticists. Of course, everything is hunky-dory in public. But in private, each person has to fight his own battle.

b) Be realistic about Anti-Corruption Units:  I would have found this laughable if the emotion of anger did not overwhelmingly dominate my mixed emotions. The ICC’s solution to prevent corruption in the game is its “Anti-Corruption and Security Unit” (ACSU). Never mind that their track record in uncovering corruption has been laughable, but the ICC still offered the services of this unit to the BCCI for IPL2. At a price of course.

The BCCI politely (or maybe not so politely) refused the offer, saying it was setting up its own ACSU unit. Interestingly, it’s been almost four years now – and this ACSU seems to be competing with the ICC’s ACSU in the ineffectiveness race.

To me – and maybe I’m being harsh here – setting up this ACSU was never really going to solve anything. It sounds good on paper, it’s one of those ISO9000 type things. You do it because it then “looks” like “you’ve got the processes in place” and therefore things “should be under control”.

In reality, what are the ACSU’s powers? Can they tap phone messages or other types of communications between players and others? Or is it that they are just present at matches and keep a look-out for suspicious characters? Like in an old-fashioned detective novel.

Let’s accept that the few culprits that have been caught so far, have been caught, not by an ACSU, but by another entity.

It was the Delhi police who stumbled upon Hansie Cronje’s activities  by accident.

It was a sting operation by the media that exposed Salman Butt and two of his team-mates in England in 2010.

It was the Delhi police again who stumbled upon Sreesanth and co’s activities this time, while looking for something completely different.

What has the BCCI’s ACSU been doing?  Why did it not pick up any signals? From the communication the Delhi police have, it is clear that there was fixing involved in IPL5 as well. This lends credence to the feeling that the three who got caught are the unlucky ones – there are others out there who’ve got away.

So much for the BCCI setting up an Anti-Corruption Unit!

And now, at its latest meeting, the BCCI has said it will be setting up ACSUs for each franchise! Great! Another great initiative on paper. But please excuse me if I’m not exactly holding my breath on expecting more cases to be caught and booked.

The point is – this is all INTERNAL. The players are contracted to the BCCI, they are the marketable property of the BCCI, the IPL is the BCCI’s most valuable property. So there is naturally going to be a conflict of interest for the BCCI to take strict action against any of these “properties”. At the most, the BCCI may sacrifice a lesser player as a scapegoat, to build credibility about its processes. Other than that, it is unlikely to rock its boat too much.

And that is why what we need is EXTERNAL.

The ACSU is like internal audit. It is important to have – it sets up processes with checks and balances, it does audits – and it reports deviations it comes across to management. And thereafter it’s upto management’s discretion whether to take further action or not. (I think in practice the ACSU isn’t even doing so much, but I’ll give it credit for now).

What we need is an external auditor-like authority. One who doesn’t care about the BCCI. Who isn’t paid by the BCCI. Who is empowered to do what it takes to check compliance. And who will objectively report its findings - not to the BCCI  -but to a third party.

And who has the skills to do so.

In effect, we are talking about a policing function. Much like what the Delhi police have done now.

I don’t think the ACSU quite cuts it. Not one ACSU, not ten ACSUs. I’m afraid the nefarious world of illegal betting and bookies is much too smart for the administrative type, watchdog type entity that the ACSU is. And extremely ruthless. I understand that a cop who filed an FIR in this matter was killed a few days ago.

I know the police is short of resources already but if the figure of Rs.40,000 crores being talked about as the value of illegal betting business in India is true, then it seems to be well worth dedicating police resources to this. It is not just about individual cricketers – it is about cleaning up the muck in the entire system.

c) Have more “sting operations”:  In India, the media has largely been reactive. Yet, there have been stories broken by the media that have been key to keeping politicians on their toes, and keeping the public aware of happenings. I know “sting operations” tend to have a negative connotation about them, but I believe, if the purpose isn’t unethical, they are great to expose crime and malpractice.

Last year, during the IPL, a sting operation by a TV channel exposed a few cricketers for wrongdoing. It was roundly criticized initially but the evidence was irrefutable and the cricketers were finally given due punishment. We need more of this to happen. If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to worry about. The “sting operation” can even be conducted by a private party and then shared with the media.

These are some of the corrective measures I can think about. This is by no means an exhaustive list. And I think we need every measure out there that helps reduce (I’m realistic enough not to say “eliminate”) this scourge of fixing. I see it as THE biggest menace in the game of cricket today.

What’s very frustrating is that the BCCI just does not seem to recognize the magnitude of the issue. It does some tinkering here and there, hoping that things will sort themselves out, in due course of time. We all know that’s not how these things work.

It is OUR game. The game for the fans of cricket. And for me personally, it is a game that I’ve been passionately following for the last 40 years. I’m damned if I’m going to just sit quiet and see it dying in front of my eyes. Even if I can’t stop it, I’m at least going to make a noise about it.