We have all seen the exponential growth of Indian cricket in the past decade. Being an Indian cricket fan, there is a certain sense of pride that a team once considered as underdogs are now regarded as world champions again. With that the Indian cricket board BCCI's fortunes have also grown in the global cricketing circles both in terms of influence and finance. There can also be a sense of pride for that too. But in the recent past there have been many alarming developments which suggest that BCCI is grossly crossing the line and abusing its enormous influence to unjustly influence and bully rest of the cricketing world. Even ICC the cricket's global governing body fears BCCI. Broader interests of the game have been disregarded by BCCI's actions which lack any intellect or sense and are solely exercised under the blind spell of arrogance of power and money.

The most talked about issue in cricket nowadays is the use of Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) involving Hawk-Eye's ball tracking technology used to assist LBW decision making. BCCI's firmly and stubbornly opposes it. When the whole world talks in one tone for BCCI to discredit it, there has to be a very strong and credible justification than a lame excuse. Unfortunately they don't have one. The explanation given by BCCI is that they are not convinced by the accuracy of the Hawk-eye's ball tracking technology. This is after ICC presents very substantiated evidence about the overall effectiveness of the technology claiming drastic increase in the percentage of correct decisions made claimed to be 97%. BCCI are not convinced. They want a 100% accurate system!. Indian cricket captain and BCCI's most loyal servant MS Dhoni once infamously resonated BCCI's argument that 'He won't buy a life jacket unless its 100% pool proof'. This is rubbish. Then does it mean that in case of a storm Dhoni will leave it to fate or risk to swim ashore?

This demand for 100% accurate system is a naively nonsensical and ridiculous argument. A simple fact of human existence is that nothing made by man is 100% accurate. Many ambitious NASA space programs have ended in disaster because of technical glitches. Time to time, we see horrific airplane accidents. Even the best written software systems crash. Does that mean that we should suspend all space research or never travel or fly or stop writing software? The simple fact is that nobody on earth can build a 100% accurate risk free ideal system. But what one can certainly do is build a 97% or 98% or 99% accurate system which very rarely fails. The same applies to DRS technology. It is claimed to be a 97% accurate system and hence when used promotes fair and effective decision making which broadly contributes towards the overall betterment of the game's standard. One can certainly be skeptical if the system is just even 80% or 85% accurate. But its outright arrogant if you don't want to buy something whichs backed by evidence of 97% accuracy and instead demand 100% perfection. To repeat, inability to achieve cent percent perfectness is a simple factual limitation of our lives. We don't live in a ideal world. Just like any other technology, through DRS caretakers of cricket are only trying to make things better coming up with the best possible solution than provide an ideal fix. This elementary fact is well understood by all the cricket boards in the world and hence they support DRS. However BCCI seems to think hundred years ahead of their time and expects ideal things.

One could think BCCI could be dreaming. But I don't think so. There are couple of factors which are behind BCCI's stand towards DRS. They are both naively selfish and malicious in nature. First factor is that, apparently in a 2009 series between India and Srilanka when DRS was being trialled for the first times, many decisions went against India. This might have been pure co-incidence or because of the fact that any new system takes some time to get used to. From after this series onwards BCCI stopped using DRS in all the non-ICC series it competes completely. The only reason was that the trial use of DRS went against Indian team on the field. This is very naive at best. Actually if the technology was really erroneous, both teams should have been affected. The fact that it went largely against India suggests lack of intellect of Indian players to use DRS effectively. But they should be given the benefit of the doubt since it was a new system. Instead of acknowledging this and persisting with further trials, BCCI grew too impatient and bluntly turned its backs against DRS. And what motivates them to be not sportive but blunt is sheer arrogance of power and money.

Secondly even after successful use of DRS in the recently concluded world cup where in fact team India benefited from the system, BCCI officials just could not afford to change their stubborn minds. This comes even after ICC and Hawk-eye incorporated further improvements in the technology and took pro-active pains to convince BCCI explaining the effectiveness of the system. Here too their blind devotion to arrogance of power guided them. They were just being stubborn. They didn't want to be seen in a compromising position that they bowed down to ICC and rest of world's pressure. They just want to tell the world that they are the real bosses and can bully anyone. Very recently even the great Sachin Tendulkar being a humble person that he is, informally acknowledged the effectiveness of the ball tracking technology in Hawk-eye. But the pot bellied mortal likes of Shashank Manohar, Niranshan Shah, N Srinivasan and Rajiv Shukla can't be convinced. These guys think that they are Phds in Kinetic Physics and denounce the scientific explanations given by Hawk-eye. I am sure these ignorant guys cant even understand some of the basic principles of primary school Physics applied in Hawk-eye but they dare not to have slightest trust in the intellect of the smart people who designed the system. They think because they are powerful, they are above everyone. I don't think they even have the patience to honestly try to understand whats being explained to them. Bottom line is that they cant understand it because of their arrogant, impatient mindset and hence they conclude that they are not convinced and just for the sake of it oppose the system. 

