Nehru & Obama

Nehru & Obama

During a recent visit to India, I picked up a 4 CD collection of Nehru’s speeches. I have been listening to them in my car for the past few days and have found them to give an interesting perspective into the person, his thinking and his beliefs.
While Obama’s fascination and regard for Mahatma Gandhi is well known, it occurred to me that there in fact may be more similarities between him and Nehru rather than between him and Gandhi. Much as it is attractive to do so, one shouldn’t force-fit non-existent similarities or point to zany ones (their last names have five letters each). However, there do appear to be multiple similarities, both in personality as well as in approach to public policy and governance.
For starters, both have a keen understanding of history and their beliefs seem to have been shaped by that understanding. Fantastically speaking, if all world leaders of the past hundred years were to get together at a university, Nehru could hold a class on history, with Obama being his teaching assistant. This understanding of history has, I believe, tempered their approaches, made their decision-making more deliberate and studied, and helped them look at issues from a slightly detached perspective.
Both are undeniably cerebral, their intellect being one of their primary strengths. Now intellect is not a necessary trait for public office (and we have ample evidence of that) and these two are perhaps among a small group of statesmen who could probably have cracked the SAT too (BHO may well have). While their intellect may help them in understanding nuanced perspectives of complex issues, it has also lent credibility to a common view about them being aloof, out of touch and not representative of their peoples.
Both Nehru and Obama are superb writers, and in addition to history professorship, writing could have been a complete alternate career for either of them. It is not just that they have written books, but that they value the language and its use much more than others in their position. Obama uses words carefully, and often underlines the importance of words and their symbolism. Nehru was a more beautiful writer, but importantly he too saw the power and the responsibility of language.
Their beliefs have been left-leaning although the degree may vary. Nehru was possibly a more overt socialist, Obama believes in some of those principles himself. It is possible that Nehru’s belief was colored by the times – the imperialist manifestation of capitalism, the sheer economic bankruptcy of his country and the scary class divide that he was inheriting in his young nation. Nonetheless, that became his defining belief, and while Obama displays a more watered down version of that belief, they are more similar than dissimilar in that regard.
Both men suffer from personal vanity, a trait that is probably essential for public leaders. However it is found in more than ample measure in both of them. It is doubtful that Nehru tolerated opposing opinion, and I worry that Obama sometimes displays very little of that tolerance. One must note here that Nehru, pseudonymously as Chanakya, wrote for the “Modern Review” and in one article commented that Nehru (himself) was getting too powerful and that “Is it not possible that Jawahar might fancy himself as a Caesar? He must be checked. We want no Caesars”. While some may applaud his self-critical analysis, others may simply point out that his own admission certifies the view that he was egoistic and intolerant of differing beliefs.
Obama and Nehru both aspire to be transformational leaders. Nehru played at a time where his efforts would organically be transformational. Obama has a choice but genuinely desires to make a big difference. Nehru was able to architect independent India based on his beliefs. He had few challengers. Obama has many, and appears to struggle to be a transformational president.
Both men have a sweeping yet nuanced understanding of multiple cultures and peoples. Nehru saw himself as “a Hindu by birth, a Muslim by culture and an Englishman by education”. Obama is sensitive to various cultures because of his multi-ethnic heritage, his foreign living and his cosmopolitan adult life. Like their keen understanding of history, this sensitivity to multiple cultures also enables them to see the subtlety of situations and to understand the inherent complexity of various perspectives before taking decisions.
Of course there are differences, many of them. As Lapierre and Collins wrote in Freedom at Midnight, “Sardar Patel grew up in a city of factories and industry, Nehru grew up where they grew flower and fruit”. His rich and happy upbringing made him a natural romantic. Obama struggled through his identity, had to hustle his way growing up and as some critics may say, got tutored in the Chicago style of hard politics. In that sense, he is seen as more street-smart and less naïve. Nehru could not have been as naïve as some armchair neo-intellectuals these days accuse him of being. These people enjoy the luxury of hindsight. They also enjoy the blissful ignorance of the challenges in moving a bankrupt, tired and populous nation forward. But it does appear that Nehru was more trusting than he should have been, and too idealistic in a world that was perhaps already getting cynical. On the other hand, Obama seems focused on accomplishing his goals, and will use the sensibilities and allowances of modern politics to his advantage in achieving these goals.
Nehru was loved universally and became an integrating force during his political life. Obama, despite his best efforts, has had a polarizing influence on his country (although a reassuringly integrative influence in Europe and other parts of the world). Many love him, yet quite a few dislike him strongly. He also operates at a time when the media is powerful and information is symmetric and democratic. That is equalizing in one sense and vulgar in another, leading to excesses of opinion, noise and unfair scrutiny. But in many ways Obama’s detailed critique is healthy, it keeps him in check. It is to Nehru’s credit that he relentlessly pursued public good in spite of being deified by almost everyone around him.
Obama, so far, appears to be a more devoted family man than Nehru ever was. Obviously Nehru operated in a historic time, when he had to physically talk to the Indian masses to be heard, and that could have put enormous strain on his personal capacity. Nonetheless, Obama focuses heavily on his role as a husband and as a father, and is often seen as a role model of a family man. Nehru achieved much else, but never that credential.
There are probably many more similarities and many more differences. I’m not arguing that these are the only two leaders who had any one of the above similarities, but taken collectively I find the two men to be remarkably similar in various ways. A final similarity, totally irrelevant to the context but inextricably germane to this note is that I adore both of them, and am hopelessly incapable of seeing too much wrong with either of them.
Obama, I am sure, has some understanding of Nehru’s role in Indian politics. I wonder however, how much he knows about Nehru as a personality, his beliefs, his style and approach, his strengths and failings. He may well be surprised at what he learns.

