Of extortion and note counting machine!

Raju Korti
I have often wondered whether extortion falls in the definition, bracket or purview of business. There are two reasons I dare say this. Academically speaking, business is an organization or enterprising entity engaged in commercial or professional activities. Extortion acquires the flavour of business with the use of force. On a realistic note, extortion is now a thriving and profitable business that has outgrown the stature of MSME. And when it puts someone in the governance under a cloud, you would be excused if you believe that it can flourish better under state patronage.

Unlike other businesses, extortion doesn't need any financial investment. All one needs is authority (optional), a threat and a telephone. Money is just a phone call away. Your business acumen lies in thinking big and tapping the right sources. You don't have to pay the henchmen your hire. They can be paid from the same gross revenue.

Portfolios can be given to the henchmen. Extortion in-charge of this, Extortion in-charge of that.... The sky is the limit. You play in crores but counting is no problem. What are note counting machines for? They aren't meant for only banks. Portable as they are, you can carry them with you. They make money portability easy too.

The business of extortion is by no means a "वर्गणी" which is a share, division, portion or proportion (of an individual out of a number or a quantity) or a subscription or contribution. Let us not lower the dignity of extortion by appending "वर्गणी" to it. Simple to understand if you know what divides compulsory with optional. Extortion is not for the weak-hearted. So "वसूली " is more fitting and concentrated than the  dilute "वर्गणी".

As for me, I am thinking how to raise money for manufacturing note counting machines. That is a good ancillary industry. I can at least boast in my present penurious condition that मेरे पास नोट छापने की मशीन है!            

An "exclusive story" you have read everywhere!

Raju Korti
For people who have little idea of how newsrooms across the world function or the nitty gritty and ethos that go into the working of a journalist, the word "exclusive" may not mean much. But ask any journalist worth his salt, especially the one taking baby-steps into the profession! An "exclusive story" against his name is what makes his day the next day. For the uninitiated, an "exclusive story" is supposed to be an original news that is reported for the first time (before anyone else breaks it). Since news comes with a shelf life and expiry period, journalists hold exclusive stories -- which get them bylines -- close to their heart. Very often than not, a bunch of "exclusive" stories forms a formidable part of the journalist's repertoire and he preserves them as testimonials when angling for new jobs.

The value of "exclusivity" hasn't been lost with the passage of time but the concept of news has been devalued and trivialized like never before. It makes for a compelling case to redefine what News is especially in the light of what the old school of thought believes it to be. Puritans fed and brought up on the classical definition of News are trying to reconcile to the new age parallel "news agencies" who have rewritten the rules of what constitutes News. The biggest empowerment has come from social media where such "news agencies" not only abound but flourish, patronized by the gullible unversed. 

I did not need much temptation to use the word "empowerment". A veteran colleague once lamented that the social media had turned just about everyone into a journalist and/or photographer of sorts, convinced whatever they wrote was you-read-it-here-first kind. So you have "exclusives" galore with the kind of real time journalism that would leave our modern-day news channels blush red, beaten at their own craft. As this colleague always commented "साला न्यूज़ का पूरा चिन्धिकरन कर दिया".

These "exclusives" are now here to stay and have been well accepted. The "news agencies", especially the vernacular types, have institutionalized News in a new avtaar. See them on Facebook! Their names are too fancy and in-the-face- to miss. "Exclusives" are churned out daily by these news factories giving the impression that nothing ordinary happens in our lives when the truth is ordinary is elevated to the exalted status of an "exclusive." 

Just how impressionable these "news agencies" are can be considered from my own example. Despite having banged my balls in this profession for four decades now, I have become their compulsive reader, albeit by default. As journalists, we worked our asses off and sweated by the litres to gather information.
Now news gathering leans solely on the speed of your internet and how practiced you are at using Cntrl A+CntrlC+CntrlV. इंटरनेट सलामत तो stories पचास!

Since I am quoting myself exclusively here, sample my own post on Facebook a little while ago:"वाचून थक्क व्हाल, ऐकून प्रचंड धक्का बसेल" ह्या पठडीमध्ये मोडणाऱ्या आणि फेसबुक वर दररोज असल्या पायली ला पन्नास भंपक बातम्या पैकी एक आज वाचली. पण for a change खरोखरच थक्क झालो अणि प्रचंड धक्का ही बसला. बातमीच्या खाली लिहिले होते: वरील अभ्यासपूर्ण बातमी इंटरनेट वर असलेल्या बातमी वर आधारित आहे. This is, of course crude oil. The refined oil goes thus: Years back a senior sports editor wrote a nostalgia piece and claimed it to be an exclusive. When asked if he could guarantee its exclusivity, he said " When I say it is exclusive, it is exclusive. When Jack Fingleton wrote the same piece in 1971, no one had the guts to ask whether it was exclusive."

