Saturday, December 27, 2025

Mastertakes

[box]
Kripa Joshi on Art
Amruta Patil, India’s first published female graphic novelist brings us her second novel Adi Parva, an impressive 250-plus pages! The book is “via” Amruta rather than “by” her because it is just the latest incarnation of the Mahabharata. The book is illustrated with a mixture of drawings, paintings, collage and mixed-media. While the sections with the storyteller are in black-and-white, the stories she weaves are in brilliant colour. There is a story within a story kind of feel to the book. It is a fascinating read, whether you are being reintroduced to the stories or discovering them for the first time.
Joshi is the creator of the Miss Moti comics 
[/box]
bookShiv Ramdas on Books
The Earthsea series by Ursula Le Guin is one of the most genre-defining pieces of literature ever written, so much so that many of the most popular aspects of some of the biggest contemporary bestsellers are devices that Le Guin first created. The Academy of Magic at Roke for one, or the concept of true names and magic being based on the inherent meanings of words- it was Le Guin who first came up with all of it- for Earthsea. And then there’s the story and the style, both of which are sublime. All in all, this is a must-read for any fan of speculative fiction.
Ramdas is the author of Domechild
[box]musicNischay Parekh on Music
Alan Hampton is a wonderful multi-dimensional musician. He can be found playing bass with the likes of Robert Glasper and Gretchen Parlato when he’s not writing and recording some of the best pop music of this generation. His album The Moving Sidewalk is a modern classic. Also, Luke Temple is one of my favourite living songwriters. His lyrics and music work harmoniously together to create magic.
Parekh is a singer and songwriter based in Kolkata 
[/box]
Ankur Kapoor on Filmankur
Perfect Sense is the story of a chef and a scientist as they witness the end of the world, strangers who form a desperate romantic connection in the face of an apocalyptic epidemic that robs people of their sensory perceptions. Directed by David Mackenzie, the film is one of the most crafty but underrated master pieces produced in the last decade. Eva Green and Evan McGregor are perfectly cast and the score by Max Richter is spectacular. If you appreciate films like Children of Men, this is the film you would definitely want to watch.
Kapoor is a Delhi-based filmmaker and visual artist

[box]
Reeta Skeeter on Food
Diva Kitsch offers an unusual view of Delhi, with glass panes overlooking the Defence Colony flyover. The bouquets of decorative flowers on the stairs lead you to the dining space decorated with eclectic curios. Pick from a carefully selected array of innovative takes on pan-Asian fare, conceived by celebrity chef Ritu Dalmia. Begin with Vietnamese rolls served with nahm jim. For the mains order young jackfruit curry with fresh red chilli served with rice noodles or the roti bawang. Their udon noodles in a mushroom broth redefine comfort food. The excellent service is the cherry on top.
Skeeter is a food blogger based in Delhi 
[/box]

Why Kejriwal could be the Delhi CM

Must win For Arvind Kejriwal and the AAP, the New Delhi Assembly seat could decide the future
File Photo

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has shown political finesse in stating right at the outset that it would sit in the opposition in the 70-seat Delhi Assembly because its final tally of 28 seats is short of a simple majority. But in his heart of hearts, AAP chief, Arvind Kejriwal, surely knows that the final scene of these elections is still to be played out.
Of Delhi Assembly’s 70 seats, the BJP has won 31 and its ally, the Akali Dal, one. Even if the two singlets — one an independent and the other of the Janata Dal (United) — were to cosy up to the BJP, that coalition would still not reach the halfway mark of 36.
So whenever a trust vote is called, the AAP will clearly vote against a BJP-led government on the floor of the house. To evade the ignominy of a defeat in that trust vote the BJP would need the Congress party’s rump of eight MLAs to either abstain from voting (which would be unlikely given that the Congress would dare not prop up a BJP government), or create a ruckus before the vote and walk out.
But, of course, the BJP can be sure of neither. And nothing would please the Congress more than to see a ten-day BJP government voted out. Even the BJP would not want that less than six months before a General Election which it hopes to win largely on the braggadocio of its putative prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi, who fashions himself as an unstoppable Alexander.
If the BJP indeed forms the government, and if it crumbles right away, as it most likely would, then Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor, Najeeb Jung, would have no option but to invite Kejriwal whose AAP has the second-highest number of seats in the assembly at 28. At which point, it would make sense for Kejriwal to go ahead and form the government.
Of course, it would be a minority government. But why would he care? The AAP’s refrain is that it has entered politics not to gain power but strictly to keep politics honest and people-oriented. As CM, Kejriwal and his ministers would run an aggressive administration sending the corrupt to the cleaners. And there would be total media attention on them, thus ensuring that their every such action is magnified in public imagination.
So any time the Congress and the BJP pull down its government, the AAP would claim that it is being targeted for cleaning up the system from within, and thus become an instant martyr in the cause of probity and integrity in public life. Neither the BJP nor the Congress would dare to bring down Kejriwal’s government, at least not in the short run.
For the Congress, especially, it would suit much better to see AAP rather than the BJP form the government in Delhi in view of the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. Having unambiguously lost Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh in three of the most humiliating defeats it has ever faced, the Congress would be desperate to stall the BJP and Modi anywhere it can. Not that it has much political currency left to pull off anything.
Right now, though, it might be difficult for the BJP to reach even 34 seats, since the JD(U) is unlikely to align its lone MLA with Modi’s BJP just seven months after they parted ways in Bihar. Bihar CM Nitish Kumar’s entire political strategy since June has been built on painting Modi’s BJP as divisive and communal. Whatever he may have gained with the minorities in his state by projecting himself as anti-Modi would go out the window if he aligns with a BJP government in Delhi.
Of course, the JD(U) MLA could himself chuck his party and cross to the BJP. But just imagine, how would that unprincipled politics look on the CV of Modi, a man touting himself as an honest politician set on cleaning up Indian politics? For the same reason, BJP would be loathe to split the Congress or the AAP in order to gain a simple majority.

‘A dialogue not in full English, is no longer wrong but more colourful’

Prajwa Parajuly
Prajwa Parajuly, 29, writer Photo: AFP

Is there one incident that triggered or informed your writing?
Most other writers had childhood aspirations to be writers. I did not. I quit a dead-end job, travelled and having nothing else to do, started writing. In New York, one day, I picked up a Nepali newspaper and saw how difficult it was for me to read the language. Nepali was slithering into the background for me and I had to do something about it. Writing came from a desperation to do something with my life.
Writing about Nepali diaspora, how do you and your characters negotiate identity?
I grew up in a belt that has always been vocal about a demand for it’s Indian identity. Much of the Gorkhaland movement is in my new novel. Growing up, I’ve tried putting my Nepali roots over my Indian roots, and vice versa. Nepali speaking Indians have to stress on their Indian nationality when they mention ethnicity. But I’ve come to see many of these conundrums as self created. I don’t know if that’s an easy solution. I’ll be glib here, but I don’t write to tell the world about issues that my people are grappling with. I write fiction to tell stories. Once the book is released it ceases to be mine. So, it is perfectly okay for people to have their own perceptions.
What role does language play?
My characters speak Nepali and I think in English. The writing process is fraught with translation. It’s tricky, but we have grown up reading South Asian writers who made the path somewhat easier. A dialogue not in full English is not wrong, but more colourful. It talks about the difference in culture. I’m asked why I used so many Nepali words in my short stories. I want to be unapologetic about Nepali. It’s a beautiful language that employs onomatopoeia better than any other.
How do you deal with ‘mainland-India-syndrome’?
Every story of mine has a map, showing exactly where the plot unfolds in India. This is to inform not just foreigners, but also ‘mainland’ Indians about these places, whose inhabitants are also Indians.
Could your writing get lost in an existing glut of South Asian fiction?
I don’t think so. A good story that resonates with some editor will get published. Did my book get picked partly because it’s about an esoteric part of the world? Probably. But would that have happened if I wrote crap? Perhaps not.

