Insanity rules? Ok!

Much as I am dejected by India's loss in the 20-20 World Cup, after our surprise elimination from the tournament we were expected to win, what bothers me much more is the way aspersions are cast on the team. What bothers me is that national dailies - which boast of having on board, the game's stalwarts and insightful columnists - run headlines like 'Team lets nation down' and 'Captain cool or captain lose?'.

The dominant reactions to the defeat seem to be one of anger and betrayal. Anger is a complicated emotion. It's not clear what causes and is caused by anger. There are broadly two methods that people employ to vent their anger. More sophisticated of these are acerbic rants, while others are unabashed physical gestures.

Let's say there are two categories of anger: personal and impersonal. The former is caused by things that have immediate relevance to you (your newspaper delivery boy is lazy) and the later by things with no or very little relevance to you (your friend's newspaper delivery boy is lazy). To be sure, this is not very well defined, but I am concentrating one one single aspect which will be clearer.

Both these angers are perfectly justifiable. The crucial difference between them is what you do about it. First there are some absolute limits on what you can do. For instance, you can't destroy the home of the newspaper boy. Within those limits, personal anger gives you more scope for action. You can fire your newspaper boy. But the impersonal anger almost never permits action. While you can urge your friend to fire his newspaper boy, you can't do so yourself.

The anger generated in many fans by Indian team's loss is impersonal. This is the case even though it may be true that the team's performances are key to many of the fans' happiness. This impersonal anger surely allows for serious criticism, but much of what we see today is unwarranted. Here is where the thin line of difference between the anger and the betrayel gets blurred. It has to be remembered: the Indian team is not responsible to its fans. (That a fan needs to stand by his team in hours of victory and defeat can be left unsaid in the current climes anyway.) This might sound sacrilegious in today's atmosphere of affected jingoism, but it is true. If the Indian team has the power to cause a fan intense shame and misery, that power is given to them by the fan. The team did not ask for it. The fan can take that power away from the cricketers if he wishes. The fact that cricketers make insane amounts of money is not germane to the issue. Neither is it correct to argue that a cricketer's basking in the glory when he does well requires him to take the obscenities thrown at him when he doesn't. The Indian cricket team does not represent India's pride. Anyone purporting to derive national glory or shame on the basis of cricket team's results is a fool. (Take note, Hero-Honda, Pepsi and others of the ilk!)

It seems to me that this whole affair is symptomatic of a disturbing trend that is emerging in India. Many of the new habits and practices are characterized by instant gratifications and even more instant disillusionment. Shortsightedness isn't just prevalent, it is rampant. Gone in the process are the balancing convictions afforded either by ancient culture, or a thorough education. This is apparent everywhere one sees. In cricket, a player is lifted to the sky after a handful of good performances and his effigies are burnt after a single bad show. Whether it is the national obsession with daily junk on television, or the eager rush to modify education to suit the immediately visible needs, what seems to drive people today is the expedience of the moment.

Does insanity rule?

Think.

Can pigs fly?

Can pigs fly? I think not. But how can I be so sure? If I’m pigheaded enough, I can start throwing pigs off a cliff and after an agreed upon number of pigs have turned to pork down below, I can say with almost certainty that porcine flight is impossible. The downside to this method is not that too many pigs are killed to prove a point, but that for believers of flying pigs, too few will have been tested before we, considered as anti-flying pig bigots, come to a conclusion. (‘The next one could have been the pig, you know.’)

Another way to prove that pigs don’t fly could be to read the scriptures, the law if you will. For instance, if those awaiting proof are believing Christians, then the tactic could be to read out Chapter 8 Verse 32 of the Book of Matthew in the Bible: “And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.” Not one pig fluttered to safety there.

The downside to this method is that it’s fundamentally stupid: to gather a fact by what’s simply mentioned in a fable, no matter how sacred and profound the fable may be, is a leap of faith not too unlike that taken by the swine mentioned above.

So what’s with all this pig metaphor? Has the swine flu over the cuckoo’s nest? Or am I reading too much into one of Floyd's most cogent creations? No, it’s just that I’ve been going mad cow trying to figure out why otherwise bright sparks have been going on and on about how abnormal it is for 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab to plead ‘not guilty’ during his ongoing trial. Why would a guilty man, they ask in that gobsmacked way that will become a look by the next fashion season, tell a court that he’s not guilty? Because, honeys, that’s what most people accused of committing crimes do: say they’re innocent.

