Review: A Pack of Lies by Urmilla Deshpande

By John Cheeran
I must say I thoroughly enjoyed reading A Pack of Lies by Urmilla Deshpande. At 46, this is her first novel.
In the last 12 months I have been reading quite a few Indian authors, and I cannot say many of them have managed to impress me with their craft.
A Pack of Lies is chic-lit, but it has an appealing lad-lit approach which wins over the reader. Yes, it’s a coming-of-age novel in the backdrop of Bombay in the early 80s.
Although Urmilla calls the effort a pack of lies, the honesty that informs her writing only falls short of the brutal candour that Kamala Das brought to her poetry and fiction.
You can only read A Pack of Lies aware of the tryst that you missed with the possibilities in your life. As Urmilla’s Virginia (Ginny) calls it, a colliding with possibilities.
As you flip the pages, you are not particularly looking for any denouement. For, there is not one. Except for Urmilla’s telling punch line, “I had told the truth, for once.”
It’s another point that whether lacking a beginning, middle, and end in the conventional sense, denies A Pack of Lies a status anything better than an intimate personal history.
Urmilla’s teenage heroine Virginia lives an independent life which, even today, remains unattainable for an average Indian urban girl. In Virginia’s world she makes all her decisions for herself, and though men have a role in that, but not one that leaves her feeling strangled all the time.
Yes, I guess, Urmilla has shed the last shred of inhibition to tell it like it is, stood before the reader as a model for a nude photo-shoot, as Virginia herself enjoyed to find herself in an avatar quite different and defiant, and even it is all a pack of lies, it takes courage.
And the most redeeming aspect of A Pack of Lies is that Virgina has no need to confess to the reader. She gets a grip on her life by spending time with the shrink, aptly named as angel Gabriel, and finally paying tribute to her mother, who was at times cold and acerbic, but eventually making peace with herself and her daughter.
In the end, the kind of choices that Urmilla offers Virginia makes you realize that power has shifted from man to woman. But then, Virginia, is no ordinary woman. She lets her lovers walk free, starting from her step-father, college-kid Roy, Jihadi Jamal, photographer Kamal, and even father of her baby, without a trace of bitterness.
I’m ready to embrace such a woman, if there is anyone round the corner.

Excerpts from A Pack of Lies
“But I had never known a love, new or otherwise. All I knew, as Gabriel had told me, were ways to find a reflection of myself that I could live with. And sometimes the only way had been physical. I offered my cunt and all its accoutrements – my brain, my apartment, my cooking skill—to all who happened to glance at me, and hoped that what I offered was enough to make them love.”

And what the hell you want?
“I want to be with a man who will be my bra and tampon and credit card and cook and pedicurist and masseuse and driver and muse, vibrator, comb, gardener and pilot. And I will be everything for him.”

Urmilla Deshpande, 46, lives in Tallahassee, Florida with her family. Modelling, photography, editing and motherhood prepared her to write. She never thought she would follow in the footsteps of her mother, gauri Deshpande, and her grandmother, Irawati Karve.

Welcome home, Sreesanth

By John Cheeran
Welcome home, Sreesanth.
This could well be your last chance to play for India, and redeem yourself as a bowler and a man.
An opportunity to share the new ball with Zaheer Khan could be his, in the three-Test home series against Sri Lanka. Grab it.
By now, the slings and arrows of discipline should have chastened the mercurial fast bowler from Kerala. Strangely, Sreesanth has more detractors in Kerala, and that includes, the Kerala Cricket Association, than outside of it.
There is no denying the fact that the aggression that Sreesanth brings to his bowling unsettles batsmen. Wickets, after all, were not gifts from the rival teams.
In Indian cricket, being a bowler has many advantages. Yes, you get dumped often, but the chances to come back are many since our bowling often falls short of international standards.
Sreesanth was not the first cricketer from Kerala to play for India. Tinu Yohannan, after promising much, fizzled out from the scene. May be there is a lesson for Sreesanth. Sreesanth has the ability to irk batsmen, but it is important that he improves his PR within the dressing room, and on the field, start to enjoy his game, rather than suffer the vicissitudes of the game.
And remember, cricket always offers you a second innings. Life, often, does not.

India squad: MS Dhoni (captain), Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir, Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar, VVS Laxman, Yuvraj Singh, M Vijay, S Badrinath, Harbhajan Singh, Zaheer Khan, Ishant Sharma, Sreesanth, Pragyan Ojha, Amit Mishra.

