Who will win Cricket World Cup 2015?

It is an overused cliché that cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties and hence anyone who predicts the winner of a cricket world cup may have to swallow the humble pie once the tournament reaches its climax. However, without making a prediction on the winner of the tournament, this writer aims at analysing the chances of the eight test playing nations competing in the tournament. 

India: Let us start with India, the defending champions will play once again under the charismatic leadership of MS Dhoni. There is no doubt that India will have a very tough task ahead in defending their title. With the kind of team India has, with weak bowling and out of form batting, it will find it extremely difficult to face even average oppositions. Indian bowling has never been particularly strong, but the current crop of bowlers is appalling as far as discipline and abilities are concerned. With the absence of Ishant Sharma, fast bowling department of Indian bowling is awfully weak. When Bhuvaneshwar Kumar is a pretty decent bowler, it can’t be said about either Muhammad Shami or Umesh Yadav. Lack of consistency would be a major handicap for both of the bowlers. Their lines and lengths are wavered and their inability to master yorkers or slower balls, vital skills in an ODI bowler’s armoury, will definitely put them under the sword against quality batting. 

It is yet to be seen how much purchase spin bowlers get in Aussie and Kiwi pitches. Though wrist spinners have had some good record in those pitches, finger spinners rarely had good times there. Therefore it is highly unlikely that Aswin, Jadeja or Axar Patel will have big say in the affairs of a match. 

Indian batting line up is also in tatters and with the exception of Rohit Sharma and may be Rahane and Raina, no one is in the thick of their forms. Dhawan and Kohli are struggling, Rayudu is at best a mediocre operator and captain MS Dhoni appears past his prime. And if Stuart Binny is the best all rounder in India, then you know India is struggling quite terribly in that department. All in all, if India survives the first knock-out stage it will be a real wonder, but you can never completely write off Dhoni’s men.

Australia: Australia will always start any world cup as one of the favourites to win the cup and when the tournament is played in their backyard, they become the hot favourite to win the championship. It is yet to be seen if Australia will begin the tournament with Michael Clarke as captain as he is still unsure to play owing to the injury he suffered. The opening combination of Aaron Finch and David Warner will threaten any bowling side in the world. Steven Smith is in the form of his lifetime, Glenn Maxwell can blast away any attack with his unconventional style of batting, Mitchell Marsh can use the long handle well in the slog overs, James Faulkner is the best finisher among the current crop of players, wicket keeper-batsman Brad Haddin is as resilient as ever and if Shane Watson and George Bailey find their form then stopping Australia from scoring big will be extremely difficult. 

When it comes to bowling Australia has one of the most deadly combinations of fast bowler including Mitchell Johnson, Mitchell Starc and Josh Hazlewood, all three who can bowl at 145kms/hr and above. The two Mitchells have been at their top form and when they get the support of the pace and bounce of Australian pitches, they would be a handful. Though the spinning department with Xavier Doherty is a matter of worry, it could be so that Australia may even never look at playing him in the eleven. With Smith and Maxwell bowling their part time spinners well, Australia may look at using them as the spinning option. All-rounders Watson, Marsh and Faulkner add more firepower to the Aussie attack, not to mention the importance of brilliant strategies formed by the astute manager Darren ‘Boof’ Lehmann. 

South Africa: On the sheer basis of talent there is no better team to win the world cup than the Proteas. It is another matter that the most important thing that they have to fight off to emerge as champions is their own ‘choker’ image. In world cups they have had many a slip between the cup and the lip, starting from 1992 when they played world cup for the first time after many years of Apartheid. However things could be different this time around under the fiery captaincy of the one and only AB deVilliers.

One of the biggest headaches for bowlers around the world in this world cup would be how to tame the batting power of South Africa, and particularly the explosive, innovative and unstoppable AB deVilliers. ABD, as he is often called, is perhaps the most dangerous batsman of the present day. When he is going, nothing, absolutely nothing seems to be able to stop him. There is no challenge for a bowler in cricket world cup 2015 greater than stopping ABD. Add to it the brilliance of Hashim Amla, Faf du Plessis, David Miller, Quinton de Kock, JP Duminy and the new kid on the block, Rilee Rossouw, you have the most dangerous batting line up in the world.

When it comes to bowling, South Africa has the best opening bowlers of the day – Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel. The pace and bounce these two fearsome men generate will test the best of the batsmen. Supporting them would be Vernon Philander, Kyle Abbott, Wayne Parnell, Imran Thahir and Aaron Phangiso. The high standards they set on their fielding would mean that an opposition team will get 10-15 runs short than they would have got against any other team.

Sri Lanka: “Let’s do it for Mahela and Sangakkara” would be the war cry that Sri Lanka would be making in this world cup. This would be the last time that the legends, Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara would be playing World Cup for Sri Lanka and their team will do everything to give them a great farewell by winning the world cup. For the past few years, Sri Lanka has played a lot of final matches but was not able to finish off at the winning side. Last two world cups, they played the finals but lost at the last pitstop. When in 2007 Australia denied them the cup, in 2011 it was India.