The smart set’s not only upset by Kasab’s plea of ‘not guilty’ but is also appalled that someone, an Indian to boot, is defending him. Surely, they murmur, Kasab’s (first) lawyer Abbas Kazmi would be just pretending to defend his client and actually hanging out with and helping the prosecutor to nail the bastard, right? Or Anjali Waghmare -the now done with lawyer- secretly be an accomplice in hatching a plot to plot the downfall of one of India's most 'celebrated' terrorist captive. Expectedly, the villagers with their pitchforks are baying for blood. The Islam Gymkhana in Mumbai had expelled Kazmi as he “agreed to defend the most dreaded terrorist Kasab. This is against the essence of Islam”. Will the Koran ever be used to defend terrorism again? Never! Only club rules apply. Just to prove he isn’t above loving ‘patriotic Muslims’, Shiv Senapati Balasaheb Thackeray has endorsed the Gymkhana decision.

Anjali Waghmare was done with, for her apparent inability to comply to court rules or what, one might never be able to tell. In any case, she had her house pelted with stones by a mob. I believe that Waghmare was taken off the case of her own volition and not because of the technical reason cited: because she is also representing a 26/11 victim, she couldn’t be defending Kasab. Hmm. If a lawyer is seen to be professional enough to keep her personal views about a terrorist outside the court and defend him, why is prosecuting and defending the accused in two separate cases such a legal taboo?

So what about the pigs? Well, ‘Is Kasab guilty?’ is as tough a question to answer as ‘Can pigs fly?’ But according to the law, that secular scripture we bow to whenever it suits us, you need to jump through a set of agreed-upon hoops before effectively proving that Kasab is a guilty man. It doesn’t matter a bacon-nibbling rat’s ass if it seems obvious to you and me that Kasab’s a mass-killer who brought India to its knees. A good defendant can upset all expectations by arguing that the prosecutor’s evidence simply doesn’t add up. That’s his job. And that’s what makes a trial in this country legit and not an ‘Off with their heads!’ procedure.

And what about us(who the "usses" really are is open to debate)? Are we being so kind in showing our magnanimity to the 'poor' old fellow who showed just how vulnerable India is? Or are we just procrastinating the inevitable in order to prove just how pro-Tiananmen we are, in the current scheme of things?

We, in my humble opinion as I might add here, are like a pig in the middle, caught between what has been a rigid and redundant labyrinth of procedures and a compulsion to prove how we, as a nation, are prone to bootlick that phrase called 'democracy'. The general opinion(the democratic opinion, if it can be called that) is that Kasab is a mass murderer without even hinting at the literal meaning that his name connotes. Yet, we continue to act like young hypocrites at the DU. I wouldn't want to, but given to my tendency of digressing, I shall. The HT City 'reported' recently that young men joining the DU were planning attend their first few days at college in big, swanky cars and NOx guzzling superbikes, or 'Boy's Toys', as you might like to call them. The concerned females accepted that this does manage to attract their attention, afterall, name and fame corrupt anyone. But she(the individual in question) was quick to add that she would turn down-pretty nonchalantly at that- any proposal if she were to learn that the guy didn't "own" the car/bike but had bought it to impress her. Wanting to hang Kasab without a trial, after we're all human, and yet giving him a fair chance to prove he's not guilty. Fair and square? Surely.

I want Kasab to hang. I hope Kasab will hang. That’s why I’m so keen the trial is conducted quarantined from the pandemic hoopla surrounding it. That’s also why I don’t want the prosecution to screw things up.

Till then, pig it!

Of Bootfluenza and the Fourth Estate

Mr. Shoe is gaining in popularity as a political missile. Mr. Shoe might have been thrown-in to 'meet' people before. But in his new found avatar, Mr. Shoe has caught the imagination of the media and the public alike. Suppressed grievances are brought to the fore by giving Mr. Shoe some air!

Feeling helpless? Go chuck him at someone! After Muntazar Al-Zaidi bootslapped Bush, Mr. Shoe in flight has become the weapon of the powerless.

