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.)

Our World Must Act to End Israel’s Genocide in Gaza

There often come occasions in our personal lives and in the lifetime of a nation when the silence we observe becomes a grave crime that we commit to the world and to the humanity at large. Israel’s unabashed and outrageous killing of innocents in Gaza, including God’s children, is in all senses a genocide which must be condemned in the strongest of terms. If we remain silent to this gravely atrocious act, we would be becoming partners in this crime against humanity. It is a historical irony that the Jews, who have been the victims of one of the deadliest genocide in the history of mankind, are the perpetrators of this heinous massacre in Gaza. 

It is now fairly obvious that Israel has embarked on an all out war on the Palestinians in the Gaza strip. Unlike in the past, when armed attacks used to happen only for 3-4 days, it seems that the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) have arrived with a specific plan to exterminate the Palestinians in the Gaza strip for once and for all. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear that even after demolishing the secret tunnels in Gaza Israel will not stop the attack on Gaza. Many commentators are of the opinion that Israel is attacking Gaza with an intention that there should not be any future generations of Palestinians in Gaza and that is why they are targeting places where children are kept. Such a war that blatantly target children and kill them intentionally has never been fought in the face of this planet. In any conventional wisdom Israel is committing a war crime that needs strong condemnation and strict action against those who calls for and approves such a war.

Before continuing this writer must make this clear that he is no supporter of Hamas, the terrorist organisation in Palestine. However it is true that the Palestinians in the Gaza strip trust Hamas as the only organisation that is capable of standing up to the terror of Israel. The pretext on which Israel started the present attack in Gaza was that Hamas killed three Israeli youngsters. But now they claim that those youngsters may not have been killed by Hamas but some other terror outfit unconnected to Hamas. When the reason behind the start of the attack has ceased to exist as a reason, no excuses remain for the Israelis to continue with their armed bombardment of Gaza. But Netanyahu has made it extremely clear that the IDF is not even thinking about stopping the attack on Gaza civilians. The Israelis claim that they are targeting Hamas terrorists and not ordinary citizens. But the bombardment on civilian areas of Gaza including schools and hospitals shows that Israel is targeting ordinary citizens. Israel also claims that Hamas uses children as human shields against Israeli attack. However even that claim appears to be hollow as human shields are normally used against those countries that follow international conventions during times of war and not on a country like Israel that has no qualms in violating those conventions unashamedly.

Israel also often comes up with the argument that they are only retaliating to the attacks on their civilians by Hamas terrorists and say it is their responsibility to save its citizens from the deadly attacks by Hamas. However the truth remains that in comparison to the number of Palestinians killed by Israel, the number of Israelis killed by Hamas is incredibly low. The loss of human lives in both places is quite disproportionate. Mobile defence system of Israel known as the “Iron Dome” intercepts and destroys most of the short range missiles and artillery shells fired to Israel from the Gaza strips. Hence the loss of human life is quite less in Israel even if the Hamas terrorists in the Gaza fire missiles. For many years Israel has been putting blockade on Gaza strip and the Palestinians in Gaza live in what many human rights organisations call an “open-air prison.” They are not allowed to move freely or gain employment and hence they have an unemployment rate as high as 48%. 

If this writer says that it is high time international community take effective steps to curb the genocide of Israel, it would be an understatement. Hundreds of children have been killed and many more have been maimed and wounded. The sight of bodies of dead children lying strewn in many parts of Gaza is terrible to behold. When the circumstances are so grave it is disgraceful to see the world standing helpless to stop this genocide. The United Nations appears toothless, “world police” United States is hand-in-glove with Israel, other Arab countries neglectful as they think Israel is far better than Hamas and the one time leader in non-aligned movement, India shamelessly siding with Israel and US, saying both Palestine and Israel are equal partners of the nation. In such a situation, the Palestinians remain helpless amidst dreadful Israeli bombardment.  If the attack continues like this for some more days we should get ready to see an absolute extermination of the Palestinians in Gaza and the place would become their graveyard.