Shame @ Sydney

Much happened in and about the Sydney Test (Aus / India 2007-2008) that one wouldn't quite hope for in such a series. This series in Australia, occurring once every four years is perhaps one of the most entertaining and awaited series in the world. India's partial success in 2003-2004 contributed to a heightened level of excitement about this series. What a shame then, that so far this series has been forgettable, first for India's uninspiring performance and Melbourne and because of pretty much everything at Sydney.So many actors playing different roles in this mess, have contributed to this in their own way. In most cases, the behavior has been shameful. About the only person in this whole affair who has behaved with any level of dignity has been the Indian captain, Anil Kumble. Continuing his record of being among the most well-behaved cricketers worldwide, Kumble said very little, yet communicated a lot. His only comment for a long time "only one side was playing in the spirit of the game" described his sentiment, yet did not resort to any indecency in its articulation. It's interesting how most of the Australian team got so stung by that one polite but firm comment. Such decency was unfortunately, the exception in these few days at Sydney. Many others - described below - acted shamefully in various ways:1> Shame on Bucknor, Benson: Yes, yes umpires are human etc. But if that is the excuse for tolerating their performance in Sydney, competence may not be a requirement at all. Why, anyone can stand in a Test match if they're allowed ten mistakes. For the record, the two umpires wrongly called on Ponting (caught behind), Ponting (LBW), Symonds (caught behind), Symonds (stumped), Jaffer (no-ball), Hussey (caught behind), Dravid (caught behind), Ganguly (caught). This isn't even counting the more subtle LBW errors that they made: Symonds, Tendulkar, Hussey. Out of the eleven mistakes mentioned above, only two went in favor of India. The mistake that hurt India the most was perhaps Symonds being given not out when he was caught behind. I must say that that was the loudest knick I have heard in cricket, that went unnoticed by the umpire. Bucknor has been a great servant of the game, and he had a chance of retiring gracefully some time ago. Now, unfortunately, I don't know if he even deserves the chance to retire without grace. He should just "be fired", if there is any such thing. Unfortunately, his abilities don't seem to keep up with the demands of the job, and when that happens, he's got to go. Not before he has caused a lot of damage though.2> Shame on Harbhajan: Who knows what he said, but why would anyone in his right mind ever think of engaging in potentially dangerous banter when you've just seized the momentum of the Test match? When Harbhajan came to the crease, India were 118 runs behind, and when he decided to have a chat with Symonds, India had almost cleared the lead. It was one of the most senseless things that an Indian cricketer has done for a while.3> Shame on BCCI: Not once did the BCCI submit that if Harbhajan was guilty of racial badgering, even they would not tolerate this behavior. Harbhajan is employed by the BCCI. Should an employer tolerate a racist employee? And if not, then why can't the employer come clean by articulating its anti-racism stand in public? It would have made their subsequent actions more meaningful and appear less opportunistic.4> Shame on Ponting: Is his integrity a function of circumstances? Yes, he declared that he did not catch Dravid cleanly in the first innings, but was it because the game wasn't on the line? When he caught Dhoni, he clearly grassed the ball. Why was he appealing? Prem Panicker makes a very interesting and valid point that Ponting should be punished for claiming to take a catch which he knew wasn't clean. There has been a precedent! Read this - http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/07prem.htm. The other