Wake up and smell the coffee

[cycloneslider id=”for-manmohans-dream-team-ignorance-is-bliss-2″]
For my fellow conferees I may well have been from another planet when I began to speak. Some 30 of us had collected in Beirut last week from around the world, from as far away as Chile, Scotland, South Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia and, of course, the Arab nations nearby. Deeply committed social and political activists with a track record of working internationally to “free Palestine from Israeli occupation”, as the activist-speak on the issue echoes globally, they had gathered to chalk out the future course of a consolidated solidarity movement for the Palestinians’ long-drawn struggle to have a country of their own in the land of their birth in the Levant.
After several participants had dwelt on the familiar suggestions of strengthening an ongoing BDS campaign (to force boycotts of Israeli goods, divestments in Israeli companies and sanctions against all things Israeli) and of taking out yet more aid convoys to Gaza, the besieged western chip of the Palestinian homeland that the US and Israel force to stay cut off from the rest of the world, I gingerly set about suggesting that we bring India into the picture.
After all, India is now one of the US’ closest non-NATO non-traditional allies. Since forging diplomatic ties with Israel in 1991, India has also emerged as one of the strongest trade and security partners of the Jewish country, buying half of Tel Aviv’s defence exports for $9 billion in a decade. What is the point of campaigning in Europe where governments cannot but toe the Washington line? Why not instead raise a stink in India over the Israeli and US duplicity on Palestine? Indeed, New Delhi once led the global solidarity for Palestine. Why not revive that?
But I could well have been speaking Mandarin. For who has ever heard of India influencing anyone on anything globally, least of all of speaking truth to Washington? Did I seriously believe that the Indian government would be persuaded to not copy-paste the American agenda for West Asia in the column titled ‘Indian foreign policy’? Their disillusion with India was disheartening, yet entirely understandable. In over two decades since the Soviet Union’s fall, New Delhi has inexplicably dumbed down its foreign policy to being no more than a camp follower of the US, displaying little talent for an elegant and nuanced navigation of the international waters.
India’s irrelevance came into starkest display on 24 November when the world’s five biggest powers who are the UN Security Council’s only permanent members — the US, Russia, China, the UK and France — and Germany clinched a historic deal with Iran in Geneva aiming to resolve Tehran’s contentious bid to enrich uranium to harness nuclear power. That the US and Iran could be on their way to detente after 34 years of extreme hostility cannot be overstated. If indeed a more durable agreement emerges from this temporary six-month deal, the new dynamics would dramatically reshape politics in West Asia as well as South Asia, deeply affecting India.
Ironically, the easing of tensions between the US and Iran comes eight years after India began to burn its bridges with Tehran under American-Israeli pressure. Iran’s leadership was stunned, to say the least, in 2005 when India voted in the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world’s nuclear watchdog, to censure Tehran for enriching uranium in a bid to harness nuclear power. Apart from being a display of abject spinelessness, that unforgivable move was also a negation of India’s own commercial (read oil) and geopolitical interests in the conflict-wracked region.
Of course, the Iranians saw it as a betrayal. Old-timers may recall another vote of two decades ago when, at the insistence of Pakistan, an exclusive club of Muslim nations was about to demand that the status of Jammu & Kashmir was a global dispute and should be resolved internationally. The vote nearly went through. Except that Iran, which had excellent relations with India at the time, put out a foot to block the door from slamming shut on India. In the 1990s, India and Iran, Pakistan’s respective neighbours on its east and west, collaboratively backed a clutch of non-Pashtun fighters in Afghanistan’s north, helping them battle the Pakistan-backed Taliban for years before they lost Kabul in 1996. That would be the last India and Iran would team up for anything significant.
The wheel had turned a circle by 2010 when Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, publicly clubbed Jammu & Kashmir with Palestine, saying both were occupied territories that needed to be liberated. An irritated New Delhi summoned an Iranian diplomat and complained that the statements amounted to Iran meddling in India’s internal affairs. For much of the new century, Iran and India have followed different trajectories in their foreign relations. While New Delhi moved towards the US and away from Iran as well as its former traditional allies such as Russia (the successor State to the Soviet Union), Iran firmed up its relations with Russia and China.
It so happens that, to India’s dismay, Russia and China are ascendant in diplomatic heft while military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and the financial crisis of 2008 have humbled the US, making it far less of a champion ally. What must panic Indian foreign policy mandarins is the unflappable ease with which US President Barack Obama, a self-confessed pragmatist not hemmed by ideology, ignored protests from Saudi Arabia and Israel, two of America’s closest allies who have a pathological hatred for Iran, to join with rivals Russia and China to ink the Iran deal.
It is puzzling that India did not see Obama’s push for normal relations with Iran coming at this juncture. After all, the US president had rather early in his first term explicitly extended an olive branch to Tehran. Once a moderate liberal, Hassan Rouhani, won Iran’s presidency this year replacing the outgoing hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Obama was bound to set the wheels in motion. Although these are early days, there can be no doubt that in his remaining three years as president, Obama will seek to further normalise relations with Iran for a number of reasons.
A key compulsion for America is the need to secure peace in Afghanistan from where the US-led military forces will exit next year. Although the westerners have spent billions in training locals as soldiers and police, their competence is far from what would be required to push back any forward thrust by the still potent Afghan Taliban, who are holed out in their sanctuaries along both sides of the AfPak border and continue to receive covert support from Pakistan. As is widely known, Islamabad uses the Afghan Taliban as its insurance policy to create “strategic depth” on its west so it can focus on its border dispute with India on its east.
For internecine violence in Afghanistan to return to anywhere near the levels of the early parts of the past decade would be a huge setback for the US, which wants to ease off on its security concerns in order to focus on rebuilding its economy. Meanwhile, relations between Washington and Islamabad have never been worse in the six-and- a-half decades of Pakistan’s existence than they are today, and the US hardly expects Pakistan to deliver it the peace it wants. And in Afghanistan, a presidential poll in April is already causing jitters all around as there is no clarity on who would succeed the outgoing president Hamid Karzai, and what his politics would be.
Enter Iran. As is being already recognised, any likely entente between the US and Iran at this junction would have an enormous impact on the situation in Afghanistan. Iran is no more keen than Washington to see Islamabad regain the stranglehold it held over Kabul until the Taliban’s ouster from Afghanistan in 2001. Russia and China, which have significantly better working relations with Iran than India has, have boosted their standing in the region by working closely with the US in securing the 24 November deal with Iran. Given that Iran still nurses a sense of betrayal from India, it is unlikely that India would find a prominent place in a scenario that might emerge.
Any hopes that the US might consider a significant role for India in Afghanistan would certainly be misplaced. If Washington gives Israel and Saudi Arabia no quarter, just what can be India’s chances? And while India has allowed a perception to take hold that it is a minion to the US, Iran has held out for over three decades and is now sitting down with the world’s six biggest powers to strike a deal of its own.
India can hardly hope for any help from Israel to find a seat at this table. Israeli leaders are scrambling to figure out its next step, for the latest situation is unprecedented in US-Israeli relations. Before long, and despite its growls, Israel is expected to fall in line. As for Saudi Arabia, the faultlines between the oil kingdom and Iran are multi-layered, not the least of which is the Sunni-Shia divide that has always plagued the Muslim ummah. But as far as India is concerned, it has no more traction with Saudi Arabia than it has with Iran.
In fact, India’s woes in the Sunni Arab world are compounded by its failure to adequately respond to the Arab Spring that spread in the region from January 2011. I remember spending several hours over days at the Indian embassy in Cairo in February 2011, where top diplomats were convinced that the dictator Hosni Mubarak would eventually beat back the tens of millions of protesters and continue to rule Arab world’s most populous nation as he had done for over three decades until then. My feedback from Tahrir Square, where the uprising was centred, did little to convince them of another possibility. But in days, Mubarak was ousted.
India’s position on the Arab Spring has only gone worse since. The recent upheavals in Egypt where Mohammad Morsi was ousted in a coup and jailed was met with a stony silence from New Delhi. The army’s violent campaign against the pan-Arab Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), from which Morsi hails, has angered the Sunni world enormously. But loathe to turn away the anti-MB dictator regimes in most Arab States, New Delhi has continued to practise silence. This stance has won India few friends among Sunnis.
Yet another highly contentious issue on which India has only made murmurs when it could and should have spoken loudly to seize the initiative is the terrible civil war that has raged in Syria for two years. That conflict is now the crucible of the Sunni- Shia conflict, where followers of both sects across the world simply refuse to believe that the other is not the main culprit and perpetrator of violence. In the Beirut conference I attended, this sectarian divide seemed to be the greatest threat to the chances of a consensus. Eventually, a consensus did not emerge.
Finally, the issue of Pakistan. A handshake and a hug between the US and Iran would no doubt make life more difficult for Islamabad, which would be unnerved by the prospects of ceding space to the Iranians in Afghanistan. After making statements conciliatory towards India, Pakistan pm Nawaz Sharif went on the offensive this week, suggesting India and Pakistan could go to war yet again if the dispute over Jammu & Kashmir wasn’t resolved. That, of course, is posturing for consumption by the domestic political constituency in Pakistan. But it also underlines the anxiety that the latest Iran deal is causing in that country. Having appointed a new army chief just last week, Sharif can hardly be seen to be making life easy for India vis-à-vis Afghanistan.
But Islamabad has a card that puts it ahead of India. And that card is China. Precisely to box in India, China has deliberately courted Pakistan for long and the two have worked out a mutually beneficial partnership to outwit India in South Asia. It was indeed this growing relationship that had in large part spurred India in the first place to cross the oceans and build a big umbrella relationship with the US as a counterpoint to China in this region.
But now, the US has revealed its preoccupation with itself, which has little room to include any concern for India. There are few voices to be heard in India’s favour in West Asia as hardly any recognise India as a trustworthy friend. Russia and China are both at a high table where India has not been invited and won’t be, not on par anyway.
And yet, there I was in Beirut, trying to convince people that India could make a difference on a key issue in West Asia. No wonder no one was buying it.
ajit@tehelka.com

