Guilty Unless Proved Innocent

kmp responds to the previous post:

Recklessness rather than intention!?

It means “Guilty unless proved innocent”

It does.

Also found some good rejoinders to Hasan Suroor's uncharacteristically illogical piece on The Hindu's Letters to the Editor:

Debate or denial

Hasan Suroor in the article “Debate or denial: the Muslim dilemma” (July 17) would like Muslims to stop blaming the west for the violence caused by the jihadists. He feels Muslims are in a state of denial. George Bush will agree with the author. While I strongly oppose Al-Qaeda, I cannot overlook the role of the west in the havoc caused in Muslim lands. Wise western leaders such as President Jimmy Carter had opposed any regime change in Muslim countries.

The example of Iran is too obvious where, in 1953, a duly elected Prime Minister, Mossadegh, was overthrown and later killed in a CIA coup. His crime: he opposed the Anglo Iran Oil Company paying more taxes in Britain, and much less royalty to Iran. The reaction eventually led to the theocratic revolution of Khomeini. Similarly Iraq was invaded in spite of worldwide protests and over 6 lakh civilians have died in the war so far. Yet there is hardly any reference to these horrors today. But an unexploded bomb in Glasgow can so disturb Mr. Suroor. Muslims do not need the west to run their own affairs. In particular, they must stop patronising autocratic Muslim rulers. Our true path is independent of both Osama bin Laden and George Bush.

J.S. Bandukwala,

Vadodara

* * *

I agree that the real challenge to Islamic society comes from the despotic regimes of most Muslim countries that are aided and abetted by the west.

Any sensitive person should be angered by the U.S. foreign policy, particularly in Iraq. Everyone cannot be expected to be a mute spectator while a handful of business interests orchestrate war and butchery under false pretexts. It is amply clear from Dr. Mohammed Haneef’s ordeal that the west has a fairly clear cut agenda — if you aren’t in the Salman Rushdie frame of mind you may as well be a terrorist. Terrorism is a natural by-product of the top heavy world order that doesn’t lend an ear to the weak and despairing.

Sanjay Ghosh,
New Delhi

Hasan Suroor's piece flies in the face of facts - all the major terrorist attacks recently (7/7, Madrid train bombings, and the recent UK attempts) are political and mostly in response to the Iraq war, the Palestinian problem, and in general western foreign policy. As for Mr Butt and other 'reformed' extremists, like Mr Suroor himself says:

Arguably, defectors are not the most reliable of people and there is, inevitably, an element of exaggeration in what they say about the organisation they have left and of their own role in it.

You could say that again Mr Suroor.

War and Terror Cont'd

From The Hindu:

Material discovered in Ahmed’s computer shows that the United Kingdom-trained engineer followed campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine with great attention, and often discussed current events with others in Islamist chat rooms on the Internet.

And are the Aussie police for real:

Mohammed Haneef has been charged with providing "reckless support" to a terrorist organisation.

He is alleged to have provided a mobile phone SIM card to two of his second cousins, both detained in Britain.

...

"The specific allegation involves recklessness rather than intention," Federal Police Chief Mick Keelty said from the Australian capital, Canberra.

Recklessness rather than intention!?

War and Terror

Kept away from the keyboard first by the Midnight Marathon and now by this. The desire exists - so many things happening out there - but somehow posting just doesn't happen.

Today I found two letters to the editor which I agree with:

Terrorism is to be condemned vehemently as it is a menace against humanity. But if one takes a look at the countries targeted for terror attacks, one can see a pattern. The Islamist terrorists target only the U.S. and its supporters. I worked in Jordan for a while and I have personally seen the plight of Palestinians who have been driven away from their homes. Their homes are just 50-100 km away from where they live but they cannot go there. The Glasgow incident is the result of such skewed policies of the west. Terrorism cannot be eliminated unless the world shows compassion for the sufferers.

N. Ramakrishnan , Richards Bay, South Africa.

True, most of the terrorist acts are perpetrated by young, misguided, hardcore members of a particular community. But it is also true that the majority belonging to the same community is law-abiding and is in no way responsible for the acts of the few. To tar an entire community with the same brush, therefore, is not only wrong but inhuman. The best ways of tackling terrorism are to strengthen and modernise our police forces and adhere strictly to the principle of secularism.

