Thoughts on India's 66th Republic Day

I watched the 66^th Indian Republic Day parade. Live. On good ol’ DD via internet. We haven’t done this in all these years and somehow decided to watch it yesterday as a family activity. More for Modi than for the Obamas. And more for our kid than for ourselves. (We’re awesome parents.) I tried to explain what DD was in response to my son’s query. How doordarshan was our one (and only) window for everything that was happening around the country and beyond. Sports, drama, news, agriculture, cartoons and national integration. If regional kendras delinking for national programming at the stroke of 9:00pm doesn’t promote unity across the land, I don’t know what will.

In the spirit of full disclosure, Republic and Independence days have meant very little to me besides the holiday as a student and a young adult in India. A cool day off with nothing expected of me. More joy if they fell either on a Monday or a Friday. But this time it felt different. Is it age? The distance/separation? Nostalgia? Or explaining things to my kid who would be further removed from the significance of these ceremonies as he grows older?

There was a lump in my throat when the two-minute silence was observed. The helmet hung over the gun against the burning fire. The significance of the lives lost in remote outposts so that I may, without fear, freely continue to lead my life of indifference, cocooned in the safety so taken for granted. It struck me this time. So many faces without a name. And so many names without a face. Coffins draped in the national colors. And the futility of it all. When the wife of Major Mukund Varadarajan collected the Ashoka Chakra from President Pranab M, it made me uneasy. I could hardly follow the valor of Mukund that was being described in Hindi. But I know there was a man – a son, a husband, a father, a brother - that had performed acts of extreme bravery in the face of danger to his life. His wife picking up a medal for his valor under grey skies on a cold morning with a light drizzle made me positively uneasy. I’m sure she would have happily traded the medal for her husband to be back with her. With the kind of neighbors around us, there will be no dearth for such acts of valor (and unnecessary fatalities) year after year. Borders like the ones in Europe shall remain a pipe dream in Asia.

After having watched the 2+ hour program, I would propose to do away with the whole Republic Day parade such as it is. It has its moments but on the whole, it seems a massive waste of people’s time and efforts. Recognizing military valor and awarding bravery, are required, I understand. But the whole show - parade, rumbling tanks, garish floats – just seems long, meandering and more symbolic and less meaningful.  And there is a strong colonial flavor over much of the proceedings: slow moving motorcades, grand uniforms and soldiers on horses – a hat doff to the erstwhile Raj. What do we want to convey? And to who? I get the feeling that we may still be trying to prove something to our erstwhile rulers and our neighbors. And my point being, we don’t have to.

Instilling a sense of national pride in the average citizen is a noble idea. If not for anything else, at least to stop thirty-somethings from making blog posts like this one. But I’m sure we can find better ways to utilize the money, resources and time that should go into making this event happen year after year. Personal wish: that Modi is the last Indian Prime Minister that prefers the close coat over a suit.

-----------------------------

Rest in peace R K Laxman. On his passing away, I have read a few articles throwing light on the artist behind the iconic common man. A true legend.

The right to die

Anaayesaena maraNam

Vinaa dhainyaena jeevanam
daehi mae kripayaa shambho
tyavi bhaktim achanchalam

A pain free death
A life devoid of misery
Grant me out of compassion, Lord Shambho (Shiva)
Unwavering devotion to you

-----------------------------

California lawmakers are planning to introduce a bill to legalize the right to end one's life. The idea of mercy killing – the right (and means) for someone to choose to end their life in the face of terminal illness – can be a polarizing one, whipping up fervor on both sides of the debate. Personally, I was earlier firmly rooted with those arguing against mercy killing. How can someone have the right to end their own life? The finality of death, to me, seemed to entirely snuff out the “what if” scenario. To a late teen/early twenties guy, the cure for cancer or any incurable condition for that matter seemed more a question of mere time than anything else. You’d open the paper one day to read “Cancer cured!” If you’re not an optimist in your twenties, you don’t have a heart.

And then it happened. My mother was diagnosed with cancer. And after waging a valiant battle against the disease for six years, she succumbed. In that time, I had a ring side seat to witness how this illness can steadily rob someone of everything that defines them as an individual. Their physical strength, the courage to fight the disease (and in this case, the therapy itself) and ultimately their will to live. The last few months of her life were nothing but hell for both her and for us. I was now clearly convinced of the need to be able to end one’s life. Before the prospect of losing the quality of life as it can often happen in such cases.  Advances in medical research may definitely hold many promises but they are just that: promises. And miracles are not a commodity and counting on them may not be a viable strategy. 

The right to end an individual’s life with dignity in the face of terminal illness should be enshrined as part of fundamental human rights. The arguments against this are often tinged with a religious flavor. He who giveth shall taketh. We are just humans, mere mortals. We are not empowered to reject life, given by a superior power. Life is sacred, to be preserved and celebrated. Arguments that I had once subscribed to with conviction. 

