Elections 2009 are being fought on two fronts. One, on the ground through campaigns, rallies and speeches. The other, inside television studios. This election is the first one to be fought under the intense glare of television cameras. And that’s why some people are calling this a made for TV election.
Look at every single issue that has dominated this campaign. Varun Gandhi’s hate speech, the shoegate scandal involving journalist Jarnail Singh, the tu-tu main-main between Advani and Manmohan Singh, Karunanidhi’s breakfast to lunch fast… every single issue has been shaped by TV. It’s almost as if elections 2009 are the biggest reality show of this season.
And there’s a very simple reason for this. The airwaves are crowded like never before. In the last elections in 2004, there were less than 50 news channels in the country. Today that figure has tripled. There are almost 150 news channels, English, Hindi and vernacular put together. That’s 300 million news watching viewers. That’s 300 million votes at stake.
So much so, today some Hindi channels, like Aaj Tak, our sister channel for example, has TRPs that can match General Entertainment channels like Star Plus and Sony. This was unthinkable some years ago. And this has happened bang in the middle of the IPL season. I think the entire TV news industry can take a collective bow for that.
For the urban audiences, TV has replaced the election rally. TV is where election issues are being debated, dissected and given shape. TV has become the single biggest source of first-hand information and opinion for urban India. And politicians being smart people have latched onto it. Today you’ll find a Congress spokesperson and a BJP spokesperson in every single debate show on TV, every single night. Even parties that have an aversion to TV have gotten smart. The Comrades of the Left who always thought TV to be ‘bourgeoisie’ have got well-spoken, made for TV leaders like Sitaram Yechury and Brinda Karat. Even the BSP which brandished TV news media as ‘manuwadi’ has found an articulate spokesperson in Shahid Siddiqui.
But does that mean elections are won and lost on the idiot box? Not at all. If that were the case Arun Jaitley should’ve been Prime Minister of the country by now. TV in India hasn’t reached a stage where a debate can cost Nixon his presidency. But we’re getting there. And fast.
There are some viewers who complain that news TV has been reduced to a bunch of talking heads. The same old faces, the same boring issues. I agree with that partially. It’s not as if Indian elections don’t offer interesting stories. Muslims of an entire village in Etah boycotted Mulayam Singh because he joined hands with Kalyan Singh. But that story never made it to the nine o clock news. Dalits in a village in Solapur decided en masse not to vote for Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde because their village hadn’t seen electricity in five years. Again that didn’t feature in any prime time bulletin. TV is guided by what sells and what doesn’t. What gets more eyeballs and as a consequence, TRPs. But then again, that’s the nature of the medium. TV news is less than 20 years old in India. It’s still evolving. Give it some more time. Maybe by Elections 2014, it will get more altruistic. But till then, let’s have more of the Ravi Shankar Prasads and the Abhishek Manu Singhvis.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
DEFENDING THE DEVIL
Two-thirds of India has already voted. Yet, it’s still an open house. But one thing’s clear. None of the three fronts, in their existing form, UPA, NDA and Third Front will be able to form the next government. There’s going to be a fair amount of churning, after the elections. And no secular government can be formed without the Left. Which is why, the possibility of a third front is now far more real than it was at the start of the elections.
Ironically though, the one thing you’ll hear, whether it’s from hard-nosed political reporters or paanwallahs on the street is that a third front government is bad for the country. Jo bhi sarkar aaye, third front ki nahin aaye, that’s a common refrain. It’s almost as if the third front will ruin all the gains made in the last ten years under the NDA and UPA. It’s almost as if the third front is the devil incarnate. If that is the case then here’s my attempt at playing devil’s advocate. Here’s why I think, the third front is not such a bad idea after all.
First, we need to clarify a few historical wrongs. The so-called third front governments in the past have all been either at the mercy of the Congress or the BJP. In effect, they were susceptible to blackmail and pressure. Readers will surely remember the trauma of the 1989 National Front Government and of the 1996 United Front Government. One was toppled by the BJP and the other by the Congress. They fell, not because regional satraps couldn’t do business with each other, but because of the sheer greed and manipulation of the national parties. In the first instance, the BJP realized the potential of the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation and dumped the Third Front. In the second, a wily old Sitaram Kesri used low trickery and political skullduggery to pull the plug. The national parties should share as much blame, if not more, for the failure of Third Front governments as the men and women who comprised it.