Baikadi Suryanarayana Rao, Bangalore

And it is irritating when people say that the 'misguided' youth 'misinterpreted' their religious teachings. Where does religion come into it? As far as I can see, the motivation is entirely political. The younger Bush and the older Blair declared a war on terror which somehow is a war solely against Islamic people. And these suicide bombers may be thinking that they are on the other side in this war.

Proved Wrong

Once again! The first time was of course when the media reported that an on-field argument was about Ganguly refusing to open out of mortal fear. More recently it was Ganguly figuring prominently in a group of seniors holding the captain and the team hostage, when the outgoing coach actually had words of praise for the man.

How these rumours are actually planted and by whom is an interesting topic by itself. The media is part of the problem facing Indian cricket and not the solution.

35,35,32....

~32,~26,26,~32,36,~30,24,37.

The ages of the Australian team in batting order of course.

Unscheduled Break

For the last few weeks. My broadband connection was messed up!

Another (Re)viewpoint

kmp responds [Spoiler warning: plot details below]:

It is so true that as one moves from one “culture” to the other, if you still have links with the original (however feeble or indirect it may be) you become a “confused soul” (lack of better word in my vocabulary). And that leads me into another question: i.e. should it be a sweeping statement such as “Neither American nor Indian” or should it be (more consolable tone) of “being both American and Indian”

There's that too. Thinking it over, probably Mira Nair was trying to bring out the tensions between the two viewpoints in the movie. For example, during the first half - everything is breezing along and the Ganguly family has no doubts that it is American (except for Tabu, though she too adopts the host culture quite well). But in the second half, during the most personally testing moments following the death of the father /husband, the son Gogol and later Tabu, both seem to reject their adopted country. The son gives up his American girlfriend for almost no reason. Tabu finally leaves America for Calcutta.

A Review

Went to the movies after a long gap of three years, our only son having abandoned us for his grandmother's house. 'The Namesake' by Mira Nair, based on the novel by Jhumpa Lahiri. A film about Ashoke, a Bengali, who emigrates to the US and the family he raises there. A nice story told well. But as it got over I was trying to think what message was being conveyed. Damn! Why couldn't there have been a nice summary at the end with the key takeaways listed clearly? True, Tabu gives something almost similar at the very end - about Ashok's ashes being in the Ganges, but his real spirit and memories residing in the circle of his (mostly Bengali) friends and relatives in the US. But was that all?

Then a complete stranger helped me out as I was squeezing the car out of the parking lot. He was in converstation with his friend, obviously regarding the film we'd all just finished watching. And this is what I overheard:

"neither they become american, nor they become indian".

A simple review cutting right to the heart of the matter! Fair with regard to the Indian diaspora in the US? I don't know. But when I thought it over, it described the characters in the movie perfectly!

Being Religious

Interesting essay (via Steve Gilliard) :

So when I came to the US [he's actually talking of the US Mid West] I was shocked, absolutely stunned at just how absolutely people believed the Bible. This was the first time in my entire life that I had a religious text cited to me during a scientific debate. When one of my dorm-mates tossed out the "Evolution is an unproven theory whit a lot of holes" line at me I didn't even realize that it was the opening line for a serious debate. For a second I thought it was a throwaway one-liner. He doubted evolution! Not just one odd guy, but dozens upon dozens came at me that night. I actually have met 3 different people since that night who actually doubt that the earth is more than a few thousand years old. I still can't wrap my head around this concept.

Of course, this is also the country where a presidential hopeful has to keep iterating the fact that he is a believer to stand any chance of getting elected.

Media Feels The Heat

The BCCI cracks down on player-sponsor nexus - limits the number of endorsements per player to 3, and number of players a company can sponsor to 2, and bans players signing exclusive contracts with electronic or newspaper media. Among other changes.

The media lets out a giant squeal. Rajdeep Sardesai takes up the injustice to players - his sports editor even calling it 'restrictive trade practice'.

I say - go for it BCCI.

War Crimes

What justifies this?