Under the new captain, the super all-rounder Angelo Mathews, Sri Lanka is a formidable side. Other than Mahela and Sangakkara, they also have the experience and skill of Dilshan to call for. Add to it the youthful spirit of Dinesh Chandimal, Lahiru Thirimanne and Dimuth Karunaratne, they have a very strong batting line up. 

Bowling will be spearheaded by the inimitable Lasith Malinga, who will be supported by Nuwan Kulasekara, the all rounder Thisara Perera, Suranga Lakmal, Rangana Herath and others. However one weakness that would affect the Lankans would be the lack of precision in bowling with the exception of Malinga. Herath and Senanayake are good spin bowlers, but at the wickets in Australia and New Zealand, they both are unlikely to be effective.

New Zealand: It was in the year 1992 that a very brave Kiwi by name of Martin Crowe took his team to the cusp of glory when it played Pakistan in the semi-finals. But they fell there and were not able to make it to the finals of World Cup till now. Now is there chance to make immense and put their hands on that coveted cup. When the Kiwis take the field under the spirited leadership of Brendon McCullum, the cricketing world would look at them with great hope. Their captain is in top form and on his day he can tear apart any bowling attack in the world. Add to it the young, champion batsman Kane Williamson and the very talented Ross Taylor, Martin Guptill, the comeback man Grant Elliot and the Aussie-turned-Kiwi Luke Ronchi, New Zealand is a champion batting line up. And we haven’t still mentioned about the whirlwind batsman, Corey Anderson, the all-rounder who till recently had kept the record of the fastest hundred in ODIs.

Tim Southee, Trent Boult, Mitchell McClenaghan, Adam Milne, Nathan McCullum and the ever so young Daniel Vettori will manage the bowling attack. The fast bowlers of this side can test the reflexes of many a batsman with their speed. The guile of Vettori, perhaps the greatest left arm spinner of our times, is renowned all over the world. If New Zealand can really get together and put their best efforts, they can be the world champions this time.

England: Under the captaincy of Eoin Morgan, England will play this world cup with an intention to leave behind their ordinary world cup record and to emerge as a new champion of world cricket. They have swashbuckling opening pair of Alex Hales and James Taylor. They would be followed by Joe Root, Ian Bell, Moeen Ali, Gary Ballance, Ravi Bopara and Jos Buttler. 

English bowling is also strong and under the leadership of James Anderson they boast an incisive attack that also includes Stuart Broad, Steven Finn, Chris Woakes, Chris Jordan and James Tredwell. Though they are good side, recent form doesn’t give a lot of confidence to their supporters. But one can’t never write off the Englishmen either.

Pakistan: Pakistan is the dark horse in this world cup. It has always been an unpredictable team, which could win from an awful position and can lose from a favourable position. Under the captaincy of Misbah-ul-Haq, the finisher par excellence, Pakistan boasts a good batting line up that includes Shahid Afridi, Ahmed Shehzad, Nasir Jamshed, Umar Akmal, Younis Khan and an army of un-tested, new batsmen who would be raring to go and show their strength.

However, though Pakistan is generally known for their strong bowling line up, in this world cup it is pretty weak. In the absence of Saeed Ajmal, Pakistani bowling would be spearheaded by Wahab Riaz. Giving him company would be Rahat Ali, Mohammad Irfan, Ehsan Adil and Sohail Khan. But what opponent batsmen would really fear in this Pakistan line up would be the fast leg spin of Shahid Afridi.

Pakistan has really been handicapped by the absence of many of their important players, noted among them would be Saeed Ajmal, Mohammad Hafiz and Junaid Khan.

West Indies: Like Pakistan, West Indies is also an unpredictable team. The absence of their key players Dwayne Bravo and Keiron Pollard, however, would affect their tournament performance. In the absence of those two key players, greater responsibility would come on the shoulders of Chris Gayle, Marlon Samuels and Darren Sammy. With the kind of firepower that the above mentioned batsmen can generate, West Indies can always threaten any opposition.

Once upon a time West Indies bowlers had intimidated batsmen around the world with their pace. But today it is a thing of the past and the West Indies bowlers no longer generate a lot of fear among the minds of batsmen. Under Kemar Roach and Jerome Taylor, they still have some pace, but not the sharpness to threaten batsmen. However in limited over matches they can be quite handy and we could write them off only at our peril.

Bangladesh: The Bangladesh Tigers have often defeated bigger teams in world cup tournaments and outside. Though they emerged as a good team a few years back, they no longer have the firepower to be considered a giant killer. Bangladesh experimented with many captains and in this world cup they play under the captaincy of Mashrafe Mortaza, when two other former captains, Sakib al-Hassan and Mushfiqur Rahim are also in the team. Tamim Iqbal and Mahmudullah are also key players in the team, but the fortunes of the team would depend mostly on how Sakib will show his all-round performance.