India's misery in Guwahati. A tale of 170 all out vs 175

By John Cheeran
So much for India's batting strength. It caved in Guwahati (170 all out, 27 for five, 75 for six at one stage of the innings), and if not for the carefree innings of fast bowler Praveen Kumar (54 off 51 balls), Mahendra Singh Dhoni's India would not have crossed 100 runs.
This is what I call as context. On a merry batting track, anyone can score. But your character and temperament are revealed when you are tested by a surface that offers some bounce and turn to bowlers.
Virender Sehwag 6, Sachin Tendulkar 10, Gautam Gambhir 0, Yuvraj Singh 6, Suresh Raina 0 and you want to win a match and the series?
We have seen this kind of inexplicable batting displays from Indian sides over the years. And again I'm not surprised by the abject display of Indian top order. As Sachin Tendulkar himself said the other night in Hyderabad, everyone cannot score on every day.
But what, then, about consistency?
Pundits and former players who have raved about Tendulkar's 175 should have reserved their encomiums for an innings that would be played in conditions that are challenging to batsman.
You are nothing but a statistician when you cannot appreciate the context of an innings. A batsman becomes great only when he towers over adverse circumstances. And again, you have to get out of the rut of calling every second innings played by batsmen, the best.
Well, I have taken note of the fact that Kapil Dev himself has rated Sachin Tendulkar's Hyderabad 175 better than his own stupendous effort of 175 not out in the 1983 World Cup. But I have never taken Kapil's comments on cricket seriously. A natural cricketer he is, but not the best of minds that can bring in a sense of dispassionate analysis to the game.
Now look at Ricky Ponting. Full credit to him for securing the series win against heavy odds. The way Australian batsmen handled the chase of 170 runs on a tricky pitch reveals their ingrained professionalism. It was a chase that could have gone wrong, had they lost a few early wickets. Not only did they not lose wickets but Shane Watson's positive approach to run gathering ensured that the innings never got bogged down.
Winning the toss did not help India and Dhoni. May be Dhoni wanted to unleash his spinners on a track that tended to break in the afternoon. But for all that, without posting a decent total, you could not expect bowlers to run through the innings.
Now there are legions of fans who will absolve the stars of the Indian side of the responsibility of losing this match, the one before and the one before that and the series.
And that is cricket for you in India.

175 vs 175? Did Tendulkar play his finest innings (175) in Hyderabad?

By John Cheeran
India lost.
Again, the winner was Sachin Tendulkar, arguably the greatest batsman in modern era. Tendulkar not only completed 17,000 runs in One-Day internationals, but played a truly magnificent innings of 175 (141 balls) in Hyderabad against Australia.
Now that we cannot debate about the outcome of the match, we are left with discussing whether the innings Tendulkar played in Hyderabad on Thursday night was his best effort in 20 years of international cricket.
Let's look at a few things.
First, let's take Tendulkar's reaction. Last night he said the knock was one of his best innings. Yes, it was. One of his best, I agree.
There are people, including Sunil Gavaskar, who, I believe, knows a thing or two about cricket, comparing Tendulkar's 175 to his 136 against in the fourth innings of a Test against Pakistan, which India lost after the great man fell.
And then there are pundits who compare Tendulkar's 175 with Kapil Dev's 175 against Zimbabwe in the 1983 World Cup, an innings that few have seen.
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but while putting an innings in context you have to look at the conditions in which it was played.
Why is it that no one is talking about how weak the Australian bowling attack was in Hyderabad? Without Brett Lee, Peter Siddle and Mitchell Johnson, this attack was far from penetrating. Clint McKay, the man who took three Indian wickets, was playing his first ODI. And over and above, pitch was perfect for batting, a fact that has been underlined by the mere fact that Aussies posted a total of 350 in the first place. When you look at the Australian scorecard, you immediately notice that each one of the batsman -- Shane Watson (93), Shaun Marsh (112), Ricky Ponting (45) and Cameron White (57) excelled with the bat.
And about the consequence of India losing this match?
The seven-match series is still alive, though India trails 2-3.
So, the impact of Tendulkar's innings, assuming that he had taken India to victory, would have been hardly unsurpassable.
But Tendulkar played his role well, though not to perfection. I would have used the word perfection, had he remained there till the end, and struck home the winning run. Yes, cricket is a team game, others too have a role to play but we venerate Tendulkar for his innate genius and for the fact that at five feet two (5ft 5in) inches, he towers above the rest.
Regrets will be a few when Tendulkar finally walks into twilight, and not having won the fifth one-dayer against Australia in Hyderabad would not be among that list.
Yes, not having scored a triple hundred in Test cricket will rankle, though having played the most number of Test innings ever. Not having won a World Cup will blot his reputation, something that Tendulkar seems to be determined to achieve in 2011, in front of his adoring home crowd.
But 175 in Hyderabad, his greatest knock?
It was, no doubt, great entertainment. But not the best of the master batsman.
And I'm outraged when Gavaskar entertains thoughts of comparing Tendulkar's 136 against Pakistan in Chennai with the 175 in Hyderabad.
You cannot compare the oranges of one-dayers with the apples of Test cricket. By now we should realise that Test cricket, one-dayers and Twenty20 are different songs requiring different timbres, though some sing all three of them with ease and elan.
And now, the question of 175 vs 175.
Kapil Dev's 175 was not just Kapil's best innings in a long career but when it was played (1983) it stretched the possibilities of counter attack in a 60-over one-day international. For sheer impact, no innings in international cricket comes closer to Kapil's 175, since that innings led to India's World Cup triumph, an achievement unparalleled in Indian cricket.
And to know that Tendulkar would have quit playing the game by now, had he lifted a World Cup to kiss!