Another very recent example of BCCI bullying is that of forcing the cancellation of the Srilankan Twenty 20 league SLPL. There was no way in the world SLPL would have grown to compete with IPL. But cunning BCCI strangely feel insecure and don't want to take any chances.They initially agreed to send Indian players to make it look like that they are being very sportive and tolerant and later backed off citing silly excuses. Also as expected they have already blocked Indian players from playing in BBL giving 'protocol' reasons. But they expect everyone in the world to play IPL. I am sure that when BBL launches in December 2011, BCCI is bound to do whatever it can in its malicious authority to disregard or even bring it down. One allegation I can predict to come out of BCCI's evil minds could be that BBL is linked to ISI of Pakistan or linked to racist elements in Australia who are anti-Indian. Just watch out.  

While most of the cricket world including press and former cricketers from India are critical of BCCI's stand on DRS, BCCI find support from their distant beneficiaries like Harsha Bhogle. Bhogle putting on a face of impartial and respectful sports media person, openly supports BCCI's controversial stand with flawed arguments. He is open to air his views, but given the BCCI's clout on media production houses, I am very skeptical of his opinions. In one of his flawed explanations, Bhogle puts on a typical Indian politician's hat in blaming others than owning up your (BCCIs) mistakes. He indirectly seems to justify the bullying by questioning all those who detest BCCI's actions by pointing out that in the past England have bullied world cricket very badly. This at best promotes lynch mob mentality in Indian fans. Well Mr Bhogle, what happened in the past however bad it might be needs to be condemned and in no way does it give BCCI any license to crime or revenge killing. Two wrongs can never make a right and please put a full stop there. Worse for the second time(after England) it will set a bad example for future cricket boards. Read more on my comments on Harsha Bhogle regarding this. Also we saw recently how another fringe beneficiary Ravi Shastri jumped the gun and began to label the whole world as being anti-India all for just one comment made by Nasser Hussain.

I feel BCCI's unjust bullying actions are largely because of the power hungry political mindset of its officials. Also even the credibility and integrity of BCCI is being questioned over the recent reports of tax evasion and flouting foreign direct investment rules in IPL. Its perhaps in coherence with the unholy practice of muscle mafia in places of money and power prevalent all over India. This is creating a dangerous and confrontational trend of India against 'Rest of the world' on major issues concerning cricket. This is very detrimental to our beautiful game in the long run. I wish BCCI mends its ways and uses its power and influence constructively for the good of the game and builds a big brother like reputation, leading and guiding the cricket world. But unfortunately given the way the things are going at present, I am least hopeful.

In this post, I would like to write about what has been the reaction from different sections of Indian society on the whole India against corruption movement. I am not necessarily referring to the NGO India Against Corruption led by Anna Hazare, Kiran Bedi and others, but rather referring to the larger idea of anti-corruption movement. Lets take it from an income perspective. As much as India is known  for its diversity in culture, language and food its also a very diverse (or imbalanced) country when it comes to economics that is income. Broadly there have been three classes of people; poor, middle class and rich. Today, thanks largely to globalization, these have been further stratified and we have sub sections like lower middle class, upper middle class and and affluent.

Firstly the poor. Most Indian poor are more concerned with earning a livelihood and make ends meet. They don't have the time, energy, patience or education to understand or take part or even take notice of any social movement for change and its importance. But they nevertheless are victims of corruption in large scale. They have been on the receiving end of this exploitative system so much so that long ago they have just resigned to their fate. Due to lack of awareness they are forced to believe that corruption is a part of the system and a way of life. Its beyond their simple imagination to even dream that change is possible. Its a strange irony. Its hard to say they don't support the movement and blame them because they are clearly visible victims. Its just that they cant afford to be supportive. But this is bad. The movement can only be successful when all the victims take active part in. This can be changed with some amount of awareness. Awareness needs to infiltrate the simple minds of the poor through a medium of more learned and knowledgeable sections of the same society.