I believe there should be a distinction between life and existence. It is not beyond science today to postpone death and keep someone alive. Even if only in a vegetative state. Which raises the logical question: what next? Leaving an individual suspended between life and death till the latter descends “naturally” may be thwarting death in medical terms. But is that really life?  On the same note, people should also distinguish between suicide and the right to die: two very different things. Opposition to the former should not overshadow opposition to the latter. 

To state the blazingly obvious, life is a blessing to be lived, savored and enjoyed. And it is for that very reason the right to die should be legalized. Life is beautiful. Too beautiful and valuable to be allowed to languish devoid of, well, life. 

The argument for the right to die poses its own set of challenges: misuse, impeding development of palliative care (which was grossly inadequate in India when we needed it the most) and mercy killing becoming the default recommendation from doctors. But no idea has ever had a smooth passage through the ages. Better the idea, tougher the acceptance.

Peaceful death. The ancients really knew what to seek from superior powers. 

Je suis confus

Jerry: I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he's converted to Judaism just for the jokes.

Father: And this offends you as a Jewish person.

Jerry: No, it offends me as a comedian. And it'll interest you that he's also telling Catholic jokes.

------------------------------

In the aftermath of the recent Paris attacks, I'm left with more questions than answers.

What is free speech and just what exactly comes under its ambit?

Are there limits to free speech? Is it infinite in its reach?

Are there topics sacrosanct beyond the reach of free speech? Is religion one among them?

Is free speech merely a euphemism for provocation? Where does one end and the other begin?

Is religious criticism/blasphemy a free for all? Or is criticism of a religion limited to its practitioners/preachers only?

Can a recent convert be critical of his new faith from day one? Is there a probationary period?

What are the free speech rights of atheists? Should they have to be equal opportunity offenders?

Are all religions really and equally about love, peace and forgiveness? Or some more than the others?

What if this entire idea of afterlife is a bluff?

India vs. Australia 2014/15 - The summary

Australia must have been unwelcoming to the early settlers. Gritty people who must have overcome tremendous challenges from nature to survive and thrive there. Generally speaking, every visiting team today is a group of settlers who will have to show they are made of a tougher fiber to overcome the challenges of a cricketing talent of a different order, unforgiving weather and a sense of occasion. I’m sure cricketing captains of any stripe will admit that a test win in the Antipodes is special and is savored more than any. As a cricket fan, a test win against Australia will secure bragging rights, better productivity at work and more joy in the family. At least for a few days. 

The final score line of 2-0 hardly conveys how well fought this series was. Or how it should have been 1-0 to India or at least 1-1. Anything but 2-0. But it will be so. As an Indian fan picking through the debris, here are my takes from the series.

Watching cricket in Australia is always a pleasant experience. Big grounds with imposing stands, longer boundaries and all-run-fours, sea gulls in the outfield parting for the scorching cover drive, wooden trimmed scorecards on channel 9, the crisp crunch of the bowler's shoes as the ball is delivered and the sound of ball against wood - bat or the stumps and of course, the brilliance of Sachin and VVS. Call me a romantic, but all these made for exiting watching, sitting in a living room thousands of miles away. The 1992 edition of the World Cup was easily the most pleasant for a TV fan and I look forward to the 2015 edition.

The Indian bowling was an embarrassment. In every single test. I would trade this entire attack in a heartbeat for Z.Khan, J. Srinath, Agarkar and Kumble. Yes, Agarkar. Granted, this series was a run feast and batters made a habit of hitting centuries. All things considered, being outplayed, ironically, by a spinner in the one test that we should really have won, was the low for me. Ashwin is not a match winner. Definitely not with the ball. And Karn Singh who? If our bowling pipeline is really that dry, I’m glad that there aren’t any away tours on the horizon. The sight of Anil Kumble bowling in tandem with Harbhajan Singh is now strictly for serving nostalgic needs via youtube.

The finds: M Vijay and KL Rahul as an opening combination could be a long term plan. It may not provide fiery starts like Warner but I would rather take 60-0 at lunch rather than 100-2 any day. Che Pu, Kohli and Rahane could be a middle order that bats as good as it looks on paper. Throw in Saha as the keeper, our batting order looks solid. And none of them is pushing retirement any time soon. S Dhawan and Raina should not be in any test XI on general principles.

Limits of what is humanly possible is often tested in sport. Imagine playing to save a test that is all but lost on day five. Unless you have previous experience, it is difficult to simulate a bruised and battered body with sagging spirits. Or the ability to extract that extra ounce of strength and concentration to change the course of a match. Skipping the Ranji Trophy grind in the international off-season and opting for two-day games where you “retire hurt” upon reaching a fifty as practice is not going to help. But are practice and preparation alone enough?