Partnership is the big word in Hyderabad

By John Cheeran
Now Indian batsmen have a wonderful opportunity at Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium in Uppal, Hyderabad, to justify their star status. Australia has set India a target that would satisfy the appetite of Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir and Sachn Tendulkar.
Batting is easy in the given conditions, and 350 is not a daunting target, when you have a deep batting lineup. Though hobbled by injuries, this Australian side has thrown down the gauntlet to the host. Pick it up, Dhoni.
Ricky Ponting did the sensible thing after winning the toss yet again. That the Indian bowlers could not get an early wicket helped a great deal in Aussies scoring seven runs per over. All batting efforts have to be measured against the nature of the wicket but Shuan Marsh (112 off 112 balls) and Shane Watson (93 off 89 balls) deserve fulsome praise for making the best use of their opportunity.
Harbhajn Singh was unlucky when skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni falied to latch onto a thick edge offered by Shane Watson when he came on to bowl. And only Harbhajan escaped unscathed from the Aussie onslaught.
But, again, India need not worry. Australia's bowling does not have its lethal edge.
It's a score that can be overcome, provided that each batsman steps out with a purpose, instead of coming up with a few cameos. Partnership is the big word. There has to be a steadying hand on Indian innings and that, ideally has to come either from Sachin Tendulkar or Mahendra Singh Dhoni.
Let the chase begin.

Vande Mataram...let's write new songs for an India where nights without darkness prevail

By John Cheeran
Should an Indian sing Vande Mataram?
If you know the lyrics, please go ahead.
Like many, I know only the first two stanzas of India's national song.
Do I know Jana Gana Mana, the national anthem, better?
I doubt.
I appreciate the poetry of Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay's in those early lines of Vande Mataram. As for my religious beliefs clashing with poetry, I know better.
Much of the Indian poetry in vernacular languages is a paean to Hindu gods and goddesses. You fall in love with a language, its beauty and cadences. And as for its meaning, you read between the lines.
And what about the meaning? What about it?
Do you care for your own mother? Or father? Or blood brothers?
Let's not worry about who wants to sing our songs, songs of yesteryears.
Allama Iqbal who wrote in 1904 to say that Saare Jahan Se Acha
maz'hab nahīn sikhātā āpas men bayr rakhnā
hindvi hai ham, vatan hai hindostān hamārā
changed his stanza and stand six years later in 1910 to write
chīn-o-arab hamārā, hindostān hamārā
muslim hain ham, vatan hai sārā jahān hamārā.
May be, it is time for us to write new songs for an India where nights without darkness prevail.

Should we blame Asoka de Silva for Mohali defeat?

By John Cheeran
Who defeated India in the fourth one-dayer against Australia in Mohali?
Ricky Ponting or Asoka de Silva?
If Sourav Ganguly is to be believed, Asoka de Silva was the man behind India's 24-run defeat. De Silva's LBW verdict against India's well-set batsman Sachin Tendulkar (40 off 68 balls) was unpardonable, says Ganguly while giving his exclusive thoughts to an Indian television channel.
I thought there were others in the Indian batting lineup who could have met the challenge head on.
Yes, umpire De Silva made a mistake in giving Tendulkar out. But Tendulkar himself has said recently he is not in favour of carrying on with the referral system and umpires should be left with the powers to make LBW decisions. So?
You got to live with such decisions and still make a fight out of it. After all, cricket is a team sport and you cannot bemoan the loss of a wicket beyond a point and get befuddled.
You cannot turn your gaze away from reality. Skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Yuvraj Singh, Suresh Raina and Virat Kohli all failed to put their head down and chase down a modest target of 250. There was not a single legitimate partnership in the Indian innings. India's top individual score was Tendulkar's 40.
What's coach Gary Kirsten up to?
But, then, nothing is lost if Team India realises its shortcomings, especially the inability of its young batsmen to play shots when wicket offers a bit of bounce.
Any match in Mohali has its own twists and turns, and Australians showed a lot of character to bounce back when it all seemed a lost cause.
Sponsors Hero Honda should be the happiest lot, since the outcome in Mohali keeps the seven-match series alive.