During his high profile election campaign, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi used to speak about his intentions of making India a supreme nation in the eyes of the world. However it must be said that he has squandered a golden opportunity to make India supreme by not taking a moral high ground position in the case of Gaza attacks. Like many other of his campaign promises this one has also came out to be a hollow one. Added to this is the position taken by his main constituency, the far right Hindutva groups in India. There have been many pro-Israeli statements coming out from the Hindutva group. Their social media activists are at the forefront of producing such statement. The Hindutva army of social media activists, who were the a real force behind Modi’s election campaign, who are now jobless after Modi became PM, are utilising a good part of their time to promote and generate pro-Israeli arguments. When no right thinking person can endorse the abject cruelty committed by Israel on hapless citizens of Gaza, one wonders what is the logic behind the support given by these Hindutva groups to Israel. The only reason appears to be that the victims are Muslims. However this is a time to think beyond such divisive factors of religion and ethnicity and to stand together for the rights of humanity.

When the nations of the world have decided to be mute spectators, it is the responsibility of all right thinking individuals of all countries of the world to speak out openly against the gruesome killing of innocents by Israel and to show disgust on the moral turpitude of the nations of the world. If ever there was a time to show support to the people of Gaza, it is now. It is there fight for existence, a fight for their human rights. And this writer stands in support of Gaza and its citizens, especially the children, the embodiment of innocence.

Image Courtesy: Selena Gomez's Instagram 

A Budget for the Khaas Aadmi

As Modi Sarkar and its cohorts have already taken control of most of the large and powerful media conglomerates in India, one will find it most difficult to locate a critical account of the Budget 2014. Most of these media – print as well as TV - was busy singing paeans on the budget. Everywhere in these media there are accounts of how businessmen, the corporates and the multi-rich find the budget to be the one that will “take the country forward.”

Network 18 (of which CNN IBN, CNBC etc. are part) is already being controlled by corporate giants who had unequivocally rendered all the support for BJP’s election campaign. We now know where the fidelity of Zee network lies with after seeing what happened to an article in the online magazine DNA (controlled by Zee network) that showered grave criticism on the new BJP President. The Hindu, previously known as a predominantly leftist newspaper, has suddenly jumped over the fence and is sitting comfortably with the rightists, after the new management took over. Therefore in the mainstream media you will only find adulations and appreciations about the budget. In such circumstances many independent online magazines and individual blogs have gained a lot of significance insofar as finding a critical analysis of the budget is concerned. Hence this writer will also only focus on the cons of the budget; for the pros one can anyways read any of the popular newspapers of our day.

No tax surcharge on the super-rich: Amidst talks of fiscal prudence and reduction in fiscal deficit, the budget of Arun Jaitley plainly missed a great opportunity to increase the revenue receipts of the government by increasing the tax surcharge on the super-rich. When the present government in general and the budget 2014 in particular talk about reducing the fiscal deficit by cutting down the subsidies, it is curious that no one is speaking about increasing the revenue by slapping an increase in tax surcharge on the super-rich of our country. The rightists in the government today behave much like George Carlin pointed out about the conservatives in the United States. He had said – “Conservatives say if you don’t give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. Then they say as for the poor, they’ve lost all incentive because we’ve given them too much money.”

FDI in defence and insurance sectors: Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has been Mr. Jaitley’s favourite catch phrase in his budget speech. Opening up of the strategically important defence sector to FDI could prove to be quite fatal in the long run. In the insurance sector also the government has decided to increase FDI investment limit to 49% from 26%. It is another matter that without management control available to them with 49% share, how many foreign companies would really look at investing huge amount of money in these sectors.

It is also a known fact that most of the money stashed away in foreign banks as unaccounted black money comes back to our country in the form of FDI. So by increasing the FDI cap to 49%, Modi Sarkar is effectively helping the money hoarders.

200 crore for a statue, 100 crore for women’s safety: In a classic example of a government’s misplaced priorities Arun Jaitley has allocated 200 crores for the statue of Sardar Patel in Gujarat, one of Modi’s pet projects, while allocating only 100 crores for women’s safety. BJP and its ideological backbone the Sangh Parivar have always been at the forefront in exhibiting their pseudo-nationalism with such absurd acts. Had the Iron Man of India, Sardar Patel, been alive now, he would have slapped the men who created such a proposal in a national budget when the nation is facing one of the worst fiscal crises in its history.