Which brings us to my next complaint: temperament. Batting for time is an art honed over extended sessions with patience and intent. Barring Vijay, Kohli and Rahane, I found that missing among their colleagues. I find it difficult to rationalize the shot selection of Saha on the final day of the first test in Adelaide. Or of KL Rahul in the 2^nd innings of the Melbourne test. Attack may be a better form of defence. But Rahul Dravid, who has stonewalled his way past many formidable attacks across the world, would perhaps agree that defending one’s wicket as a skill is being grossly undervalued. Is the T20 game influencing the thinking of the modern cricketer?

Finally aggression. When he finally hangs up his boots, Kohli, could well be regarded as Ganguly 2.0. But at the moment, I don’t like the brand of aggression he is pursuing. Send offs, banter and blowing kisses don’t quite go well when the score line reads 0-2. Ask any fan chewing his nails out at an ungodly hour if you don’t believe me. We’ll take a quiet 100, a dignified five-for and no send offs. I'm not advocating meekness or turning the other cheek here but aggression is more powerful if conveyed through cricketing actions rather than comical behavior. I’m talking about the difference between a comeback ripper from Ambrose and the antics of a certain Sreesanth. The difference between a disdainful pull shot by a gum-chewing Richards and the bat swinging antcis of, bear with me, a Sreesanth. 

India vs. Australia 4th Test at the SCG

The series was settled. The trophy had already been prized out of our hands. India had only pride to play for. Which perhaps explains the large scale changes made to the line up. Dropping Pujara was a baffling decision, given that he was looking increasingly assured with every outing. But you can slice up the batting order any different way but it is merely lipstick on a pig as long as the bowling line up reads Yadav, Shami and Buvi.

Welcome to another episode of the Aussie openers accepting the largesse of the Indian trundlers. An hour into the first morning, Kohli was perhaps thinking of spreading out the field or turning to his part timers. Not an easy thing for any test captain within the first session. Especially if you have an aggressive image to maintain. Watching Warner bat, I realize how it must have been for opposition teams/fans when Sehwag was in full slow. Melbourne 2003? Multan 2004? And mind you, he was facing far more potent attacks than Warner and Rogers have faced in this series. With the average defying Smith helping himself to yet another century, it looked that Australia might only need to bat once.

Thankfully, for once, towards the fag end of the series, the Indian tail showed up. Up in the order, Rahul shook off his debut nerves and compiled a neat century. One could understand when he simply collapsed on Kohli's shoulders after reaching the century. I liked his defence and showed that he may possess the temperament required of a test opener. By the looks of it, India may well have stumbled upon a working opening combination. However, India will miss the services of Sehwag who played without fear, took the fight to the opposition, kept the scoreboard ticking and in the process, provided belief and confidence to the rest of the team. The tail put up over a 100 runs and more importantly spent time in the middle. And on day 5, hung by the nails, dug their heels in and refused to be rolled over.

If the first innings bowling made one grimace, watching the Indian bowlers being taken to the cleaners in Australia's second innings was beyond words. Embarrassing doesn't even begin to describe it. What was the plan? What was the field? And what were they doing? I find it difficult to believe that this is the best talent available. I'm not sure what was happening between overs  - as I was watching the Indian TV feed that believes that an ad should come on when the bowler completes his follow through on the sixth legal delivery - but I could hardly see any discussion or chat going on between the captain and his bowlers or amongst the bowlers themselves. A word of encouragement or a pat on the shoulder was never seen and the bowlers appeared to be merely going through the motions. Although, in all honesty, there is not much that can be coaxed out of a bowling unit that has steadfastly refused to bowl to a set field throughout the series. Or even land balls in a good area consistently.

The prospect of India batting last on a deteriorating Sydney wicket will always evoke memories of 2008. Of close in fielders, high stakes, emotional battles, close calls and at the end of it all, another Indian defeat. With a 300 plus target this time, an Aussie win or a tense draw was on the cards in that order. After the Adelaide chase, there is now enough doubt in the Aussie camp that Smith preferred to ensure safety first rather than a bold declaration in both Melbourne and Sydney. Steve Waugh or Ponting, I'm sure, would have had a go at the Indians for a few overs on day four. Batting for a draw calls for special reserves of concentration, gumption and a better reading of the match. And it was pleasing to see the Indians tackle everything that the Aussies threw at them and ensured that the final scorecard didn't worsen than 2-0.

On the evidence of this series, the current Indian bowling cannot contain set batsmen on flat wickets. This group cannot clean up the tail quickly or cheaply either. The batting riches is really heartening to see and may bode well for the future. But with the profligacy of the bowlers, the big scores are becoming less useful. And as cliched as it may sound, no matter how deep we can bat, 20 opposotion wickets win test matches.

-------------

After a long hiatus from blogging - more due to laziness than anything else - I'm pleased at this effort of four posts. Let me see if I can do one more on the entire series from an Indian fan perspective. I wish to keep posting something often. Let me see if the Blogging Gods are kind enough :)