Where did Dhoni, Yuvraj and Harbhajan go on Sunday night?

John Cheeran
Where did Indian skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni, star batsman Yuvraj Singh and off-spinner Harbhajan Singh go out on Sunday night?
For some match practice?
May be the trio is taking Indian coach Gary Kirsten's advice seriously. To channelise their creative energies and attain the blissful state of nirvana, on the eve of the match against Australia.
May be these three were off to discuss strategy in the cover of night because these days you cannot trust anyone in the dressing room. Some of the newbies and veterans in the team are a naughty lot and may leak inside information to our rivals.
The tricky thing is that you cannot even trust the cops these days. Their knowledge of cricket tactics is poor at the best. They are nothing but irritant fleas. Since Yuvi and Bhajji know Chandigarh inside out, and know all the dark alleys of Sector 16 and 17, there is no need to inform the security personnel when they are going out.
And just consider the reputation of Yuvraj and Harbhajan. Lions of Punjab. These two cricketers can handle any security threat. Ask S Sreesanth.
Not even gun-toting Kasabs could stop them in their tracks.
After all, these days, matches are all day and night affairs.
A bit of nightout should do Team India just fine.

Ponting has to win more than mere tosses

By John Cheeran
Despite Australia's apparent lack of bowling resources what made things easier for India in the third one-dayer at Feroze Shah Kotla was Ricky Ponting's too careful an approach while batting.
Now with the tide in the series turning in favour of Mahendra Singh Dhoni's India 2-1, Ponting has to do more than merely win the toss at Mohali. With former foe Sourav Ganguly offering unsolicited advice to bat first, things are not looking pretty for the Aussie.
Yes, the wicket at Kotla did not encourage shot-making, but Australians could have taken their chances against Indian spinners to put on at least another 50-odd runs. That, they failed to do so, handing over the advantage to the Indians. But, then, though they had five wickets in hand Australia was handicapped by the absence of wicketkeeper-batsman Tim Paine.
That wicket did not turn treacherous was evident when Yuvraj Singh and Dhoni were batting together. A missed opportunity, especially for Michael Hussey, Shane Watson and Ponting. As things stand, Aussies are far from winning the game in the mind.

Does India need a wet conspiracy against Ponting?

By John Cheeran
DDCA is a four-letter word, so is BCCI.
If the Australian captain Ricky Ponting was left fuming at Feroz Shah Kotla on Friday, on the eve of Australia's third one-day match against India, he had enough reasons.
The groundsman had watered the practice pitches in the morning, though the Aussies were scheduled to have nets at 9.00 am.
How would have Sourav Ganguly reacted to such a situation in Sydney?
Well, these days India does not need watered conspiracies to humble Australia. But to consider that the host, Delhi and District Cricket Association, did not know about Australian team's practice schedule advertises only its lack of competency.
Yes, this is what happens when your president goes on a fire-fighting mission to Bangalore. Arun Jaitley, the DDCA President, was busy redrawing equations within his party's Karnataka unit.
Whatever, India should not have given Aussies any ground for complaining, if the visitors are going to lose the third ODI.

When Gavaskar knows it better…

By John Cheeran
Sunil Gavaskar, always, has an interesting take on cricket. He tells viewers of CNN-IBN that Indian captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni's innings of 124 in Nagpur was reminiscent of Kapil Dev's 175 against Zimbabwe in 1983 World Cup in Tunbridge Wells.
Really?
To start with Kapil's knock came in a 60-over-a-side confrontation. There were plenty of overs when Kapil came in at No.6 but India had lost four wickets for a mere 9 runs as total. India had to win that match to retain its chances of advancing from the group stage.
When Dhoni began his innings in Nagpur India was comfortably placed at 97 for three in 16th over with the run rate exceeding 6 runs per over. Hardly a crisis situation. And how can you compare a World Cup encounter with a inconsequential seven-match series, even though its is against the once formidable Australians?
Yes, Gavaskar should know better since he was on the ground that day, opening the Indian innings, and during his two-ball innings he could not disturb the scoreboard.
Yes, there is no doubt that both players, as captains, had a responsibility to pull their side out of trouble.
Dhoni did a brilliant job, but for the moment let's leave it there.

