Cricket ODI: New Zealand Win Thriller, India Captain Cool Fails To Finish, And BCCI Jolted!

When your home team loses you always try to find out reasons or issues responsible for that loss and try to justify that had that being different things would have been positive. Although this is a natural reaction of the home team fans, one must take in the overall picture too. There is no denying the fact that New Zealand dished out a professional and gritty performance in the second one day international (ODI) match played in Delhi yesterday against India and won deservedly. The match was an entertainer down the wire as the narrow margin of 6 runs for the win made it abundantly clear.

On a traditionally slow Kotla pitch New Zealand, put into bat by India, did not get bogged down by the early loss of Guptil for a duck, but carried on the momentum with Skipper Kane Williamson hitting a superlative century and contributing for two major partnerships. The Kiwis looked set for a big score, but some tight bowling by Mishra and Bumrah accounted for 6 wickets for just 21 runs at the later stage. Therefore, the final target of 243 set by them seemed not too tall and was considered gettable by the batting might of India. However, spirited bowling and magnificent fielding by the visitors made it difficult for India, and losing wickets at regular intervals India folded up just 6 runs short. It showed the rather over-dependence of the home team on Ajinkya Rahane and Virat Kohli. Rohit Sharma fell cheaply again like in Dharamsala. Matured Pandiya ignited last hopes of an exciting victory, but as he got out in the penultimate over the match was sealed.

The home team fans were rather disappointed ruing the issues they thought responsible for the dramatic loss. Some thought on a traditionally slow turner India should have opted for batting after winning the toss. Then, the looming question of Captain Cool, MS Dhoni still donning the shorter format team cap. He is known to be finisher in such encounters. However, he could not do so yesterday and rather struggled to make 39 runs in as many as 65 balls. When Dhoni came into bat the situation was not that difficult with runs coming quite easily. After the match Dhoni lamented that if any batsman could have batted for few minutes more India could have won. Of course, he is also included in that. Now, rather than blaming Dhoni one must credit the Kiwis for their never-say-die attitude and professionalism. The match was a thriller and had the ups and downs all throughout providing absolute entertainment to all concerned.

New Zealand made the ODI Series level at 1-1 with three matches to go. They lost the Dharamsala match earlier, maybe not quite recovering from the Test whitewash of 3-0 dished out by the Viral Kohli led Test side. More than that, the rollicking Rahane and Kohli partnership made it very easy for India in that first ODI. New Zealand has been a very competitive side in the shorter format and despite the absence of retired Brendon McCullum the side is not weakened. We can look forward to some exciting one day encounters in the coming days. For India Suresh Raina is expected to come back in the next match. However, who will make way for him is not clear, because though Rohit is out of form he is not likely to be dropped, and Kedar Jadhav is playing quite well. Axar Patel could be the option as Raina can also bowl.

Meanwhile, the richest cricket board of the world, BCCI is made to bite the dust by the Supreme Court in regard to Lodha Panel recommendations. The characteristically arrogant Board has been trying to stall the reforms and asked for more time in the last hearing. The Supreme Court has come down heavily on their defiance and today froze all transactions between BCCI and the state cricket associations even stopping release of funds for match purposes till the Board implements the reforms recommended by Lodha Panel. The apex Court also asked Lodha Panel to appoint an independent Auditor to scrutinize BCCI accounts. 

Bollywood Is Not A Unified Whole!

Bollywood is actually a misnomer. In true subservience to Hollywood this name was coined since the Indian Film (Hindi) Industry was located in Bombay—which ceased to be so long back and Mumbai took over. Therefore, if at all, this industry should be called Mullywood! Anyway, Bollywood consists of a vast assortment of producers, directors, actors, music directors, lyricists, singers, production managers, spot boys and a huge lot of technicians in various categories ranging from cinematography to post-production labs. Basically all these people are individuals and thus all have right to their own opinions. Difference of opinions has been a celebrated hallmark of democracy—particularly in the largest democracy called India. If this democratic right of having one’s own opinion is universal why Bollywood be an exception? We cannot jump to the conclusion, as many self-motivated individuals engaged in media or politics often do, that ‘Bollywood is divided’.

That the righteous difference of opinion applies equally to Bollywood is made amply clear by the mind-boggling types of movies being churned out by this industry over the decades. Every producer or director has his/her own way of approach to filmmaking, own concepts or ideas and own intellectual types or standards. Likewise, all actors or singers or technicians have their own forms of expression that may be termed as excellent or poor. Else why would this industry make movies like ‘Pistolwali’ or ‘Hunterwali’ and also ‘Mother India’, ‘Sholay’, ‘Black’, ‘Neerja’ and so on over the decades? Grading of A or B or C for movies has been too apparent all the time. If some desperate souls still try to ‘unite’ Bollywood based on the celebrated ‘masala formula’ (an unholy but deliberate mix of entertainment ingredients) of Hindi films, they must admit now that the formula has come to a natural death quite some time back as the evolving audiences of the country saw through it. Therefore, it is almost surely established that Bollywood has difference of opinions within and this has nothing to do as the industry being ‘divisive’.

There is thus absolutely no problem if someone in Bollywood supported the continuance of Pakistan actors in Bollywood films and some opposed it, if someone even slammed the Prime Minister of the country and if some rallied with the government. The problem lies elsewhere.

