My theory on why all this fuss

I knew that the match would get over today, which meant that Sachin's last day on the field in an international test match was going to be this day, which also meant the farewell to the master was also going to be on this day. So I wanted to witness it and I'm glad I could. The fact that we will no longer get to see those back-foot punches or those straight drives or just that sheer charm that he carried every time to the field takes some time to settle in. To be honest, I think it would have been a fitting farewell had he retired when he was comfortably and regularly playing both ODIs and tests. For the past two years, he wasn't really at his best, yet kept playing. A Pujara or a Dhawan could have got a chance earlier if he hadn't done that but nevertheless, that decision to postpone his retirement doesn't diminish what he has achieved in the game of cricket and that shouldn't take away what he deserved.

In the meantime, I was just wondering how a Sachin or a Amitabh Bachchan or a Rajinikant become a different phenomenon altogether, to an extent that people go mad at them. If you've seen all the hype around Sachin's retirement, you know what I'm talking about. If all news channels or magazines or newspapers have had only the news or articles around this topic, that's simply because they sell! So there's no point questioning them. They are just doing their business as usual. The question is - why was it such a big deal for millions of us?

I think all this attention and hype cannot be dismissed as unnecessary right away. Sports and movies entertain us. I'm sure we all have our own favorites but all of them make us so damn happy. A bad day at work, you come home and switch on the TV with a drink, see Sachin score a hundred, India wins and you feel so good. I've seen rival groups in college hostels gathering in the same room to watch cricket and celebrating together when India wins. Nobody in Wankhede today would have bothered to know whether the guy sitting next to him is a Modi fanatic or a worshiper of Gandhi dynasty or whether he's a Muslim or a Hindu. Families bond together to watch cricket matches and movies innumerable times. Amidst everyday frustrations, sports and movies serve as excellent escapism. People like Sachin have been the ambassadors of this escapism for a long long time and that's what makes them so special.

In a country like India, a large section of people cannot really afford the kind of entertainment that middle-class and upper middle class families can afford. They can't go on regular tours, go to pubs or have occasional family gatherings. To those section of people, cricket or movies are comparatively handy. Besides, it's so thrilling to somehow associate ourselves with an amazing journey of our favorite sportsperson, to live through his dreams. It might sound silly and yes, there are a lot of other important things in life to do but they are always going to be there. A discussion on what we should be doing to curb inflation is very useful but it can't really replace a discussion on - what's your favorite among Sachin's hundreds. The latter is a different pleasure altogether! My grandpa is more than 80 years old and ever since I've known him (I'm 23), he has enjoyed watching cricket so much that even today, although he finds it hard to recognize people and talks very less, watching a game of cricket makes him feel good. It doesn't matter whether it's a live match or a 10 year old match. I know he loved watching tennis too until very recently. Now that's the power of sports, movies, books etc. Who are we to question the emotions of such millions!? You never know what great moments they've had watching Sachin play. We've got watching him play as an incentive for finishing the homework on time, people have bought their first television sets to watch him play, he has been there when we really didn't have such a great cricket team and trust me, it's not an exaggeration that people switched off their TVs once he got out. We really used to do it at some point.

 Unfortunately, why people do not go mad about Vishy Anand is because they can't relate themselves to his journey. Most people don't even understand his game. You could promote it, take measures to make people understand what he has achieved but besides all these, people might just applaud and move on because for them, chess can't replace cricket. There is no emotional connect. I know it's a little unfair but that's the truth. Few sports gain popularity, most of them don't. You can't help it. I'm all in to endorse other sports though. It's absolutely necessary.

People seek entertainment, be it in any form. Let's not forget that a show like Big Boss is a huge success in our country. We look for ways to stay happy and I think it's absolutely safe if cricket has been a tremendous form of entertainment. Each one of us will choose our hero of this game. It's just that Sachin was the favorite of  most of us which, along with other reasons made this day so important. Let's not lie to ourselves that cricket is over. I'm sure we'll find our new heroes and start worshiping them. Yes it's silly, it's mad, but if that makes a lot of us forget our problems once in a while and have fun, let that happen!