matter of shame was the escalation of the Harbhajan affair. Why do we forget that we're playing a peaceful, competitive sport? Was there really any need to make such a big issue out of it? Perhaps from a dogmatic perspective yes, but from a practical perspective there is no doubt that this could be handled better. Was this plain gamesmanship which somehow snowballed into a cricket-wide controversy? Was Ponting trying to get back at Harbhajan personally, with all the talk of him being Harbhajan's bunny? I would never suspect the world's best batsman of such behavior, but Australians in general and Ponting in particular are so keen on winning that one doesn't know how far they will go. Other than these two cases, I did not see anything particularly wrong with the way he behaved ON the field (there is more shame in his off-the-field behavior). Ponting is a naturally gifted sportsperson, with a very aggressive and competitive bent. He will go down in history as among the top ten batsmen of all time, and a similarly exclusive recognition as a captain. He doesn't give an inch which is quite fair. His celebrations after the victory also seemed quite reasonable. Why, Harbhajan himself had a disproportionate bit of celebration when he simply got Ponting out, so if Australia won a thrilling game in the final minutes, some excitement is understandable. Off the field, Ponting disappointed. Just like everyone is expected to understand Australian sensibilities (like monkey being an abusive word), he is expected to understand Indian sensibilities too. His continuous defense of his actions on the field, his complete disregard for some of India's valid complaints and his arrogant demeanor left no hope for the matter to be resolved amicably. Tiger Woods comes to mind here, a great sportsperson perhaps superior to Ponting, at least as aggressive on the course as Ponting is on the field, but genuinely well-behaved and a true ambassador of golf off the course. Ponting can still be one of the greatest sports champions if he brings a more sympathetic and less arrogant behavior off the field. He doesn't appear to have the humility to understand this right now. What a shame!5> Shame on the Indian media: Over the past few years, Indian media has moved from being dull and inadequate to being downright irresponsible and excessive. Bucknor was termed dishonest (Be-Imaan)! Why dishonest? He was plain incompetent. Dishonesty or lack of integrity have a completely different slant as compared to incompetence and it is plainly wrong to mix the two. Bucknor made some horrible mistakes, but no one in his right mind would even begin to believe that those mistakes were made on purpose. This was just one example of how the media was capitalizing on a hot news item by generating more emotions and the wrong kind of emotions among its viewers. Harbhajan's mother was called and asked some rather irrelevant questions. There was an SMS manufactured that Sachin Tendulkar sent to Sharad Pawar that later turned out to be untrue. The entire episode - umpiring and Harbhajan's case - were presented as if they were part of a conspiracy against India. This persecution complex seems prevalent in India, sadly enough. Why would anyone care to conspire against the Indian cricket team? Our team is generally regarded as among the most well-behaved and easy to get along with. Our teams bring in a lot of crowds, partly because of our star-studded team, and partly because of cricket-crazy expat Indians. Many people in the cricketing world have strong ties with India. Our Board is the richest and the most powerful in the world. Why would a group of people - Ponting, Bucknor, Procter - care to conspire against us? Even regarding the issue of Harbhajan's punishment, two others have been punished before for the same reasons, and both have been Caucasian: Lehmann and Gibbs. So, why would one believe that Procter and the ICC is targeting Harbhajan and the Indians? But