Though he might end up having egg on the face if he resorts to prediction in a world cup cricket tournament, this writer would predict the four teams in the semi finals. Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Sri Lanka. From there on it would be anyone’s game and the team that gets two good days will become the champion. As an Indian cricket fan this writer however hopes that some miracle would happen and India would defend their title. In the end, let us stop with another cliché, may the best team win.

In Delhi AAP wave decimates the Modi wave

When a party that won general elections with an overwhelming majority incurs a crushing defeat in a state to a party that came into existence just a couple of years back, you know that you are witnessing history. The Modi juggernaut was rolling on claiming win after win, in the general elections of 2014, assembly elections of Maharashtra, Haryana, Jharkhand and then in J&K. The party and its supporters were on cloud nine when electoral tragedy struck, which has brought down all of them to earth. The combination of the master speaker Narendra Modi and the master strategist and the former’s right hand man, Amit Shah has been running the party as their fiefdom and all important decisions of the party have been taken by them. Therefore as the credit of the election victories deservedly went to them, the responsibility of this huge loss must also rest with them. Out of 70 seats in Delhi, BJP was able to win only 3 seats, 29 seats less than what they got in 2013. AAP, under the leadership of Arvind Kejriwal, made a virtual clean sweep as they won 67 of the remaining seats. How did BJP slump to such a huge loss in Delhi?

Though they boast about and roam around the country claiming to be master strategists, Modi and Shah made the strategic mistake of not calling for elections in Delhi along with elections in Maharashtra, Haryana and Jharkhand. It is still unclear what made them postpone the decision for so long. One line of thought is that the duo assumed that in a few months, after the defeat in the general elections, AAP will disintegrate and disappear into oblivion. In that case BJP could have had a free run with no strong opposition to counter them. However in the intervening months what happened was something the duo didn’t expect. Instead of disintegrating, AAP strengthened their grass-root level actions and their volunteers. They worked with the common man and created a strong base that flung into action during the elections. When BJP’s state leadership and activists were involved in deep infighting, AAP’s activists and leaders were concentrating on rebuilding their lost trust after the 49 day government resigned much to people’s discontent. Kejriwal was forthright in apologising to the people for his ill-advised move and requested Delhi-ites to give him another chance to make immense.

Anti-establishment emotions have been very strong in India in general and in a state like Delhi in particular. During the run up to the 2014 general elections, Narendra Modi was able to position himself as someone who is not an insider of the establishment. He made good use of his chaiwallah image, which made common people believe that he was one among them. He positioned himself as the underdog who was fighting against the corrupt establishment, which was Congress. However, after assuming power at the centre as the Prime Minister of the country, Modi lost his image as the common man. His high profile foreign visits, which squandered a lot of public money, came for criticism from the public. The 10 lakh suit with his name printed on it that he wore during the Republic Day celebration established him in the public eye as a narcissistic leader who gives a lot of importance to self image and lavish lifestyle, a characteristic feature of those in the establishment. His arrogance and sometimes laughable show of self-importance were on display on all his public appearances, which flashed into the public’s eye through live television coverage.

Narendra Modi had been the star campaigner for BJP in the general elections and state elections after that. However signs of his losing popularity was evident when only a very few numbers turned out to listen to him in the first public rally he addressed in Delhi. This made Amit Shah understand that Modi wave was not going to work wonders for the party in Delhi. He understood that BJP needed someone with big public acceptance as the BJP’s leader to counter the Kejriwal effect. For that Shah inducted Kiran Bedi to the party and made her party’s Chief Ministerial candidate. But this didn’t augur well for the party as long time BJP workers felt let down by Amit Shah on bringing an outsider as their leader. Public was also able to see through the dishonest political ambitions of a late turncoat like Ms. Bedi. She was not able to garner the support of her party or gain the trust of her electorate. 

When BJP understood that they are losing their battle against AAP in Delhi, they resorted to a lot of mudslinging to discredit AAP. Such a negative campaign didn’t go down well with the people of Delhi. BJP roped in their 120 MPs and 25 ministers of Central government for the negative campaign against AAP. Even Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, otherwise known as a lady of impeccable integrity and dignity, was used to disgrace AAP, where she called AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal a ‘chor’ on the issue of alleged dubious donations to AAP. BJP used cartoons to bring disrepute to Kejriwal and even dragged his family into it. All these negative campaign tactics not only didn’t work for the BJP but also backfired on them.