Few people know about the crimes committed during the two sieges of Fallujah — Operation Vigilant Resolve, launched on April 5, 2004, and Operation Phantom Fury, in the following November — as a result of which 200,000 people became refugees. There are no official figures for civilian deaths.

In the face of repeated independent verification, U.S. forces have now acknowledged the use of chemical weapons, and yet there remains no sustained international outcry and no official response (let alone condemnation) from any government or the United Nations. The United States has overthrown a regime while supposedly searching for phantom weapons of mass destruction, only to use such weapons on the newly "liberated" civilian population. The cold hypocrisy of such actions is outweighed only by its extravagant viciousness.

Seventy articles of the Geneva conventions were breached in the two separate months of siege warfare. Despite calls to abolish the conventions by senior politicians, they remain an essential bulwark against the bullying tactics of the powerful, and a poignant index of the increasing impunity of the neo-colonial project. Their ethos is that the innocent, the weak, the defeated and the injured be afforded all the protection possible in times of conflict. The ethos of the U.S. government is that the weak and innocent are a hindrance to the acquisition of power and, occasionally, an opportunity for the expansion of profit.

Dark Comedy

The debate continues. (WARNING: More futile discussion of Indian cricket ahead!)

I think any discussion of Ganguly, Chappell and the Process is moot at this point in time. The call for revolution has been answered with a civil war. The waters have been muddied with accusations and sources. Even EAS Prasanna whose spin could outfox very good batsmen has given up trying to determine whose fault it is. Chappell has already resigned. Ganguly's name heads the list of the senior group in every report, while it is said that he was let into the management discussions only after the Bangladesh loss, and when it is Tendulkar who actually speaks out about his lovers' quarrel with Chappell. The ex-master-blaster has done a neat retraction - denying that he had ever said that there was a rift between him and the coach - following in the best traditions of politics. Ex-Presidents of the BCCI hint at quite unbelievable things.

But what the heck, what if it is moot, let's have at it! kmp's latest rejoinder (my comments inline):

There are multiple things that I have to answer (or put across my point)

1) Saurav Ganguly’s inclusion into (or exclusion from) the team and how that derailed the process
2) Why I think the “process” was never given a chance
3) Hence the question on that day’s press-conference was indeed “inflammatory”

Saurav Ganguly was dropped from the team because he had an awful form for quite a long time – It was termed just in this forum too and what supposedly was bad was the way they handled the subsequent (taking and dropping for no reasons) actions . I don’t have too many issues with that either [Me: Thanks!], because in any case he was taken into the team for non cricketing reason (he had met Sharad pawar) and may be he was dropped again for non cricketing reason.

Having asked to prove his mettle in domestic cricket or county cricket, he did not play well in County (where-as Zaheer did well there), he did not play well in Ranji, He did not play well in Challenger series. Then comes the brouhaha in Parliament (Brinda Karat, Gurudas Dasgupta etc) and lo he gets selected on the basis of “experience” (mind you not because of form or fitness). I don’t remember this “experience” theory being invoked for some dropped players (and for that matter, which “experienced” player was *recalled* when we did not do well in our previous series to SA). [Me: If he was brought in because of political reasons, why so late in the day. He was out of the team for more than a year. Why wasn't he brought back earlier? Or maybe we need to investigate how many sponsors he has in WB. After all, the whole team seems to have been selected on that basis.]

Again the point was, dropping a senior (and one having political linkages) player was relentlessly resisted and that was the first (and perhaps the last) obstacle for the process – who knows if he were allowed, he would have cut Sachin to size, but alas the Ganguly saga did not let him implement his process. [Me: That's a bit too much - remember Ganguly came in only 3 months before the WC (I'd wrongly put the date of his return as August 2006 - a full 5 months earlier than the actual date). The process had run its course for a year, and then just three months before the WC it sprang a leak because Ganguly came in, and Chappell lost his nerve about disciplining Tendulkar? I don't buy it. As for Ganguly's dropping being relentlessly resisted (nice phrase) - well it was completely ineffectual for more than a year wasn't it? What kind of resistance is that?]