Compared to a bullet or a bomb, the shoe is as harmless as a flower(only as long as your olfactory nerves are jammed!). Its impact is mild, its range is limited(no stilettos please). It is the common man’s weapon or missile where ever or whenever his shoe pinches. There are times when even pebbles or stones may not be readily available, unless you have hidden them in your pocket, to be used against political adversaries as a part of advance planning. But the shoe is there under one’s foot always ready to fly, if lobbed by the wearer as an impromptu release of ire. Indeed, Mr. Shoe has grown in eminence!

There is a time and place for everything. For the shoe throw, the venue of a press conference, attended by a dignified authority or person seems appropriate. In the present climate, shoe throwing has become a winsome gesture, a stunt that surely wins some (un)deserved publicity. Afterall, it takes quite a lot to remove your footwear and bear those pungent heavens while your footwear lies close to the cynosure of the public assembly!

The thrower may be pardoned, if lucky, or if the social or political gap between the thrower and the person targeted is wide enough for a show of magnanimity. Or the law may take its course. But the thrower is amply compensated by the publicity netted. The shoe throw requires no skills; no training. The shoe need not even hit the person. But its direction should leave no one in doubt about the person intended as victim.

Some say demand for easily removable shoes has increased, after the recent events. Those wearing boots no longer tie the lace, to save time when a throw is needed. Suspicions about the inclusion of the up-to-the-minute "shoe-a-thon" as the shoe-stopper in the 2010 CW Games are rife!

The next parliament may legislate on the issue of the shoe. America should ban the sale of easily-removable-and-throwable shoes for not every President is as adept at dodging Hush Puppies(and other concerns) as Bush. For attending functions where dignitaries are present, people may be required to leave their shoes outside before entering the premises. Do we not remove footwear when entering temples and certain marked areas, even though there is no law but only convention?

I don’t say shoes have not been hurled at each other by people earlier. But what makes it sensational are the personalities, occasion, context, issue involved etc. There is a time and place for every thing. Changes in these can create sensations. Throwing a shoe on a common man walking on the road is no great event. Who cares?

The shoe industry may undergo drastic changes in the light of the shoe throw politics. The design, weight, color and many other parameters may need attention.

In the past, rotten eggs, tomatoes, pebbles, paper weights, books, cups, bottles, plates and anything which can be lifted and thrown have been used as projectiles. But the shoe throw is different. Oiling the wheels of this much-acclaimed endeavour are sites like www.shoeandawe.com which choose to pay homage to those great men-at-"arms".

Here the shoe is used as a symbol of religious or political dislike and hatred. The contrast between the humble shoe and the ambitious throne it wants to occupy makes for much publicity. Above all there is the surprise element involved. It should be most unexpected and sudden. Some applaud the feat in private, while condemning it openly. Media display it as if it were a heroic deed!

It is an insult to the intellegentsia to equate shoe-throwing with democracy. At best, these shoe chuckers are attention-seeking individuals. They give bad name to the virtue of.

While it might be true that the ban on Jagdish Tytler owes its existence to everyone's recent interest in a certain someone's shoes, this embrace of vigilante justice is an extremely dangerous trend and one which is truly unbecoming of a healthy democracy. A true democracy hinges on the dictum of public opinion formed not as after-effects of a shoe-gate but of the analysis carried out by free-thinking men. Politicians should be wary of commiting atrocities not because they fear being hit by a shoe in public but because they should fear being exposed and excommunicated from the entire politcal setup.

If the journalist who threw his size-nine Reebok at the Home Minister was just an ordinary citizen who took such action on one of Delhi’s streets then perhaps it could be argued that he simply has no decency. But for a news reporter to take such action is a matter that should be condemned. That he chose to use shoes over words, forgetting that journalism does not debate and communicate using violence and vulgarity is an insult to the profession of journalism and an indicator that the nature of journalism has been misunderstood.

These words are not in defense of Chidambaram; they come in defense of our culture that does not approve of such behavior. These words are for defending the profession of journalism that is beginning to suffer from a lack of professionalism. A journalist is expected to voice his concerns by posting pithy, quick witted questions, aimed at facilitating cognitive thinking. However this journalist, who today has the right to ask questions and to hold a politician responsible and remind him of his lies, decides not to do that; he decides that shoes were powerful than words, reason and argument, as this is some people’s idea of democracy. No civilized society can forgive this way of expressing disapproval in a democracy.

If it is a sign of the times, then it is time to change! This again is a case of wrong means to reach the right ends. Can we change? What would you do if you were in Jarnail Singh's shoes?

Ponder.

Au revoir!