Commonwealth Games 2010 – Food for thought!

- Dilip MS

Just over a fortnight back, apprehension pervaded throughout the country over the success of the biggest event we have ever hosted till date. The spark started somewhere in July, when the Indian media discovered financial irregularities in the proceedings leading up to the games. Gradually, the symptoms started to surface with every passing day. The media went bonkers in reporting some of the inexplicable dealings that were taking place and the country was dazed by the barrage of doubts raised over the dubious dealings of our officials.

The situation exacerbated as games drew closer; preparations were way behind schedule. Reports of dogs and snakes in athletes’ rooms coupled with water-logging due to incessant rain almost spelt doom for the games. The village was declared unfit to live in by CWG supervisors, and major athletes started backing out and postponing their arrival. The collapse of a footbridge and a fragile ceiling made the crisis spin out of control and got the attention of major international broadcasters. The purpose of showing India’s prowess in hosting such games was defeated, and the Incredible India hit its nadir. The crisis made even optimists doubt India’s capability to host the CWG. With this, the government stepped in, and the Prime Minister himself pledged to take matters into his own hands.

With a week to go for the games, the mess had to be cleaned up before the athletes arrived. The overnight parachuting of a huge number of labourers and supervisors helped to ease the infrastructural and hygienic concerns. Thanks to their efficiency, things started to look up for the games.

A widely-praised opening ceremony on October 3 helped improve the image of games in particular and the image of India in general. Over the course of the games, the limelight shifted totally on to the athletes. India celebrated every medal and the associated sportsperson. India finished second with 38 gold medals, behind Australia. In spite of the grave concerns and embarrassment due to allegations and mismanagement, this is believed to be the best phase for Indian sports as we showcased our sporting prowess in many games besides the 2-0 win over Australia in Test cricket.

Eventually the Commonwealth Games 2010 turned out to be the most expensive Commonwealth games ever with the total cost of Rs.300 bn. Nonetheless there is a point to ponder over. Should we as a developing country splurge our tax collection on such a mega event when our politicians are eternally corrupt?

We have managed to conduct Asian Games earlier, Commonwealth Games now, maybe an Olympics later, but at what cost can we afford all this? A simple cost-benefit analysis shows that any country which hosts such events incur heavy losses wherein revenues does not justify the costs involved especially under corrupt administrative environs. Imagine the state of stadiums post games; they are of no use whatsoever. In cricket-preoccupied minds of us, do we really remember and revere the sportspersons who have done India proud on a world stage? Aren’t we better off by investing the same amount in improving the much needed infrastructure which could provide impetus for our growth?

Controlling cannabis

The debate over legalising recreational use of drugs has been on for ages. The US state of California is set to vote on Proposition 19 -  the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 - on November 2, and it appears as if economic considerations are outweighing ethical issues. One report that supports the economic benefits of legalising marijuana has been the new report from the International Centre from Science in Drug Policy, which suggests that current US policy has no effect on drug use or price. More from TIME Healthland:

While spending on federal drug law enforcement has increased 1,200% and marijuana arrests have risen 150% since 1981, the rate of marijuana use nationwide has bounced around, with no relationship to these efforts.

For the state facing a $19 billion budget deficit, legalising marijuana will help in cutting costs and increasing tax revenues.  However, there are concerns, as opponents have pointed out in The Washington Post:

They say the referendum would bar employers from firing stoned workers without proving first that they were impaired. That would mean school bus drivers, for example, could get high before climbing behind the wheel, according to critics.

Also, while the passing of the new Act would enable those over 21 to consume marijuana under California's laws, they would be in violation of the Federal laws in the US.

The economist Milton Friedman had some strong views on prohibition and drugs. Here's a link to an article written by him on the subject in the May 1, 1972 edition of Newsweek.

The Next Media Animation group from Taiwan has highlighted most issues as well as the repercussions of legalising marijuana by way of a rather funny video. If you don't understand the language, worry not for there are English subs.



So, will the increased tax revenues from legal sales of marijuana be nullified by corresponding decreases in sales of tobacco and alcohol products? Or will marijuana sales boost the sales of the rest? Also, will the big tobacco companies diversify their product line to include marijuana-based products? If California passes Prop 19, we may find out the answers in the years to come.

Please chip in with your thoughts on legalising drugs, and other related issues.

The era of Cybercom is here

A military general commanding a division on cyberspace sounds straight out of a new Hollywood thriller, but that's what General Keith Alexander will be doing at the US Cybercom, whose ambit is to defend Pentagon’s sprawling cyber networks and battle unknown enemies in a virtual world. More from FT.com:

Last year, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared cyberspace to be the “fifth domain” of military operations, alongside land, sea, air and­ space. It is the first man-made military domain, requiring an entirely new Pentagon command. That went fully operational a week ago, marking a new chapter in the history of both warfare and the world wide web.