The Big Stage Player

[cycloneslider id=”the-big-stage-player”]
The precious few who turned out at the Bangabandhu National Stadium in Dhaka on 16 February 2004 weren’t expecting much of a contest. The Under-19 Cricket World Cup, much like the real thing, has a first week dominated by utter mismatches, and nobody expected Scotland to put up a fight against India, which had three months ago won the Asia U-19 title and were one of the tournament favourites.
Eighteen-year-old Shikhar Dhawan, playing his first India U-19 match, wasn’t taking things lightly though. Disappointed to have been left out of the Indian team that had won the Continental Trophy in Pakistan, he had a point to prove. In two seasons of the Cooch Behar Trophy, Dhawan had averaged 55.42 and 74.00, respectively, for his team in Delhi, with four centuries and two half centuries in 14 innings. The batting had failed in that tournament, not managing 200 in any of the games. Dhawan had finally been named in the World Cup squad. “He was scoring consistently,” says Tarak Sinha, his longtime coach, “but was frustrated at not being selected. He wanted a chance to prove himself.”
Sinha, one of India’s most respected coaches, founded Delhi’s famous Sonnet Cricket Club in 1969. The club is the stuff of Delhi sporting lore; with no permanent ground and few facilities at his disposal — the club currently operates at the Sri Venkateswara College’s ground — Sinha has carried on his mission to “teach correct cricket and help junior players move ahead”, taking in kids from all social backgrounds. His pupils include former India players Manoj Prabhakar, Raman Lamba, Ashish Nehra, Ajay Sharma, Aakash Chopra and over a hundred first-class cricketers.
Sinha first saw Dhawan play at an Under-12 tournament his club had organised. He saw a left-handed wicketkeeper batsman with potential. Dhawan scored a hundred in the final. Atul Wassan, who played for the club at the time, remembers him as an “aggressive, careless kid” (he qualifies it by saying that he has grown into a “wonderfully promising batsman”). Sinha tried to temper that aggression and teach him to build an innings. He got him to drop the wicketkeeping and focus on opening the batting.
Years later, in a foreign land, on a foreign pitch, the match against Scotland was Dhawan’s big chance of getting a call to the Indian senior team. Started in 1998, the tournament had entered the national consciousness once India won it in 2000. Eight months later, Yuvraj Singh, who had made his name in that triumph, was playing for India in the ICC Knockout Trophy in Nairobi. Facing a formidable Australian attack that had cheaply dismissed Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid and the team tottering at 90 for 3, Yuvraj blazed his way to 84 off 80 balls, then effected an outstanding run-out of the danger man Michael Bevan.
In the 18-year-old Yuvraj, the world had found the prototype of the 21st century Indian cricketer. Unlike in the past, when Indian batsmen would acknowledge a cracking straight drive off a fast bowler with a nod of the head, the new-age Indian cricketer was young, aggressive and brash, someone much like Virat Kohli and Shikhar Dhawan today. Over the years, in an almost Darwinian manner, the nature of Indian cricketers, and thus Indian cricket, would completely change. Yuvraj’s sudden rise to fame also legitimised the U-19 World Cup as a platform to build an international career on. It helped that the tournament would be televised for the first time. Today, the tournament is keenly watched for future sensations.
“It wasn’t always so, but in recent years, a good showing certainly gives you a boost when it comes to promotion to the senior side,” says Suresh Menon, editor of Wisden India Alamanack. “This is partly because of the more harmonised selection process where selectors at various levels — and the manager of the U-19 team — are in regular touch, and partly because of the media coverage. Names of those who do well are thus injected into the subconscious of the decision-makers.”
That India-Scotland match proved to be much more than a mismatch. Opening the batting, Dhawan and Robin Uthappa put the hapless Scots to the sword, racing to a 175 partnership in just 24 overs. Once Uthappa fell for a 78-ball 97, captain Ambati Rayudu continued in the same aggressive vein, making 53 off 51 balls. After his dismissal, at 261/2, fellow southpaw Suresh Raina walked in and scored an incredible 90 off 38 balls. India posted 425 in their 50 overs and Dhawan was unbeaten on 155. Scotland would struggle to 155/8 in their 50 overs.
Two weeks later, Dhawan made 120 against hosts Bangladesh. A week after that, he posted 146 against Sri Lanka. India would lose to Pakistan in the semifinal, but Dhawan had done enough to prove himself. He scored 505 runs in the tournament, 122 more than Alastair Cook, the next highest run scorer, and was named Player of the Series. “He had a lot of application,” says Robin Singh, who coached that India U-19 side. “He had the desire to play for India, and most importantly, he had the appetite to score big runs.”
Even the most hardened cynic would forgive Dhawan for thinking that his Yuvraj moment was right around the corner and a call to the national team was just a matter of time. Eventually, the call would take another nine years. When his turn eventually came, it was on Yuvraj’s home ground of Mohali; the opponents, again, were Australia. But this was a different Australian side from the one Yuvraj took apart that day in Nairobi. The Aussies were, like India, going through a difficult transition at the end of a golden generation. The fearsome bowling attack of Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Nathan Bracken and Jason Gillespie had been replaced by the likes of Mitchell Starc, Peter Siddle, Moises Henriques, Nathan Lyon and Xavier Doherty, all competent bowlers, but by no means the stuff of batsmen’s nightmares. The team, as a whole, was desperately inexperienced, with captain Michael Clarke the only one to have 50 Test caps to his name.
Andrew Brettig summed it up precisely in his series preview for Cricinfo. “So in circumstances ‘less than ideal’, a favourite recent phrase of those in Cricket Australia’s team performance hierarchy,” he wrote, “the 17 named for India provide the captain Michael Clarke with a vast array of options for the various scenarios that may lie ahead of him across the matches in Chennai, Hyderabad, Mohali and Delhi. Clarke wants those options because he is not entirely sure what is in store, nor how his players will respond to what they find.”
Australia’s woes were, however, the last thing on Indian minds at the time. The knowledge that they weren’t the force to be reckoned with was, of course, comforting, but the series was chiefly about payback. In the immediate aftermath of their 2011 World Cup triumph, India had suffered ignominious 4-0 whitewashes in England and Australia that cost it its hardearned primacy on the ICC Test standings. They were defeats that stuck in the national craw; for the first time in years, India didn’t look like a competitive side — especially on the morning of the first day of the series — but the bumbling overseas Test outfit that we had made our peace with. The team had been comprehensively outclassed in almost every department.
With depressing predictability, the BCCI’s party line was to blame the conditions. The fast, swinging pitches of England and Australia had undone the Indian batsmen, they said.