Another reason why BJP had to face a terrible loss in Delhi is because it was unable to reign in the divisive, Hindutva elements. Delhi voters were clever enough to understand the sectarian agenda of those bigots who attempted to dictate their cultural and lifestyle choices. The likes of Sakshi Maharaj and Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti have alienated the liberals in the country from the BJP. Though the aspirational young voters of the country are not moved by the traditional politics over ‘secularism’, which often means minority appeasement, they are not influenced by the inflammatory statements made by the Hindutva elements in BJP either. The Hindutva elements in BJP are not the fringe elements, they are mainstream elements, and it is the development-oriented people who are the fringe elements in BJP. With his silence on such utterances made by the extremist elements in his party, Narendra Modi appeared to have a silent complicity in these acts. If he remains silent people will believe that he connives with those in the party who take forward disruptive Hindutva policies like Ghar Wapsi.

Narendra Modi should now understand that his hollow promises of development won’t work anymore and unless he fulfils his promises with some real work on the ground his popularity will sink to deep depths pretty soon. He should stop playing the role of a King with his ostentatious display of costly suits, lavish foreign trips and orchestrated stage performances abroad. Instead he should get down from his thrown and should work to better the lives of millions of people who voted for him after believing his promises of a better India. 

BJP has credited the Modi wave with their emphatic performance in the state elections in Maharashtra, Haryana, Jharkhand and in J&K. But now when they have slumped to one of their biggest defeats, the party is trying desperately to save Modi’s face. If the win was because of the rampant Modi wave, this loss is certainly because the wave is waning in strength and has ceased to be rampant. Moreover, if the party is not ready to consider the Delhi loss as a dangerous sign and continue to derive satisfaction on the technical fact that it has maintained its vote percentage in Delhi, then the party is all set for a nosedive into further embarrassment. 

Obama’s India visit has taught us ‘bromance’ and ‘megalomania’

It is the habit of English media in India to dig out queer words from the dictionary and keep on harping on them whenever any news event of rareness unfolds. For a language lover, such occasions are certainly exciting times as he/she will get a great opportunity to add to his/her vocabulary some beautiful words. American President Barack Obama’s visit to India has certainly been the most newsworthy event of the new year and the media hasn’t disappointed us even this time. The bonhomie between the American President and the Indian Prime Minister as well as the controversy that was kicked up after Modi’s extravagant suit with his own name etched on it came up have resulted in the arrival to the scene of two incredible words – ‘bromance’ and ‘megalomania’. Let us look into these words one by one, taking the positive word first.

Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘bromance’ as “intimate and affectionate friendship between men.” The Indian media was quite gung ho about this bromance which was on display between Barack Obama and Narendra Modi. Obama is the first American President who is the Chief Guest of India’s Republic Day celebrations. 

If there was one casualty of this tremendous bromance, then it was protocol. Many a time protocol was broken to make way for this magnificent expression of bromance between the two leaders. In the beginning of the visit, Modi broke protocol and drove in to receive the American President immediately after Air Force One landed on the runway (during 2010 Dr. Manmohan Singh also broke protocol and went in to receive Obama). The bromance was again palpable when the two leaders greeted each other with a spontaneous hug. Observers were quick to point out the growing personal relationship between Obama and Modi when the two went for a brief walk on the lawns of Hyderabad House. They also observed that the bromance between the two became all the more evident when Modi addressed Obama by his first name ‘Barack’, whereas Obama addressed the Indian PM as ‘Modi’. Protocol once again bit the dust when Modi chose to sit to the right of Obama during the Republic Day parade, when protocol would have wanted the chief guest (in this case Obama) to sit between the President of India and the Vice President. Modi appeared so much immersed in his bromance with Obama that he even shoved away the Vice President to gain a seat near Obama. During the parade, Obama and Modi were seen chatting together, smiling away and applauding jointly like two men joined together after many years of painful estrangement. The bromance between the two men was so deep that even Jai and Viru would be jealous of them.

The word ‘megalomania’ has been in vogue in Indian media since Narendra Modi’s expensive suit, with his name etched on it, became the talk of the town (and the international media). Oxford English Dictionary will come to our aid once again to explain to us that the word ‘megalomania’ means “delusions of power or self importance.” 

If someone who wears a suit with his own name embroidered on it is not someone who excessively believes in his self importance, then who is? Designers say that even by conservative estimates the suit would have cost around 5-8 lakhs and when a man who roamed around India on a stupefying election campaign claiming to be a man of frugal lifestyle wears such a costly suit, questions are bound to arise. Washington Post reported that “Prime Minister Modi wore a suit that takes personalization to a ridiculous extreme.” Such flagrant show of megalomania must have shocked even his most ardent fans. It must be seen if Narendra Modi would ever don the suit again and if he is not going to wear that ever again, spending so much money on such a cheap show of flamboyance should be questioned. Another pertinent question is who sponsored this suit for Modi and if it has been brought using the tax payers money, then Modi should come under serious scrutiny for such a shockingly narcissistic display with the use of public money. With the kind of self endorsement and self promotion that our PM Modi has made a habit of, we can rest assured that the media will not allow us to forget the word megalomania anytime soon.