There are always opportunity seekers, particularly from some sections of the media and politics sectors, waiting for every kind of expression, and thanks to social media opinions are now never private. The celebrities enjoy huge fan following and so their tweets go viral if the concerned tweets are controversial. The opportunists take full advantage of this and try manufacturing ‘mass ‘opinions’ thus contributing to the on-going tirade of labelling the whole country as ‘divisive’ ‘intolerant’ or ‘propagandist’. The currently popular term of ‘polarisation’ is also an off-shoot of this, particularly nurtured by some sections of the media not realising that in the process they are getting polarised and losing the principles of objectivity or neutrality. This ridiculous tirade to misinterpret ‘difference of opinion’ has led to even categorisation or sub-categorisations of universally accepted terms like ‘patriotism’ or ‘nationalism’. True anti-nationals are relishing this new-found chance.

When Bollywood biggie Karan Johar expresses himself, his mode of expression may well be controversial, he does so from a practically business point of view as the release of his film has been caught up in the melee. Maybe he preferred that mode of expression to avoid hounding from the opportunists. And, it is woefully wrong to label him as ‘giving in to the so-called ultra-something forces’ thanks to misinterpretation by the ever vigilant opportunists. If fact, every individual or association or company is guided by certain interests, and nobody could be so selfless as to defy one’s own interests on this planet. This ‘self-interest’ is also universal and often this also leads to ‘difference of opinion’ which is again lapped up by the waiting opportunists.

At the macro level the ‘self-interest’ leads to ‘vested interests’, and in India the sway and the clout of the vested interests can never be denied—at every level of activity and existence. In the present fluid situation it is hazardous to express one’s opinion—for or against or anything. However, for nonentities or non-celebrities there is not much fear of being labelled something. Therefore, at least at an analytical or argumentative level, this writer would like to suggest that the overwhelming power-play of the vested interests got severely affected by the change of government in 2014, and so, since then every effort has been made to hold the government responsible for anything under the sun. This is, of course, open ended and not mutually exclusive.

Coming back to our basic subject, Bollywood has only difference of opinion and the industry is not divided or ‘divisive’. If it has problems presently, these can be solved too. 

LinkedIn: Not A Forum For Political Discussion?

During the course of publishing a post on LinkedIn on current affairs concerning India I had come across quite a few reactions and comments that made me a little inquisitive. Since the post involved a kind of political behaviour rampant in India and some issues regarding international diplomacy the discussion thus ensued veered towards politics. And yes, there came comments from different members or non-members vociferating that LinkedIn was not the right forum for politics.

Now, almost all will agree that LinkedIn is not a job portal notwithstanding the fact that a lot of HRD managers and recruiters regularly use this as a place for talent hunt. More truthfully, most of the members here are already employed—looking naturally for greener pastures. There are many commentators on LinkedIn who say that not having a profile here is a cardinal sin or even suicide in today’s times—no matter if you are employed or not. Therefore it is also agreed that this networking place is crucial for all across all sectors of the economy of the world. It is also likely to be agreed upon that LinkedIn is not Facebook, because in the latter only family albums are mostly appreciated and not views or articles or links.

LinkedIn is quintessentially meant for professionals. Now, the word ‘professional’ basically comes from ‘profession’ or the type and nature of work one is doing. In that sense everybody is a professional in his or her field that may range from business/marketing to filmmaking/media/writing. There is some scope for disagreement here concerning who is rightfully considered a ‘professional’, because the modern-day usage of the term signifies people who are expert, innovative and ruthless strategists. By this definition some get unfortunately excluded leading to separate terms like Army men, Policemen, Bureaucrats, Lawyers, Doctors, Journalists, Vendors and the like. It is not right at all not to call all these people professionals. However, the moot point here is that nowhere in this networking hub you find any bar on entry of anyone practising any profession. All people ranging across all professions have thus the right of entry and to express their opinions or give inputs about their expertise on their specific fields on this forum.

You find a whole lot of groups too in LinkedIn on various subjects of interests, and experts say that formation of groups indicates higher levels of maturity among members. Groups on movies discuss even film reviews while groups on books discuss literature or highlight book releases. So it is either already there or hugely possible that a group of media personnel is also formed giving a layman’s analysis of political developments leading to a most productive discussion. Would this forum restrict such activities as not ‘right’ for the forum?

As a terrific innovation LinkedIn also offers you to write and publish your posts here and the Pulse may very well put you in a highly interactive platform, making you famous for your writings alone. Now, members of various professions would obviously write about their fields of expertise, and therefore, you must expect a wide variety in the type and nature of posts. Personally speaking, I was delighted having this platform and started writing on all fields of my interests. Of course, most of my writings on subjects like Cricket or Sports, Humor, Fiction, Movies or so on got totally ignored. Okay no problem in that, but nobody objected to such content as not being right for the forum. More interestingly, my few posts on content that involved current affairs and bits of politicking earned maximum views.

I would like to put in perspective, therefore, why politics is being singled out and considered as anathema for LinkedIn. When one lives in one’s country one cannot ignore political developments of that country or for that matter international events too, because only we talk of the global economy. God forbid, in the event of wars or extreme tensions breaking out involving several countries all professions or professionals of those countries would be severely impacted irrespective of whether it is business/marketing or anything else.

As an afterthought, there is no disclaimer or anything of that sort on the website of LinkedIn discouraging or barring entry of politicians into its fold!