Writing in Hindustan Times, former Test batsman Sanjay Manjrekar explained this drop in performance. “How do you gauge a tennis player’s chances of winning Wimbledon after he has won at Roland Garros?” he wrote. “Roland Garros and Wimbledon are like home and overseas cricket for an India cricket player or team. Although the sport remains the same, these are two completely different challenges, two different ball games.” It would be different, the consensus went, when the teams met in the return series, which the vagaries of the ICC Future Tours Programme decreed would both take place in the 2012-13 season itself.
A fact that was ignored in most such arguments was that much like the playing surfaces in tennis, pitches across the world are gradually becoming homogenous. Apart from the traditional bowlers’ hunting grounds, most Test cricket today is played on tracks that are fairly placid, offering assistance to fast bowlers only as much as the weather (read humid or dry conditions) and the state of the ball permit. And just like the same names feature in the latter stages of both the French Open and Wimbledon, it is entirely possible for a team to be competitive anywhere in the world. England and Australia held the edge, you could argue, but it didn’t explain the fact that India managed to cross 300 only twice in 16 innings on the same pitches where they conceded over 300 at least once in every Test.
Nevertheless, curators at the venues for the coming Tests began to prepare low and slow rank turners, built to aid India’s fairly efficient default plan of a tandem of spinners running through a batting order that had grown up playing fast, moving balls on bouncy pitches. It backfired spectacularly in the series against England; the Indian batsmen found Graeme Swann and Monty Panesar well nigh unplayable. The tweaker duo combined to take 37 wickets, three more than India’s two main spinners, as England overcame an opening Test defeat in Ahmedabad to comprehensively win at Mumbai and Kolkata and take the series 2-1. Revenge would have to wait.
There was a difference in the Indian side playing against England and the one playing against Australia. Against England, though the Indian batting wore a completely different look, there were still some chinks. Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman retired in the months following that last Adelaide Test, opening up two slots in a middle order that had remained untouched — apart from injury or Sourav Ganguly’s ouster and, later, retirement — for over a decade. Cheteshwar Pujara had staked claim to the No 3 position with 438 career-defining runs against England. Yuvraj had initially been given the other place as part of his comeback from cancer, but was dropped after struggling against England. Ravindra Jadeja had, despite his many doubters, replaced him in the last Test as a batting all-rounder.
There was no change at the top, however, as India persisted with the highly successful opening partnership of Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir. The pair had been an integral part of India’s ascendancy in the Test rankings, scoring over 4,000 runs at an average of 52.69. After years of uncertainty and rotation, Gambhir’s arrival into the Test side in 2004 had finally brought stability to this crucial job. A quick wicket had been de rigeur in the Indian side, a frequent trigger for a total collapse. The sight of Dravid marching in determinedly at the fall of a first wicket soon became a less frequent image.
The success of this partnership was a major roadblock to Dhawan’s India hopes. His heroics had been two years too late; he would spend most of his career, like every other decent opening batsman in the country, in Sehwag and Gambhir’s shadow. He did what he could, emerging as a prolific opener for Delhi in the domestic circuit (part of a rotation that included not just Gambhir and Sehwag, but also fellow Sonnet alum Aakash Chopra). He played several decent seasons for Delhi, but lacked the breakout seasons that were propelling others firmly into national reckoning. Of his U-19 teammates, he saw Uthappa, Rayudu, Raina, RP Singh and VRV Singh break through to the national side before him. Every time a place would open up at the top, someone else would have better credentials, better form or a better reputation and take it. The appetite for runs was still there, but it didn’t seem good enough.
Chopra, himself a former India Test opener, articulated the problem in an assessment of prospective openers for Cricinfo last year. “Dhawan is a talented player who bats with a lot of flair, but his technique isn’t tight enough to succeed in trying conditions in the longer format,” wrote Chopra. “His first-class career graph highlights a sequence of big scores followed by prolonged barren patches, which indicates that his scoring depends a lot on form/momentum and not so much on technical prowess. Since I’ve watched him from close quarters, I can say with some authority that his only response to poor form is to go on the offensive, which may not be such a bad thing in shorter formats but doesn’t always work in the long format, especially for an opener. Scoring one century every 10 first-class innings isn’t a Test selection performance.” Ironically, Chopra, known for his dour technique, soon found himself out of favour of the national selectors due to his inability to accelerate the scoring rate when the situation demanded.
The frustration of not making it to the national side, Sinha says, showed in Dhawan’s performance. “The rejection got to him,” he says. “I had to explain to him that runs never go to waste. That, eventually, people would notice his performances.” His scores for Delhi suffered. Even in the triumphant Ranji season of 2007-08, his name didn’t stand out. Gambhir, Chopra, Mithun Manhas and Kohli all outscored him. Kohli’s performance even earned him a berth in the national side as a middle-order batsman.
It was not until three years later that things started looking up. The 2010-11 season was a disastrous one for Delhi; the team failed to make it to the knockout stages of the Ranji Trophy. Dhawan though was able to make it to the Indian team, riding largely on his exploits in the India A tour of England, which included an aggressive 179 against Yorkshire. He made his debut during Australia’s whistlestop tour that year. In the only ODI played in the three-match series (the other two were washed out), Dhawan was bowled second ball by Clint McKay for a duck.
Back on domestic duty, he struggled to get runs, averaging 44 and scoring only one century in seven games. For a side that had lost Gambhir, Sehwag and Kohli to national duty — Chopra moved to Rajasthan — Dhawan’s inability to steer an inexperienced batting order seriously dented Delhi’s chances. In a crucial game against Railways, with Delhi needing 136 to win and secure a spot in the quarterfinals, he played a terrible shot to get out for 14. Manoj Prabhakar, the then coach of Delhi, was furious. Delhi eventually folded for a paltry 113. Dhawan would then be selected for a depleted ODI side to tour the West Indies where he scored 69 runs in four innings. That September, the selectors ignored him for the team that lost 3-0 to England.
The twin disappointments would have been devastating for any cricketer. Dhawan reportedly considered giving up any hope of playing for India (though he denies it now). Sinha says the criticism only hardened his resolve. He decided to shift focus from his national prospects back to the process of accumulating runs. In the Irani Trophy later that year, he scored 177 and 155 as Rest of India trounced Rajasthan by 404 runs. The rest of the season, however, was underwhelming.