As a common citizen of India, this author would hope that the bromance between President Obama and Prime Minister Modi would flourish profusely, if that could provide some gain to the country. He would also wish whole-heartedly that PM Modi would take himself a bit lightly, relinquish pomposity and would get on to work for keeping the big promises he had made during the election campaign. However as an English language enthusiast, this writer welcomes the emergence of both ‘bromance’ and ‘megalomania’ with equal relish. Let us prosper; let the language prosper.

In praise of Michael Clarke

There has hardly been a great leader who achieved his greatness when propitious circumstances served him opportunities in a platter. It has always been adversity that made great leaders, for only adversity could stretch a mind’s tenacity to its limit and test its strength and resolve. 

How Michael Clarke conducted himself during these adverse times for cricket established him as a leader of unique qualities. Cricket world plunged into enormous sorrow and grief after the passing of Phil Hughes after a rare accident in the cricket pitch took him away from cricket, away from this beautiful world. Together with the friends and family of Hughes the whole cricketing fraternity went into mourning and it was the able leadership of Michael Clarke that allowed not only his teammates and his country, but the whole world to grieve appropriately and then to gain a balanced perspective of a young life lost due to a freak accident.

Clarke grieved openly, sometimes cried inconsolably, sometimes hid his face behind his hands and allowed words to flow unabatedly like water that flow down from mighty streams, purifying everything coming its way. The mentally mighty Australian captain, who can often be seen sledging opponents and bravely facing raw pace and bounce of world class fast bowlers on a cricket pitch, was seen crying unhesitatingly for a mate he called his “younger brother”. Such an uncontrolled outpouring of emotion by the captain allowed other of his teammates to candidly express their emotion in its entire enormity. 

It is always heartening to see big, strong men giving vent to their emotions openly with little regard to long held general assumptions of the world of expecting nothing but stoic attitude from manly hearts when confronted with personal losses of catastrophic proportions. It would require a man of enormous moral conviction and robust mental strength to bare his soul in such a tremendous fashion at a time when the whole country in general and the cricketing fraternity in particular were greatly affected by the death of a young man full of promise and talent. 

If the need of the hour was the emergence of a genuine leader to take everyone forward at such a distressing time, then that was exactly what we got in Michael Clarke. He was able to channelize the combined grief of the cricket community towards the celebration of the beautiful life of Philip Hughes. He acted as a pillar of strength to not only his mates in the team but also to the immediate family of the young Hughes. What was required of a great leader was to take charge at such a delicate hour and to guide everyone to emotional and mental stability, and that was what exactly he did.

Great leaders are always good at intelligently using words in their speeches to arouse fervent emotions in their people. Modern human history has abundant examples of such speeches. “I have a dream speech” of Martin Luther King Jr., “Tryst with destiny” speech of Jawaharlal Nehru, “We shall fight on the beaches” speech of Winston Churchill are but few glorious examples. In following such magnificent models Michael Clarke gave an emotionally charged speech during the funeral ceremony of Phil Hughes. In his eulogy of his “younger brother”, Clarke spoke about the omnipresent spirit of Hughes acting as a custodian of our great game of cricket. By invoking the words of condolences made by greats of the game and by the many cricket fans across the globe he unified the cricket fraternity and used the occasion to give glowing tribute to the game of cricket that gave so much to the lives of the cricketers and to the entertainment of the fans. 

Even at the height of his grief Clarke didn’t forget to put his arm around Sean Abbott, the unfortunate bowler whose fatal bouncer felled Phil Hughes. He famously told Abbott, “Sean, when you feel like getting back on the horse mate, I promise you that I will be the first to strap on the pads and go stand up the end of the net to hit them back at you. It’s exactly what Hugh Dog would want us both to do.” It is the forte of only a strong leader to keep such immaculate composure and presence of mind at such a terrible time to not lose sight of what is imperative to be said and done.

Michael Clarke won great sympathy and admiration for how he behaved during this terrible time for the cricket world. Not only did he show incredible leadership skills during this difficult time but also as an ambassador of this great game he ennobled cricket to a much greater level, where the game has few rivals. For this incredible act, we, cricket lovers of the world, owe Michael Clarke.

Dear Hughesy, we will never forget you

Today would have been a day when a young man, full of life and a great passion for a game he loved and played, would have cut a cake and enjoyed his 26th birthday in a far off countryside in Australia. But fate had other plans and in a tragic turn of events a freak accident ended that spirited life in its youth while he was playing his favourite sport.

No, no, no, this was not how our great game of cricket was meant to be. It was meant to spread joy and delight; often accomplishment and triumph, though at times, physical pain and sorrow of defeat, but never fear and dread of death. However on that fateful Thursday, a day that the cricket world will forever remember mournfully, a fatal bouncer shattered all those good things one associated with the game of cricket. 