The US is not alone. Many countries, including the UAE, China and India, have had issues with Research in Motion, the Canadian manufacturer of the BlackBerry, over e-mail encryption.

Russia has a slightly different approach. It has built up a monumental Big Brother appartus that goes under the acronym SORM-2. A copy of every little byte that goes in, out or across Russia is copied to a central storage computer in Moscow under the control of the FSB, the KGB’s successor. Should the organisation ever need the co-operation of a fellow citizen, then the information stored on the FSB’s computers can provide useful leverage to overcome any reluctance.

What's in store for regular users? Surely, not something as drastic as this?

China has argued that the next generation of computer users will need to pass the equivalent of a driving test before its members are allowed to surf parts of the web essential for day-to-day life. The idea has triggered a huge backlash among civil libertarians worldwide who warn that such a move would undermine completely the very freedoms that the internet was designed to promote

Does anyone want China to become another India?

Who is Liu Xiaobo? The Chinese government would prefer if you didn't know. But, unfortunately, the Norwegian Nobel Committee knew and decided to award him the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. This, despite the protests from the Chinese government.

An excerpt from the citation of the Norwegian Nobel Committee:

Over the past decades, China has achieved economic advances to which history can hardly show any equal.

The country now has the world's second largest economy; hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty.

Scope for political participation has also broadened.

China's new status must entail increased responsibility.

China is in breach of several international agreements to which it is a signatory, as well as of its own provisions concerning political rights.

Article 35 of China's constitution lays down that "Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration".

In practice, these freedoms have proved to be distinctly curtailed for China's citizens.

For over two decades, Liu Xiaobo has been a strong spokesman for the application of fundamental human rights also in China.

He took part in the Tiananmen protests in 1989; he was a leading author behind Charter 08, the manifesto of such rights in China which was published on the 60th anniversary of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 10th of December 2008.

Leaders the world over have urged the Chinese government to release Liu. But, is China really concerned? Dissidents hardly have a voice within the country, and given China's economic strength, can countries really afford to take a "real stand" on its human rights violations? China too has been playing its cards smartly to further its geopolitical clout.

Unfortunately, though, this was not the main idea that we wanted to highlight through this post. It was this comment in response to the BBC news story on Liu being awarded the Nobel.

I think Western countries still view my country with prejudice. Maybe at the moment China is not as free as your country. But we can make decisions quickly which makes our government one of the most efficient in the world. Does anyone want China to become another India?

Wang Fan, Dalian, Liaoning

Wonder if Wang Fan is part of China's '50-cent party'.

Another '50-center' perhaps:

It is strange. In China, if you did a survey most would say this guy should be sent to the prison. If we followed his ideas, China would be unstable and that would be worse for most Chinese people. What do you think of the present situation in China? We have good economic situation and increasing living standard of the people. Is that not what the Norwegian people want? Or does the committee in Norway want a weak and backward China?

Jack, Shanghai

There are a few hailing the award, but the following comment shows the kind of media restriction that exists in the country:

As an editor for an English language newspaper on the Chinese mainland, I can say that the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo is going to cause a great many red faces in officialdom - and a quandary for the Chinese media. While most ordinary Chinese have not heard of Mr Liu (the media is forbidden from mentioning his name), the prominence of the award is such that even China's strict media controls will be unable to prevent this news from circulating.

Robert, China

Well, every debate needs two opinions, and some like Vladimir Putin get girls posing for two very different kinds of calendars too.

To conclude, we leave you with another question: does anyone want India to become another China?

(Image copyright: VoA)

A tale of two Duttas

(Disclaimer: The below piece is a satire on the admission General Musharraf made today to the Der Spiegel magazine. It was written with no malice and no intention to offend. It was written with two motives: to make you either smile or cringe in pain. We hope to have succeeded in doing either. Details about the shocking confession (the real one) can be found here: http://bit.ly/9lqc9t. As for us at CorpCom, we are not surprised. We Indians may be a hankering and cacophonous lot, but our assertions are always based on sound reason and judgment. We are no war-mongers. As always, any comments on the disclosure and the attempt-at-humour below are welcome and desperately solicited)

J.P. Dutta's iconic 1997 movie 'Border' and former Miss World Lara Dutta were the primary inspiration for the 1999 Kargil War, according to a shocking new confession by the ex-President-cum-Prime-Minister-cum-Chief-of-Armed-Forces of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf. Addressing a banquet hall of slouching, yawning journalists who had expected the launch of another ghost-written 'sensational' book, General Musharraf responded to a question on ongoing war in Eye-raq thus:

" ...When fighting a war against a tyrannical oppressor and aggressor, every reason is justified and worth fighting for!..."