Dhawan’s renewed focus bore fruit in 2012-13. In the Duleep Trophy quarterfinal against West Zone, he scored 101 and 50 in the two innings. He followed that up with 121 against Central in the semifinal, which North lost because of a first-innings deficit. He then scored 461 runs in the Ranji Trophy, with two centuries. The second of these was against Maharashtra, on a pacy Roshanara Club ground. Maharashtra, which had a slender three-run first innings lead, set Delhi a challenging 270 for victory. Dhawan scored an unusually cautious 116, shepherding his side to an easy seven-wicket win. Afterwards, he told reporters that the dismissal against Railways had been on his mind during the knock.
Dhawan’s latest purple patch was perfectly timed. With Sehwag and Gambhir woefully out of form, a clamour had been growing for a change at the top of the Test batting order. Both openers had averaged around 31 in the two previous years; Gambhir hadn’t scored a century since 2010. The strong foundations on which the team was used to building an innings were missing with alarming regularity.
Finally, Gambhir was dropped for the Australia series and Dhawan was called up as his replacement, but he would have to wait for two more matches. In the first two Tests, Sehwag opened the innings with Murali Vijay. But after scores of 2, 19 and 7, he too was dropped. In the space of two weeks, India’s most successful opening pair had been sent home. Dhawan’s Yuvraj moment had come, even if it had taken the entirety of Yuvraj’s career.
India went into that third Test 2-0 up, a draw away from regaining the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. Clarke’s men had fought hard, but fallen short at crucial junctures. Ravindra Jadeja, brought into the team as a batting all-rounder, had suddenly emerged as the most unplayable spinner since Ajantha Mendis, combining with Ravichandran Ashwin and Harbhajan Singh to take all 20 Australian wickets in the first Test at Chennai and 14 in the second at Hyderabad. Centuries by captain MS Dhoni and Kohli at Chennai and Vijay and Pujara at Hyderabad had bolstered an otherwise shaky batting. Australia’s bowlers had been able to string together wickets, but looked thoroughly inept when faced with any established partnership.
Dhawan, who received his Test cap from Tendulkar, came out to open the batting with Vijay an over before lunch on the third day. After a first-day washout, Australia had cobbled together a creditable 408 thanks in no small part to Starc’s rearguard 99, the result of some aggressive batting on the third morning. As Starc ran in to bowl the first ball to Vijay, the ball slipped from his hand and struck the stumps at the non-striker’s end. Dhawan had been backing up and was caught outside the crease. The Australians didn’t appeal — even if they did, it’s unlikely Dhawan would have been given out since a Mankading by definition must be intentional — but for a second, it seemed like that hard-earned debut might, like his ODI one, end in a duck.
When he took guard, it took six balls for Dhawan to make his intentions clear. A good length ball from medium-fast bowler Peter Siddle was dispatched through the covers in typical left-hander elegant fashion, a drive played on the up with no follow through. Three balls later, a feeble short delivery was pulled off the front foot. One by one, Dhawan began to dismantle each Australian bowler, taking advantage of fabulous batting conditions to score freely. But this was no manic slog; hardly a shot was hit into the air. He reached 50 off exactly 50 balls. Then in the 23rd over, he hit Doherty for four boundaries, all of them along the ground. Three overs later, after his first real stroke of good fortune — a thick inside edge narrowly missing the stumps and going for four — he was on 98. An almost-suicidal run at 99 forced four overthrows. Suddenly, with two overs still left before tea was called, the 28-year-old Dhawan had become the fastest Test centurion on debut.
Dhawan would go on to make 187, the highest score by an Indian on debut. India earned a hard-fought victory in the last hour of the day. It was the manner in which Dhawan scored his runs, rather than the runs themselves, that held all those who saw it in awe. At its best, his batting was a perfect display of controlled aggression. His risks, if any, were calculated; he put a price on his wicket. It was an innings, Sinha says, that exemplifies how thinking has changed in Test cricket.
Former India pacer Atul Wassan agrees with Sinha. “With new players like Dhawan, Kohli and Pujara,” he says, “the advantage is that being counterattacking has become a benchmark. Hitting a century in one session has become a norm. Also, these new players have the unprecedented sense of financial security due to tournaments like the IPL and they can afford to lead a cricketer’s lifestyle even when not playing for the national team. This makes them more natural and confident unlike cricketers before them.”
Dhawan proceeded to follow through with his Cinderella act by disappearing before the ball was over. He fractured his hand while fielding, and was ruled out for the rest of the series. Pujara was promoted to opener for what would have been Dhawan’s first Test in his hometown of Delhi. A nation in awe eagerly waited for his return. It came in the IPL, when despite missing seven matches, he was the leading scorer for the Sunrisers Hyderabad, taking them into the play-offs. He was then named in the team for the Champions Trophy, where he picked up right where he had left off. In the first match of the tournament, he hammered his way to 114 off 94 balls against South Africa. The West Indies fared little better, as he scored an almost run-a-ball century in the next match. He would lead the batting charts in the tournament, plundering 363 runs at an average of 90. Mohali, it was made abundantly clear, was no flash in the pan.
As Dhawan prepares for the first real test of his fledgling international career in South Africa, he can look back at a breakout year any cricketer, no matter how experienced, would kill for. In 23 ODIs this year, he has 1,150 runs at an average of almost 55, the fourth highest aggregate in the world (a sign of India’s dominance in the limited-overs game is that three of the top four are Indians). He has scored five centuries, all of them leading to wins, and a blitzkrieg 248 in a 50-over game against South Africa A. “He knows that he belongs,” says Suresh Menon. “That makes a difference.” Menon is confident that Dhawan has the technique to survive against Dale Steyn and Co, probably the first world-class bowling attack he will face in his international career. But he cautions against expecting too much for “even the Tendulkars and Dravids weren’t great successes on every tour of Australia and South Africa”.
The myth of the brass ring, the notion of those once-in-a-lifetime opportunities that determine the legacy you leave on your sport, is a powerful one. Shikhar Dhawan has, in the course of the past year, lived that myth in spectacular fashion. He has validated, in a way, the struggles of every journeyman plying his trade in the domestic circuit, waiting for that perfect combination of performance and luck in order to live their own stories. His story shows that the system works. As journalist Ashish Magotra writes in his paean to the self-proclaimed Indian Warrior, “One of the joys of watching Shikhar Dhawan is knowing that he exists; that he has survived; that he hasn’t faded away.”
ajachi@tehelka.com