The very idea of the Third front is aligned to the genius, diversity, and contradictions that make up this fascinating thing called Indian politics. The third alternative, at least in theory, comprises forces that have historically fought the status quo. Look at all the social justice movements in India. Whether in the North or in the South, the Lalus, Mulayams, NTRs and Karunanidhis have empowered entire communities who were historically treated as backwards. Today a Kurmi in Nitish’s Bihar knows the value of his vote. A Jatav in Mayawati’s UP can make or mar the fortunes of a Brahmin candidate. Power now flows bottom-up and not top-down. And regional parties have played a substantial role in that by empowering backward castes. In that sense, they have made our politics more federal.
The other myth that’s being propogated is that the Third Front is anti-development. Let me give you a couple of examples to show why that’s just a lot of bunkum. The surface transport ministry has been with the DMK for the last ten years or so. As a result, Tamil Nadu today has the best roads in the country. NHAI reports and other independent studies on roads, vouch for that. It wasn’t the case ten years ago. Same’s the case with Bihar and the Railways. A Bihari has been the Railway Minister for the last decade. Today, Bihar is one of the best connected states in India by rail. In the last five years alone, Bihar has had 52000 crores worth of rail projects and 52 new trains.
There are some people, especially those in Dalal Street who say India’s economy will be in the doldrums if the Left were to be part of any future dispensation. They will ruin the fruits of liberalization that this country’s middle-class has come to love over the last decade and a half. Well, I am all for free markets. But the numbers that make up the India story tell a different tale. Less than 2 percent of India has investments in the stock markets. More than 30 percent can’t invest in two square meals. That's the fascinating story of the two Indias. May the more important one win on the 16th of May.
Ironically though, the one thing you’ll hear, whether it’s from hard-nosed political reporters or paanwallahs on the street is that a third front government is bad for the country. Jo bhi sarkar aaye, third front ki nahin aaye, that’s a common refrain. It’s almost as if the third front will ruin all the gains made in the last ten years under the NDA and UPA. It’s almost as if the third front is the devil incarnate. If that is the case then here’s my attempt at playing devil’s advocate. Here’s why I think, the third front is not such a bad idea after all.
First, we need to clarify a few historical wrongs. The so-called third front governments in the past have all been either at the mercy of the Congress or the BJP. In effect, they were susceptible to blackmail and pressure. Readers will surely remember the trauma of the 1989 National Front Government and of the 1996 United Front Government. One was toppled by the BJP and the other by the Congress. They fell, not because regional satraps couldn’t do business with each other, but because of the sheer greed and manipulation of the national parties. In the first instance, the BJP realized the potential of the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation and dumped the Third Front. In the second, a wily old Sitaram Kesri used low trickery and political skullduggery to pull the plug. The national parties should share as much blame, if not more, for the failure of Third Front governments as the men and women who comprised it.
The very idea of the Third front is aligned to the genius, diversity, and contradictions that make up this fascinating thing called Indian politics. The third alternative, at least in theory, comprises forces that have historically fought the status quo. Look at all the social justice movements in India. Whether in the North or in the South, the Lalus, Mulayams, NTRs and Karunanidhis have empowered entire communities who were historically treated as backwards. Today a Kurmi in Nitish’s Bihar knows the value of his vote. A Jatav in Mayawati’s UP can make or mar the fortunes of a Brahmin candidate. Power now flows bottom-up and not top-down. And regional parties have played a substantial role in that by empowering backward castes. In that sense, they have made our politics more federal.
The other myth that’s being propogated is that the Third Front is anti-development. Let me give you a couple of examples to show why that’s just a lot of bunkum. The surface transport ministry has been with the DMK for the last ten years or so. As a result, Tamil Nadu today has the best roads in the country. NHAI reports and other independent studies on roads, vouch for that. It wasn’t the case ten years ago. Same’s the case with Bihar and the Railways. A Bihari has been the Railway Minister for the last decade. Today, Bihar is one of the best connected states in India by rail. In the last five years alone, Bihar has had 52000 crores worth of rail projects and 52 new trains.