Secondly the middle class. Like their poor brethren, middle class society has also been the victim of corruption in large scale. But this class of people today are more aware and better educated. And most importantly they have some spare time and energy to understand the importance of an anti-corruption system and support it. Some bright minds even take active part in it. Their minds are evolved enough not just to lay down and face injustice, but to also speak out against it and strike back demanding justice. So they form the largest active support group to the movement.

Then come the rich. Here opinion is divided. While some rich people are honest in their lives and hence openly support the idea, some other rich people are dishonest and actively indulge in corruption either influencing someone (giving bribe) or being themselves influenced (taking bribe) and hence very wary of supporting the cause. Because the dishonest section of the rich know deep inside that they are corrupt, they know that if they take a populist supportive stand on anti-corruption today, it could backfire on them because there is every possibility that their past misdeeds can be exposed in the future if a strong anti-corruption legislation comes in to effect. Such people in the upper middle class and rich sections are just indecisive in their actions. Neither can they dare to support it because of their guilty consciousness, nor can they dare to oppose it because of fear of loosing the populist prestige in the eyes of their peers. But the really rich or the affluent have their own way. Often drunk with power and money they openly and shamelessly oppose the movement and even attempt to intentionally derail it in the most meanest and unethical ways.



Major sub-sections of the affluent India are three. Celebrities, politicians and big corporates. Lets look at their response. Response from the starry world has been very indecisive and lukewarm. Except for Aamir Khan and a handful of other people, many of the so called stars like Amitabh Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan etc who have plenty of fondness for the love and support of their 'common man' fans, don't have that slightest courtesy to even show verbal solidarity towards the cause of the same 'common man'. Also as expected, they don't openly oppose it either, because they don't want to loose the popular love they receive from their fans which ultimately makes them what they are(popular). The same indecisive attitude is shown by big corporates too. They make big money because 'common man' is their client. Inside both of these classes, their wishes are clear; that in their self interests is it better for the system to stay lethargic and corrupt as it is. But outside they just keep mum and play safe. These classes at least have some prestige and morals; they don't get into the shady business of intentionally derailing the whole movement.

Now the politicians. There is no sense of ethics or morality left in politics today. Politicians today are not about serving people, but rather exploiting them and serving themselves. Because they feel that a strong anti-corruption system could strike at the very heart of their 'corrupt and exploitative livelihood', devoid of all humane values, politicians openly and vehemently object to such system and try their level best and evil best to destroy the whole movement.

So by looking at the way people from different sections of the society have reacted to the anti-corruption sentiment, its clear that this movement is not a movement of all Indians. Its largely a movement of the common man of the middle class India. I am afraid the issue has not attracted the attention of the middle class rural India. But that needs to happen for everyone's good. If the reader is an Indian citizen and has taken note of current anti-corruption movement, its high time he makes a self introspection and honestly learns which group he belongs to. Then if he thinks hes wrong, he should try to correct himself.  

In the last post I wrote about the significance of the awareness amongst Indians for a strong lokpal bill to combat corruption. In this post I would like to talk in general about the actual bill, its core provisions and some of the contentious issues in it. Right now two versions(drafts) of the same bill which came out of the much talked about joint drafting committee are in circulation. Anna Hazare's version is being called 'Janlokpal' (People's Lokpal) The committee comprised of five govt ministers and five civil society activists of the Anna Hazare group called India Against Corruption(IAC). It is still not clear which version will end up in the parliament. I have read both the drafts and the detailed comparison between the two drafts circulated by IAC.

Firstly one of the most discussed topics is whether Prime Minister (PM) should be under the ambit of Lokpal? I feel nobody is above law and hence everybody in the executive, including the PM should come under the purview of Lokpal. Decisions on certain sensitive issues like national security etc can be exempt. Concerns are being raised that such a provision would lead to a large number of frivolous complains and interfere in the day to day functioning of the PMO's office. Hence it would undermine the authority of the PM, make the govt unstable and hence over time seriously undermine democracy. No doubt these are genuine concerns, but I don't think they are grave enough for not including the PM under Lokpal. Such misuses of the system can be very easily prevented through a set of strong safeguards. Instead of solely focusing on the negatives, we should also realize the positives of this provision. In fact I feel, from being under the ambit of Lokpal, in general Prime Minister's office would become more honest, transparent, trustworthy and accountable which actually strengthens the democracy.