The need for an alternative

Before our Modi fans jump to a conclusion that I'm a congress supporter, let me admit that I'm as frustrated as any Indian with close to 10 years of Congress rule at the center. Though in their defence, global slowdown, remarkable increase in oil prices, media coverage of corruption and scams like never before have added to the general feeling that they've done horribly worse, I do agree that we have not seen any impressive steps taken by the government to tackle any of the problems. Our Prime Minister has been very torpid and Mr Rahul Gandhi doesn't seem to be interested in politics. When I look at him, I remember those kids who hardly want to get up from their beds but are forced to get ready and go to school. It's like someone pushes him out of his house everyday, reminding him that he is supposed to lead the party. If you ask me whether I want to give them another chance in 2014, my answer is a definite "No". When being in power becomes a habit for a political party, it's dangerous. No party should take people for granted and BJP in Karnataka has learnt its lesson lately.

This brings me to thinking of an alternative to Congress which easily draws my attention toward BJP. This election is going to be a very special one for BJP. All the hype around Modi and visibly strong support for him in public forums and social networking sites have brought in more hopes for BJP. Modi, no doubt is a better contender than others because of his not-so-great-yet-not-very-bad record in Gujarat, because it looks like he genuinely wants to do something to improve country's economic situation, curb corruption and importantly, is courageous and strong enough to at least voice his opinions and stand by them which is very essential at present given our current Prime Minister's inability to do it all these years.

I tend to categorize Modi supporters into three groups -

1. The Hindu fanatics, who for a long time have felt insecure because they think India was supposed to be a Hindu nation and Congress being in power for such a long time hasn't let that happen. They hate Gandhi, they hate congress unconditionally. These people are unapologetic about what they want and with their own multiple groups believe that Modi at the center, given his background and image, makes it easier for them to feel more secure and superior. Though they are not sure if Modi would entertain their interests completely, they believe that he would be much better than Congress. These people do not want to talk facts, their arguments generally wouldn't be rational and they know it. Such groups exist for all parties in India, but at the moment, the Modi fans who belong to this group are more angry and appear more strong. As we all know, anger is scary.

2. They are more or less the same as group 1, but they don't openly admit it. Unlike the group 1, these people try to appear more rational. They try to give you a sense that they are supporting Modi only because they think he has done very well and is the best option we have. In this process, they try to justify his actions, however ruthless they are, with a famous argument that unnecessary and extra attention is being paid to his background and that we should look at positives. Unfortunately and sometimes unconsciously, they look at every critic of Modi as a Congress supporter. People who suffer because of these groups are the ones who genuinely want to be neutral and rational. Since there is a good chance that such intellectuals do not tend to forgive Modi, want to look at authentic data and support rational debates,  this group tags them as congress supporters. I see two main reasons for this - One is the inability and laziness to have a look at verified facts and rational arguments, second is that they believe tagging someone as congress supporter makes it easy to debate. This group too, I think exists in every party, but here it's much stronger and more irrational.

3. This group supports Modi for the sole reason that they are fed up with Congress. They aren't ready to think of the possible consequences of him coming to power. They are understandably too pessimistic about Congress and hence their only hope is the change of government. They readily agree to the flaws in Modi, yet want to give him a chance to prove that he has learnt his lessons.

