The Man Who Dropped the Bombshell

Some days he was the bug. Some days he was the windshield. Today he finally knows which side his bread is buttered. With the recent tests between India and Australia creating the entire hullabaloo he presented a perfect appetizer before the start of the ongoing series - his declaration to finally retire from the game. He displayed the same qualities in the press conference that had once garnered him all the attention at the start of his career - exquisite timing and perfect placement.

4 years after his innocuous international debut at the Brisbane Cricket Ground, the Lord's was where he began scripting a glorious career, albeit a dappled one, with a confident display of strokes. For a really long period the cricketing world had witnessed few of the most fluent and dominant shots through the offside. After winning 4 man-of-the-match awards at the Toronto Skating, Cricket and Curling Club against Pakistan there was a point when he seemed insuperable. Numbers were not lying too. He was the quickest to cross 7000, 8000 and 9000 runs in ODIs. Considering that he played in the same era as Sachin Tendulkar did these records were by no means meant to be sneezed at.

He had a keen eye to spot balls that could be hit over mid-on and mid-wicket for huge sixes. His power combined with his flawless footwork made them look very easy. It was this shot making ability that made his ODI partnership with Sachin Tendulkar very destructive for they both were adept at changing gears when necessary. Together they demolished all records previously held by the legendary West Indian opening pair Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes. But he was human. Although it took some time, turns out that he too had a chink in his armor. His vulnerability against short-pitched balls was a boon to bowlers from South Africa and Australia. Australians specially exploited this weakness in both forms of the game while South Africa conceded runs, in ODIs, at an average of 50.5 in stark contrast to his test average of 33.82.

In the year 2000 he ascended to captaincy. He saw many a famous victory as a leader. In him India found a stalwart who bloomed with aggression guiding the team by wearing his heart on his sleeve. He was India's most successful captain in the ODIs and tests until Rahul Dravid came along to fill his boots and dethroned him from the former. His most noteworthy achievement in the driver's seat is undoubtedly steering the Indian cricket team into the World Cup 2003 finals. During this campaign he amassed 465 runs but his individual success was not largely recognized due to his 3 centuries, against minnows Kenya and Namibia, which ironically helped him equal Mark Waugh's record of 3 centuries in a single world cup edition. Winning tests on foreign soil was never India's forte. After the series victory against Bangladesh in 2000-2001 Indians seemed to be playing better away from the country than on home soil. It was his aggression that instilled in Team India a sense of self-belief and confidence.

Controversy never got tired of his company. His notorious shirt removing act, in reply to Flintoff's similar antics in India, purportedly spoiled the sanctity of Lord's at the end of the Natwest Series 2002. So be it. The Lord's needed some cleaning anyway. His altercation with Greg Chappell made him the butt of all jokes. His personal decline in the game during captaincy shows that cricket is still a game that carries with it more mental onus than physical. After an interlude he was again brought back in the Indian team but being constantly under the scanner of the selectors must have pulled the last straw. Enough was enough and he decided to call it quits.

Throughout his career he has been in the news for wrong reasons. He has always been shadowed by the controversies surrounding him. With careful observation on his cricketing life it would not be hard to notice that he has excelled in more than few aspects of this demanding game. When the man wants to end his story the least we could do is thank him for what he has done to Indian cricket than cursorily dismissing his wonderful contributions. Love him or hate him. You cannot ignore Sourav Chandidas Ganguly.

Heredity ? Environment ?

Which do you think has a greater effect on a person - heredity or environment? Explain.

If birth had the power to decide the entire course of a person’s life then leading such a life would be futile. Genetic factors do have their say in how people progress in terms of the mannerisms, habits and most importantly intelligence levels passed on to the progeny. But it is a deep-rooted practice of mankind to battle these effects and counter them with proper utilization of the resources in their environment. More often than not humans have succeeded in proving their ability to overcome the hereditary hindrances.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima, witnesses to a major nuclear catastrophe, are still home to scads of people who’ve taken the pain to bear the diseases passed onto them as a result of exposure to high levels of radioactivity. Today they are a part of a nation which has grown by leaps and bounds in the perspective of development both economically and technologically affirming the fact that accepting defeat in the hands of ill effects of heredity would only be foolish.