Phil Hughes was that typical countryside boy who took to cricket with great hopes and aspirations. The boy who was brought up in a banana farm, amidst hordes of cattle, had the audacity of self belief to dream big. And when that boy showed massive talent in his trade he was immediately selected for national duties by a cricket country that is famous for late bloomers in cricket, given the enormous vault of talent it holds. In his second test appearance itself Hughes made history by becoming the youngest batsman to hit hundreds in both innings of a test match. In his ODI debut he hit another hundred and become the only Australian to hit a century in his debut match. Though he was often in and out of the Australian team, there was never a doubt in his talent and experts were always of the opinion that the little lad from Macksville was destined to greatness. Hughes was all set to return to the Australian side against India as a replacement for his long time mate Michael Clarke when tragedy struck.

Like all other cricket lovers across the world, this writer was also hoping that Phil Hughes will win his fight for life and will get back to playing cricket at the highest level. But it was not to be and like all other true lovers of the game this writer was also shattered by the news of Hughes’ passing. This writer also joined with cricket fans the world over in grieving and mourning the bereavement of the young cricketer who was not only respected but also loved by his friends and family and those who got a chance to play with him and against him.

During these extraordinary times in cricket, we also need to spare some thought for Sean Abbott, whose bouncer resulted in this freak accident. The tremendous outpouring of sympathy and support for the young bowler showed the unity of the cricket family. This writer is sure that the young man would be getting psychological help from Cricket Australia to overcome this awful tragedy.

Though we must not give kneejerk reactions to this tragedy it is important that ICC review all the safety equipments used in cricket. This great game can’t afford to have another of this tragedy and all involved must make sure that Phil Hughes’ martyrdom doesn’t go wasted. We must never forget Phil Hughes, the gentleman in this gentlemen’s sport, who laid down his life playing a game he loved the most.

When to use “I” and when to use “me”

What will be your answer if you knock on a closed door and the person inside the room asks you, “May I know who that is?” Will you say, “It is me” or will you say “It is I”?

If your answer is “It is me”, then grammatically it is wrong. The correct usage is “It is I”.

But grammarians will probably forgive you because almost everyone says, “It is me”, so much so that it has generally been accepted as correct.

Then when to use “I” and when to use “me?

“I” is first person subject pronoun, which means that it refers to the person who is performing the action of a verb.

I can speak Tamil.

In the above example, “I” is the person who is performing the action of the verb “speak” or “I” is the subject.

Similarly, “You and I can speak Tamil.”

Here, “you and I” are the persons who are performing the action of the verb “speak”.

So whenever you are the subject of an action, you should use “I”.

“Me” is first person object pronoun, which means that it refers to the person that the action of a verb is being done to.

Anand told me to leave.

Here “me” is the person on whom the action of the verb “told” is being acted on or “me” is the object of the verb (whereas “Anand” is the subject).

Anand told Arjun and me to leave.

Here, “Arjun and me” are the persons on whom the action of the verb “told” is being acted on.

So whenever you are the object of an action, you should use “me”.

Confusion

Generally confusion comes when you have “I” or “me” connected to another name or a pronoun as in above mentioned sentences,

“You and I can speak Tamil.”

OR

Anand told Arjun and me to leave.

Whenever you are confused on deciding which one to use, you remove the other person from the sentence and then try to make the sentence. When that is the case you are less likely to make the mistake of using

Me can speak Tamil OR Anand told I to leave.

Those sentences really sound wrong, don’t they?

Alternate Method

One of this writer's friends, Raji Stephen offered an alternate method. The following is how he explained it. 

Take the following sentences.

That was I who called you yesterday.
That was me whom you called yesterday.

In order to check if your usage is right or not, you can simply take out the "action" part and make a question by adding "who" (e.g., who called?, who can speak?). If the answer points to self or a group including self, then the usage should be "I" and if the answer points to another person or a group excluding you, then the usage should be "me".  

Hope this helps.

India and the world must strengthen their fight against inequality

Recently a politician from the Indian state of Haryana proclaimed that poor sex ratio in his state is “god’s wish” and politicians or governments can’t do anything about it. Now that can’t just be true, for god will never take sides, or so the theists believe, and hence any result that won’t give something close to a 1:1 ratio as far as sex ratio is concerned, can’t be considered as the “will of the god”. Sex-selection abortion, where the female foetuses are aborted when pre-natal diagnostic tests reveal the child to be a female, has been a bane India has had for many years. 

Inequality of various hues is prevalent in India, none more severe than gender inequality. Female child is considered by many families as a burden and hence they are not given adequate care and consideration. India’s patriarchal society has an inherent son-preference and daughter-neglect mindset, which gets manifested in female foeticide and other discriminatory practices against the girl child. Even if a girl escapes unhurt from foeticide, she is often denied access to healthy diet, good education or self actualisation. Rapes and other forms of sexual harassment are on a sharp rise in these patriarchal societies and girls are not even safe in their houses. 

