The Generous Book-Stall Owners Down The Ages!

While reading the latest book by the Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, Home in the World—A Memoir, I found one incident or rather an experience of this great economist-researcher-scholar-writer-Nobel Prize winner in 1998-Bharat Ratnawinner in 1999, concerning a book-stall owner that he frequented in the fifties in the famed college street area of Kolkata, then Calcutta. I was enthralled to find that experience having a strong similarity with my experience of a book-stall owner in the seventies. Well, two mandatory clarifications here: first, I’ve titled my piece not after Sen’s great book which means that this is not going to be a review, but just a story, and I’m still going through the book which, in my view, is of epic proportions, particularly in relation to the history, culture, economics and heritage of Bengal from the pre-partition days; and second, there can absolutely be no imaginable comparison between the living legend and this nonentity, as I said this is just a story of a resemblance that I find greatly amusing and interesting.

 

Amartya Sen (his name ‘Amartya’ was given by the legendary Rabindra Nath Tagore), after finishing his school education in Tagore’s Santiniketan the liberal atmosphere of which gave a definite shape to his thinking (particularly his life-long resolve to work and research for eradicating the stark inequalities and religious divisiveness of the Indian society, influenced also by the great famine of Bengal of 1943 that killed nearly 3 million people, and how to prevent reoccurrence of such famines in future which he always held to be economically plausible, citing the World War-2 erroneous policies of the British), joined the Presidency College in 1951 for his pre-university course (today’s 11-12 standard) in Calcutta that was under the Calcutta University. His batchmate was Sukhamoy Chakraborty (1934-1990), one of the greatest economists of all time and who along with PC Mahalanobis had been a key architect in the formulation of India’s Five-Year Plans when he joined the Planning Commission, after returning to India from his teaching at the MIT in the US. Later, Sukhamoy Chakraborty was teaching at the Delhi School of Economics as a professor of economics and during my post-graduate course (1979-1981) I used to behold him in absolute admiration and awe, although he did not take our classes as per my selected papers. Later, I was very sad to know of his untimely demise in 1990. As avid students of economics the name of Amartya Sen was very much known to us, and I think, but not sure, he visited the D School some time during that period for a lecture. However, we must return to our story, because once we start talking about those times it’d go on forever.

 

Both young Amartya and Sukhamoy, obviously, were serious thinkers and book worms. Their Presidency College was situated at the College Street area of city and right opposite to the college was the legendary Coffee House of Calcutta where all Bengali writers and intellectuals had their addas, having endless debates that evolved their thinking, leanings and writings. This tradition continues even now and every Bengali intellectual, including students of course, cannot help but visit the Coffee House regularly. I also have the privilege of sitting in those famous environs inside where, apart from the addas there are culinary delights too with the inevitable cups of coffee. Outside the coffee house are the numerous book-stalls lining up the lanes around where books are sold like hot cakes and I’d prefer to call those book-sellers as book vendors, because like any other vendors they too call out continuously to prospective customers to come and get the book-dishes, a sight perhaps one cannot find anywhere in India (in my personal experience, I never found anything similar anywhere).

 

As was usual, Amartya and Sukhamoy did not have enough money to buy every new book that arrived at the bookshelves of the stalls. At times one of them would buy and lend it to the other or vice versa. They also started visiting a particular book-stall where the owner did not seem to mind them sitting there for hours reading their preferred books without making any move to buy those. So, this went on, and at a crucial juncture the book-stall owner made the kindest of gestures, impressed perhaps by the knowledge-seeking intensity of the young boys. He offered to lend them the precious books on a condition that the book would be lent only for a night and it had to be returned the next day, in the original shape and quality. The generous book-stall owner used to wrap up the book covers with newspapers for that very objective. It was a godsend for the young scholars and they capitalized on this as much they were capable of. Amartya Sen also recounts some other customer asking the book-stall owner as to how he managed to do business in this way. The owner was reported to reply that if he did not want to manage in that way he would’ve gone for more profitable businesses like selling jewelries. This shows how books and learning are admired and almost worshipped in West Bengal even now.