[Film review] Bullett Raja

Film rating: 2/5 stars
Film rating: 2/5 stars

Last week, I mentioned that I Hate Luv Storys was the first film to put me to sleep in the auditorium itself. It is with no little regret that I add Tigmanshu Dhulia’s Bullett Raja to that list. It is an ordeal I am grateful I had a friend accompanying me for; had it not been for his constant complaining about the film, I would have dozed through the entire climax.
The regret is because Dhulia is a director who has made films in the past that can by no means be called soporific — Haasil, Charas, Saheb Biwi Aur Gangster, Paan Singh Tomar. He is one of the few directors you can trust to make the pulp fiction set in heartland India, with the interplay of crime, politics and romance, that is Bullett Raja. His oeuvre and very obvious talents suggest that the film could have, should have, been a mature venture in a genre that has seen some incredibly juvenile treatment, even if those films have made truckloads of money. Bullett Raja, for all its attempts to seem otherwise, looks just as much a cash grab as those films. But it doesn’t commit itself to being a mainstream masala thriller either; what little it gains as a result in terms of depth is far outweighed by what it loses in terms of pure entertainment. The jarring editing, a lot of flab, and some frankly terrible songs don’t help.
It’s tempting to put much of the blame for this on Sonakshi Sinha, who struggles to do anything substantive with her character as female love interest. The whole arc of her being saved by our heroes and deciding to follow them around seems thoroughly unrealistic and unexplained. With a film of this nature, where commercial interests play more of a role than they would in a usual Dhulia film, casting Sinha seems to be one of the compromises made with the formula. (Though Sonakshi fans will probably troop off to watch her in R… Rajkumar next week, hurting this film’s future returns.) But giving her a role that is in no way different from the vanilla damsel-in-distress she usually plays means that the skeleton of the classic revenge tragedy plot becomes all too obvious very early on. If the director isn’t willing to tinker with his protagonist’s closest relationships, you correctly deduce, he isn’t going to tinker with the protagonist himself. And he doesn’t; despite a few cool moments you have to expect from a Dhulia-Saif Ali Khan partnership, Saif’s Raja Misra is every bit the macho hinterland hulk, preferring Bollywood dialogues to normal speech, a pelvic thrust here, a few baddies beaten up there. At no point does he seem to be in danger of doing anything unconventional. Nothing that suggests he is any more than a cardboard hero.
A major reason that the film is so underwhelming is the half-hearted way politics are inserted into the plot. This has historically been Dhulia’s strong suit: while politics are generally tangential to his stories (barring, of course, Saheb Biwi Aur Gangster), his films find a lot to say about the subject. Bullett Raja serves as some sort of primer to UP politics, with much screen time given to how the established powers tackle Raja Misra’s reign of terror, using his power when they can while trying to insulate themselves from his wrath. But the lacklustre writing means that the audience is never invested in what is going on, despite the star-studded support cast of Vipin Sharma, Gulshan Grover, Ravi Kishan, Chunky Pandey and Raj Babbar. Sure, they still get to do more than the usual Bollywood cartoon villains, whose sole purpose seems to be to get the hero as angry at them as possible and then get beaten up, but their machinations only serve to prolong a film that already seems overly long.
With Saheb Biwi Aur Gangster Returns and Bullett Raja, Tigmanshu Dhulia has had a middling, underwhelming 2013. Hopefully, Milan Talkies will reintroduce us to the courageous, insightful director we’ve come to admire.

City of the Mughals

A look at the legacy Study of Akbar’s head, Equestrian portrait of Aurangzeb, two insects and Portrait of Akbar II
A look at the legacy Equestrian portrait of Aurangzeb, two insects and Portrait of Akbar II

“India has always had a strange way with her conquerors. In defeat, she beckons them in, then slowly seduces, assimilates and transforms them,” wrote William Dalrymple of the Mughals in his book White Mughals. Legendary emperors, mighty conquerors and military strategists, the Mughals have been the subject of many fables, but it is their indelible mark on art and culture that continues to resonate. In an exhibition The Mughals: Life, Art and Culture at the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA), Bahadur Shah Zafar’s marriage contract, Aurangzeb’s recipe book, poetry on the care and the advantages of breeding pigeons are just some of the treasures. Every Mughal emperor, the great ones as well as those who lived through the dynasty’s decline, was a patron of the arts. And Delhi, where the architecture, the cuisine and the culture bear the influence of the Mughal dynasty, is just the city to host the exhibition.
A facsimile of the original exhibition at the British Library, London, this show, a collective effort by the IGNCA and Roli Books, to celebrate their 35 years in publishing, puts technology to good use in order to show the Indian audience rare pieces of Mughal history in the British Library’s impossibly vast collection. The works were scanned and high quality prints were set up at the IGNCA , making the exhibition possible without the prohibitive costs and the potential danger to original artefacts while being brought to India. “What inspired me was the fact that people of Delhi will never, otherwise, get to see these works — extraordinary records of the Mughal era,” says Pramod Kapoor, head of Roli Books. He clarifies that the works may not be original, but that is not any cause for disappointment. “I would understand disappointment if we were showing reproductions of Picasso’s works. But these surrogates, in curator John Falconer’s words, are very faithful to the original,” says Kapoor.
Study of Akbar’s head

This exercise by the British Library and Roli Books, of excavating through boxes and stacks and shelves of archival material is not just for mounting another art show, but for making history accessible to everybody and not just scholars.
Right at the entrance of the exhibition, the Mughal kings loom; in turn benign, fierce, but always decked out in royal splendour. Sharing space on the white walls of the IGNCA are reproductions of art from the Baburnama, the Akbarnama, intricate pages of the Quran in Persian, translations of Hindu epics and Upanishads into Persian. Through calligraphy and text, religious documents, maps and manuscripts, evidences of stories heard and history studied in school come into being — of the great Mughal emperors’ interest in other religions, the importance they gave to Hindu texts, and to images of Christ and Madonna, of their assimilation with the Rajputs, of the Englishmen adapting to the Mughal court, and of the attraction this court held for artists and poets who came in droves.
Persian being a language inaccessible to the average visitor, it does feel as if much of the show is lost if one is not already well versed with the anecdotes of the emperors and their lives. The accompanying labels do not give stories of what happened at battles or in court. However, to a receptive viewer, the images and the few lines describing them can trigger enough curiosity to find out more. Either the maps that come without scale or direction or translation will serve to further the unfamiliarity, or, the stunning panorama of the Delhi that once stretched from the Red Fort will place the viewer suddenly in the middle of history and closer to the city.
The exhibition will be on display at the IGNCA till 31 December
aradhna@tehelka.com