When Dhoni gets his batting in order

By John Cheeran
Yes, a brilliant innings (124 off 107 balls; 54 runs in his last 27 balls) by Indian skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni in Nagpur. So what's the debate all about Dhoni's batting order?
I believe more than the batting order, it was a question of Indian skipper getting his batting in order. This, he did splendidly in Nagpur against Ricky Ponting's Aussies to level the seven-match series 1-1.
Dhoni came at No.5 in Nagpur. Suggestions were swirling around that being one of the aggressive batsmen in the side, Dhoni should promote himself in the batting order to serve Team India’s needs better.
Dhoni has proved that such suggestions are, at best, unwarranted, when you have the likes of Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir, Sachin Tendulkar and Yuvraj Singh in the batting lineup.
Yes, getting a century while coming in as late as No.5 in a fifty over game is not easy. But, then, the situation in Nagpur was tailor made for Dhoni on Wednesday. Dhoni had come in the 16th over of Indian innings. India had lost three wickets but there was no crisis. Runs were streaming in. Sehwag (40 off 31 balls, Tendulkar (4 off 8 balls) Gambhir and Yuvraj (23 off 24 balls) did not eat up overs but had scored quickly. That let skipper Dhoni the space to build his innings stealing singles and twos, and later explode in full glory in the final phase of the innings.
Now, should it mean that, Dhoni should be given a theoretical chance to bat the full 50 overs?
An honour that was given to Sachin Tendulkar in New Zealand? I don't think so.
At the same time you cannot expect MSD to come up with centuries and half centuries when he walks in at No.5 slot.
It would be prudent to remember that all great efforts are helped by conducive atmosphere. And very few cricketers could turn a match situation in their favour. Most of the times, you are at the mercy of the match. Yes, of course, great players are those who can redefine a game situation.
Hope Dhoni will not disappoint us.

Can technology lead to pure cricket?

By John Cheeran
Can technology lead to pure cricket? Free from flaws, free from erroneous decision-making?
We have appreciated technology over the years and that is true even in sport. With the ICC planning to widen the scope of technology, may be to assist umpires, may be to undermine the authority of umpires, it is interesting to tune into different views.
When Sachin Tendulkar, the most successful batsman of the recent times, says that he wants more technology but no referrals, it is a contradictory statement. Technology is the only reason why there are referrals. Without technology would there have been a rethink on the pending decision?
Even a schoolchild knows that LBWs invove the most subjective decision-making in cricket umpiring.
Tendulkar now wants only clean bowleds and LBWs out of the ambit of technology. Many, including Ian Chappell and Michael Holding, feel that HawkEye predictions are far removed from reality. So again, a cricketer has no choice but to respect the integrity and intelligence of the umpire.
Gone are the days of walking.
Now commentators talk, critics carp and still few are happy with the decision-making out on the field.
As a cricketer your aim is to win. You need to score runs and take wickets. Contemporary cricketer may be pardoned if he argues that he has no business to walk and a right to appeal on every ball.
But at the end of the day, technology can be no substitute for honesty and integrity on the part of cricketers. We need to have upright and intelligent umpires who can earn the respect of the players.
You cannot control weather. You cannot have a level playing field even in Twenty20, leave alone in Test matches sprawling over five days.
Poor decision making is part of sport, as much it is part of life. Diego Maradona's Hand of God goal did not make Argentina's World Cup triumph in 1986 illegitimate.
Yes, I know that bowlers have had a tough time to prise out batsman and the recent innovations in technology such as HawkEye, HotSpot and referrals would have tilted the scales in favour of them.
Does batsman deserve the benefit of doubt any longer?
May be, may be not.
But all a bowler has to do to dismiss the batsman is to bowl again. Over after over.
If we reduce cricket to disease diagnose, for the sake of certainty, the game will be poorer, for, what will be left of the glorious uncertainties?

Rogue theories must go, says TJS George

Editor's note: Almost a year ago, I had persuaded TJS George, eminent editor and author, and my journalism guru, to write a piece for the launch of DNA's Bangalore edition. The points made by TJS are still relevant.