There are some people, especially those in Dalal Street who say India’s economy will be in the doldrums if the Left were to be part of any future dispensation. They will ruin the fruits of liberalization that this country’s middle-class has come to love over the last decade and a half. Well, I am all for free markets. But the numbers that make up the India story tell a different tale. Less than 2 percent of India has investments in the stock markets. More than 30 percent can’t invest in two square meals. That's the fascinating story of the two Indias. May the more important one win on the 16th of May.
Friday, April 24, 2009
LANKA WITHOUT LTTE
So after 25 years of blood, gore and destruction, the war in Sri Lanka is drawing to a close. Many Sri Lankans are likely to breathe a sigh of relief on the prolonged bloodshed coming to an end. The war, for the past two and half decades, has brought immense suffering and misery to all the people of all Sri Lanka, whether they are Sinhalese, Tamil or Muslim. Every single family in this small island has been affected by the war, in one way or another. Soldiers, civilians, doctors, journalists.. they’ve all died in this war. Falling victim either to artillery shells or to suicide attacks or sometimes to state-sponsored extra-judicial killings.
But does the end of the war mean, end of all problems? Let’s get this straight. Prabhakaran is not the fundamental problem. He’s only a symptom of the problem. Some would say the most vocal, potent manifestation of the problem. The fundamental problem is the legitimate aspiration of the Tamil people to a life of dignity, equality and autonomy. That fundamental problem doesn’t end, with or without Prabhakaran. You cannot have a Sri Lanka where 3.5 million Tamils feel they’re treated like second class citizens. They have every right to demand a Sri Lanka where they are given the same rights, opportunities and freedom as the Sinhala majority. And if by consensus, regional autonomy is the only way of doing that, then so be it. How far the Sri Lankan state can convert military success into lasting and durable peace will depend on how fast Mr. Rajapakse can come up with a devolution package for the Tamils.
Usually, one-sided military victories in ethnic conflicts are not followed by major political reforms. It hasn’t happened in Bosnia. It hasn’t happened in Darfur. Sri Lanka cannot afford that to happen. In the long run, the Sinhalese political establishment might learn that regional self-rule under unarmed, non-secessionist and integrationist Tamil political parties might not be such a bad idea after all. Anything would be better than 25 years of bloody battle with 70,000 lives lost.
Here’s where the problem is. Mr. Rajapakse is dependent on hard line Sinhalese nationalist parties and groups. They have a disproportionate influence on the policy agenda of his administration. According to hardline Sinhala parties like the JVP and JHU, Sri Lanka does not have an “ethnic problem”. What exists is a “terrorist problem”. For them, this terrorist problem is spearheaded by the “fascist” LTTE. And a military victory is adequate to resolve that problem.
And what’s aiding them is that 9/11 has completely obfuscated the difference between terrorism and armed rebellious insurgency. In George Bush’s world view everyone’s a terrorist, whether it’s a Mullah Omar, an Osama bin Laden, an Isak Muivah or a Velupillai Prabhakaran. America’s ubiquitous War on Terror has destroyed all nuances and subtleties. The LTTE has not been fighting this war based on some distorted interpretation of any religion. They’ve been fighting for the legitimate political aspirations of the Tamil people. You may disagree with the method, but you cannot ignore the message. Branding the LTTE’s insurgency as terrorism and crushing it is fine. But it should not obviate the fact that the secessionist rebellion, despite its defeat, represented the voice of almost a fifth of Sri Lanka.
For the Tamil people, Prabhakaran’s legacy will hang around their necks like an albatross. The Tamils, as a community will be compelled to accept that defeat was the only major outcome of these 25 years of armed struggle and suffering. That’s how history will remember this war. As a non-resident Tamil, it makes me cringe.