the Indian media and the Indian public chose to turn this into a subject of national chauvinism. It was both embarrassing and deeply saddening to see how the media was contributing to the increasing tension in the minds of the Indian public about the issue.6> Shame on Mike Procter: Racism is a serious matter, as he himself has experienced, it seems. So was it reasonable to label someone a racist based on hearsay from one group, against hearsay from another? Why were Hayden and Clarke more believable than Tendulkar and Kumble? If there was indeed some doubt, then could he not have settled this with minimal damage to all concerned, and yet communicate that the ICC does not tolerate racist behavior? Was it really fair to give such a harsh judgment on possibly inadequate evidence? I don't believe for a moment that Procter was being purposefully biased, but I do feel that he could have used a better method to resolve the situation.Shame all over, then. It wasn't even a great match, as some commentators have been shouting about. No contest with ten wrong decisions can ever be termed great. Yes, there were great moments and great individual performances: Symonds and Hogg partnership which was completely eclipsed by the poor decisions, Laxman's and Tendulkar's centuries, India's tail-end performance, Hayden and Hussey dominating in the second innings, Ponting's masterful declaration and finally Kumble's hard-fought innings. But overall it was a flawed contest, and that can never make this Test match great.Several commentators have disapproved of ICC buckling to India's pressure and removing Bucknor. That seems less of a spineless decision and more of a sensible one. Bucknor goofed up, he has to go. It's as simple as that. Whether it is fair or unfair is an incorrect question. Was it fair that India lost this match, that they should have easily drawn and perhaps won? Is it fair that India is still on the back foot in the series when they could actually have had the momentum at this stage? Is it fair that history will, in an emotionless manner, deem them big losers in this game, while the fact is that they actually played better cricket for most of it? Fairness has been temporarily lost in Sydney, we should not demand it selectively.As said earlier, in this general mess of embarrassment and shame, for a few days now Anil Kumble stood tall as one of cricket's only ambassadors.

When Shastri didn't know what he was talking

One evening, after India lost to South Africa in South Africa (it was some years ago, but as usual the batting crumbled etc) a caller called on ESPN and asked Harsha Bhogle whether it was fair to observe that Tendulkar was not as prolific a scorer in the second innings of a match as he was in the first innings. Shastri, who seems to have taken upon himself the primary role of protecting Tendulkar from adverse comments - fair or unfair - angrily suggested that the caller didn't understand cricket. I felt sorry for the caller, just thinking of how embarassing it might be for someone to suggest publicly that he didn't understand cricket. So I got curious and reached out to www.cricinfo.com where they have some fantastic statistics in a nice searchable form. I found some interesting results, and published them in an article I had titled"Arrogant Error". I was just a tad surprised as I saw that my article had made it to the home page www.rediff.com under the headline "Tendulkar's Second Innings Inconsistency". Of course Arrogant Error wasn't a saleable title. Here is the article.

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/nov/07guest.htm

Comparing Sachin and Michael Bevan

Some years ago, I dug up some research to compare the ODI performances of Michael Bevan and Sachin Tendulkar. The primary hypothesis that I was curious about was whether Bevan was really so much more effective as an ODI batsman than Tendulkar was.

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/jul/16chitre.htm