By TJS George
The birth of a baby – any baby – is a joyous occasion. It is a journalistic duty, therefore, to say a hearty “Welcome” to DNA as it takes birth in Bangalore. Duty done, we can now turn to life as it is lived in these days of terror, economic as well as ideological.
Let no one deny that DNA has shown exemplary courage in its Bangalore opening. This is a town where there are already seven general interest dailies and six business dailies. That is thirteen newspapers every day in English alone, to say nothing of those in Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Hindi, Urdu. This unnatural congestion is either a tribute to the reading habits of Bangaloreans or a pointer to the publishing industry’s madness. Perhaps DNA’s courage is sustained by the strong possibility of one or more of the aforementioned thirteen disappearing in the not too distant future.
Is DNA also being honourable besides being courageous? It’s no secret that it has been having a full-fledged staff for several months and that it has enlisted a not insignificant number of paid subscribers. It would have been commercially justifiable if the project were postponed for a year, the staff demobbed and the subscriptions refunded. But to fulfil its commitment to staff and subscribers is the more honourable course. It is good to believe that, considering the somersaults that have transformed the newspaper industry in its essential basics in the last couple of decades, elements of honourableness survive in some corners.
For now at any rate, we can also draw some solace from the way India is defying world trends on the publishing front. Just days before DNA’s opening in Bangalore, two of the world’s greatest newspaper legends tottered in their foundations. The Tribune Company filed for bankruptcy. This company is the owner of iconic titles in the US such as the Los Angeles Times, the Baltimore Sun and Hartford Courant besides the Chicago Tribune. The great New York Times itself announced a cut in its quarterly dividend, suffered a 60 percent fall in its share price, watched its advertising revenue nosedive by almost 14 percent and, in a final cruel blow, pledged its landmark headquarters building in New York to raise badly needed cash. Predictably, Rupert Murdoch appeared on the scene hungry to buy the ailing giant as he had bought other evocative temples of publishing like the Wall Street Journal and, much earlier, the London Times.
India has bucked the Western trend so far. But this does not put Indian newspapers for ever above the logic of economics. The global slowdown has already started hurting. The most profitable papers are engaged in a headcount audit, preparatory, no doubt, to staff cuts. The India Today Group has closed its Bengali edition “due to market conditions”. Many inflated salaries have been brought down to earth.
Sooner rather than later, a historical correction must take place in our newspaper business.
The numbers must find a natural, sustainable level. More importantly, there must be a return to the reality that running a newspaper is different from making cement or selling toilet soap. In recent decades we have seen the enthronement of the rogue theory that a newspaper company’s only responsibility is to make money for its shareholders. Milton Friedman who aired that theory for capitalism’s glory has been repudiated in his own country, in the wake of America’s economic doldrums, by erstwhile champions of capitalism. Bill Gates said pointedly that corporations cannot be blind to their social responsibility. In publishing, more than in other industries, decency must be a dominant virtue. For the news industry to play its part in human progress, the citizen must prevail over the marketeer who feeds off him.

Cricket is boring....REALLY?

By John Cheeran
Suddenly, people are waking up to the fact that cricket can become boring. OPEN has done a cover story which I haven't read. On Saturday, Rahul Bhattacharya makes a similar point in Mint Lounge.
Why now?
Cricket became boring a long time ago. The flood of ODIs and the likes of Zimbabwes and UAEs, washed away much of the meaning associated with the game.
May be the Champions League Twenty20 succeeded in driving home that point. Thanks, a great deal.
By the way, who won Champions League?

When brothers clash…

You cannot deny that as a singles player Sania Mirza has put both Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi in the shade since her coming of age in international tennis. This tennis triangle of skill, love and hate may have failed to produce feats comparable to Ramanathan Krishnan, Vijay Amritraj and Ramesh Krishnan achieved in singles play. There, however, is no doubt they have managed to administer occasional jolts to our sense of expectations.
But Leander and Mahesh have succeeded in the ATP circuit, basically by accepting their limitations in the singles arena and narrowing their focus to doubles.
No doubt, doubles is the poor cousin in professional tennis. But that said what glory and drama Leander and Mahesh have served up between themselves!
Leander and Mahesh, friends-turned-foes, will clash in the finals of the US Open Men's doubles, in what could turn out to be one of the most dramatic episodes in Indian sport history. In recent years, both of them have refused to play together even for India, leave alone teaming up for Grand Slam glories.
One should admire them for having a streak of individuality and going their own separate ways, whatever the reasons that cracked the combination.
Leander, along with Lukas Dlouhy, and Mahesh, along with Mark Knowles, must have been aware of the possibility of a fratricidal clash between the Indians at the beginning of the US Open, given the draws, but never would have bet on the other progressing so far.
So if you could watch these two slug it out on Friday, please be aware that you are taking part in a most fascinating episode in terms of rivalry and clash of personalities.
And finally, whom will be you rooting for?
Both men have been scarred by break ups in relationships with women in their lives as well as with their own parting of ways.
Mostly, these two have lived in their worlds, without really establishing a connect with Indian sports fans.
May be Friday is the last chance for these two to bring out the best in them, at an unparalleled occasion such as the US Open, and remind us that their breakup, eventually, was worth the bitterness and rancour on and off the field.
Love all.