But does the end of the war mean, end of all problems? Let’s get this straight. Prabhakaran is not the fundamental problem. He’s only a symptom of the problem. Some would say the most vocal, potent manifestation of the problem. The fundamental problem is the legitimate aspiration of the Tamil people to a life of dignity, equality and autonomy. That fundamental problem doesn’t end, with or without Prabhakaran. You cannot have a Sri Lanka where 3.5 million Tamils feel they’re treated like second class citizens. They have every right to demand a Sri Lanka where they are given the same rights, opportunities and freedom as the Sinhala majority. And if by consensus, regional autonomy is the only way of doing that, then so be it. How far the Sri Lankan state can convert military success into lasting and durable peace will depend on how fast Mr. Rajapakse can come up with a devolution package for the Tamils.
Usually, one-sided military victories in ethnic conflicts are not followed by major political reforms. It hasn’t happened in Bosnia. It hasn’t happened in Darfur. Sri Lanka cannot afford that to happen. In the long run, the Sinhalese political establishment might learn that regional self-rule under unarmed, non-secessionist and integrationist Tamil political parties might not be such a bad idea after all. Anything would be better than 25 years of bloody battle with 70,000 lives lost.
Here’s where the problem is. Mr. Rajapakse is dependent on hard line Sinhalese nationalist parties and groups. They have a disproportionate influence on the policy agenda of his administration. According to hardline Sinhala parties like the JVP and JHU, Sri Lanka does not have an “ethnic problem”. What exists is a “terrorist problem”. For them, this terrorist problem is spearheaded by the “fascist” LTTE. And a military victory is adequate to resolve that problem.
And what’s aiding them is that 9/11 has completely obfuscated the difference between terrorism and armed rebellious insurgency. In George Bush’s world view everyone’s a terrorist, whether it’s a Mullah Omar, an Osama bin Laden, an Isak Muivah or a Velupillai Prabhakaran. America’s ubiquitous War on Terror has destroyed all nuances and subtleties. The LTTE has not been fighting this war based on some distorted interpretation of any religion. They’ve been fighting for the legitimate political aspirations of the Tamil people. You may disagree with the method, but you cannot ignore the message. Branding the LTTE’s insurgency as terrorism and crushing it is fine. But it should not obviate the fact that the secessionist rebellion, despite its defeat, represented the voice of almost a fifth of Sri Lanka.
For the Tamil people, Prabhakaran’s legacy will hang around their necks like an albatross. The Tamils, as a community will be compelled to accept that defeat was the only major outcome of these 25 years of armed struggle and suffering. That’s how history will remember this war. As a non-resident Tamil, it makes me cringe.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
PROF VIJAYAN AND THE DIGNITY OF DEATH
Sometimes, television journalism sucks. It's filled with inequalities, disasters, corruption, malice and viciousness that men are capable of. But there's one cardinal rule that no journo breaks. And that has to do with death. Everyone, absolutely everyone, has the right to a dignified death. And that's exactly why Professor MN Vijayan's death and the coverage of it was such a sham. It was treated like a television spectacle by the national media. With headlines like "Camera par maut" and "Aakhri saas, camere par", the Hindi channels threw out of the window any semblance of decency that has to be given to a dying man. Leave alone a renowned intellectual like Vijayan Maash.
This is what happened with me. And I am still cringing in shame. I was called by a producer from my sister channel with the seemingly innocuous question. "Zakka, do you speak Malayali." I had half a mind to tell him, “uh..it’s not Malayali, it’s Malayalam mate.” But you can’t do much about other people’s ignorance, can you? But this was just the beginning of the dark hole of incapacity that I was being led into. I reached the PCR from where the show was being directed. It had the top editorial brass of the channel giving directions to the anchor. Not a soul, not one, knew who this man was or why his death would leave such a void. From my limited knowledge of the man, I had to tell them that this guy deserved more respect than what he was being subjected to.
Later a friend called up from Kerala and said the Malayalam channels didn’t fare too better either. They too treated it more like a tamasha, for a large part of the afternoon. It was only after viewers started calling in and started heaving abuses that better sense prevailed.
The man maybe gone, but the relevance of the issues he raised still lives on. In fact it lies at the heart of the ideological divide within the CPM. Professor Vijayan cried hoarse at the foreign money that was being bombarded into God’s Own Country in the name of development. With his death, the voice of dissent within the Left has become feebler. And less reasonable.
