Emergency and a 20-year-old Me

Raju Korti
I was barely legal when (then) Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed a state of nation-wide emergency on 25th June, 1975. The lady who invoked more or less the same levels of hatred and appreciation as Modi does today, wasn't able to reconcile to the thought of her and her party being thrown out of power even after being unseated by a historic judgement of the Allahabad High Court. The emerging hero of this political fallout was the national clown (and therefore Socialist) Raj Narain who had filed a case against Indira for electoral malpractices. As it turned out, the decision led to an unprecedented situation in a country that always made for loud speeches about its pledge to democratic credentials.
In hindsight, I can safely vouch that at 20, my knowledge of political affairs was sound enough to understand the implications of what a national emergency meant. What I wasn't able to put a finger on was the repercussions it would lead to. I didn't have to read the National Herald -- the mouthpiece (euphemism for fiefdom) of the Gandhi clan to know where it was leading the country to. The tensions of the Emergency were palpable as the one-man government of the day attempted a desperate gamble to retain power through a debauchery, the scars of which, refuse to go away. It was all so evident and blatant that I didn't have to be a student of Political Science or Mass Media to know that Emergency is a rule by decree used primarily by dictators, despots, absolute monarchs and the Military Junta. Indira added a mew dimension which in my definition was an action by a democratic government that made no bones about unduly bypassing parliamentarian or popular scrutiny. The twisted justification came through a presidential proclamation on the perceived threats to the nation from internal or external sources. (There was this interesting story of how the then President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed signed the presidential proclamation in the midst of his bath, scared as he was of Indira and since she wanted the proclamation be signed "at once") . That wasn't altogether surprising since presidents in India have been traditional rubber stamps of the successive governments until Congress' own Sardar Giani Zail Singh waved the red flag at Rajiv Gandhi. In Indira's case, the threat never came from external sources which meant its hostile neighbours Pakistan and China. The threat was mainly from within, and directly to her throne. Such was the "gravity of the internal disturbances" that the Emergency lasted until March 1977. What happened in these two years was absolute anarchy which Indira herself couldn't apparently control. I say "apparently" because Indira's pet political strategy while dealing with all problems was to allow the problem to fester and then solve it to hog credit. Of course, that policy backfired in Punjab, Sri Lanka and North-East where the "trouble-makers" turned out to be feistier than Indira thought.
My personal understanding of the Emergency was it was a monster that Indira unleashed but wasn't able to control. As a student of engineering then, I could see and feel that India lived more in a Police Raj than a Political Raj in those two years of disorganised non-governance. There were horror stories about people, including school-going children being randomly shunted behind bars on the slightest pretext of saying anything even remotely against the government. There was complete mistrust and as I spoke to people in hushed tones, I could feel alarm, fright and panic in the air. No one wanted to open mouth and get victimised. In all this muddle, the irrepressible Sanjay Gandhi, the heir apparent, took upon himself to bring down single-handed the growing population of the country with forced vasectomies. There were true and/or exaggerated stories about how anyone was picked up randomly -- including children -- from the street and forced to be sterilised. I was among this frightened clan who dared not stir out of the house unless it was dead necessary and if I did, I returned looking at almost everyone suspiciously lest I land on the operation table to be robbed of my "masculinity".
The Congress had a wide spectrum from which to blame -- their pet peeve Sanghis from within and Jewish, Mossad, Zionist, Israeli and CIA from outside! This wild conspiracy theory was rejected by the country when the country went to polls in 1977 that brought the top-heavy opposition Janata Party to power. As it happened, the Janata Party government frittered away the electoral advantage by internal bickering and silly fights that would have amused even the teenagers. The government fell like nine pins in just over two years, forcing people to bring back Indira to power with a two-third majority. Clearly, Politics is a game of expediency, selective amnesia and compulsions borne out of helplessness.
As one who attended almost all the speeches of Indira, Sanjay and those of Morarji, Charan Singh, Jagjivan Ram, Madhu Dandavate, Madhu Limaye, Nanaji Deshmukh, Vajpayee, Advani, Ram Vilas Paswan and others during that politically surcharged period, I could see where the country was headed. Indira's famed "Utpadan Badhao" speech was met with justified suspicion. The Opposition did not exactly give a glorious account of itself in the months to come and the country fell back in the lap of the very same people who threw it into wilderness. But such was the upbeat mood in the Opposition ranks after their electoral triumph that it was the first time I saw a silent RSS march.
Today, when I try to put these frames into a perspective, I wonder what has really changed.
All political parties -- their so called ideologies be damned -- play only blame games and it is ridiculous because even a novice knows that each has a feet of clay.
Governments have changed. Governance remains the pathetic same. In a democracy, people don't have to be powerful. They need to be sensible. But that's asking for moon when personal agendas take precedence over national welfare.