I tend to agree with group 3 sometimes while I'm particularly scared about group 2 and much more scared about group 1. Most of the debates or discussions with Modi as their subject turn as dirty as they can. All attempts to silence his critics start rushing in, sometimes forcing critics to come up with a statement which also criticizes congress. We saw the viscous environment that was created everywhere when Anantmurty  made a statement recently. If you go through all the comments for the articles that question Modi's credibility, you'll know what I'm talking about. At present, it stops just there. I'm afraid if Modi becomes more powerful, it won't. I'm afraid that all this insecurity and hopelessness residing in Hindu fanatics for a long time will translate into actions. We saw what happened in Karnataka when for the first time BJP came to power. As far as I remember, at least 13 churches were attacked, women were beaten up in pubs and only after certain groups and media started making enough fuss about it, the government curbed it (or did all of it stop on its own?). I understand that I'm cherry-picking and it wasn't Modi who was Karnataka's leader then, but  it's not very difficult to predict similar incidents happening if you have a look at the restlessness and hatred displayed in public forums. Like I said, group 1 is unapologetic about their motives. A common mistake that group 2 and group 3 does is to give Vajpayee's governance as an example to argue that this hadn't been the case in the past. Problem with this argument is that today, the man in question is not Vajpayee who I'm a fan of. The man who wants to be the PM is someone who given his records, deserves a lot of scrutiny. Even today, he has not indicated (except for the recent "toilets and temples" statement) that he is a changed man. He still calls himself a 'hindu nationalist'. After 2002 incident, Vajpayee himself wanted to take action against this guy.

A party that is ideologically pro-Hindu with it's leader as Modi is not very healthy for the democracy. We could take this chance when Vajpayee was the leader, but I doubt if we can take this chance with Modi as the leader. The 'saffronisation' of  textbooks here in Karnataka for example was shocking. Congress on the other hand, though probably just with an intention to grab minority votes, do not have anything on their agenda to support one religious group more than the other. At least the groups that encourage and display fanaticism don't feel powerful under congress rule (that's why they want BJP in power so badly!). If I have to choose between wrong-doers, I would pick corrupt and inefficient governance over a governance that directly or indirectly encourages bigotry. When I read a bit of Indian history of the times when groups like RSS started, the statements they've made and the opinions they've had (I'm sure they wouldn't deny those even today), I feel extremely relieved that a political party which was not backed by these groups has ruled us for these many decades. When I look at the options of political parties we've had since independence, if not for a non-BJP party ruling us, things might have been better, but things could have been much much worse.

Although congress has done really bad, the assumption that BJP would have done better is absurd. Until now, Mr Modi or BJP hasn't told us what they could have done differently to check inflation for example. They have not told us what changes they want in the food security bill, we don't know what they would have done differently to handle the economic crisis. See what Modi had to say on this here. Please let me know if you could make any sense out of it. All he does in every public speech of his is - make personal attacks on Sonia Gandhi or her son or the PM. As long as we keep applauding, he'll continue the same. Group 3, by making an assumption that they'll do better and by voting for them, is committing a mistake. Let us remember that we have an option to choose "none of them" now.

I think it's foolish to be hopeful of BJP changing its ideology and therefore the solution that comes to my mind is the growth of a powerful political alternative. There is a need of one or more political parties which would serve as an alternative to congress. The minimum requirement is that they should be equal to BJP minus its religious ideologies (BJP - religious fanaticism).  Parties like Loksatta and  AAP are such examples. The various civil society groups and media can play a major role in emphasizing a need for such parties. It will take years, but all they have to do is making sure they are growing at a good pace. The group 3 should also understand the need to vote for these parties and encourage them even though their votes might not make a lot of difference to current elections, but can be the first step in the right direction. We need more qualified leaders, who talk more sense and who have clear-cut plans and opinions, who are not very self obsessed and who really want things to change and that's why they join politics.

In a country like India, this is easier said than done. In a lot of  places, people vote when they get money and liquor as incentives. A lot of well educated folks unfortunately are religious fanatics. Lack of education, poverty, lack of information all add to the wrong choices that people consistently make. Given these situations, parties like AAP and Loksatta have a long way to go. Till then, the genuine thinkers of modern India have their role to play. I'm happy to see a lot of them coming out and voicing their opinion lately. Mr Ramachandra Guha, who I've been a admirer of recently (though I'll make sure I don't turn into a blind worshiper of anyone), spoke in response to Anantmurty's statement that he would not want to live in India if Modi becomes PM - " I wouldn't have said that. I would have said, if Modi becomes PM, I'll live here and scrutinize him." That's what we need at the moment. It will take sometime for us to understand that nobody in politics should be unquestionable and hero-worshiping is unhealthy. As of now, a lot of intellects that I admire seem to be talking sense, media has been effective though not without occasional blunders, human right groups are getting stronger, supreme court has been effective, and all of these is a good start. One association that I'm very impressed with lately is 'Association of Democratic Reforms'. Check their website http://adrindia.org/ to know more. While there are hopes, the last thing we need is religious intolerance to grow. As long as we take care of that, I and you, at the least can talk.
  