Rise in communalism has come as a new challenge to the accessibility of basic human rights to the many millions of Indians. Though Constitution of India proclaims itself to be a secular nation, giving equal treatment to all religions by the state, some religious groups consider themselves to be more equal than others. Majoritarianism as a political agenda has come up in the Indian society, whereby some claim that they are entitled to a certain degree of primacy in the society. The minorities are often pushed to the forgotten corners of development and hence are destined to poor economic and social conditions. In India, social and economic inequality has battered the tribal population and has taken them to near extinction. Reckless deforestation, in the name of industrial development, has even destroyed their natural habitat.

Caste discrimination is still all pervasive in the social fabric of India. Discrimination based on caste status is one of the main reasons why poverty is rampant in India. Most of the Dalits live below the poverty line in India and they earn less than the minimum wages. Most of them don’t have access to education and basic sanitation. They often suffer from diseases mainly because they don’t have access to safe drinking water. 

If India wants to strengthen its fight against inequality then it must resort to inclusive development. Social and economic development must not be the prerogative of the select few. When it comes to development, social and economic, no mention must be made to the gender, religion, caste or community of people. They must only be considered as Indians and hence they must enjoy equal rights and equal protection from the state. The fruits of development must reach people of all strata; all must be entitled to the riches of economic development of the nation. When the world is besmirched with all kinds of inequality, if India wants to be considered a global leader then it must fight a stronger battle against discrimination and inequality of its own citizens.

Humanity must rise above all trivial considerations of discriminating people on the basis of different factors. May this be the day where we all take an oath to struggle and fight together for an equal world, where inequality is a thing of the past and discrimination a word in the dictionary that has no real world significance.

Peace Nobel for an Indian and a Pakistani – read between the lines

At a time when India and Pakistan are engaged in a serious cross border firing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has awarded an Indian, Kailash Satyarthi and a Pakistani, Malala Yousafzai, the 2014 Nobel Prize for Peace. When the committee, through its press release, has said that the eminent personalities were given the Nobel Prize “for their struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education”, both India and Pakistan should read between the lines and should understand that the committee, and along with them the whole world, is calling for a peaceful settlement of all issues between the two nations. When the prize has been shared equally by Malala and Satyarthi, it will not be possible to see them separately. Their struggle has been along similar lines - for the right to education for all children.

Kailash Satyarthi is an engineer-turned-activist who has been in the forefront of the fight against child labour. He, along with his organisation Bachpan Bachao Andolan, has brought the issue of child labour to the centre-stage with very many Gandhian style protests and demonstrations. He has been working tirelessly against the exploitation of children in the name of labour for financial gains. When he has been instrumental in saving many children from slave-labour conditions, he has also been on the forefront in fighting for legal and administrative reforms for eliminating child labour in the country and across the world. He has saved many children from the clutches of exploitation and has given them a new life though education and rehabilitation. Satyarthi is also a survivor of many appalling and life-threatening attacks while rescuing children from exploitative conditions.

Malala Yousafzai is a teenager of tremendous bravery and courage from Pakistan who has fought the Pak Taliban for her right to education. In the year 2012 she was shot on her head and neck by Taliban terrorists in her state of Swat in Pakistan when she was returning from her school. The young girl fought bravely for her life and she was airlifted to Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham in England where she was treated for her life-threatening injuries. Since then Malala has been campaigning for girls’ education including speaking in the United Nations for the convictions she hold. Young Malala has shown immense personal courage under very dangerous circumstances and has become a strong spokesperson for girls’ right to education. 

It is a matter of particular significance that the Nobel Committee “regards it as an important point for a Hindu and a Muslim, an Indian and a Pakistani, to join in a common struggle for education and against extremism.” At a time when around the world there are many battles being fought on the lines of jingoistic nationalism and on petty communalism the statement made by the Nobel Committee assumes deep meanings. Nationality and religion don’t really matter when you are struggling against the ills of humanity – may it be child labour, poverty or ignorance. We should not take the statements made by the Nobel Committee as mere tokenism, but they should be considered as a call for a united struggle against extremism, child labour and all other social evils. 

In the mean time let’s express our deep respect and adulation to the awesome Indo-Pak duo of Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai.

Difference between England, Britain and United Kingdom

As most of you would be aware, today is the day when Scotland decides whether it want to remain in union with the United Kingdom or want to achieve independence to become a separate country. The vote counting has already begun where the Scots have voted in the Scottish referendum to decide their future. Later today we will come to know about the decision the Scots have made.

If to speak about a related subject, we have often wondered what the difference between England, Britain and the United Kingdom, haven’t we? They are not just names that one can use interchangeably, but each of those names signifies different geographical and national notions. 