Kohli Vs Kumble, queering the pitch

Raju Korti
While Team India gears up to take on sworn rivals Pakistan in the ICC Champions Trophy at Edgbaston tomorrow, there is also a grating sense of apprehension over the alleged rift between captain Virat Kohli and coach Anil Kumble. Apparently, the two have been sharing cold vibes after Kumble wanted a player to be included during the IPL and Kohli least interested. If reports are to be believed, there is a growing concern in the Kohli camp that Kumble is overbearing in his demeanour and approach.
The rift came as a surprise to the cricketing fraternity when the combination had yielded rich dividends with India winning five consecutive series victories. But the clash of egos was waiting to happen. By very nature Kohli and Kumble are as different as chalk and cheese. Kohli, much in the style of Sourav Ganguly, is impetuous while Kumble has been a picture of courtliness and grit all through his illustrious career.
After the exit of New Zealand's John Wright and to some extent South Africa's Gary Kirsten, the relations between the captains and the coaches of their time have been at best lukewarm. There is a fair allowance of debate on who should have a final say in the team selection at the last minute. Both the captain and the coach look at the issue from their vantage points -- the captain draws from his instincts and claims to know what he wants while the coach feels he is objectively a better judge sitting in the dugout.
The brief of a coach has assumed a wider significance in today's context. He is no longer just the conventional cricketing coach but also as some sort of mentor and advisor. Whether that makes for a unjustified case of coach exceeding his brief is another debate but it leads to a situation where they either complement or clash with each other. With the kind of stakes involved, invariably the latter happens given the king size egos the players and cricketing administrators nurse. History provides testimony.
Remember the running battle and acrimony between Ganguly and Australian Greg Chappel. Chappel's authoritarian style of functioning didn't go down with Ganguly, himself not the one to take anything lying down. What it did was it also cleaved the team in the dressing room. Chappel exited unceremoniously, leaving behind an unending debate whether India should have a foreign coach or someone from within the country's cricketing fraternity.

Not seeing face to face: Kohli and Kumble

As it has turned out, the captain and the team have the last laugh on the issue as the Cricketing Board cannot afford to antagonise players, whatever the stature of the coach. There is some merit in the argument that analytics and strategizing should be left to the skipper and his think tank since finally what happens and is executed on ground is his responsibility.
Kumble's own track record is outstanding and he is known to be a man of convictions. To be fair to him, his views cannot be given a short shrift but I feel the coach should just prescribe rather than insist. Their symbiotic relationship can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on how they handle each other.
My childhood friend and cricketer N S Krishnan puts it in the perspective. Says he: "Trying to impose a football-like coach driven culture may not be the best idea and the rules of engagement between the coach and skipper have to be evolved and negotiated for each pair. There cannot be rigid rules that govern the engagement between the two. If there is a breakdown it is unfortunate. There has to be a proper role definition after a lot of thought, reasoning and debate. No easy solutions ahead unfortunately."
Kumble's extension of contract was a foregone conclusion but it won't come as a surprise if he is sacrificed at the altar of the skipper. If he has been officious, he cannot escape part of the blame.
Kumble's former team-mates Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman form the BCCI's  Cricket Advisory Committee and they have an unenviable task of taking a decision on a man whom they fully respect. Virender Sehwag's name is emerging as a front-runner if its curtains for Kumble.
Irrespective of whoever takes charge, the imbroglio doesn't look to fade away. Ego gets you inches, it doesn't get you impact.