And the playing 11 for WC 2007 is almost same as WC 2003 (Oh yeah Munaf has replaced retired Javagal and Robin has replaced Mongia – and BTW Mongia was there in Champions trophy) – and also remember this WC 2003 team had not won a ODI series, even at home (under Ganguly) for 2 years (after WC 2003) till Greg came along and had that 17 successive chases, under Dravid and with youngsters team [Me: This Cricinfo article analyses the successes - and chalks it up to Indian batsmen thriving on home pitches and floudering outside. Less to do with coaching and more to do with the batsmen? Note that these were only wins while chasing, there were other losses in between - a funny kind of world record! Also note, when Ganguly and Wright took over also there were stirring performances initially, then the usual stuff happened and things petered out, just like with Chappel - but there was no nothing like Process to distract us.]. Sure, they did lose in West Indies (not badly) and in SA (very badly) but that does not mean you get back to all the old players – that’s certainly was not the Greg’s process (however flawed that may be) that’s tough-talking-Colonel’s “experience” theory – coz all the players now have “experience”. [Me: That is the point - that does seem to have been Chappell's process. Because with all the freedom in the world and a pliant Kiran More, Chappell was playing with the same core of 'experienced' players in July 2006, within shouting distance of the World Cup, before the Colonel came in with his 'experience' theory. Even the team the Colonel gave for the August Sri Lanka tour is not much different - see the Indian team for the first ODI! The idea that he was all for youngsters just doesn't hold much water. So, would the team have been different from the WC 2003 team if the Colonel had not come in? Going by the teams doing duty with Chappell's full confidence, one doubts it. Of course, with the allegations of kickbacks for selection and Chappell's own allegations of sponsorship deals affecting selection, one is completely flummoxed and in the dark trying to second-guess the team.]

So, those folks should have asked about the “process” when the team was selected and before it went to WI, like “Hey Greg, how come your process has thrown in the same team as the previous edition, was that the “process” to churn out the same players again and again or was the process was flawed and we gave a go-by?” (coz you could guess the playing 11 anyway). After the debacle, only question they could have asked was to colonel “Hey chief, was it that this team did not have enough *experience* to go to next round?” - Since they asked about the process, after the debacle - it is indeed inflammatory. [Far be it from us to tell the free media how to do its job. But we can say that it is screwing up the job massively. Edit: There seem to be wheels within wheels in the media's treatment of cricket and cricketers as I'd noted here. It seems to be under the impression that hagiography is the style best suited to cricket coverage. Of course, the small knives are out after a loss, but quickly sheathed. A MAJOR clarification all the same: I still don't see how the question is inflammatory - that is the only point I was making in the original post - others were doing a better job of question the process and supporting it and all that and I was not getting into any of that. I would have been happy to let it go if Chappell had at least tried to address the question in the briefest manner - "We'll have to analyse it later" would have kept me happy and sleeping soundly for many days. As to asking the Colonel, he can still get away by saying that selectors are in any case just 'a bunch of jokers'. No one expects anything approaching logic from them. But when you have almost made a religion of "The Process" and have been hailed as the messiah and mocked a cricketer well-liked by many then you need to feel a tad less prickly. I mean, just compare the reams of newsprint on Chappell and his way and that written about the Colonel.]

-P

PS: This is beside the point – but I am answering coz you have mentioned. I did not mean Saurav was lobbing catches intentionally [Me: I've been misunderstood, I was not implying that], sure it did not get reported either. I watched those matches and observed myself, there were tough chances which Bermuda and Bangla could not convert, and Murali took an exceptionally tough catch. What I meant was, earlier those hits of Saurav would consistently clear the rope, and now somewhere in between circle and boundary. I can only guess, his timing was not good as it used to be – understandable. That also says, he had not regained his form or fitness completely. (And, BTW he was clearly unable to rotate strike and his running between the wickets was awful – again I would put fitness as the problem rather than commitment). All that he had now is “grit” and if you are playing every match (including against Bermuda ) with “grit” that means you have lost form. [Me: I'll let his scores speak after his comeback for him :-)]

kmp adds:

When it was just rumored that supposedly Greg had said that there is “Senior” players group and then he supposedly called they act as “mafia” etc… (mind you they were just leaks and quotes attributed to “sources” , Greg never openly said) – Some people believed it and some did not believe (rightly so). In fact you had questioned along the lines of “apart from Captain which “senior” player could have influenced anyway”. Not sure about the *influence* part, however today’s report of Sachin’s and other unspecified folks reaction clearly shows there indeed exists a “senior group”.