Prof Vijayan was a hounded man in his last days. He had a slew of defamation cases filed against him after he was thrown out as Editor of Deshabhimani, the CPM’s mouthpiece. But there was a façade of justice, as the Kerala High Court had acquitted him in one such case, just a week before his death. He was addressing his first press conference after the acquittal, when death came calling. A quote of George Bernard Shaw became his famous last words. Fitting, for a man who started his career as a literary critic. Rest in Peace Vijayan Maashe.
This is what happened with me. And I am still cringing in shame. I was called by a producer from my sister channel with the seemingly innocuous question. "Zakka, do you speak Malayali." I had half a mind to tell him, “uh..it’s not Malayali, it’s Malayalam mate.” But you can’t do much about other people’s ignorance, can you? But this was just the beginning of the dark hole of incapacity that I was being led into. I reached the PCR from where the show was being directed. It had the top editorial brass of the channel giving directions to the anchor. Not a soul, not one, knew who this man was or why his death would leave such a void. From my limited knowledge of the man, I had to tell them that this guy deserved more respect than what he was being subjected to.
Later a friend called up from Kerala and said the Malayalam channels didn’t fare too better either. They too treated it more like a tamasha, for a large part of the afternoon. It was only after viewers started calling in and started heaving abuses that better sense prevailed.
The man maybe gone, but the relevance of the issues he raised still lives on. In fact it lies at the heart of the ideological divide within the CPM. Professor Vijayan cried hoarse at the foreign money that was being bombarded into God’s Own Country in the name of development. With his death, the voice of dissent within the Left has become feebler. And less reasonable.
Prof Vijayan was a hounded man in his last days. He had a slew of defamation cases filed against him after he was thrown out as Editor of Deshabhimani, the CPM’s mouthpiece. But there was a façade of justice, as the Kerala High Court had acquitted him in one such case, just a week before his death. He was addressing his first press conference after the acquittal, when death came calling. A quote of George Bernard Shaw became his famous last words. Fitting, for a man who started his career as a literary critic. Rest in Peace Vijayan Maashe.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
THE THREE-HOUR DYNAMITE
Now that the Twenty20 world cup has been pocketed, the victory rallies ended and the champagne stopped flowing, it’s time to sit down and think. Think about what this shortest format of the game is all about and what it holds for the future. It’s also time to destroy some long held myths about this three-hour cricketing dynamite.
Myth # 1 – This is a batsman’s game. If there’s one thing this T20 world cup has exposed, it’s this. This is as much a bowler’s game as it is a batter’s. India won its last three matches, the ones against South Africa, Australia and Pakistan, not because they posted ungettable targets, but because they took wickets at regular intervals. And unlike in the fifty over game, in a Twenty20, every time a wicket falls, the pressure on the incoming batsman increases manifold. And this is at all stages of the game. In the final, if Pakistan were say, six down, as opposed to nine down, they would have won the match, hands tied and eyes closed.
Take the entire tournament, for instance. There were a total of 348 wickets taken in 27 matches. That’s an average of one wicket, every 19 deliveries, which is damn good. The better ones picked up a wicket, once every twelve deliveries. Also, on ten occasions bowlers returned with four-fors. That’s a fair indication that T20 is not a batsman’s game after all.
Myth # 2 – This game is for the big-hitters and the sloggers. Two of the top three run getters in this tournament, Gautam Gambhir and Misbah-ul-Haq, are not the biggest hitters of the cricket ball, by any reckoning. The highest run-getter was Mathew Hayden, who before the World Cup didn’t play a single Twenty20 game. And Matt too is more a clean striker and less a slogger.
Myth # 3 – This game is only about fours and sixes. In the final against Pakistan, out of a 157 that India made, only 76 runs were made in fours and sixes. Take away five extras, and you’ll see that more runs were made by running between the wickets, than by crashing the ball into the billboards. Take even the highest scoring game of the tournament, India versus England. 418 runs were scored in that game. A total of 184 runs were scored in ones, twos and threes. That’s about 45 percent of the total runs, which is ample indication that this game is as much about the grafters, as it is about the butchers.