There are cases of professionals stepping into their parents’ shoes and handling their professions equally well but it would be more sensible to attribute this effect to the way they are brought up instead of sheer genetic consequences. Intuitively it might seem that skills are a kind of intangible baton handed over to the child generation but behind their success lie years of productive exposure to the environment and inclination towards the same that comes as an obvious effect because of the eventuating comfort.

If heredity was the only influential factor then it would have been dictated that Sachin Tendulkar’s son would amass few more thousands of runs, Jaden Gil, son of Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi, would be the ineluctable and indomitable tennis champion and Albert Einstein’s offspring would come up with an innovative theory each. Fortunately fate does not ordain such for it has only benefited those who might have otherwise spent their lives cursing their family tree.

Right to Vote

The aim of fundamental rights, directive principles and fundamental duties, as drafted in the Indian constitution, is to set an itinerary for the citizens. It reminds us of what we can do, what we could do and what we must not. It tells us of the freedom we can exercise and how we are morally beholden to the nation. These rights can be exercised irrespective of cast, creed, sex, status etc.

However India has a parliamentary form of government based on Universal Adult Franchise which implies that only adults have the right to vote. The lower age limit established currently to accouter an Indian citizen with this right is 18. The rule is believed to have its own implications, advantages and disadvantages.

To be empowered with this right is to be indirectly told that someone is obligated to make a wise and judicious decision. Elections can change the course of nation’s progress. Casting a vote, therefore involves very mature decisions and to give someone such a right is the result of an equally important decision.

As a person grows, he becomes more aware of the environs around him. As an infant one might think individually but one gradually learns to live one’s life as a social being. One learns that he has a bearing on others’ lives and vice versa. Being groomed well by education, not necessarily academic, one understands how important it is to choose who governs us, who represents us. It is the leaders who influence and represent the nation and this particular individual we are talking about becomes perfectly aware of the fact.

By the age of 18, I believe a person has enough social interaction and awareness to take this vital decision. Therefore, it is not wrong to allow eighteen-year-olds to vote.

Religion without Faith

Ford Vox, founder of ‘Universist movement’, attempts to address the shortcomings in the world’s current religions by promulgating a whole new canon which paradoxically claims that no one can be bound by a set of rules - otherwise termed as ‘Faith’ by Vox. This religion finds its inception in a context where it dismisses the ‘Faith’ entrenched in all other archaic religions.

Almost every religion today is old, older than most of us could even imagine. Every such religion professes its own beliefs to which it believes its followers will adhere. The same beliefs have been propagated through generations and today the religious have a concept of Truth which they abide by. Per contra Universism believes that there is nothing like an objective truth.

“The idea is that there is no external truth, that there is no objective truth that we should all strive to adhere to. There is rather an ongoing, continuous search for truth.” quotes Vox. Only three years old, the new religion has attracted as much as 10000 members, a salmagundi of various sorts of people.

Lindsey Tillery, a devout follower of this new religion, wonders whether it is appropriate to believe what should be done in order to get closer to someone called God from people who neither have an inkling of what he’s like or nor have known these things directly from him. Not many universists differ from Lindsey has to offer, and all refuse to believe in the age old traditional conceptions of a hell or a heaven.

While many outsiders still opine that Universism is only nihilism or college given a different name, it is yet to be seen whether this religion is only a fad or will stand firm on the cornerstone of its selling point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYw29mkXQ8s&search=scythe

Not too many

This is in response to the the recent announcements from the Ministry of Human Resources and Development regarding reservation of 27% for OBC's in all seats n institutes of higher education being centrally funded . Reservations have often been the centre of discussion owing to the polemical results such decisions might force upon the nation.

The current hike in reservation in premier institutes like the IITs and the IIMs pushes the current figure to a startling 49.5 %. These institutes, held highly as the temples of knowledge, are reputed to create the finest individuals every year. Induction of reservations in such a meritocratic scenario would only hinder their actual sacrosanct motive from being accomplished. The move to increase reservations is likely to jeopardize the future of many students who might lose out in the race only on the basis of caste, ironically, in a knowledge-driven society like ours.