The Darkness in Our Hearts

[cycloneslider id=”darkness”]
Stephanie is leaving India. She has had enough. “I want to live here,” she says, “but how can I?” Stephanie is from Cameroon, one of tens of thousands of African nationals — there are no official records of the exact numbers — living in Delhi. Most come to India to study, some to trade, some, like Stephanie, to start their own business. Ask her why she came to India, she acidly remarks that it was a “land of opportunity”. As an African living in India, she is all too familiar living with the constant stares, the frequent name-calling, the occasional copped feel, the stereotype of drug-peddling cannibal. All of that angers her, but it is a darker side of our society’s racism that has precipitated her reluctant departure.
Stephanie is not her real name. She asks me on our first meeting not to reveal it because she doesn’t want any more trouble from the police or the government. She is leaving because of the targeted violence against Africans in Khirki Village in Delhi, where she lives and runs a ‘kitchen’, an illicit drinking establishment frequented by Africans living nearby. A year ago, her bar was vandalised by a mob. She had complained to the police, but nobody has been arrested since. She picked up and moved to a second site and restarted the ‘kitchen’ there. Last month, her cousin was brutally assaulted. That was the last straw.
A watchman, who was one of the eyewitnesses to the incident, remembers that on night of 18 October, the 34-year-old woman was walking alone on Press Enclave Road, which separates the urban village of Khirki from the swanky malls of Saket. As she passed two youths, one of them felt her up. She stopped and confronted them. The watchman, meanwhile, rushed to her aid. “I grabbed one of them by the collar and dialled the police,” he says. “The other ran away.” Before the police could arrive, however, a group of around 20 men gathered and attacked the woman, leaving her badly bruised.
A month has gone by since the attack, the woman’s wounds have begun to heal, but any hope for justice eludes Stephanie and her cousin. This is by no means an isolated incident; there have been recurring cases of such violence in Khirki and neighbouring Hauz Rani, where faceless mobs attack solitary Africans, says Aastha Chauhan, a community artist who has worked in Khirki, especially with its African population, for years. Last week, a young Nigerian child was stoned as he walked home from school. A couple of weeks before that, Chauhan witnessed another molestation attempt on a girl from the Northeast. “She looked back but didn’t say anything,” she says. “I was going to react on her behalf, but then they tried the same thing with me. I fought back, and eventually some boys came and separated them from me. They [the assailants] told me that this is what happens when you help Africans.” Chauhan alleges that the police rarely acts when Africans complain about such attacks.
It is an attitude borne out by Malviya Nagar Police Station SHO Vijay Pal, who dismisses any talk of attacks against Africans, saying that the biggest problem in Khirki is theft. Pal doesn’t know how many Africans live in the village, which falls under his jurisdiction, responding to a question by saying that “we have deported around 50 to 100 of them”. After similarly rebuffing other questions, he explains what the problem really is. “You see, all these Africans open kitchens, where they sell alcohol without a permit. They party all night, which disturbs the other residents. That’s all.”
Talk to the residents, and you hear similar opinions being bandied about. The Africans drink, they say, they deal in drugs, they indulge in prostitution. The attacks, they imply, are a reaction to these crimes. “The thing is, earlier there were very few of them,” says Aditya Kaushik, a local builder. “Now their numbers have increased drastically. In the attackers’ eyes, all Africans are Nigerians, which isn’t true. There are Congolese, Somalians, Utopians [he presumably means Ethiopians], Ugandans… But they have spoiled the local atmosphere. It’s fine if they’re going to carry out illicit activities quietly, but they cause a racket at odd hours. They’ve turned Select Citywalk [one of the malls in Saket] into a red-light area.” Crime, he says, citing his experience of dealing with Africans for years, is “in their blood”.
Notwithstanding his strong words, Kaushik is one of the few in Khirki, and in Delhi, who is willing to rent rooms to Africans. He has been doing so for the past five years. Others either refuse or charge double, sometimes three times, the usual rent. The large numbers of Africans living in places like Khirki is a consequence of the fact that they find it extremely difficult to find decent accommodation elsewhere. Large number of Africans involved in crime, similarly, is a consequence of the fact that they find it extremely difficult to find decent jobs. Both these conditions exist because of a pervasive suspicion among Indians for Africans, precipitating a vicious cycle of discrimination and crime. With time, they have developed internal support structures that allow new immigrants to find jobs and housing, which has, in turn, caused the concentration of the African population into a few colonies.
The bar, Stephanie says, is an integral part of (non-Islamic) African cultures, a place where people congregate at the end of a hard day’s work to unwind, meet friends, share stories. Stephanie acknowledges it can get loud, but never unruly. There are no cases, she insists, of patrons of her bar getting violent either with each other or with locals. She also acknowledges that the crimes the residents accuse the Africans of exist, that there is prostitution and drug dealing among the community. “But isn’t there prostitution among Indians?” she counters. And aren’t drugs and women, a friend pitches in, being sold to Indians? Everyone knows, Stephanie says, exactly where prostitution happens, but no one stops it. Instead, the targets of mob fury are mostly innocents making their way home. The police, many residents — both Indian and African — allege, is only interested in people who overstay their visa or the owners of speakeasies, not in protecting those who face violence. In a plea to Delhi police commissioner BS Bassi for better, more sensitive policing in the area in the wake on the attack on Stephanie’s cousin, Chauhan writes that “local hooligans” take advantage of the situation to target anyone and everyone. “They steal, molest and rape under the pretext that it is the black man causing the commotion, an excuse everyone is willing to buy. Negligence, ignorance and apathy displayed by the local police is going to turn Khirki into a ghetto.”
The next step to such stereotyping by local residents and police was made abundantly clear in Goa in the days following 30 October. On that day, a Nigerian was found murdered near Parra. An inland village north of Panjim and close to the busiest beaches in the state, Parra is, like others of its kind, sought for its cheap rents. It has a sizeable West African population, one of the largest in the state. Like with every ethnicity in this tourist state, a portion of that population is involved in flourishing drug trade. A majority are students in government, private or pastoral institutions.
There is no definitive evidence that Obodo Uzoma Simon, the victim of what was a vicious assault by a large group, was involved in the drug trade. It is entirely possible, and further investigation might establish that he was. But the newspapers would report it the next day itself as a “gang war”. The Nigerians of Parra were used to such instant assumptions, and bitter about a history of harassment by the police, who are far quicker to suspect than protect them. When the police arrived in Parra to collect the body for autopsy, a group of Nigerians refused to hand it over, demanding that the police arrest the assailants first.
The next day, after the police managed to collect the body, the hearse was stopped by a group of around 50 West Africans, mostly Nigerians. They placed Simon’s body on the road and blocked NH 17, the arterial north-south road in the state. They demanded an impartial investigation, and that Nigerian High Commissioner Ndubuisi Vitus come to the spot. Their protest lasted for about half an hour, after which all of them were rounded up and taken to the police station. Meanwhile, three others, who were late for the protest, ran into a group of locals — “not so much upset locals, but members of rival gangs,” claims Jason Keith Fernandes, an activist who has written about the issue for DNA— who beat them to within an inch of their lives.
Bizarrely, the lynching of these three Nigerians was welcomed in Goa, where many believed that it was an appropriate retaliation for the nuisance caused by Nigerians, both on the highway as well as their alleged involvement in the drug trade. The protesters were vilified. “Good and quality tourists would not like to visit Goa after seeing this,” said state Arts and Culture Minister Dayanand Mandrekar. “Nigerians are like cancer.” Rajya Sabha MP from Goa, Shantaram Naik claimed that “Nigerians misuse education schemes, violate the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), indulge in drug trade and yet try to boss over Goans, which no civilised society would tolerate”. Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar told reporters that he had asked the police department to comb the state for Nigerians residing illegally and deport them.
Suddenly, Nigerians and, by extension, other Africans, were no longer welcome in Goa. The Parra panchayat resolved to stop letting out rooms to Nigerians. In ways large and small, they were excluded from Goan society: a village refused to allow African residents to play at the local football field, the nightclubs of Baga beach refused entry to all Africans. Meanwhile, a comment by Jacob Nwadibia, an administrative attaché at the Nigerian High Commission in Delhi, expressing concern over repercussions faced by the over 1 million Indians living in Nigeria (as opposed to 50,000 Nigerians in India) was construed as a threat by one sovereign nation to another. Images of Idi Amin were quick to follow; one news channel demanded to know who Nigeria was to threaten India.
“The black figure is a figure of fear,” says Fernandes. “If you are told that 100 to 200 Nigerians [as was reported by various media] are holding up the road, you will demand the arrest of these savages.” He has extreme reservations about the coverage of the incident, saying that the African protesters were unfairly demonised by the political class in order to distract from the close relationship between the public drug trade and local politics. Speaking to a television channel on the incident, activist Oscar Rebello was more blunt. “We need to understand fundamental economical questions. Here, the biggest problem is that the drug trade of the coastal belt runs the political economy of the coastal belt. Period.” Whether or not Simon or the ones around him were involved in some narcotics gang, the fact remains that there is now an impression created that rather than being one of sundry players in a complex attritional struggle to control the trade in the state, West Africans are the primary source of all that’s wrong with law and order in Goa.
“Incidents of mob lynching,” author and activist Amita Kanekar writes in The Navhind Times, “are often presented as spontaneous eruptions of anger against an ineffective government, but are, in fact, almost never so. Usually the manifestation of a shared local sentiment against a weaker opponent, they tend to happen only when it is convenient and ‘safe’ to take the law into one’s own hands… Lynching is never directed at the powerful but at the powerless.” There are a number of theories that can, and have, been floated to explain Goa’s sudden racism. The unique circumstances of its history mean that Goan identity is central to the state’s worldview. Africans are only the latest in a series of ‘outsiders’ who have been viewed with suspicion and distrust in the state. With the construction boom, migrant labourers from neighbouring states — known as ghantis — were identified as the state’s biggest problem. With the explosion of the tourism industry, foreigners have been accused of corrupting the state’s morals, though there has always been a clear distinction since the days of the hippies between rich and poor foreigners.
But the actions of the crowd that assaulted the three Nigerians taps into a primal urge that is more universal than a state’s insecurities. The similarities with what is happening, albeit in a more deliberate, shadowy manner, in Khirki, or in similar attacks in Bengaluru, suggests that the impulse to assume a certain person’s vulnerability gives one licence to have one’s way with them exists in every corner of our country. And that our society, by judging the victims before the act, permits it. That what happened in Goa can happen anywhere else. When similar acts are inflicted on Indians living in Australia or Britain, we are quick to demand that our government take strong steps to ensure the safety of our citizens. When a Nigerian high commissioner demands the same, it is taken as an act of war. “‘I am not racist.’ ‘I am not casteist.’ These are all nice little lullabies we sing ourselves,” says Fernandes. “We are racist and casteist because we live in a racist and casteist society.”
Not all Indians are racists, and not all Nigerians are drug dealers. This was the politically correct CAT Group Discussion-like consensus that emerged after the news channels decided to move on to something new. It is an easy declaration that we make in order to convince ourselves that these menaces are beneath us, part of a mentality that we believe we have long left behind. Stephanie accepts the statement. She doesn’t feel betrayed by India, because she has met enough open-minded Indians to convince her otherwise. But she is leaving because it takes only one solitary nighttime walk to bring her world crashing down. If potential minefields like Khirki are not defused in time, she will not be the last.
ajachi@tehelka.com