Myth # 4 – This game is for youngsters. Youth rules. The sight of a victorious young Indian team may re-instate the fact that this is a game for the Gen X-ers, but there are some sporadic old fogies who shone through. Sanath Jayasuriya at one point in the tournament was the highest run getter. He’s 38. The man who eventually became the highest run getter, Mathew Hayden will be 36 in a month’s time. The man who got Pakistan, so near yet so far, Misbah-ul-Haq, is 33. The second highest wicket taker in the tournament is Stuart Clark, who’s just turned 32. Like Mark Twain said “age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter.” And cricket my friend, is as much brain as it’s brawn. So here’s to the new baby in the cricketing fraternity. May you live a thousand lives and die a thousand deaths.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
BATTLE OF THE MYTHS
The old fox is at it once again. You may or may not agree with Karunanidhi's world view of things, but you cannot grudge the man for an innate sense of time and place. No one in my experience of covering politicians and their ilk, plays to the galleries as often and as well as this man. So for most people, on this side of the Vindhyas, Kalaignar's statement attributing Ram to a drunkard and questioning his engineering capabilities, could amount to heresy. But for me, it's just a reflection of the man and his politics.
This is not the first time that Ram has been used as a punching bag. For proponents of the Dravidian movement, like Karunanidhi, Ram was a symbol of Aryan dominance over the native Dravidian. In fact in the forties and fifties, there was a very popular drama doing the rounds of towns in Tamil Nadu called Keemayana. It was an interpretation of the sacred epic that turned everything in it, on its head. So Ram became a drunkard, Sita became a wanton woman and Ravana was celebrated as a Dravidian Hero. It was thrashed by the Brahmins and lapped up by the lower castes.
But this interpretation by EV Ramaswamy was not iconoclastic. There were numerous interpretations of the Ramayana, which celebrated Ravana as a hero. The most notable among them is by a Tamil Rennaisance saint named Ramalingaswami who denounced Valmiki's interpretation of Rama as the do-gooder and Ravana as all evil. There are even Jain interpretations of the Ramayana in their Prati Puranas, which question the central premise of the epic. EVR's Keemayana though, ended up being the most popular.
A politician's audience defines his politics. Karunanidhi's audience will lap up every bit of the Ram-trashing that he's indulging in. Not that the average Tamilian is not religious. In fact, Tamil society is one of the most visibly religious parts of India. You'll find more men sporting the vibudhi and more women donning the kungumam in Chennai or Coimbatore than in any other city in India. But the Tamilian's idea of Hinduism is different from the mainstream Hinduism, defined by the BJP. For him, Ram is not a deified incarnation of Vishnu. Instead, he's a twice born Kshatriya who was an upholder of Brahminical caste norms in society. Someone who killed Sambuk the Sudra, because he did penance. This makes him a figure of resent for the average non-Brahmin Tamilian who's idea of Hinduism is built on a strong dose of anti-Brahminism. Moreover, Dravidian politics has always thrived on a mid-level-lower caste identity rather than a monolithic Hindu identity. Therefore it's only natural that a Tamilian is suspicious of the BJP's idea of a homogenous Hindu ethos.
Moreover, the Sethusamudram iself is seen as a symbol of Tamil pride. Forget, the developmental aspects of the project. The Tamils believe that their Golden Period, which is known as the Sangam period, was under a unified landmass that comprised of the Deccan plateau, Ceylon, Madagascar, Australia and Antartica. And this piece of land is described as Kumari Kandam. Two massive floods are believed to have sunk the Kumari Kandam. The two Sangams, Mudhal Sangam and Idai Sangam are believed to have been written in between these two floods. For the Dravidians, Kumari Kandam or the cradle of civilization is the origin of human languages in general, and Tamil, in particular. For the Dravidianists, the construction of the Sethusamudram Canal comes closest to a modern realisation of the myth of Kumari Kandam. Thus, it’s this politics of nostalgia and the loss of a golden past that Karunanidhi is trying to stoke. Ironically, it’s one myth versus another. The BJP is attacking Karunanidhi for debunking their myth of the Ramar Sethu, even as he propagates his own myth of Kumari Kandam. As always, the old fox has the last kill.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
CAPTAIN COURAGEOUS
There are a few myths regarding the resignation of Rahul Dravid that need to be cleared. If anyone (most notably, sports journalists) comes up to you and says, I saw it coming; then you know he’s fibbing. Fibbing through his teeth because no one saw this coming. Not even the selectors. Not even the mandarins of the BCCI. Not even Rahul’s own agent Lokesh Sharma. Such is the man that Rahul Dravid is. Intensely private. A thorough gentleman.