Second issue is whether judiciary should be under the ambit of Lokpal. This is a more sensitive issue than PM's because one of the basic tenets of our constitution is the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary and the independence of judiciary. Making judiciary accountable to Lokpal, would essentially give sweeping powers to the ombudsman. Hold on. We are trying to create an independent institution to tackle corruption. This has never been done before, neither tested or trialled. Entrusting such astronomical powers in the hands of one agency to monitor everyone is not such a good idea. Though I vouch for a powerful Lokpal, I think we should carefully look at issues one by one and bringing judiciary under Lokpal is not worth the gamble. It can have serious implications on the functioning of judiciary. Also we should notice that Supreme Court(SC) can interfere in the functioning of Lokpal. So two bodies controlling each other might only lead to confusion. Instead we can have a separate independent agency, call it 'Nyaypal' if you want to tackle corruption in judiciary which has the same powers as Lokpal. Having said that, theres no denying that these issues of bringing PM or judiciary under Lokpal are very sensitive and complex which have far ranging implications on various matters. Hence its only natural to have differing opinions on these from different sections of the society. Hence its suggested that in the best interests of the nation, the concerned people should involve experts, hold discussions, debates and reach a solid middle ground consensus.

Third issue is the structure of Lokpal. This is technically more important than the first two which seem to get all the media attention. There are two things. Firstly Govt's draft suggests that Lokpal oversee only grade A central govt employees and above whichs essentially only higher bureaucracy and political class. This is a very small percentage of executive machinery. Lower bureaucracy is exempt. Secondly Lokpal would only act at central level. State level Lokayukts would not be created under the new law. This makes no sense. Govt's argument is that corruption only exists in the high offices. This is a rubbish and laughable argument. Everyone knows that corruption in India is a systemic problem which exists across the length and breadth of the executive machinery. And often times we have seen that in major corruption scandals, there would be a collusion amongst people from top to bottom from Mantri to Santri. Govt's half baked approach would only lead to an incomplete, weak lokpal machinery. For the systemic and pervasive problem that corruption is, the need of the hour is a comprehensive institution or system which has powers to investigate anyone at both state and central machinery from top to bottom. Actually this idea of comprehensibility is not new, we shouldn't forget that CBI today can also investigate anyone from  post man to PM. The only difference is that its not independent, but comes under the direct control of the govt.



Fourth issue is whether CBI should be merged with Lokapl. We should understand here that we are only talking about bringing the anti-corruption unit of CBI and not the whole CBI which also includes the unit investigating criminal cases. If we have a comprehensive Lokpal institution which can investigate anyone from post man to PM, then it makes absolutely no sense to have another duplicate agency like CBI under the control of govt. The duplicity would only lead to more confusion on who does what. On the serious issue of corruption, just two cooks are enough to spoil the whole party. I think the govt is deliberately pressing for an incomplete Lokpal so that it can still keep CBI under it.

Lastly the issue of selection and removal of Lokpal. Civil society draft's proposal of selection committee includes two politicians and rest from judiciary and civil society. This seems to ensure a honest, transparent process with direct involvement of the people. On the contrary Govt's bill includes five ministers from the ruling party in the selection committee and selection process is entirely controlled by the committee. On the removal, civil society suggests that anyone can complain to SC seeking the removal of lokpal. Govt suggests only govt should have those powers. This is a clear attempt by the govt to take full control of the 'independent' lokpal and in reality not make it independent. I would suggest the civil society's transparent and open selection/removal process with may be a little more political participation.

Apart from these core issues there are some other factors like who investigates corruption within Lokpal, on tying citizen's charter's accountability with Lokpal officers, quantum of punishment and and govt's version that lets the accused have hearing after hearing before and during investigations which is being called controversial and dangerous by the civil society. In all of these, civil society's proposals make a lot more sense than govt's. So overall, except for my differing views on judiciary, I am in for a strong, independent, comprehensive and accountable lokpal as envisaged by team Anna which I am sure, when in effect can significantly reduce corruption in the course of time. And in comparison, govt's version of Lokpal is rubbish and non-nonsensical. In some instances it is either light on the accused or even tries to shield them. The Govt wants to wash its hands off wasting tax payer's money in creating a weak, toothless, namesake anti-corruption system which is indirectly under its own control. Just another such manipulated investigative agency would only create more confusion and not reduce corruption.  

