latest cricket scores

Still haven't found any answers to my questions to myself, but I'm trying to let go of some of the labels that I put on myself.

That's not as easy as it sounds. I had always labeled myself as not very strong physically. And then, on Sunday August 16th, I ran 7 miles without stopping for even a second. I had never done this in my entire life, not even when I was in high school. I did not break any records, not even for my age group. In fact, earlier in the day on Sunday, a little wisp of a girl, a Russian named Olga Kaniskina walked(?) almost double that distance in marginally more time that I took for my 7 miles. I repeated that performance; no, I bettered that performance on Sunday, August 23rd - I ran 8 miles without stopping even for a second. I even managed to reduce my average time per mile. This gave me a lot of satisfaction and happiness. Not many people, that I know and who are in my age group, can do that. I have started to think whether I should peel that label off myself.

How do you get the labels that are assigned to you? In my opinion, most of these labels are self-assigned. If they are not self-assigned, they are actively sought. Most people use them as a door-opener, an introduction to a closed group. You go to your child's school picnic where you do not know anybody; you introduce yourself as your child's parent. Next picnic/ meeting onwards, that becomes your defining identity. In other cases, people use these labels to actually set themselves apart from a group that they are in. You go to a rock festival and proclaim yourselves to be a connoisseur of opera; next time you meet people from this group, you are labeled a snob. You didn't self-assign the label in this case, but you actually sought it by trying to actually set yourself apart from the rock lovers.

Do these labels serve a useful purpose? In other words, are they required? I believe that while labels do serve a limited initial purpose, they have a habit of outliving that initial usefulness and, therefore, ultimately become constraints on you rather than enablers. Going further with the examples that I just cited, your child grows up and moves on from that school to another, and ultimately to a job, but you will forever be defined as your child's parent by other people in that group. Same thing with opera lover; your tastes change and you start listening to rock music, you even start loving it, but you'll forever remain the stuck-up snob to the initial group. People's opinions, beliefs, judgments have a tendency to be inertial - they change at the rate that a glacier moves.

Moreover, most of these labels are defined by external factors. External factors have at least two shortcomings. One, they tend to be transient; two, a factor that may be important to one person, may not be important to another person. Most external factors can vanish any moment - a powerful politician may lose an election, and may be thrown out by his own party, or worse, be forgotten by his own party. A popular film star's movies may bomb at the box office, and her backers may start doubting her pull at the box office, whereas another generation never really believed that she ever had that pull at the box office. Beauty? Not only is it transient, but what is beautiful to one is plain to another. Wealth? In these depressing economic times, do I even need to talk about the transient nature of wealth?

Can we get rid of labels? To steal a phrase from Barack Obama's campaign, yes we can. I believe so, because I believe, in the first place, that I assigned that label to myself. I can refuse to assign myself a label. I am what I choose to be.

Who are you?

Sitting in my hotel room, I am switching channels to catch the latest NBA game. Turns out , there is no game tonight. I chance upon a show called 'The Bachelorette' on ABC. It's the premier of the show - there are 25, no, make that 30, white American males trying to win the heart of this girl called Jillian Harris. Her claim to fame? She was one of the contestants who made it to the last four of another reality show called "The Bachelor". Of course, she wasn't the one that the Bachelor chose; she wouldn't be doing this show otherwise. This is her chance for redemption - she got dumped on TV, now she can dump 29 men.

Anyhow, I do not intend to discuss ABC and reality shows. It does seem a bit surreal, though, to see the ancient Indian practice of swayamvar being packaged as a reality show for a divorced-from-reality tv audience, circa 2009.

Back to the show! 30 males trying to win the heart of this girl. all of them come in and introduce themselves. 'Hi, I am XYZ, I am a general contractor', or, 'Hi, I am ABC, I am a Financial Analyst'. It set me thinking about one of the oldest existentialist dilemmas - who am I. Have you ever wondered who you are? Or, are you one of those sure-of-yourself, got-everything-before-you-are-thirty, successful guys in life, and have never thought along these lines before now?

I, for one, have wondered about this many times. And, I have diagnosed myself with multiple personality disorder! To my wife, I am her husband who is never perfect, but she still loves me. To my daughters, I am a imperfect but loving father whose sole reason to be is to take care of them. I do not grudge them that certitude; I wish I had that kind of asurance myself. In my college days, I was many things to many people. To the people who envied my popularity with the girls, I was the Casanova. To the general students, I was the eternal neta/ politician - dishing out favours and collecting votes. To my friends, I was one of the funniest guys with my ready repartee and unfunny jokes. To my professors, I was one of the more intelligent and troublesome students.