 

Cut now to my ‘coincidental’ part in the story. During my pre-university days too in the seventies, to be exact during 1975-1977, in a small town called Mangaldoi (now in Darrang district of Assam) I had been an avid student, helped very much by a ‘simple living high thinking’ inspired and independent-spirited family environment. My civil-service-officer cum writer-author-translator father was serving in that town for the second time, and following him we four children, particularly my younger brother and I, were literal book worms. We had an old bicycle that time and I daily used to go to the Mangaldoi College that was more than two miles away from our rented house. We used to get books from the district library, college library and other sources of private lending. My father being an honest officer he had to run his family of six with his limited monthly salary, and therefore, there was just not enough money to go on buying new arrivals at the bookshelves; at times he bought and at others we did saving out of our meager pocket money.

 

I used to frequent a book-stall somewhere in my locality to regularly check the new books. I sensed that the elderly book-stall owner had a very kind face and he always smiled at me whenever I parked my bicycle and came to the counter. That perception about him encouraged me to try reading the books at the stall itself: I’d normally ask for the book I wanted, withdraw to the extreme corner of the counter-desk so that other customers are not disadvantaged and kind of start devouring the book; at most times I finish the book and return it with a cordial smile; when I fail to finish the book, a voluminous one, in one ‘standing’ I come again the next day and ask for the same book to which the generous book-stall owner never reacts negatively or shows his displeasure. I really savored this godsend opportunity to read and read new books without having to buy for months in my leisure time, particularly in the forenoons of holidays. Of course, whenever I felt a little guilty I used to somewhat recompense the book-stall owner by buying a relatively cheaper book.

 

Such generous book-stall owners or sellers or even shopkeepers exist even today, I’m sure. They are not cut-throat sellers or competitors; they live their lives and do business with their principles held high. In my Kolkata stay I found a shopkeeper who gave my special items to me at a price less than the MRP. I was pleasantly surprised and asked him how he could afford to do that while most others try to charge even more than the MRP on some pretext or the other. He only smiles sweetly and says that it is very much possible if you want to do that way. We also find quite a few others in Mumbai and in Kolkata who give away their vegetables or fruits without payment if we did not have the change in pocket then, saying with a smile ‘take it Sir, where will you go!’ Great! I salute them all, like I’m sure; the greats of Amartya Sen and Sukhamoy Chakraborty obviously did and do.

IPL-2021: Play-Off Encounters To Start From Sunday, The 10th October!

Finally, Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) made it to the 4^th spot in the play-offs of the Indian Premiere League (IPL-2021) on the basis of net run-rate, staging an intensely spirited fight against Rajasthan Royals (RR) in the first of the double-headers played in Sharjah on 7^th October. Thanks to a brilliant start led by the openers Shubman Gill (56) and Venkatesh Iyer (38) KKR put up a total of 171 runs for RR. Although the total was not unassailable the KKR bowlers responded equally intensely and bowled out RR for just 85, even lower than what they achieved in their previous low of 90 runs against Mumbai Indians (MI). For KKR the player-of-the-match pacer Shivam Mavi capturing 4 scalps for 21 runs in 3.1 overs, pacer Lockie Ferguson getting 3 for 18 runs in 4 overs and spinners Shakib and Chakravarthy capturing one wicket each. The huge victory margin further improved Kolkata’s net run-rate to over +0.5 which meant that Mumbai had to defeat the Sun Risers Hyderabad (SRH) by a margin of 171 runs—a feat considered ‘mission impossible’ by all cricket experts and lovers. So, KKR’s place in the play-offs was almost ensured.