No significant increase in income tax exemption limit: BJP has turned out to be the biggest U-turn party in the history of our nation. During the election campaign BJP promised that they will increase the tax exemption limit to 5 lakhs per annum. Even the present day Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had asked the then government to increase the limit to 5 lakhs. However when he presented the budget he increased the exemption limit to just 2.5 lakhs. By extending the exemption limit to 5 lakhs the government would have put more money in the pockets of the common man, thereby increasing the domestic consumption, which would have had a positive impact on the economy. 

Nothing for primary education: One of the glaring omissions of the budget speech has been primary education. When there has been allocation for five new IITs and five new IIMs, there has been nothing for primary education or improving the quality of education in the country. When you increase the number of higher education institutions, you also need to worry about maintaining, if not improving, the quality of faculty in those august institutions of our country. However the budget is quite mum on that factor as well. 

No proposal on bringing back black money: Narendra Modi had been quite vocal about bringing back black money stashed away by Indians in foreign banks. However when the budget was delivered there was no concrete proposal in it about how to bring back that black money to India.

No concrete proposal for containing inflation: Together with worsening fiscal deficit and slumping growth, higher inflation has been much talked about economic factor during the election campaign. The BJP government that got an enormous mandate to find solution for the grave problems that Indians face, has done nothing up to now to control the price rise. There has been no concrete proposal in the budget to control inflation. The many decisions that the government has taken till now has only resulted in an increase of inflation; may it be the increase in freight charges in the railways, or increasing the import price of sugar or the increase in fuel prices.

Many schemes named after Sangh Parivar ideologists: Saffronisation of the government activity seems to be on top of the agenda for the ruling BJP, if the names of some of the new schemes offer any clue. Many new schemes have been unveiled that have the names of RSS and BJP idols like Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, and Madan Mohan Malviya. 

Whenever someone criticises the present government, the supporters of the government immediately come up with an argument that 60 days is not enough time to judge a government. It is certainly true that 60 days is not enough time to judge a government on its performance, but it is certainly enough time to judge a government on its intentions. And if those intentions of the government are anything to go by then it is certainly not going to be good times for the common man, the aam aadmi, but is certainly good times for the corporates and for the foreign investors, the khaas aadmi. The “ache din’ that Narendra Modi promised seems to be too far away.

Image Courtesy: The Hindu

Smriti Irani as HRD Minister, Why Not

At a time when criticising the majority central government of Narendra Modi could be seen as an act of grave stupidity, it requires great moral courage and strength of conviction, not to mention the guts to bear ridicule, to attempt anything of that kind. However it is quite heartening that in a speech in the Lok Sabha the Prime Minister spoke about how he is open to all forms of criticisms and how criticism is the best form of guidance.

In a strange mutation, many of the earlier criticisers of our PM have suddenly turned approvers. When the triumphalism of his perpetual supporters is easy to fathom, what is difficult to understand is how many of his former detractors have suddenly jumped over the fence and became approvers. In this post-poll change of mindset, many Indians have comfortably abandoned many of the principles they had closely held in the past. This mindset change is most evident in the way in which Smriti Irani was easily accepted as the HRD Minister (read Education Minister) of our country. 

When it is most true that Indian constitution doesn’t prevent anyone from becoming the Education Minister on the basis of his or her education qualification; when it is most true that it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to chose his council of ministers, it is extremely strange that even those who were pretty vocal in their calls to bring in only educated people as our elected representatives have suddenly become mum and have accepted a 12th standard pass as the Education Minister of our great country. We will talk about the false affidavits the minister had submitted to the election commission in the latter part of this essay, but will start with first things first.