An Advani in his prime

By John Cheeran
It's not that Bangalore did not boast of worldbeaters till
Pankaj Advani came along in the 21st century. There were men and women who came up with big breaks, be it in cricket, badminton, hockey, football, athletics and tennis.
Yet, many such stars were bogged down by the inevitable mediocrity in team games and could not aspire for the tag of world champions.
Chennai has had a Vishwanthan Anand since mid-80s.
Kolkota could gloat about Leander Paes and, sniggers apart, his bronze medal in Atlanta Olympics, should compensate for his failures in singles. Mumbai produced Wilson Jones and Michael Ferreira in billiards. Hyderabad, in recent years, has had Sania Mirza, Saina Nehwal and P Gopichand.
I leave out cricketers from this list for obvious reasons.
Yes, Indians have excelled as individuals in sporting arena.
Ramanathan Krishnan, Vijay Amritraj, Prakash Padukone
Geet Sethi and Anand have excelled on their own, beating
the system in the process.
Indians can always fancy their chances in non-contact sports where physical power is not the dominant and determining factor in success. That explains our decent record in chess, badminton, billiards and snooker. Once hockey turned a brutish power game, India’s grip loosened irrevocably.
In Advani's success, one can find individual effort and family support playing critical roles. Yes, he has been lucky to be in a city where he could have a great mentor in Arvind Savur and Karnataka State Billiards Association too has helped him. But what has worked in Advani's favour is the space the sport offered for improvement as an individual.
Considering that Prakash Padukone blazed a trail in 1980 by winning the All England championship, the Wimbledon of badminton, Bangalore should have produced more world champions.
Bangalore, the city, since then has rewritten many existing codes of success, especially in entrepreneurship. Anyone could list of the names of tech czars who have put Bangalore on world map but apart from cricketers are there any sports stars who tried to reach for the pie in the sky, the way Padukone did?
That makes the recent victory of Advani in professional billiards all the more important. Advani has given youngsters in the city a moment to pause and wonder. Can we dream bigger and better than this 24-year-old? How long one can crib about venal selectors and rotten politics, lack of facilities, indifferent sponsors and callous public?
It is indeed remarkable that very few, other than the family and close friends, turned out at the Bangalore International Airport to welcome home a world champion. Apparently, we are yet to cultivate a habit of recognizing heroes, the real ones, that is.

The News Americans Need

By Dan Rather
(First published in Washington Post)

You don’t have to care about media companies or reporters to care about the state of the news, because if it’s in trouble — and it surely is — this country is in trouble. That’s why, while speaking recently at the Aspen Institute, I called upon President Obama to form a commission to address the perilous state of America’s news media.
Some might scoff at the notion that a president and a country occupied by two wars and a recession should add the woes of the news media to an already crowded plate. But the way the news is delivered, and the quality of the information the American public receives about what’s going on here and abroad, has and will continue to have a profound effect on these very issues and on the overall quality of government by, for and of the people.
I am not calling for any sort of government bailout for media companies. Nor am I encouraging any form of government control over them. I want the president to convene a nonpartisan, blue-ribbon commission to assess the state of the news as an institution and an industry and to make recommendations for improving and stabilizing both.
Why bring the president into it? Because this is the only way I could think of to generate the sort of attention this subject deserves. Academia and think tanks generate study after study, yet their findings don’t reach the people who need to be reached.
We need a real and broad public discussion of the role news is meant to play in our democratic system of government and a better public understanding of the American news infrastructure’s fragile condition. We need to know how things got this way and what we need to change.
An intense period of corporate consolidation over the past 25 years, aided and abetted by deregulation by the Federal Communications Commission, has reduced to a mere handful the sources from which most Americans get their news. While independent reporting has been winnowed and homogenized, the news organizations responsible for this reporting have largely fallen under corporate mandates to increase profits quarterly — which has meant a reduction in newsgathering personnel, the shuttering of overseas bureaus and the nearly complete subordination of a public trust to the profit motive.
Moreover, corporate values of risk aversion have increasingly filtered down to newsrooms, supplanting news values. The big conglomerates that own most of America’s news media may have, at any given moment, multiple regulatory, procurement and legislative matters before various arms of the federal government; their interests, therefore, can often run contrary to the interests of the citizens whom journalism, at its best, is meant to serve. There is little incentive to report without fear or favoritism on the same government one is trying to lobby. Increasingly, the news we get — and, significantly, the news we don’t get — reflects this conflict of interests.
The news infrastructure, weakened from within by this corrosive dynamic, is at risk of toppling altogether because of a separate, though not unrelated development: the coast-to-coast collapse of the newspaper industry, which has lost the key revenue streams of classified and local advertising to the Internet.
For radio, television and, yes, the Internet, newspapers have been and continue to be the foundation on which “hard” news rests. They provide the reporters who are our primary and often our only independent sources in places as close as city zoning hearings and as far away as Indonesia. Anyone who has worked in other media knows that, if newspapers are taken out of the equation, dwindling news resources will be stretched to the breaking point.
You will not turn on your television and hear an anchor admit this. What you will see, instead, is more opinion, commentary and marketing masquerading as news. You will get more in-studio shouting matches between partisans, moderated by openly partisan talking heads.
And so shows that can be produced on the cheap, with little to no real reporting, fan impotent citizen anger at a government whose workings, absent hard-hitting reporting, seem ever-more opaque — and at a world that, absent consistent, contextualized coverage, seems to defy comprehension.
We need news that breeds understanding, not contempt; news that fosters a healthy skepticism of the workings of power rather than a paralyzing cynicism. We need the basic information that a selfgoverning people requires. The old news model is crumbling, while the Internet, for all its immense promise, is not yet ready to rise in its place — and won’t be until it can provide the nuts-and-bolts reporting that most people so take for granted that it escapes their notice.
This is a crisis that, with no exaggeration, threatens our democratic republic at its core. But you won’t hear about it on your evening news, unless the message can be delivered in a way that corporate media have little choice but to report — such as, say, the findings of a presidential commission.