Back in college, I thought, I was just being me; I was just behaving normally; I was just being a regular guy. If you didn't know how to talk to a girl, that didn't make me a Casanova. If you couldn't solve a Maths problem, that wasn't my problem! I always got irritated with some of these impressions of me. To me, they represented a selective impression of me - kind of like the six blind men describing the elephant. No one saw the true me, the complete me. I thought I was the sum of all that the other people saw me as.

Now, I am not so sure. I am still many things to many people. But, I don't know who I am anymore. Well, I didn't ever know that, but I wasn't interested in knowing that earlier. Now, I want to know that. Not only that, I even wonder about my raison-de-etre. I do not have any answers. Do you?

Sport A Hat This Summer

Not long ago, The Times of India used to be a newspaper in India, of Indians, by Indians, for Indians. That was in its paper version. Then the Internet happened. Like most older entities, the 'The Old Lady of Bori Bunder' could not figure out the Internet, and how to deal with it.

Allow me to digress a little. Sometime in the late 1980s the ToI ownership underwent a generational change. In line with changes in ownership, the management team also underwent a change. The term 'management team' itself should have set off red flags! Newspapers were meant to have editorial boards, not management teams. Anyway, one of the first changes to happen was that the ToI decided that the staid black-and-white look will not do, it started printing pages in colour. While the decision to go colour was more of a technology decision - in that the capability, to print in colour, was available at a affordable and cheaper price, the decisions that followed or accompanied it were not technology decisions. They were dictated more by a change in management and, therefore, by a change in management thinking. The ToI management made the decision to treat the news business like a commercial venture, and, profit-and-loss considerations, rather than editorial decisions, started to dictate what would appear in the newspaper and what would not. In line with this new management attitude, The ToI acquired a corporate look and feel, and started to recruit MBAs to run the paper like a business. Marketing professionals(?) started to define a new audience for the newspaper, and all of a sudden the ToI started to become all things to all people. Sports had always been there, it just gained in prominence. Youth Times, College Times, Delhi Times, Patna Times, Science Times, Lifestyle Times, Bizarre Times - somebody just had to think of it and the marketing types would jump on the idea.

Little digression over, Time(s) :) to get back on track. In the age of the Internet and the marketing professionals, was added a new factor. The expanding Indian diaspora. The ToI had a new market! That was just the excuse The ToI management needed to start printing all the junk that was earlier found in American or British fashion glossies, tabloids, and travel magazines. So now, you get to know about the life and times of Brangelina(who?), of Prince William, and 50 cent. Never mind the fact that a majority of the intended audience doesn't care for the foreign tag anymore. Give them something Indian to be proud of, and they will be more receptive to that. Witness the excitement generated by the Nano - the entire automotive world was there to report its launch. But the Nano launch was an exceptional, once-in-a-lifetime event.

However, the ToI is apparently not run by people who have any pride in their being Indian; they still have that fixation with things foreign. So we have this ridiculous story in the the ToI - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Lifestyle/Trends/Sport_a_hat_this_summer/articleshow/3035441.cms.

True to the title, this story is about wearing a hat this summer. The story tells you that you should wear a hat which suits the shape of your face type. People with round faces should wear asymmetrically brimmed hats and people with large faces should wear wide brimmed hats. Wow! What wisdom! Thank you, O exalted ones on the editorial board of the the ToI. Never mnid that no one wears hats even in America these days. But who are we to complain? We do not belong to the decision making class. We belong to the class which is used to have its decisions made for us.

Unfortunately, that is the same class that the editorial board of the ToI belongs to. Otherwise, they wouldn't be blindly copying tabloid stories. They even go to the extent of copying agency reports for things happening in India.

Can they get an Indian to work for them, please?

The Pot Calls The Kettle Black! Or, Is That Brown?

Harbhajan Singh has been 'Unmasked', says the great Ricky Ponting. The great Ponting, who knows everything about everything! What about Ponting himself? And, what about his Australian backers, both in and outside of the media?