Whenever someone makes an issue about this “12th standard pass” factor, he or she is immediately ridiculed as an elitist. Before jumping on to such a conclusion about this writer, his readers would do good to consider his arguments too. If Ms. Irani was an underprivileged person who had no recourse for continued education, it would have been a matter of real pity. However her family history doesn’t provide any clue that she was forced to discontinue her education after her 12th standard because of lack of financial provisions in her family. Even if she had - for an argument let’s assume it was so - she has been in the political field for more than a decade and in these years she had more than enough opportunities to pursue her education, but she chose not to. Being from a party whose manifesto speaks profusely about the importance of higher education, it was incumbent upon Ms. Irani to pursue her higher education. It is a matter of great shame that we as a country have an HRD Minister who personally doesn’t think it important to pursue higher education. How can we expect such a minister to take steps to make sure that higher education in the country is of the highest quality and most of those who aim for higher education get opportunities to pursue it?

Like many other commentators, this writer also doesn’t believe a person with a good educational background can invariably be a good administrator. The converse view that a person without a good educational background may well be an able administrator is also inarguably true. However to put the onus of a ministry as important as HRD ministry to a naive, untested newcomer as Ms. Irani is not a decision that would be called prudent by any stretch of imagination. Though she has been in charge of BJP’s Mahila Morcha for many years, she doesn’t have the administrative experience of governing even a panchayat. Otherwise she should have been someone whom the people of a constituency have elected with overwhelming majority; but she is neither that. Neither is she known for her erudition on matters of great national importance nor has she ever spoken about or written on her path breaking ideas on improving education in India. If she was either an experienced administrator or an educationist of repute or an extremely popular leader with an enormous mandate, one could have overlooked her poor educational qualifications. But if it is only the ‘hope’ that one ‘might’ come out as an able minister the basis on which we elect or nominate a person for a post as important as this, then it must be understood that we are setting an intrinsically wrong precedent. Therefore it is very important to question the rationale on which the decision has been made by the PM. As Narendra Modi is the Prime Minister of India, our PM now, it is important for us to trust his judgment, but to question that judgment on the basis of sound facts as explained above is neither injudicious nor stupid, contrary to the belief of many blind supporters of the man, who have unquestioningly bought the dreams he sold during his election campaign. 

A cursory glance at the list of Education Ministers India has had will make it clear that it was always learned men and women who have been at the helm. The argument that those learned people haven’t brought any considerable improvement to the educational scenario of the country is a churlish one only morons will make. From a country of grave illiteracy in the pre-independence era, India has undergone great and salutary changes in primary education. Our higher education institutions like the IITs and the IIMs are world class and they give the Harvards and the Cambridges a run for their money. At a time when education and human resources development are the fields on which global competition is played on, what kind of signal do we send to the world with an under-educated minister in the HRD ministry, who chose to ignore the personal need for continuing education to the higher levels?

Social media is abuzz with a video of Ms. Irani speaking extempore on a stage. Many of those who support her ascendancy to the ministership can also be seen boasting, via captions to the video, if there are any Congress leaders who can match her oratory skills (commenting on the ability of any Congress leader to match the skills would be childish when that party has world famous orators like Shashi Tharoor in its ranks). When there is no doubt that Ms. Irani is a lady of immense oratorical talent, it by no means advances her eligibility of becoming a minister of HRD. Angelina Jolie, an apt comparison with Ms. Irani because of their identical career backgrounds, speaks equally well on global stages. But a US president can never be expected to consider that as criteria to make her the Secretary of Education in the administration. Ronald Reagan, another actor who later became the President of the United States, had to show his mettle in many other administrative fields, including the Governor of California, before putting forth his candidacy to the top job. 

It is also quite bemusing to see those who were extremely vocal (and rightly so) about the lack of integrity of the UPA ministers have suddenly gone into their cocoons of silence when it comes to the questions on integrity of the ministers of Modi Sarkar. The discrepancy in the affidavits filed by Smriti Irani in 2004 and 2014 about her educational qualifications cannot be rejected as a mere oversight or inadvertent human error (if she is unsure about even her educational qualifications, then it is all the more reason to not accept her as our HRD Minister). Ms. Irani had promised that she will come clean about the issue, but hasn’t spoken anything about it till this day. Neither the media nor those commentators who were lucid about the importance of integrity for a national government appear to have any problem with it. May be all of them have also crossed over and joined the other side where real power vests now.