The new norm is every story is an "exclusive" story unless proved otherwise. If only we old timers were born 40 years later, we would have had to buy a cupboard for storaging (my exclusive coinage) the stories. They would have tumbled out faster than the skeletons.

    

The Intellectualizing Indian

Raju Korti
Twelve years ago a friend of mine gifted me Nobel Prize winner and Economist Amartya Sen's book "The Argumentative Indian. I read the book not because it was written by Sen but inspite of him. It is a collection of essays that discuss India's history and identity, focusing predominantly on the traditions of public debate and intellectual pluralism. Sen has exercised over 400 pages in demonstrating the importance of public debate in Indian traditions generally. I chose to give up half way through the book given its repetitive thought to understand contemporary India in the light of its long argumentative tradition.

Without belittling his stature, let me say that I was never into Amartya Sen. For that matter, I find most economists big time bores with their skewed thinking apart of course from the fact they have little else for public discourse. I found the book specious and imprecise because Sen does not travel beyond some postulates. It reads well in parts but there is something anorexic and superficial about it. The history that Sen seeks to lean on is as unscrupulous and trivializing as those that he wishes to bring down. That makes it less than thoughtful and instead serves as a forceful reminder that history runs the risk of being used in a dangerously naive way. 

This is not a review of Sen's book. My essay here has a tangential but parallel connection to Sen's argumentative Indian, of which he is his own advertisement. There is no denying that Indians are by and large noisily argumentative but in my view more than being argumentative it is their natural talent for "intellectualizing" issues. Social media serves as an ideal grazing ground on which intellectualizing becomes a cud to chew on. The most protuberant aspect of intellectualizing is it gives one the leverage of obfuscating the issue at hand while being perched on moral high ground. It is just camouflaged agenda that leaves no one any wiser.

Excessive thought and reading too much into issues that are simple and crystal clear are the main driving forces behind intellectualizing and obfuscating issues. It is the kind of defence mechanism that is counter-productive beyond a certain point but becomes a tool nevertheless to cloud issues that in their original form are transparent enough. The overdoing of intellectualizing seen today is often passed off as rationalizing. Intellectualizing degenerates clear thinking and its effects are palpably visible.    

Having bloody bare-knuckle arguments on issues one is passionate about is fine but abstracting issues and practicing mental gymnastics is what you see when opinions are flaunted around with what appears to be a generous sprinkling of intellect that incommodes plain thinking. It also has a burlesque side to it. People or issues intellectualized are often themselves surprised to know they are endowed with such an intelligent mind. I have many instances to share but I will share one. Director-actor Vijay Anand once told me that he realized the true measure and depth of his film Guide when people applauded him about many aspects of the film that had never crossed his mind. One of the consequences of intellectualization the "spirit" is lost and replaced by mind or intellect. It raises more questions than answers.

Intellectualizing is pitless and turns into a drag when it exceeds itself, which is more than often. Arguing is its eldest offspring. Some day, I shall write a book" The Intellectualizing Indian" without succumbing to the temptation to intellectualize it. The only trouble is you can't intellectualize it enough.

Indian batting anything but in the 'pink' of health

Raju Korti
There is something extremely funny when a national team is bundled out for a paltry total, especially when the team, touted as one with great batting depth and plenteous bench strength, falls like nine pins. Actually, for a total score of 36, paltry is a big concession. The manner in which India meekly gave up in Adelaide today with just 36 runs and no one managing to enter even the double digit score was worse than an abject surrender. Worse still, all this happened when I was away for some work and when I tuned in, India was already gasping at 26/8 and staring at one of the most humiliating defeats on a foreign soil. It brought back memories of the disastrous 1974 series against England when Indians were handed out a 3-0 Whitewash by the Englishmen. At Lords India scored just 42 in 17 overs to lose by an innings and 285 runs. Even then, recall that the late Eknath Solkar had dourly stuck around for his 18 runs when others capitulated before Geoff Arnold and Chris Old. That team had Gavaskar, Wadekar and Viswanth. The refrain was the Indians couldn't come to grips with the biting cold weather and refused to take their hands out of their pockets to take catches.  Today, with No 2 ICC ranking Kohli, they had no such excuse and in a spunk-less display of batting could score 36 in 19 overs, their score-card reading like someone's mobile number as the joke is being circulated among furious but sarcastic fans. There is of course no discounting the superb spell bowled by Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood with the pink ball but it is inexplicable that a team caves in with not even a semblance of fight. 