BTW, Greg supposedly did not speak to Sachin for 4 days (in the 7 day Carribbean trip) and Sachin got so depressed that he lost the sight of incoming delivery and got bowled!!!

And that is that. I'll print kmp's next rejoinder (if any) as is with no comments. Time we laid this particular discussion to rest. Indian cricket is already RIP.

Love Or Money?

What's with British newspapers and Indian cricketing superheroes? First it was Chappell telling a British newspaper that Ganguly wanted to play for the India team only because of money. Now it is Atherton insinuating something similar in another British newspaper about Tendulkar. Why don't the pommies leave our gods alone? Not that I'm clean though - I too have long suspected the unseen hands of the market behind the strong groundswell of support for Tendulkar, as I'm sure many others have. One doesn't build a brand with lots of hard-earned money and just let it crumble because of declining cricketing powers. Many things need to be sold to the consumers before that happens. Promises to keep etc.

Quit And Re-apply

It is a truism in the IT industry that one could quit and rejoin the same company at a higher pay - this following from the fact that comparable lateral hires mostly get higher pay packages compared to the existing employees. But employees at Circuit City, the electronics retailer chain in the US, are getting are being forced to do the opposite (via Atrios). But the consumers get a good deal right? So it should be ok.

NRN, Infosys And A Process

kmp sends a link to an article which quotes Infosys' N R Narayana Murthy:

Frankly, I don’t think having a coaching camp for a few days helps. I’d suggest we pick the 30 guys who we believe are the best in the country. They should all be given good salaries by BCCI and closeted in a hi-tech training centre round the year. Rotate them so that even if 15 are playing a series, the other 15 are training. Ensure that everyone gets to train intensively during the year. Follow best practices from around the world, give the players the best facilities and make them work really hard — eight hours a day. If anyone refuses to practice or follow the rules, axe him immediately. Follow these principles and you’re bound to have a world-beating team.

30 players cooped up in a high-tech centre round the year, practising hard for eight hours everyday. Let me humbly suggest the outcome of such a course of action: By the time the next World Cup comes along, the 30 guys would hate the sight of each other and the coach so much that on-field fights would become routine and hardly the stuff to give a second thought to. TV vieswership would shoot up initially then taper off as the novelty wears.

Seriously, the question of whether cricketing greatness can be achieved by following a particular training process is a good topic for a debate. I'm hoping to weigh in on this critical topic anon.

The Fun Never Ends

kmp (a very good friend) writes in, responding to this post.

I knew this was coming, and I knew this particular question will be highlighted. I remember an old post [kmp is referring to this post] mentioning the “process” part in this blog! Having said that, I am still waiting for that courteous reporter to ask another much often used word “experience” to none another than “tough-talking-colonel”!

Did we let the “process” to start to find out whether it is flawed? Whom did we let in thru the “process”? I mean, whom did we let out? When an awfully out-of-form batsman gets dropped, streets were set on fire and so was parliament. He continues his awful form in County, Ranji, Challenger series etc. and comes in advertisement pleading for a chance – and lo, he is into the team coz of “experience” and that’s a cricketing reason (referring the previous post of cricketing and non-cricketing-reasons – moreover that is a damn good “process”. Sure, he did score runs aplenty (contrasting with abysmal standards that this team has set), but how on earth anybody knew that he would. And, this man who is known for those lofted hits (sixes) was clearly unable to execute in his new stint. He kept on giving those catches, but Bermuda and Bangladesh could not hold it, and Murali held it. No, I am not after Saurav ganguly, I am after those groaning rascal Marxists – for setting a “experience-process”. Other than Robin and Munaf, did we have anybody else for whom “Process” could be applied? And, do we need to have “process” for Sachin, Saurav, Dravid, Sehwag, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Zaheer, Harbhajan, Agarkar? How many years they have been playing?

First up, courteous is one thing that journalists need not be - their duty is to ask and tell it like it is. If they sound uncourteous so be it. Chappell will understand - seeing that he himself is not averse to the odd gesture involving a middle finger.