My thoughts on Death Penalty

Mr Arthur Koestler in his essay "Drinkers of Infinity" apparently quotes these lines  - "The murderer has killed. It is wrong to kill. Let's kill the murderer." that sums up the paradox of death penalty. If you ask me, I've always felt that life imprisonment should be preferred to death penalty at every opportunity. Having said that, I do realise that there can be no easy conclusions on this. The judges have been in dilemma on various occasions. "Death or life imprisonment for the murderer?" has been a tough question.

Death penalty is irrevocable and there is no question of rehabilitation of convict. Life imprisonment is revocable and rehabilitation is possible. Death penalty is more often only a symbol of condemnation of the committed crime. Among the theories of punishment - reformative, preventive, retributive, denunciatory and deterrent, only the denunciatory theory seems to be justifying death penalty.  It can be easily pointed out that reformative theory is irrelevant when death is the punishment for the simple reason that death cannot reform a person. As far as preventive theory is concerned, life imprisonment and death penalty do the same job. I do not understand the retributive theory completely. I understand that it focuses on punishing the person for the act simply because he deserves it. While a lot of sources gave me an impression that it means returning of evil for evil, a supreme court judgement that I read and few other sources told me that it "implies imposition of just and not more than just penalty". In a retributive system, a punishment should be such that it "fits" the committed offence. However, this doesn't mean "eye for an eye". It only wants more severe crime to be punished more harshly. While I agree that death penalty shall have deterrent effect on the potential murderers, I doubt if it is more effective as a deterrent force than any other form of punishment. Do we have any supporting evidence to claim that death penalty is more effective in bringing down crime in the society? If not, clearly, deterrent theory doesn't justify death penalty too.When the late Prime Minister Bandarnaike of Sri Lanka suspended the death penalty in 1956, a commission of inquiry on capital punishment was appointed and its report clearly disproved the deterrent effect of death penalty. Ironically after the prime minister was killed, his widow Sirimavo Bandarnaike who became the prime minister reimposed death penalty to punish the assassin who was eventually subjected to life imprisonment.

Like I said earlier, perhaps only the denunciatory theory that holds that punishment should be an expression of condemnation of the offence by the society justifies death penalty to some extent. The society through death penalty, sends a strong message that the act is condemned. However, I'm personally very uncomfortable with human sacrifice being the symbol of a disapproval. The bitter truth is that when you talk of death penalty, you are talking about killing someone. By killing someone you are taking away someone's right to live. Whatever the circumstance is, however remotely it is, if our law itself is justifying this act, it is scary. I also tend to disagree when Supreme court in Bachan Singh v/s State of Punjab states that death penalty is only an exception and should be given in rarest of rare cases. While I appreciate the guidelines set by the court through this case without which death penalty would have just been an alternative to  life imprisonment, I see a lot of ambiguity in the phrase "rarest of rare". I do not know if they have clearly defined this but even if they have done so, I strongly feel that there is still some ambiguity which has always been there in CRPC in general . Due to this ambiguity, if someone is awarded death penalty incorrectly, it completely defeats the idea of a legal system. There are numerous instances where judges themselves have had differences of opinion regarding whether a pronounced judgement was proper. Human beings are complex creatures. All convicts in the world aren't the same. All judges do not think alike. In a society where decision making is not a trivial task, deciding what fits into the "rarest of rare" cases is never easy.

The best a law can do is uphold  human dignity and the right of every individual to live. I'm sure there are a lot of experts around. I'm sure I know nothing that they know but for me, killing each other is wrong. Period.