Just a day before the resignation, the BCCI had this star studded affair announcing the launch of it’s new Twenty 20 league. And there were about 200 odd journalists who descended upon that PC. Not a soul there, knew this was coming. Isn’t this ample proof that Rahul Dravid was not interested in the media. If the man wanted to, he could have gone to press first and then informed his bosses in the BCCI. And take my word for it, a lot many Indian captains have done that in the past. The Board was almost invariably, the last one to know. Typical of the man, Rahul makes his decision known to the Board President and goes off on a holiday to the jungles. Thank God for places where cell phones are still unreachable!
The other myth that needs to be busted is this. That he resigned because of differences within the members of his team. Now proponents of this theory will cite the examples of Sourav Ganguly and Zaheer Khan in England speaking in direct contrast to their captain. Why don’t we get this straight? The Indian cricket team is like a private company with eleven employees. You don’t have to love everyone in office nor do you have to agree with each of them. But, all eleven work towards the profit of the organisation. At the end of the day, it’s just a job. Zaheer and Sourav were stating their personal choices. That, in no way makes it, ‘irreconcilable differences’ within the team.
Just a day before the resignation, the BCCI had this star studded affair announcing the launch of it’s new Twenty 20 league. And there were about 200 odd journalists who descended upon that PC. Not a soul there, knew this was coming. Isn’t this ample proof that Rahul Dravid was not interested in the media. If the man wanted to, he could have gone to press first and then informed his bosses in the BCCI. And take my word for it, a lot many Indian captains have done that in the past. The Board was almost invariably, the last one to know. Typical of the man, Rahul makes his decision known to the Board President and goes off on a holiday to the jungles. Thank God for places where cell phones are still unreachable!
The other myth that needs to be busted is this. That he resigned because of differences within the members of his team. Now proponents of this theory will cite the examples of Sourav Ganguly and Zaheer Khan in England speaking in direct contrast to their captain. Why don’t we get this straight? The Indian cricket team is like a private company with eleven employees. You don’t have to love everyone in office nor do you have to agree with each of them. But, all eleven work towards the profit of the organisation. At the end of the day, it’s just a job. Zaheer and Sourav were stating their personal choices. That, in no way makes it, ‘irreconcilable differences’ within the team.
So why did Rahul resign? Well I’m not an expert on this, nor am I close confidant of his. But being a self-confessed fan of Rahul’s, I think it has something to do with the word ‘Legacy’. Those who know Rahul, know that he’s a stickler for history. Twenty years from now, will we remember Rahul Dravid, the batsman or Rahul Dravid, the captain? Chances are, we’ll remember him as a great batsman. And I’m sure Rahul would not want anything to tarnish that reputation. It is true that his batting had been affected because of his captaincy. From the early sixties it had come down to the mid forties in tests. But that’s happened even to the greatest of the greats. Sir Viv, Steve Waugh and Sachin Tendulkar. For all his Bradmanesque achievements, Dravid too is human after all.
There’s an old saying in Malayalam. "Swaram nanaayi irikumbam pattu niruthenam." Meaning, you have to stop singing when your voice is at its peak. Rahul Dravid is one of the few Indian captains who’s resigned after a high, leading the Indian team to a series victory in England after 2 decades. Most of them are sacked ignominiously. Which leaves us with the one positive development to come out of this whole fiasco. It will give us back, Rahul Dravid the batsman. So here’s to more Kolkatas(180*), Adelaides(233) and Headingleys(148). Welcome back Rahul ‘The Wall’ Dravid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)