We are currently poised in a place where India is on the verge of being recognized as a global centre for knowledge. It would be sad to see such a projection retrogress from the current reputation to a bad one. Where agony still prevails over the efficiency of reservations for over a period of 50 years, it should not be strange that the efficacy of a decision to set aside a few more valuable seats in these institutions is highly dubitable, specially considering the amount of effort that goes into procuring an admission in these institutions. Our strong conviction is that by introducing an increase in the current 'reserved quota' we are going against the very promise of 'equality' that it is meant to fulfill.

We also strongly believe that there are better ways to approach a problem and hope to resolve this plaguing dilemma by pragmatic measures. The whole concept of reservation serves its purpose if someone who's been gainsaid an opportunity to study has been offered a seat instead. If a candidate has already worked hard enough to reach a stage where he's qualifed to attempt the examinations necessary to get into these premier institutes (suggesting that he had been offered education equally well throughout all the previous years), it is clearly not a case of 'denied opportunity'. While the fear of exploitation of such a gambit still lurks over the future citizens of our country, we suggest that minimizing the chasm between urban and rural areas by focussing on improvement of infrastructure, quality of education and reservations only at primary levels of education will enhance and ameliorate the situation to a bright and prospective future.

Our motive is to ensure a healthy competition and provide equal opportunities for all.

Is Science our new God ?

In a theosophical perspective the church or any other religious embodiment proscribes the belief that science is the new god and would in the same sense consider it sacrilege to all the ancient scriptures that form the genesis of their deep-rooted beliefs. Even in a manner unrelated to this, if a person was an atheist, each of them would have some ingrained canon that makes him choose between the various elements of the society for his God. For an ardent follower of rock music God could be anywhere in the gamut from the lead singer of Metallica to the drummer of Anathema, For a passionate fanatic of tennis it was Sampras back then in the 90's and now it is possibly Federer. In this view God is something indomitable, inspiring, inconquerable. In the end to some people God is purely an ethical entity and to the others it is the one in the top flight.

According to the atheist, the argument that science is god is perfectly untenable. If my memory serves me right I remember Prof. Biswas quoting in one of his earlier lectures that despite the human race's relentless efforts in resulting a number of contrivances, the human ear is still by far the most sensitive device on this planet. This is but a mere example to state how sometimes there are things that are impervious to the overbearing influence of science. Added to this, the new England journal of medicine JAMA in 1986, relating to issues on Cancer treatment, concluded that some 35 years of intense effort focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure. And after 12 years of data and experience, even in 1997 the conclusion was so truly entrenched that it found no significant cause to change. Years down the line there might be a cure to cancer, but I believe nature always has its way of playing with conceited moves, hence disease might still continue to persist. To add salt to the wounds, the failure in coming up with a substantial result entails with it humongous levels of resource sconsumption. This way science on an ahteist's basis is not the best thing that could happen to humanity.

Coming back to theosophical grounds, which indirectly has ethical issues associated with it. Through that window God is something that protects mankind and provides a foundation for effectuating the things that either cure problems or prevent them. God is an intangible force which impels them towards the better side of humanity. On this ocassion, I'd like to take opportunity of recapitulating a historical fact that shook many a person's ground when it transpired. Around 1860's a Swedish chemist and engineer mixed nitroglycerin with explosives like gun cotton and came up with an ingenious device. A few years later a newspaper quoted a premature obituary in his name by mistake and proffered upon him the title 'Angel of Death' because what he invented fell into the wrong hands and was manipulated as a very destructive tool. The scientist was Alfred Nobel and we all know the trauma that befell those who became the victim of the earliest usages of dynamite. A contemporary argument we are aware of is 'cloning' which brings with various debatable issues in the social as well as religious sense. The recent movie The Island, where clones are entirely treated as sources for medical treatments fettered away from social life, reflected the same.

What I've to conclude is that science is a mere instrument. It is a curate's egg. One person's vulgarity might be another's poetry. A pillow can be used to nestle in comfort or to strangle anyone to death. But God in any of the senses described here is above all subjugation.

Note: This was a denial of the motion in a debate at the Electronic Hobby Center, DA-IICT on 27082005. I have found a lot of flaws in this matter but since I take pride in it I won't point them out, instead let me pass the baton over to the reader.

Says my Grave

Life keeps people busy,
Death has left me calm,but dizzy,
As I wake up in fright,
I see the blinding daylight,
And People in a frenzy...