England is a specific country, while Great Britain is generally a geographic term to denote England, Wales and Scotland. United Kingdom consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or simply a combination of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

It is kind of confusing for all, but I hope this helps to get some idea of the whole affair. The above image would probably give you a better idea of the concepts.

Some pride left to salvage at The Oval

The euphoria that swept through the cricket loving minds of the nation after India’s historic win at Lord’s has changed to grave disappointment after terrible losses at Southampton and Manchester. Team England was going through a very lean phase when India reached that country to play a very rare 5 test series. Their captain Alistair Cook, once a prolific batsman, was staring down the barrel. The ominous bowling duo of James Anderson and Stuart Broad were far from their best. Retirement of Graeme Swann left the team high and dry without a quality spinner. Mr. Dependable of the English team, Ian Bell was almost looking like he forgot how to play long innings in a test match. Matt Prior, the daring keeper-batsman was not in his original self either. However at Southampton, everything changed for England and there was a remarkable revival, which saw Cook and Bell getting back their form, Anderson and Broad getting back to their best, part-timer Moeen Ali effectively taking the place left vacant by Swann of an attacking spinner, Jos Buttler, who replaced Prior, batting with great purpose and intention and Gary Ballance continuing with his supreme form, some calling it the “form of his life time.”

In the meantime from the pinnacle of pride at Lord’s, India stooped down to a nadir of ignominy at Old Trafford. If the injury to the hero of Lord’s Ishant Sharma was not enough of a blow to the Indians, they were humiliated in the Anderson-Jadeja row. When it was prudent to report the incident to ICC, India and its captain MS Dhoni took the issue to ludicrous levels even after the judge made the decision that neither Anderson nor Jadeja was guilty in the incident. By taking the issue too far, Dhoni was only distracting himself and his team from their real focus. The incident should have reached its closure once the judge had made the decision and India and its young players, most of them playing their first test series in England, should have re-focussed their attention to the test match.

Other than Bhuvaneshwar Kumar, and to some extend captain Dhoni, no other player in the Indian squad seems to have got things right in England till now. Of course there were some flashes of brilliance from Murali Vijay and Ajinkya Rahane at Trent Bridge and Lord’s, but they too seem to have lost the touch as they reached Southampton and then Manchester. Comeback man Gautam Gambhir didn’t fire in his comeback game at Old Trafford and was dismissed cheaply in both innings. His penchant for fishing deliveries landing around off stump and swinging away seems to be intact. Cheteshwar Pujara, the worthy successor of the great Rahul Dravid, seems all at sea in England. The technically sound Saurashtrian has hit a lean patch and is finding unwonted ways of getting out, not to mention the many wrong decisions that went against him. Virat Kohli, inarguably the best batsman in the present Indian line-up, finds balls in that corridor of uncertainty too hot to handle. By now his inability to come out of that technical flaw of edging balls outside off stump would be troubling him big time.

If there is one Indian batsman who has been consistent in the whole series then that is MS Dhoni. Though the Indian captain is not known for his batting prowess against a moving red cherry, he made some useful contributions in the middle order. However his wicket keeping in the series leaves much to be desired. Many an outside edge has escaped between him and the first slip, mostly because of his failure to go for the catches by diving to his right.

Except for his quick fire half century at Lord’s, Ravindra Jadeja has been an abject failure in the series. He may have many triple centuries in domestic cricket, but he is inchoate while playing a moving ball in conditions as in England. His slow left arm bowling can at best be described as average. Ravi Ashwin, the more experienced among the two spinners, bowled just 14 overs in the Manchester test match. Dhoni doesn’t have a lot of confidence in him – the reason why he was warming the benches in the first three matches. Even when he is asked to bowl, Dhoni puts defensive field for him and asks him to bowl a defensive line. Pankaj Singh, a late bloomer in Indian cricket, lacks the incisiveness required at the higher levels of cricket and hence toiled hard for wickets. Only comfort being Varun Aaron – with his pace, he appears to be on the track, at least for now.

May be it is unwise for us to criticise this team so early for their lack of results. May be it is because we expected a lot more from this young team. It is not always easy to fill in the shoes of the stalwarts like Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag and Ganguly, the fabulous five of Indian cricket. It is not easy either to match the quality of Kumble, Harbhajan and Zaheer. Those who were pretty vocal for the forceful removal of the aforementioned greats, to replace them with the youngsters, should show more patience.

The Oval beckons India to get their act together and salvage the pride and the test series. 15 August is a remarkable day for an Indian team to start a fight to win a test match against the English. The freedom fighters of this great nation had fought for regaining the pride of the nation and its inhabitants; Dhoni and Co. would also be fighting on a different pitch tomorrow almost for the same purpose – to regain some lost pride.

(This piece first appeared in the cricket website Cric News Guru. You can find that original article under the heading OPINION: Some pride left to salvage at The Oval from that website.)