 

Defending Champions Mumbai, in the double-headers played simultaneously in Abu Dhabi and Dubai (for the first time in the history of IPL) yesterday the 8^th October, tried in the most gallant way to accomplish the impossible. Fortunately, they won the toss and obviously elected to bat so that there was no limit to the target they wanted to set. Ishan Kishan (84 in 32 balls), restored to his natural position of an opener, blasted his way to the fastest fifty in the UAE part of the tournament off just 16 balls and went on keeping the run-rate over 12 per over consistently. When Mumbai scored an incredible 124 in 9 overs a total of 270+ seemed probable and the ‘mission impossible’ looked probable too if they bowl out the lowly SRH for a total below 100 runs. Had Rohit Sharma not fallen early the impossible could have been a distinct possibility. But, as is usual in cricket, either the good phases or  the bad ones do not last long and MI, further helped by a fiery 82 in 40 balls by Surya Kumar Yadav, had to satisfy themselves with 235/9 runs, the highest score by a team this season and the first time any team crossed 200 in UAE. With nothing to lose Hyderabad batted freely keeping up a healthy run-rate finally losing by 42 runs. Mumbai had achieved the primary target of getting 14 points, but failed to overhaul the net run-rate of KKR, thus eliminated at the fifth position.

 

In the second match of the double-header played on 7^th October KL Rahul blasted his way to 98 runs off just 42 balls not out, just missing out on the fastest century made this season so far, winning the match for this team Punjab Kings (PBKS) against Chennai Super Kings (CSK) by six wickets, achieving the target of 135 runs in only the 13^thover. This huge win gave PBKS 12 points and an improved net run-rate to remain in contention, hoping for Mumbai to lose very badly to SRH. With this result, two consecutive poor outings for Chennai are not going to help the team much in the coming challenges, staying put in their second spot thanks only to the still higher net run-rate. The celebrated Indian former captain MS Dhoni too seems to be doing nothing much to write home about. 

 

In the other match of the concurrent double-header yesterday in Dubai, Delhi Capitals (DC), secure in the top position with 20 points, faced the struggling Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) and put into bat progressed fairly enough to a total of 164 runs thanks mainly to the openers Shikhar Dhawan and Prithvi Shaw, the innings ending without a single half-century by any batsman. RCB faltered at the start losing both Kohli and Padikkal early, and it was because of a brilliant innings of 78 not out of the new-found KS Bharat and Glen Maxwell (51) that RCB got closer and closer to the target. Even then, the victory was very tough going to the last ball when 5 runs were needed. And Bharat played an exhilarating six of the last ball ensuring a win by 7 wickets, but failing obviously to overhaul the net run-rate of CSK to move to the second spot. Despite the win RCB has something to worry about: with 7 wickets standing they had to produce an improbable six in the last ball to win this match; as also in an earlier match against the lowly SRH with 4 wickets standing and more significantly AB de Villiers at the crease, RCB failed to clinch the issue losing by 4 runs; and the issue of AB de Villiers indeed, this brilliant batsman still in a subdued situation for tactical errors by team management.

 

The play-off matches are starting tomorrow, Sunday the 10^th of October. Qualifier-1 will feature the top two teams DC and CSK—the winner straightaway entering the Final and the loser awaiting the result of the Eliminator that will take place on Monday the 11^th of October between the No. 3 RCB and No.4 KKR—the winner meeting the loser of Qualifier-1 and the loser getting eliminated. Qualifier-2 is to be held on 13^th October between the loser of Qualifier-1 and the winner of the Eliminator—the winner of this match entering the Final to be played on 15^th October.

 

As per performance consistency and intensity DC and the KKR are highly placed to win the IPL-2021 title, unless CSK and RCB manage to produce something out of the ordinary. Yes, cricket being the game of glorious uncertainty nothing can be predicted. And that makes the coming matches very exciting to wait and watch out for. We’ve fortunately seen some class cricket involving all the departments of batting, bowling and fielding in the last four matches and hope this would continue. (All photos: iplt20.com)

How Is Batter Better Than Batsman Or Batswoman?