[Film Review] Gori Tere Pyaar Mein

GoriGori Tere Pyaar Mein contains enough clues in its title to warn the audience about the problematic social message it contains. Kareena Kapoor’s identity in the film contains her complexion front and centre; it distinguishes her from both the darker (read South Indian) women of Bengaluru as well as the Gujarati villagers she works with in the second half, who look at ‘goriben’ as some sort of benevolent goddess. Of course, there’s more to her character than just her skin colour, but even her political activism is, well, coloured by the image of the quintessential Hollywood white saviour, which it is impossible not to draw an instant comparison to.
Dia Sharma (Kapoor) is a rich Punjabi living in Bengaluru, who devotes all her free time to her causes, ranging from parks for kids to play in to the daily lives of the city’s prostitutes. As A-One Do Gooder, she cares for everything and everyone. This inevitably attracts the attentions of Sriram (Imran Khan), who ditches an impending marriage with a fellow TamBrahm for eternal bliss with Joan of Dal Tarka. But Sriram is essentially a counterpoint to Dia’s activism; the son of a rich dad, he is shown — in painful detail — as hopelessly materialistic. He confronts her about the hypocrisy of fighting for the poor while living the good life. She responds by going to live with the natives, moving to a Gujarati village and installing herself as local deity.
Sure, that’s an entirely valid storyline for a film. Bollywood has plumbed the depths of this particular conflict before; it was, after all, a familiar story in a time when rich kids actually cared about more than getting an Audi. But the problem with Gori Tere Pyaar Mein is that Dia gets no insight from life in the village, that she does not bother with the whys and hows of the villagers’ problems. Instead, like any Hollywood messiah, she reduces all their problems into one surmountable obstacle, then goes on and on about how surmounting that obstacle will solve all their problems, then, with all the necessary fanfare, surmounts it. Who cares about systemic inequalities, when I just built you the bridge of life? To the next village!
The film, of course, doesn’t claim to be a social drama (that mantle was claimed by Singh Saab The Great this week), and nobody went in expecting anything but a frothy romcom. On that front, Imran and Kareena are a mild, inoffensive couple, with chemistry that is middling at best. Any hopes for romantic gold are undercut by Imran’s utter inability to act. It’s a realisation I’ve had fairly late in life, largely due to the fact that said inability has been hidden in having him play the one role that he is comfortable with: the non-threatening boy next door, a male, understated Preity Zinta. When asked to do anything other than that, or in a film that doesn’t have the distractions of a Jaane Tu… Ya Jaane Na or a Delhi Belly — such as I Hate Luv Storys, the only film to ever put me to sleep in the auditorium itself — his performance has been consistently and cringe-inducingly bad. It has the happy coincidence of making him ideal as second fiddle in a woman-centric film. A male Sonakshi Sinha, so to speak.
Unfortunately, Gori Tere Pyaar Mein, while every bit centred around its female protagonist, has neither the well-scripted story nor the performances that make a good film, which exposes every bit of the distinctly colonial tonality that permeates every shot. For a film obsessed with combating shallowness, this one has all the depth of a fairness cream ad.

[Film review] Goliyon Ki Raasleela Ram-Leela

Photo: www.facebook.com/RamLeelaMovie/photos_stream
Film rating: 1.5/5 stars

Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Goliyon Ki Raasleela Ram-Leela is essentially two films mashed into one. The title, imposed on the film by the Madhya Pradesh High Court after the Bajrang Dal protested against their sentiments being hurt, neatly divides the film into two parts, which differ substantially on quality. When it comes to the scenes between the two protagonists, Ram (Ranveer Singh) and Leela (Deepika Padukone), there is a primal intensity, great sensuousness marking what is one of the most passionate romances seen on the Bollywood screen in recent times. But when you look at the rest of the film, the Goliyon Ki Raasleela if you will, it seems flabby, awkward and unlikely far beyond what our suspension of disbelief allows.
Ram and Leela, like Parma and Zoya in Ishaqzaade or Rahul and Bachchi in Issaq — to just mention the Romeo and Juliet adaptations by Bollywood this year — are star-crossed lovers from warring families, who have been raised to hate the other but through their love, try to bring the age-old feud to an end. (In Ram and Leela’s case, the families have actually been fighting since Shakespeare’s time.) They meet when Ram sneaks into Leela’s family’s Holi celebration, and before any sort of meaningful conversation, are sharing a passionate kiss, enjoying love at first sight. Despite their families’ objections, they continue the romance, mostly through text messages and the occasional musical number. All that’s fine, really; the chemistry that Singh and Padukone share is enough to paper over any cracks that show up so far.
Things take a drastic turn for the worse once Ram kills Leela’s brother after a shooting contest goes awry, Bhansali’s adaptation of Romeo’s duel with Tybalt. Up until now, the romance has been separate from the blood feud raging around them, an over-the-top conflict with little by way of real drama or logic. Once the two protagonists are involved in the war, they themselves lose what little reason they have and begin a bizarre sequence of events that had me looking for a blunt instrument to bang my head with. One moment, Leela accuses Ram of killing her brother. The next moment, they’re making out, all accusations forgotten. The two elope, but only to a small village a few kilometres away; it takes Ram’s friends all of one day to find them, and all of one night to trick them into coming home.
Once back — spoilers ahead, so you might want to skip this paragraph if you intend to watch this atrocity — the two are installed as the heads of their respective families. You’d think that means the two come together and end the feud, but that would mean they act out of logic. But no, Ram plays the pig-headed male and escalates the war. Leela, meanwhile, is carrying the torch but never actually tells Ram she’s doing so, even though they have friggin’ cellphones! Eventually, the proverbial hits the fan when a cousin of Leela’s cousin makes a power play and issues written orders in her name to kill Ram’s family (because obviously, you want to leave a paper trail of your mass murders). In the midst of the carnage, which no one really wants but is bound by the orders to condone, Ram and Leela meet again and decide the smartest thing for them to do is kill each other.
It’s not all bad; every other reviewer wouldn’t be raving about it otherwise. The songs, in particular, are well-composed and shot, even if we could have done without that “Look Ma, no dandruff!” step. Bhansali’s skills at creating a visual treat are at the fore, and he creates a backdrop that seems very authentic. More a pity, therefore, that he can’t create anything resembling authentic human beings.

MOST POPULAR

HOT NEWS