When further asked that what was it that was his inspiration when he led the war against India in Kargil in May 1999?, Gen. Musharraf replied:

"Thanks to the internet boom and the cheap pirated DVD business run by my very old friend Dawood, I chanced upon a copy of J.P. Dutta's Border. There is a scene in the movie when a Pakistani soldier captured by the Indian Army reveals Pakistan's deadly plans: 'Subah ka nashta Jaisalmer mein karenge... Dopahar ka khana Jodhpur mein karenge... Aur shaam ka, Delhi mein'. That was it, I thought, this is what i need to do in life. It would be a life changing experience. Think about it: You have Laal Maas for breakfast, Daal-Baati Churma for lunch and for dinner, its Sikandari Raan from Karim's topped off with some Giani's gelato. Not to forget that it would be a great cross country road trip on my new set of wheels-Pansy tanks from my little Red Chinese friends."

On whether the gastronomic urge was the only reason behind the War, Musharraf said:

"No, there was another woman-Lara Dutta. After Benazir left me for Prince Charles, I was heartbroken. Things did not make sense. I was caught in a never-ending spiral of guns and money. But then, I gathered from very well placed Bollywood sources in Dubai that Lara had the hots for me. He also told me that these 'filmy-types' like bad boys, the badder the better. Look at Monica Bedi, for example! I could very soon imagine the two of us walking barefoot, hand-in-hand along the length of Marine Drive, or riding the horse buggy in front of the Victoria Memorial. I had to regain my love"

When one of the more diligent journalists (who was overdosing and hence, delirious, on caffeine by now) quizzed Musharraf on his thoughts on Kashmir, he quipped:

"Kashmir? Yeah, its a beautiful place, I've seen pictures and all. I really want to go there sometime, but apparently there's a lot of fighting of some sort going on there, some independence stuff."

Soon after the news was posted on the net and flashed over the news, the entire country has been in a state of chaos. According to the latest reports, SRS (Slimy Rats Sene) activists protested at the sets of Lara Dutta's new movie, "Hum Dilwaale Deewane", to be directed by Karan Johar. According to eye-witness accounts, three imported cows, a Bugatti Veyron  and sets resembling Interlaken, Switzerland have been burnt at Ramoji Rava Film City. Karan Johar was quick to react, and he called on Raj Thackray, who called on his uncle Bal, who called on Javed Miandad, who called up his samdhi Dawood, who called up Pramod Muthalik. who called it quits. The matter has now been reported as calm and Pramod Muthalik is being treated for post-traumatic stress for the phonecall he received while "Hum Dilwaale Deewane" will release on Diwali, as scheduled.

In other news, Mahesh Bhatt has reportedly dropped Shoaib Akhtar from his latest movie "Main aur Meri Zillat" and plans to cast Gen. Musharraf instead.

"...I am thinking about it. We'll get some test shots of him with a handlebar moustache with a Harley Davidson jacket and an Armani bike... Lets see how it goes"

This is Musharraf's second attempt to enter the Bollywood industry, after unsuccessfully auditioning for a role that eventually went to star Emraan Hashmi opposite Manika Sherawat in the movie Murder. Legend has it that Emraan has thanked Musharraf 3,18,857 times since then.

-(With inputs from Carl Woodward and Bob Bernstein)

Ingit Tibrewal, The NH8 Journal

So many questions

- Mathew Varghese, PG10

To be frank, doesn't the judgment indirectly justify the vandalism that took place in 1992? Has the judiciary been swayed by the threat of communal violence and neglected its role on judging on the basis of facts and arguments alone?

What is the precedent that is being set here? That it's okay to engage in criminal acts of destruction as long as you can show some inconclusive proof of structures that existed in that place prior to the current structure or that a certain religious/influential figure was born there.

Tomorrow, maybe a certain race will prove that they are the original inhabitants of India, and that the rest encroached upon their territory using force and unjust means. Will we reach a compromise then, grant them a portion of the country's land and pack the rest in what's left?

The sad fact remains that our incredible politicians were responsible for this mess, cutting across party lines. For those who say time is the greatest healer, how long do you think it is going to take? Remember this is a country with a huge population, and we just represent a certain sub-section for whom the entire idea of 'let it be' is an attractive proposition since we don't want any disruptions in the 'Emerging India' story. Just think of the man who was betrayed on December 6, 1992 and has now been betrayed by the judiciary.