As to Ganguly's comeback and how on earth anyone knew that he would succeed - well, could that be just like how people thought Chappell would succeed knowing fully well that he had failed in his previous coaching role for New South Wales?

Or it could have been an informed guess based on the following:

1. His efforts at improving himself - physical fitness, playing first class cricket regularly, and making a few good scores(thought not consistently)
2. The fact that sending a player to first class cricket to regain form is generally considered a good way to regain form, if nothing else, they come back more hungry for success - like it happened with Hayden who was left in the wilderness till recently
3. Or, maybe they did think experience does play a role, like Buchanan seems to feel :

"We've got a lot of experience in our batting, and we leave it to individual players to assess the conditions," Buchanan said. "They are good at telling each other what to do when they go out there, and they're good at sending information back. This is a new ground, and both sides were not exactly sure how it would play. In the end, it was pretty true but we made just about the most of those conditions that we could."

Mind you, this was not experience taking the place of deserving youth - the said youth had failed miserably playing in the West Indies and South Africa, after having feasted and been hyped up on home pitches. And this just a few months away from the World Cup.

And whatever he did in the World Cup, Ganguly has been one of the more consistent batsmen after his comeback. As for giving catches, I thought he played slowly against Bangladesh - I was not aware that he was lobbing balls to the fielders - don't blame me, none of the newspapers carried that bit!

I don't think it is true that the process was not given a chance. Chappell had been having his way for more than a year. The process was already dead by the time the colonel entered the picture. The team had flopped miserably against WI in the ODIs and by the time SA were lording it over us, Chappell was already putting the players and not the process at the centre of the losses. Here is the team that played the ODI series in the West Indies (May-July 2006):

• Agarkar
• Dhoni
• Dravid
• Harbhajan
• Kaif
• Patel
• Pathan
• Powar
• Raina
• RP Singh
• Sehwag
• Sreesanth
• Uthappa
• Venugopal
• Yuvraj
• Tendulkar

I've added Tendulkar because he was nursing an injury and would have been selected if that was not the case - and one youngster would have been knocked off the list. Now this is a team which Chappel and his enabler Kiran More had selected keeping in the World Cup in mind. Except for Ganguly and Zaheer the World Cup team is in there in its entirety! That includes the nonprocessable "Sachin, Dravid, Sehwag, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Harbhajan, Agarkar".

Seeing that Chappell had planned for these hardened veterans to be in the team for the World Cup, the difficulty in applying the process to them ought to have raised a red flag. An idealised process then should have been given a dose of pragmatism and modified suitably. Else it is the process that is useless and should have been dropped like a brick. And assuming that Ganguly and Zaheer had not come in and two young legs had come in instead, would four processed products have been enough to neutralise the seven heavyweights? Because somehow I think the magnificent seven would have made it into the World Cup squad, no matter who was selecting - the Colonel or More.

Now it comes to light, a tad predictably, that Chappell was not happy with the team composition. It is of a pattern with Chappell - the whining and cribbing with paper and other trails carefully preserved. He says the seniors fought against youth. Only Dravid would have had the say in the matter. So it seems to me Chappell is saying Dravid was against youth (Vengsarkar has confirmed on TV that this was the case at least where Sehwag was concerned). Now, Dravid is a process champion. So he seems to have lost confidence in the process by the time the World Cup tooled along, probably sometime in 2006 itself given that he had stopped invoking its magical powers by then. How can we support the process when one of its two firm proponents in the team has given it up?

He praises Kaarthik - why then has Kaarthik played so few matches under Chappell? And why wasn't he played in any match in the World Cup though part of the team?

He criticises Yuvraj. Here he is claiming Yuvraj is a key player - a month before the World Cup. He rues Raina not being present - but look at that interview again - he has almost given up on Raina for the World Cup.

Why blame others like a spoilt kid?

Of course, all this could just be Chappell positioning himself for an extension as coach post-World Cup.

#$%!@*

Where does the US get off acting like the school bully? From The Hindu:

ON THE proposed Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline, the United States has dropped all pretence at nicety. American Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, during his visit to India, bluntly warned New Delhi to shelve plans to participate in the project. Mr. Bodman was direct and up front about his "concerns." His remarks can't really be termed diplomatic or nuanced; he appeared to be reading the riot act to India.