A look at the lowest Test totals should, however, give the Indians some consolation. On the record front, India has much to cheer about, facts being stranger than fiction. In the history of Test cricket India has 8 low totals as against Australia and England (19 each), New Zealand (16), South Africa (13) and West Indies (7). To give more comprehension to these figures, India and New Zealand, at least until the mid-70s were not exactly giants in the international reckoning but traditional Ashes rivals Australia and England are match for each other on that count. New Zealand, patently the minnows then, have come a long way to be no pushovers but they still retain their dubious record of the lowest ever Test total. From the lowest low of 26 by New Zealand to the lowest high of Pakistan's 80, there have been 106 such lowest low-scoring cricketing matches. Even lowest totals have scored a hundred in a game that is a baffling turmoil of numbers.

If you exempt the cut-throatism and ruthlessness that obtains in the way the game is played today with understandably high stakes, the fact remains that at the end of the day it is a game where teams will win or lose and even the best of teams can have a bad day in office. India's loss rankles not because of the loss per se but because of the complete absence of will to fight it out. With three more Tests to go and Kohli on paternity leave, the others have to more than iron out the kinks in their armour.

Beyond figures and customary sermonizing, I always wonder what does the team do on a day like this when their reputation is shredded to pieces. You see players in  the dug-out or balcony chatting away merrily, feverishly gesticulating, standing up in excitement and applauding, clinching fists, eating snacks and sipping beverages but a loss like this early in the tour takes some resilience to bounce back. I am  curious to know how Ravi Shastri will deal with this apart from giving his boys some pep talk to goad them into action since the batting technique of most of them showed they lacked application, forgot basics and seemed to be still stuck in the IPL mindset. 

From the Summer of 42 in 1974 in Lords to the Winter of 36 in 2020 in Adelaide -- and I am going by the Indian seasons -- India has taken 46 years to do worse. If this piece of statistic is any indication, I hope I won't be alive to see the worst.      

Not fair on Cheteshwar Pujara

Raju Korti
The idea of fielding two separate teams for the shorter and longer versions of the game may have its utility and logic but it has some strong aberrations. The reference is to Cheteshwar Pujara who is perhaps the only true specialist Test batsman in the current Indian team visiting Down Under. (Kohli excluded since he is playing only the first Test). Pujara played his last Test end February against New Zealand which means he has had no international exposure for almost a year. In 77 Tests, Pujara has scored almost 6000 runs with 18 hundreds at an average close to 50. Just how fair is it to expect a batsman of Pujara's class and caliber to walk into the Test side against Australia in Australia after such a long hiatus and deliver?

Given the way the shorter version has made inroads into the longer version, players, especially batsmen have to readjust and reorient themselves to a format that calls for completely different skill sets. In India where cricket is played extensively, there have been instances where batsmen have ended up being neither a Test or ODI/T20 specialist, losing their identity trying to constantly readjust. There are also those who have forgotten their durability and have made peace with the T20s on the premise that he Test version is now only regulation cricket and is losing its charm.

In the last decade, India has been handing out significantly higher number of ODIs and T20s although puritans and protagonists of the Test cricket believe -- and rightly so -- that the latter calls for greater endurance, competence and cricketing mindset. With more number of shorter matches being played, Test cricket skills appear to have taken a back seat. Notice that in the current series, India lost to the Aussies 3-0 in the ODIs but managed to upstage them in T20s 2-1. The transition from these to the Test series will not be easy although that the current Indian batsmen like the ball coming on to the bat on the bouncy Aussie pitches.

Pujara's example is a case in point that Test cricket skills may not earn you a place in the playing XI for the shorter formats. With some debate, India fell in line with the concept of playing different teams across formats as it was happening among other playing nations. Why batsmen, even bowlers were selected on the same yardstick. Remember, Mohammed Shami and Umesh Yadav were considered first serves for the Tests while Bhuvanesh Kumar and Jasprit Bumrah were preferred options for the limited overs games.