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has given its approval for officially using the word ‘batter’ to describe a ‘batsman’ or ‘batswoman’ in all forms of cricket and commentaries or writings with effect from the ICC Men’s Cricket T20 World Cup-2021. The ICC has said that the word ‘batter’ has in fact been used since the last about four years, mostly in commentaries and also by some cricketers themselves, and this shift of usage is noted by the supreme cricket body. The Council further said that the word is ‘gender neutral’ and it makes cricket a more inclusive game. A large majority of the people concerned with the most popular game of the world have welcomed this change with some describing it as a ‘common-sense change’. They further argue that nobody describes a ‘bowler’ as ‘bowlsman’ or ‘bowlswoman’ or a ‘fielder’ as ‘fieldsman’ or ‘fieldswoman’. However, the word ‘fieldsman’ has been in usage since the old times and even sometimes now. This writer is not aware if ‘fieldswoman’ has also been used in women’s cricket which is not a recent phenomenon, but is being played, although in a limited way, since the 18^th century in England and later in Australia.

 

In normal English usage the word ‘batter’ means ‘hitting hard someone or something again and again’, and the word is also used in cooking and beating a person, mostly in unfortunate cases of ‘wife battering’. In England, where the English language originated and became a world language, the usage of ‘a batter person’ is someone being ‘regularly hit and badly hurt by a member of the family or his or her partner’ who could be a child or a woman. Of course, the batter can now be included to describe someone who keeps on hitting the cricket ball; but the word can never rid itself of its ‘negative’ implications, particularly in the context of us growing up with and playing cricket which has always been and even now described to us as ‘gentlemen’s game’. Can a ‘batter’ be a gentleman or a gentlewoman?

 

Another argument of the ICC and its supporters is that of making the game of cricket more ‘inclusive’. Who says cricket is not inclusive? Since ages people have been listening to radio commentaries or watching live telecasts with full families including, more prominently, women members; in the stadiums the cameras love picking up cheering women fans; and in the childhood days most of us always allowed the girls to participate in the game. Further, the ICC itself distinguishes its competitions or World Cups as ‘men’s’ or as ‘women’s’, and pray how are they going to make it as inclusive as making teams with both men and women players like co-education schools and colleges or like tennis mixed singles or doubles. We have also mentioned above that women’s cricket also began more than two hundred years ago.

 

Then, the argument of making cricket ‘gender neutral’: our point of ‘men’s’ and ‘women’s’ cricket teams is still valid here. How is it ‘gender bias’ if we call the men cricketers as ‘batsmen’ in men’s cricket and women cricketers as ‘batswomen’ in women’s cricket? Of course, some commentators may find it ‘tongue battering’ to keep on pronouncing the adjective ‘batswoman’ again and again in matches played by women. The basic gender difference in the game comes naturally with men endowed with more physical strength and stamina, and women burdened with their own kind of issues which make men’s cricket much more popular than women’s, and here, the ICC or any other men or women cannot do anything about it. The most physically taxing games are of football, cricket and hockey and therefore in these games men’s teams are more popular for fans unlike in games like tennis, table tennis, badminton and athletics or gymnastics. With feminist commitments in his writings always, this writer does not find the term ‘batswoman’ derogatory for women in any context.

 

I’d get always infuriated when someone describes Bradman or Garfield Sobers or Tony Greig or Allan Border or Sunil Gavaskar or Sachin Tendulkar or Brian Lara as ‘one of the greatest batters in history of cricket’; even now I get infuriated when some commentators or players themselves describe Virat Kohli, AB de Villiers, Joe Root, Sanath Jayasurya, David Warner, Steve Smith and many others as ‘batters’. Well, in this liberal age we can have our choices in usage of words too. Cricket fans will go on using either ‘batsman’ or ‘batter’ eternally, in spite of the ‘approval’. And personally speaking, I’ll always go on using ‘batsman’ for men’s cricket and ‘batswomen’ for women’s cricket in my writings on the this magnificent game of cricket.