First, in an interview to Dow Jones in New Delhi, Mr. Bodman said: "During my trip I have made it clear at the highest levels of the Indian Government that the United States opposes the development of the Iranian pipeline to India." "We believe that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and anything that will support that endeavour is something that we oppose," he added.

As Amit Baruah puts it:

There is no "either or" situation here. Any Government that allows itself to be pushed around by the U.S. on ties with Iran will find itself being asked to fall in line time and again on issue after issue.

If there were some high principle involved in America's oppostion to the pipeline, it would still be acceptable. But there isn't. The reason cited, which is the danger of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons through the revenues of the pipeline is just a pretext. A far more important reason is the lobbying organization which claims to speak for the American Jews, as is argued here.

So why is the Indian government toeing the line of an American lobby on Iran? The US - on the directions of AIPAC - will most likely not stop short of attacking another oil-rich country. Unfortunately no one seems to be bothered, including India.

Inflammable Chappel

From the press conference:

Another word that has been mentioned a lot is 'process'. What went wrong with the process?
That's an inflammatory question and I'm not prepared to answer it.

An highly inflammable coach I should say.

Off tangent, with respect to Bob Woolmer's muder, will there be a cover-up and if yes, how big a cover-up will it be? Apparently Pakistani diplomats have flown in from the US to Jamaica. As the Guardian puts delicately:

It was not clear in what capacity they would assist the investigation.

Are these diplomats trained police investigators?

As for the ICC, the ACB is already doing its bit regarding the match-fixing charge. Calls seem to have gone out from some person to members of the Pakistani and Indian teams. Who got these calls, what were these calls about? Will the ACB come up with anything in the middle of the World Cup? It will be a pleasant surprise if they do, the status quo seems to suit everyone just fine. Like the recent Samuels case - what happened about that? It is obvious that match-fixing is very much present. When a captain says that his gut-feeling is that fixing is happening, one can't just ignore it. One treats it as English understatement and concludes that it fixing is taking place, more likely than not.

Update: How much more rotten can it get?

Former South Africa player Clive Rice said that when news of the match-fixing scandal broke seven years ago, he was coaching Nottinghamshire while Woolmer was in charge of Warwickshire.

“We were actually involved in a match in England at the time and Bob and I discussed it. He told me a lot that never came out…. I’m not just talking about other players being involved, but officials too,” Rice said.

“Bob knew a lot of what went on during the match-fixing scandal in which Cronje was nailed.”

Rice said Cronje, who died when a chartered plane crashed five years ago, too, was planning a book and that he had acquired the rights for it.

“I went to see him six months before he died. He signed over the rights to me. Like Woolmer, he knew a lot more of what was going on. His so-called accident was just a lot cleverer than the one that killed Bob.”

Super-8s Math

After that defeat, the only way India get through to the next stage is if Bangladesh lose to Bermuda by a big margin. It is very obvious what the Indian team must do to make that happen. They need to sit down with the Bangladesh team and pass on their considerable experience to the minnows.

After that, they need to pray that Bangladesh are quick learners.

The Motive Is Everything

From The Hindu:

It is still under wraps. Despite an effort made through the Right to Information, no one outside government has seen it. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has proposed to introduce the Environment Tribunal Bill, which envisages the setting up of "green" courts to deal with environmental disputes. Why is this necessary? How will the "green" courts work? Who will benefit from them?
...
The excuse being used to set up an environmental tribunal is that there are too many cases pending in courts. A Central tribunal in Delhi and regional ones, it is argued, will take the burden off the courts. The plan is based on the assumption that the groups presently taking matters to court will be satisfied with the civil remedies that the environmental tribunal will offer. What is not so well known is that apart from communities with grievances, proponents of projects can use the tribunals to clear their projects if they feel aggrieved that they have been denied permission on environmental grounds. The government would argue that such a set-up would obviate the need for specific committees as the tribunal could set up its own committees to look into specific projects.

On the surface, this appears reasonable. But people selected by the government will man the tribunals. When the majority of the cases that land up in court concern government policy and the perception of groups and communities that the government is violating its own laws, how can such tribunals be viewed as impartial?