Take the case of Steve Smith. He has fared remarkably in both the formats but it is Aaron Finch and not he who is the captain of his side in the shorter version. He was, however, good enough to lead Rajasthan Royals in the more feverish version. Ditto with Eoin Morgan who is leading England in the shorter version while Joe Root presides over the Test squad. Morgan made a very interesting point earlier this year when he said he was open to the idea of England playing two matches in different formats on the same day. Apparently, Morgan was flexible to the idea of helping cricket back on its feet but he was also indicating that the character of the game was changing.

The specialization within formats in international cricket has happened particularly in the last decade or so and has become a working assumption among a majority in the cricket community. If you played Test cricket a decade before, you probably played T20s too. This is now passe and the emergence of a completely different ethos has changed the game's algorithm. There is little doubt that the domestic T20 contests created a new and stronger revenue model for cricketing boards even as franchise contracts became worth more than national contracts to a number of players. As a consequence, a series of new T20 competitions made their way into the already hectic international schedule, adding to new fixtures. Look at the players who have been risking injuries and burnout while signing up for everything. Players, coaches and selectors think differently about how to achieve all-format success. Specialization is a natural corollary. Three teams have pursued a strategy of choosing players to suit the format much more clearly than the rest: West Indies, South Africa and Australia. 

With lesser number of Test matches being played, specialist batsmen and bowlers are getting systematically sidelined. It is tough for someone like Pujara to come back after a long gap and start playing big innings. The exposure he gets at the domestic level does not really add up to much since playing domestic cricket and international cricket are different ballgames. Recall that two years ago at the Wanderers in Johannesburg, he took 53 balls to open his mark. That's nine overs too many of a T20 where explosive batsmen can score 100 runs.

Cricketing boards should identify players who play exceptionally good Test cricket and allow them to play a few shorter version games in tournaments like IPL where there is scope in the initial matches. A long wait outside the team can make players rusty, drop confidence and short on dressing room camaraderie. Losing good players at the cost of revenue and what people perceive as popularity does not make for a great cricketing sense. But who will convince the cricket boards?

Some thoughts about anchoring UPA's ship

Raju Korti
Nationalist Congress Party leader Sharad Pawar has trekked a long political expedition since the days I first met him in 1978 as the leader of then Progressive Democratic Front. He had by then established enough credentials in outfoxing veterans with manoeuvres startling even by the standards of his Machiavellian mentor Yashwantrao Chavan. A sulking Vasant Dada Patil, four times chief minister of Maharashtra, had told me how the newbie politician had upstaged him with  machinations that had left him cynical and bitter. In the decades that followed, Pawar left little doubt about his acumen that many believe is a euphemism for treachery. 

It is not my case here to dwell on Pawar's cunning but his name being proposed as the next Chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance has a ring of mystery to it given the flux in which the alliance finds itself in. That Pawar should be a key player in this mist is perhaps well in tune with his political record since the man's craft and shrewdness thrives in such political rigmaroles. As his name emerged as a front-runner for the UPA's presiding chair, I suspect we are in for another long spell of political intrigue. The NCP has been quick to dismiss all such talk but when it comes to Pawar there are no guarantees which way he will turn and when. 

There are no prizes for guessing why Sonia Gandhi has expressed reluctance in continuing as the chairperson. Her own party of die-hard loyalists has now openly started raising a banner of revolt. Mind you, the Congress was never a united party -- no party is; including the BJP -- and dissensions were always rife but the Gandhis managed to keep them in check with their so called personal charisma. Apparently, many leaders in the party see no chance of their elevation and have now started coming out of their shell to demand a change in leadership. Sonia seems to have caught on to the fact that discretion is better, and in any case, it makes sense to put someone else in the hot seat. Who else than Sharad Pawar? And for those who wonder what exactly is the difference between Uddhav Thackeray's Shiv Sena and Raj Thackeray's Maharashtra Navnirman Sena except of course ego issues, it is the same difference between Congress and Nationalist Congress Party.

The Congress is likely to hold party elections early next year to select a new president since Rahul does not want to anchor the party's adrift ship. Sonia was forced to become the interim president after Rahul put in his papers in the wake of the rout during the parliamentary elections. Frustrated veterans in the party like Ghulam Nabi Azad, Kapil Sibbal, Shashi Tharoor, Prithviraj Chavan -- among 23 others --  who have for too long pedalled the Gandhi line see this as a chance to wrest some control with the party at its weakest since its checkered history. Instead of brooding over the situation, the partymen should decisively pitch for a change if they want it revitalized with new ideas. It is not just that the Gandhis have outlived their authority, the party has to shake off its culture of sycophancy and win back people's trust if it is to regain the center-stage and emerge as a strong alternative. The fact is Congress has only made things difficult for itself.