Following are links to both govt's and civil society's versions of the Lokpal bill and the detailed comparison between them prepared and circulated by IAC
Govt's draft : http://www.box.net/shared/m6xav193ynky0q610dfa
Team Anna's draft: http://www.box.net/shared/tyqqc9d0rl8xgglqxpmj
Comparison between the two drafts: http://www.box.net/shared/ndtmbhdxpmhgvqqemgis

Note: Views expressed in this post are purely personal. When I say A is accountable to B it doesn't mean that A reports to B in all matters. In this(Lokpal) context, it only means B has powers to investigate A on charges of corruption. Author is a concerned non-resident Indian citizen whose body is outside India, but mind is still very much inside India:)

The 83 minute film starts with images of West Indian kids imitating the bowling run up and action of their cricketing idols on the Caribbean beaches with international cricket commentary in the background. Then there is a mention of pre-independent Caribbean society, where racism was wide spread in every walk of life including sports. Cricket boards were run by whites and it was always ensured that the captain was always a white. Even the team composition was largely white with couple of exceptions. Well known black cricketers in that era were greats like Sir Garfield Sobers, Frank Worrell, Wesley Hall etc. After the British left the islands in the early 60s the roles were gradually reversed. The early all black team was considered a fun team to play against, but based along those lines soon a perception developed that these guys were all fun and party somewhat synonymous with the leisurely lifestyle of the Caribbean beaches, but were easily beatable on the cricket field. That was probably when the term 'calypso' was tagged with the WI cricket team.



Later when Clive Lloyd was made the captain of the team, he wanted to change that perception and prove to the rest that WI can be a force to reckon with on the field. The tough away series against Australia in 1974-75 would in many ways prove as the turning point towards that change. Actually West Indies would be humiliated with a 1-5 defeat. Under alien conditions, the fiery pace of deadly Australian bowling duo of Dennis Lillie and Jeff Thomson proves too much for the West Indian batsmen. During the long and exhausting series, as an insult to injury players are often subjected to racial bullying by the crowds and the public.

Once back home, Clive Lloyd realizes that to win matches, he needs guys who can really bowl fast. He goes around the islands trialling and looking for potential fast bowling talents. The result, Micheal Holding, Andie Roberts and Collin Croft are selected to lead the pace attack. The trio unleash their pace against the visiting Indian side led by Sunny Gavaskar. Indian batsmen would be no match to the fierce pace and bounce of these young West Indian speedsters. India are routed in the series which included a bizarre incident of Gavaskar surrendering a test match as a symbol of protest against what Gavaskar felt was unsportsmanlike aggression of the West Indian bowlers. India would be the first victim.

Then comes the real test, the 1976 away series against the powerful English team. There would be a lot of hype before the start of the series mainly in the Caribbean media about the raising power of the West Indian unit and its potential to beat England in England.  In an interview before the start of the series English captain Tony Grieg doubts the ability of the West Indian team and makes a very controversial statement that West Indian cricketers grovel when under pressure and utters these infamous words 'I intend to make them grovel'. Though this is brushed aside as just part of the buildup by the visibly biased English media, the lesser West Indian media feels that this comment made by a white South African captain (Tony Grieg was born South African) at the height of Apartheid in South Africa, had very serious racist connotations. Many of the West Indian players take this personally and are determined to give a fitting reply on the field. The high profile series commences. West Indian pace attack would be stronger than ever with the addition of young 6'8 tall and imposing Joel Garner. All four had the ability to bowl at more than 90-95 mph consistently.  On the field very soon, the fantastic four's lethal pace combined with a barrage of bouncers aimed at head and rib cage of batsmen, becomes too hot to handle for English batsmen. West Indian batsmen come good too. Finally England are humiliated with a 0-3 defeat. West Indians manage to beat English in their own game on their home soil. After the series this famous newspaper article comes out with a picture of Tony Grieg kneeling on the ground with the headlines 'Okay, So I'm grovelling now!'. This victory establishes West Indies as a major force to contend with.

The next big series would be another away series down under. This would be a tough series with Lillie and Thomson still being a major threat. But this time West Indian batsman handle Aussie speedsters aggressively. At the end, inform and confident West Indies manage to outsmart Australia in Australia and win the series 4-1 and this would be a revenge victory for them.
 
From then there is no looking back. In the subsequent series's West Indies beats teams like India, Pakistan and tastes success after success. During this height of dream run enjoyed by once considered underdog West Indian team thanks largely to their fiery bowling and world class batting, all sorts of efforts are made to best stall this remarkable progress by often racist western media and western cricketing fraternity like calling for banning bouncers, demanding shorter run ups etc. Aggressive approach by West Indian bowlers is often dubbed as bringing the game into disrepute. But none of these shakes the new found West Indian winning spirit. Its worth mentioning that after all the drama, at a later point of time even the once biased western cricketing fraternity sportively acknowledges the greatness of the West Indian team. This was a heartening development which was always in the best interests of the game. This is best exhibited in the wonderful photograph of Sir Viv Richards enjoying a lighter moment with Sir Ian Botham.