Let's look at the next-to-Bradman Ponting's record, and let's see if we can unmask him; here's what Wikipedia has on him:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ponting#Controversies)

1. Ponting was suspended from the Australian National Team for a fight outside a pub in NSW in early 1999. He was given a suspended £2000 fine and banned from the team for 3 matches.
Just as an aside, guess who the Chief Executive of CA was? You guiessed it! The same Malcolm Speed, who was livid when match referee Mike Proctor let Yuvraj Singh off in the First Test of the 2007-2008 series between Autralia and India.

2. In 1998, Ponting was thrown out of Equinox night club in Kolkata after misbehaving with several women and assaulting the management staff. He was reportedly pulling his zipper up and down, drawing attention to his zipper. As per the oh-so-proper and holier-than-thou Australian Manager Steve Bernard's narrative to the journalists, Ricky couldn't remember doing anything wrong.
Ponting still copped a fine - for doing nothing wrong!

3. On the way to losing the Ashes to England in the 2005 series, Ponting was unhappy with the use of substitutes by the England side. He was fined 75% of his match fee for his rant against the England team.
The reason I mention this here is that after his return to Australia, Ponting had the temerity to claim that England were playing within the rules of the game, but not within the spirit of the game. More on this later.

4. In the spirit of the game, Ponting started to use bats with a graphite covering over the blade of the bat. As per MCC, this was violative of Law 6.1 governing Cricket equipment. Kookaburra Sport, the manufacturers of the bat withdrew the bat from the market and said they would be supplying new bats to all the players using their bats.
Guess what the ICC, led by the cannot-do-anything-wrong-Australian Malcolm Speed did? The ICC approved the bat in May 2006.

5. That Ponting has the divine right to rule on the cricket field is evident from his skirmishes with on-field umpires and also from his propensity to let his pack loose on the umpires. While the Second Test against India, in Sydney in the 2007-2008 series, is a glaring example of his and his team lording it over the umpires, it is not the only one. Playing against New Zealand, Ponting got into a slanging match with umpire Billy Bowden over signalling a no-ball because Ponting believed that there were not enough players within the inner circle. In Bangladesh, Ponting consistently badgered the umpires until he got his way.
Writing in 'The Age', in an aptly titled story called "Big yield on odd regret"(Jan 12, 2008), a surprisingly candid Brendan McArdle writes "Like many of his teammates, he consistently pressures umpires with his aggressive appealing and he often ignores the edict that is supposed to prevent fieldsmen from charging at umpires during their appeals."He further writes, "As a batsman he has always found it difficult to accept line-ball decisions; it was no surprise last week when, despite his earlier reprieve, he showed his displeasure at wrongly being given leg before wicket." McArdle goes on to say that Cricket Australia's boss Sutherland has always stood behind his team, but that is time that he should have a chat with Ponting. And his pack(my words, not McArdle's).

6. In 2006, Ponting was fined his entire match fee for showing dissent in match against West Indies in Kuala Lumpur. Ponting admitted breaching the players' code of conduct, "I made a serious error of judgement. I shouldn't have behaved in the way I did."
Incidentally, that was Ponting's second incidence of dissent within the same year - the incident in Bangladesh being the first.

7. Again in 2006, Ponting and his pack were quick to show their boorishness in pushing Sharad Pawar, the BCCI chief, off the podium. Ponting had to formally apologise for that incident.

8. And of course, who can forget the Second Test in Sydney in the 2007-2008 series against India. Ponting showed that he was not leading a team of cricketers but that he was leading a pack of, well, you decide what. He let loose his pack, not only at the Indian players, but also at the Umpires.
The umpires did his bidding; the picture of Ricky Ponting raising his finger to show that Ganguly was out is still fresh in my mind, and everybody else's. Countering Kumble's criticism that only one team played the game withing the spirit of the game, Ponting had this gem to offer, "absolutely, no doubt about this match being played in the right spirit." He went on to defend the umpires, "All I'll say about the umpires is that they're out there like me trying to do the best job that they can. "Sure, they made a few mistakes, but that's the game of cricket."
Cricket Australia's chief, another cannot-do-anything-wrong-Australian, supported his team wholeheartedly, "We're supportive of the Australian team and the way they play and this tough and uncompromising way is the way Australian teams have always played,"
Australian Cricketers Association Chief Executive, Paul Marsh was quick to jump to the Australians' defence, "They definitely play the game hard but they rarely cross the line …" Rarely? Mr. Marsh, your knowledge of the English Language needs enhancement.
Ian Chappell, another Australian Captain, said that Ponting learnt from his mistakes and therefore, deserved a second, chance. I am sure he meant a 10th, or, did he mean a 15th chance. Ian Chappell went on to say that Test matches need Umpires with Authority!