One more thought just to reinforce the point I've been trying to make. Imagine if the Babri Masjid had been a monument perhaps as popular as the Taj Mahal or among the top architectural marvels in the country. Now, consider the fact that the memorial was actually built destroying a previous structure that stood on the birthplace of Lord X, a widely revered figure in a certain community.

For some reason this particular community can't bear the fact that a 'holy site' pertaining to Lord X is the burial site of some queen who had a rather loving husband. They demand the building of a site dedicated to Lord X instead of the existing monument. There is enough evidence, though debatable, of Lord X's birthplace falling within the ambit of the structure.

In this case, though, nothing has been destroyed yet. Will the courts, hypothetically, rule that the disputed site be split on the lines of what it decided in the Ayodhya case?

After all, it's a similar situation to that of the Ayodhya title suit. So, technically, the principle and logic behind the judgment should remain the same. But, do you think the ruling would be similar?

What if the Babri Masjid has not been demolished? Would the courts have recommended demolition in order to let a temple be built? Unfortunately, the message being sent out is that had those vandals not done their job in 1992, victory would not have been possible for a certain community in Ayodhya.

Now, you can call it a just verdict. To me, it's just another flashpoint for communal disharmony, and the kind of triumphalism that was witnessed during the demolition of the Babri Masjid.

Ayodhya verdict - Opinions from the papers

In The Hindu, distinguished historian Romila Thapar provides her perspective on the judgment.

What happened in history, happened. It cannot be changed. But we can learn to understand what happened in its fuller context and strive to look at it on the basis of reliable evidence. We cannot change the past to justify the politics of the present. The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace history with religious faith. True reconciliation can only come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not just on faith and belief, but on evidence.

The majority verdict of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute is a compromise calculated to hold the religious peace rather than an exercise of profound legal reflection, says an editorial in the same paper.

If overall the reaction from the public and from large sections of political opinion has been subdued, much of it has to do with the mood of the nation in which the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue does not find much traction any more — in striking contrast to the 1990s. On balance, the nature of the Allahabad High Court verdict should help the nation as a whole put a longstanding dispute behind. Secular India needs to move on and not be held hostage to grievances, real or imaginary, from the distant past. A great deal of the responsibility lies with political parties and religious groups to maintain harmony in the face of fundamentalist forces seeking to disturb the peace and profit from raising communal issues.

A real danger that the Ayodhya verdict will open the floodgates of uninhibited majoritarianism and perhaps, even a Hindu rashtra are grossly exaggerated, says Swagan Dasgupta in The Telegraph:

One of the features of the response of the organized Hindu camp to the verdict is the conscious show of restraint. The Hindutvavadis may have been pleased as punch that their central arguments were upheld by the court, but they have been very careful to not show it. This is on account of the realization that India is not in a mood for confrontational politics and that, unlike the 1990s, belligerence will be politically counter-productive. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, for example, is elated that the whole Ayodhya episode has elevated it to the status of being Hindu India’s most visible face. It would not like to compromise on that.

Shekhar Gupta answers a very important question in his column in The Indian Express:

The question everybody is asking is, can a mosque and a temple coexist? India is full of such places. My favourite is Kanchipuram, where the mutt of the Shankaracharya has a sizeable mosque next to it. What makes this spot so unique is that right across the street, sternly overlooking the mutt and the mosque, sits a bust of Periyar, the great atheist, iconoclast and the founder of the Dravida movement. An inscription under it reads:
There is no God,
There is no God,
There is no God at all,
The inventor of God is a fool,
The propagator of God is a scoundrel,
The worshipper of God is a barbarian.

It's not just what, but also how you say it

The bundle of The Times of India and The Economic Times at the doorsteps of hostelers at MDI offered an interesting insight to those who could read between the lines.

The front page of the Times of India read - "2 Parts to Hindus, 1 Part to Muslims" and a showed a map of the divided Ayodhya site. The front page of the Economic Times read - "Land divided, India United" and showed pictures of hope, peace, preparedness and prayer.

One story, two ways narrate it. One media conglomerate, two newpapers with differing styles.

Is the former a case of provocative writing and the latter of responsible writing? Or is it that the former is reporting the facts, and the latter feelings, personal or general?  How much should the media reflect public opinion and how much should it steer it? At what point does it cross the line?

These questions have always dogged society at large, with no conclusive answers. Perhaps it's best to deal with it on a case to case basis. An issue, as sensitive as this one, deserves sensitive reporting.

What was the best way to handle this bit of news? This byte? What is your opinion?