The UPA needs a leader who is a veteran and astute politician and has the ability to negotiate with other parties. So far, there have been enough indications that regional leaders like Mamata Banerjee and MK Stalin could be tough customers who may not fall in line with the present dispensation of Congress. As for the opposition parties, Pawar fits the bill but then many in Congress feel that he cannot be always trusted. Age is also not on his side. Giving space to Pawar could be suicidal even if the NCP were to merge with the Congress. The Congressmen haven't forgotten how Pawar had opposed Sonia being a foreigner and formed his party on that plank. If Pawar does take over the reins of UPA, Congress will be completely usurped and would at best appear a poor cousin.

It is not as if Congress and NCP are made for each other but they do not have any other option but to court each other for what they believe is the common cause -- checkmating Modi. The inherent contradictions within the Congress and NCP coupled with the issue of who should head the UPA is what promises to be another teaser. It could well trigger another power tussle that may further queer the pitch for both the parties. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. As Vasant Dada Patil told me long back, all opposition parties could come together but fractions within the Congress can never unite. The Congress has lived through these internal dissensions and contradictions. This time its a different story.

The Indian Chhakke Pe Chhakka League

Raju Korti

The "chhakka" -- as it is understood in cricketing terms unlike its derogatory connotation -- was never so trivialized as it is today, thanks to the Indian Premier League. More than half a century ago when Gary Sobers clobbered six consecutive sixes -- never mind it was a County match -- and as late as in 2007 when Yuvraj Singh  did an encore, the sixer was the cyanosure of all eyes. Today even a tailender can send the ball packing beyond the ropes with a wild swing of the bat and the crowd erupts in collective orgasm.

In the languid and longer version of the game, sixers came pricey. I recall in my school days there were cavaliers of the likes of Salim Durrani who would cater to the demands of an exuberant audience and hit sixes. But such players and instances were very few and very far between. The batsmen chose to go with the finesse and preferred to let the ball sprint through the ground than travel in the air through helicopter shots. Most aerial shots happen when  bats are used like slingshots.

Watching sixes in the Indian Premier League has turned into a terrible bore but the commentators and the loyalists of the Slam, Bang, Wham version go berserk with bizarre descriptions. Replays of the shot are sexed up with delirious praises of the batsman. A graphic tracing the long, aerial trajectory of the shot is followed by an animated discussion on how many meters the ball flew in the air. With the game moving at breakneck speed, the commentators keep torturing their vocal chords as sixes come thick and fast. The "four" is reduced to being their poor cousin.

Someone among the scorers is probably a man who is employed only to beam on the screen the number of sixes being hit in the tournament. By the time the edition comes to an end the number soars to well over 600 or 700. Causing enough indigestion in you to pop a few pouches of antacids! That is if your patience lasts enough to go into the farewell ceremony that ends with predictable cliches.

The players laugh all the way to their banks. Imagine getting paid Rs one lakh for each such wild slog that takes less than a minute to execute while lesser mortals break their lumbers and sweat it out in liters to eke out a living. A six is a six even if the the ball connects with the bat by fluke. The fringe benefit comes from admirers jumping from their seats with clinched fists while the only sad person in this euphoric scene is the ill-fated bowler who can only wipe his forehead and watch the ball disappear in the stands. 

The pitches are deathbed for the bowlers. What do they do when the game opens with the concept of "power play" and field restrictions? Conceding 8 runs in an over is healthy economy rate in a game  where almost 450 runs have been scored in 40 overs. Every match looks like almost an action replay of the earlier ones. Hats off to those who remember these matches ball-by-ball and shot-by-shot.     

I suggest IPL goes more hi-tech in future with some fielders given space in mid air to stop sixes. Better still, name the Indian Premier League as Indian Sixes League or a funkier Indian Chhakke Pe Chhakka League. The cheerleader girls can do their jig mid-air as the spectators would anyhow be watching the ball flying all the time.

Since the IPL began in 2008, 7303 sixes have been hit excluding the ongoing one. Multiply the number with 100,000 and you know the peanuts Board of Control for Cricket in India spends on this penurious show. 

By the way, look at the picture accompanying this blog. It shows the eccentric Billy Bowden doing his familiar jig while signalling a six. I am sure if he were to officiate in all IPL matches, he would have become a professional Bharat Natyam dancer by now.