Long list, eh? So what does Ponting do? He says Harbhajan has been 'unmasked'. And a fawning media, not just the Australian Media mind you, but a subservient Indian media as well, for who the white man can do no wrong, fails to see anything wrong with Ponting. They go to town asking Ponting his opinion of everything under the Sun, giving Ponting a chance to pontificate.

Hey wake up, Ricky! And, shut up! Mend your own ways first and then take care of your own batting. And if you have the guts, speak out in India, not when you are in the safe environs of your native Autralia. But then, you had to keep quiet while you were in India, right? Not only because you don't have the guts to snarl outside your own backyard , but also because even the pitiful $400,000 that you got as your IPL bid might have been in jeopardy!

I have to say this to the Indian Media - not just to the ignorant girls who comment on Star TV, a channel owned by an Australian incidentally, but also to the other guys who know their cricket - respect yourself and your own, otherwise nobody will respect you.

Pepsico & The IMA - The Saga Continues

Looks like I was the first one off the blocks in criticising the deal between the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and Pepsico :) Now, I have company. The Union Health Minister, Anbumani Ramadoss and Sunita Narain of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) have both pitched in to criticise the deal, and the IMA.

Despite the criticism, the IMA is sticking to its guns and claiming that they haven't done anything wrong in signing the deal. Let us look at their arguments for sticking by the deal.

As per a story published in Bihartimes (http://bihartimes.com/newsnational/2008/May/newsnational07May2.html) Doctor Ajay told IANS that if people drink"Pure Juice", they will not drink aerated soft drinks. Furthermore, as per the good doctor, patients suffering from diabetes and kidney problems should be consuming these juices only after they have been advised by their doctors. Now, wait a minute! Looks like the good doctor has never had Pure Juice from Pepsi before; nor has he had really pure juice before. As per the understanding in India, and elsewhere, pure juice is made by crushing fruits and extracting the juice. If Dr. Ajay had cared to read any of Tropicana's cartons of Pure Juice, he would have found that in many cases Pure Juice is made out of concentrate! Pepsico will certainly claim it to be Pure Juice, but if that is Pure Juice then I am the Prime Minister of India.

Furthermore, the IMA claims that they have endorsed products before and do not see anything wrong in endorsing products. While Eureka Forbes' water filters may not be affordable for all, they sure meet a need for Pure Water, which sadly our cities and towns can't provide to their citizens. Even then, I would not suggest that the IMA should be endorsing products. As I stated in my earlier post (http://kumar-alok.blogspot.com/2008/05/pepsico-and-indian-medical-association.html), doctors in India are treated with a respect which borders on blind faith. Even elsewhere, a doctor's words are taken very seriously. To endorse commercial products would be to abuse the faith that society has in Doctors. I tend to agree with the Union Health Minister here; Doctors should partner with the government and/ or NGOs in the fight against TB, Malaria, and other diseases. That would be repaying society's faith in them.

The, there is the confusion about money. While Doctor Ajay would have us believe that they, the IMA, did not receive any money in this deal, there are others who are telling us that the IMA received 50 lakhs for this deal, and the money is to be deposited in their general fund. We are also told that the IMA is in talks with other companies as well, to endorse their products. Sunita Narain has had the last word on this - she doesn't expect the IMA to become the Indian Marketing Association.

Sons of Fortune

Sons of Fortune is a old book by Jeffrey Archer; well, 5 years old. It was first published in 2003.

Archer does not offer anything new in this; he seems to borrow heavily from his own writings from the past and as usual, from his own life as well. He traces the life and times of two people - twins in this case, separated at birth by a loyal, and well-meaning nurse. He has done this in the past - Kane and Abel, and First Among Equals immediately spring to mind. Nat Cartwright and Peter Cartwright are twins born to Nat's parents but Peter is stolen from his parents at the time of his birth and replaced by a dead child. Peter is given to another family, who've had a history of childlessness. From then on the two children follow the same hackneyed path to adulthood - A life spent in the top private schools, an excellent athletic/ academic record, and early entry into politics. Wait, but isn't that the story of Jeffrey Archer's own life?

As I said earlier, there is nothing new in this book, either in terms of content or in terms of style. If Mr. Acher has trouble selling this book, I am sure he can sell this story to the Mumbai Film Industry. They are bound to love it; after all, even they have been recycling the same stories over and over again.