Ah, Gulf News told to pay up. £1 million!

London Times reports....
AN EDINBURGH property developer has been awarded more than £1m in damages and costs against a Dubai newspaper after it wrongly said that he had deceived Middle East investors.

Mark Emlick, chairman and founder of Dunedin Independent, one of Scotland’s largest privately-owned independent financial advice businesses, won his case against the Gulf News in the High Court in London this week.

He brought the case for defamation of character after Gulf News reported in April last year that he and a partner were being sought in Dubai and in the UK by investors who claimed he had absconded with their money after a property deal that involved his company Strategic Property Investment group (SPI) went sour.

In fact, SPI had returned all the money owed to investors plus 5% interest, after it pulled out of the deal due to rising prices in the Emirate.

Emlick refused to disclose the amount he had been awarded but, along with his legal costs, it is estimated to have been more than £1m.

He said: “Anyone in business will tell you that your reputation is your most important asset, so to have that called into question was deeply concerning. I’m fortunate that I was able to bring a case to the High Court, but there are many people who would have been left high and dry, with their reputation in tatters.”

Emlick still has investments in Dubai.

Twenty20 Indian team: Is South India losing its share?

By John Cheeran
Whether India will retain Twenty20 World Cup is a question that will be answered within the next 20 days. But you don’t have to wait to read that Indian cricket is going through a significant phase.
What has happened to cricket in South of India?
The Twenty20 World Cup squad has only Pragyan Ojha from south India. You can even argue that for a change, national selectors, interestingly led by Krishnamachari Srikkanth (from Tamil Nadu), have risen above quota system and selected the best men for the job.
I do not contest that.
I cannot even recall how many south Indians were in the team that played the inaugural Twenty20 final against Pakistan. I, however, remember S Sreesanth holding on to the ball to seal India’s win.
Recently, the second edition of IPL was fought between two teams, ostensibly from south India – Deccan Chargers (Hyderabad) and Royal Challengers (Bangalore). The third team that made the cut was Chennai Super Kings.
Yes, I admit that Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad are pan-Indian or even international outfits. But, there should be something about the fact that these three nurseries of Indian cricket do not have more than one a player in the national squad.
In the 90s, Bangalore Boys dominated the national team. Anil Kumble, Rahul Dravid, Javagal Srinath, Venkatesh Prasad, Sujith Somasundar, Vijay Bhardwaj, David Johnson and D Ganesh were in the national reckoning.
Now Bangalore has suddenly found Manish Pandey. His time and day would come.
But Robin Uthappa is fast becoming another VB Chandrashekar.
What happened to the structure and professionalism that south Indian cricket boasted of in the past?
Despite the success of ‘south’ Indian teams in the IPL, I would like to see more talent bursting forth from the region. Let’s have an Adam Gilchrist. Let’s have another Anil Kumble.
Meanwhile, let’s root for the new-look Indian team that will defend the Twenty20 World Cup.