Amazing how precarious life can be!

My heart goes out to the 14-year-old south-Indian boy schooling in Dubai who lost his entire family in the air crash at the Mangalore airport. What is worse, he was able to identify the body of only his mother. The bodies of his father and two younger siblings remain unidentified. The bodies of all those who died in the accident are charred beyond recognition, making DNA testing necessary to zero in on their identities. To compound the woes of this hapless adolescent, trying desperately to cope with a tragedy the enormity of which has still to hit him, they were not able to find matching bodies of the ages of his younger siblings.

When this boy bade farewell to his family at the airport and saw his kid sister wave goodbye to him as they entered the travellers-only zone, little did he realise at that time that he would never see any of them again. Even the thought must not have occurred to him that in a matter of hours his entire world would come crumbling down. That he will be orphaned with no siblings for company along life's unpredictable pathway. He would never have imagined any of this in his wildest dreams. I cannot help remembering little Moshe whose entire family was mercilessly killed by terrorists at Nariman House in Mumbai on 26/11. In a matter of a couple of days, people nearest and dearest to this toddler had left him alone to fend for himself in this cruel world.

Well friends, that is how precarious life can be. I lost my brother-in-law in a road accident four years ago. He was 28 years old at the time and had been married for barely two years. He was returning home from work on his mobike when he was knocked down by a speeding truck, and died on the spot. He was a bright young man who aspired to make it big in life. He had everything going for him when his life was snuffed out in an instant. My friend lost his father in the most bizarre manner. He stood atop a stool to clean the glass window pane of his sixth floor apartment one morning, lost his balance and fell out of the window! Isn't it amazing how precarious life can be?

Cricketing Nostalgia!

T20 cricket continues to hold fort on the world stage. Its glitz and glamour continue to dazzle our eyes although the performance of our boys brings tears to them. The ICC will gear up to conduct the World Cup of its 50-over sibling in 2011. That means, barring brief interludes of some serious test cricket, our senses will continue to be oppressed by slam-bang versions of the supposedly gentleman's game.

I can't help looking down memory lane nostalgically at a bygone era when as a school kid I caught some glimpses of cricketing legends in black and white on Doordarshan. Oh, how I long to relive some of that action. I yearn to watch Gavaskar's exquisite straight drive off the front foot past the bowler. I yearn to watch on screen the lazy elegance of David Gower stroking the ball through the covers, or the stodgy defence of Allan Border. Oh how I long to watch the vicious hook shot played by Gordon Greenidge and the superb cover drive by his equally gifted opening partner, Desmond Haynes. I still remember, vividly, the disdainful lofted drive over long on by Viv Richards and the precise sweep shot by Clive Lloyd. I remember how much I enjoyed Javed Miandad's antics on the field, especially his cheeky singles.

As for the bowlers, I really miss the scorching pace of Marshall, the incredible accuracy of Hadlee, Kapil's amazing swinging yorkers and Imran's deadly in-dippers. I miss the swing and cut of the wily Botham and Holding's sheer variety. I long to see Garner's bounce even on dead tracks and Willis' wicket-taking outswingers. I miss watching Lillie and Thompson hunt as a pair giving batsmen absolutely no respite. I miss it all. I miss it all...

The paradox that Pakistan is (Part 3)

Ironically, Muslims from Muslim-minority provinces of British India were the most vociferous supporters of the idea of Pakistan. And, they were the ones who were left out of its orbit, eventually. That is why Maulana Abul Kalam Azad remarked with a tinge of sadness, immediately after partition, "The creation of Pakistan has reduced Indian Muslims to the status of outsiders in their own land!" That was how tragic the creation of Pakistan was even for the Muslims themselves.

The last 60 years of continual strife with Pakistan—we have fought four wars—has benefitted neither country. They are uncomfortable with a big, united, militarily powerful, secular India. We are uncomfortable with an increasingly strident, radicalised, disunited, nuclear-armed Pakistan that sees India as its enemy number 1. If partition had not occurred, or India and Pakistan had learned to co-exist peacefully like the US and Canada, just imagine the extent of economic benefits both countries could have reaped.

Kashmir contines to remain a festering wound. But then, Pakistan will never give up its claim on Kashmir. It is the lone Muslim-majority state in India. So, according to the logic of partition, it ought to belong to Pakistan. That is their contention any way. Kashmir figures in the very name of Pakistan. The idea of Pakistan was first mooted by a young student at Cambridge University called Rehmat Ali who distributed some pamphlets to popularise his ideas in Britain. At that time, even Jinnah dismissed his suggestions as "an impracticable students' scheme".

Rehmat Ali coined the name of what he hoped would be a new, sovereign, Islamic state that would be carved out of British India as 'PAKSTAN'. Note that the name is without the letter 'i', which was added later. P stood for Punjab, A for the Afghan province (Northwest Frontier Province), K stood for Kashmir! Yes. S stood for Sindh and 'tan' was taken from Baluchistan. So, Kashmir is tied into the very idea of Pakistan, its very identity. They have fought four wars with India over Kashmir, and continue to bleed us "through a 1,000 cuts" through terrorism, as one of their military strategists had glibly remarked.

Is there a way out? It's not at all easy given the complexity of the problem. People have come up with a variety of ideas as possible solutions to the Kashmir imbroglio. Well-meaning individuals have hoped that resolving the issue will dramatically improve Indo-Pak relations. Sad to say, I am not all that optimistic. Let's see. Time will tell. I would be really glad to be wrong on this one.

The paradox that Pakistan is (Part 2)

Mohajirs have often complained of discrimination at the hands of the Punjabi dominated elite in the Pakistani establishment, not to mention similar sentiments being expressed by Sindhis, Baluchis and even Pathans. The feudal landowning elite, the top brass in the Pakistani army and the ISI, the bureaucracy and even Pakistan's judiciary have generally been dominated by Punjabis.
It is only after a charimatic Sindhi leader, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, emerged on the scene that Sindhi nationalism was assuaged. Before that, secessionism was brewing in Sindh as a reaction to perceived discrimation. Secessionists like G.M. Sayyed wanted Sindh to secede from Pakistan and become a sovereign nation that he wanted to call Sindhudesh. He even hinted at Sindhudesh forming a confederation with India! So much for subcontinental Muslim unity under the banner of one pan-Islamic nation.
Wonder, though, if the creation of Pakistan was inevitable. Why is it that Gandhi and Jinnah—both Gujratis, both barristers—could not work together? Was it an ideological clash that kept them apart? Was it a class divide that became an insurmountable obstacle in the path to cooperation? Or, was it simply an ego clash between the two titans that drove a wedge between them? These are all very interesting aspects to delve into for any serious student of modern Indian history.
What made the poet Iqbal who wrote, "saare jahan se achha, Hindostan hamaara", go on to become one of the staunchest advocates of a separate homeland for the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent? In fact, he went on to write the national anthem of Pakistan subsequently! What made Jinnah whom Balgangadhar Tilak called "an apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity" espouse the cause of separatism that eventually partitioned India?
*** To be continued...

The paradox that Pakistan is (Part 1)

It is more than 60 years now that undivided British India was partitioned along religious lines. A new state of Pakistan—an Islamic republic—was carved out. Pakistan broke up further in 1971 and split into two, with the emergence of Bangladesh, which was East Pakistan to begin with. Until then, Pakistan had claimed that all the Muslims of the subcontinent could live unitedly as one people, one nation. Indeed, that is what the founder of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, had postulated all along. When East Pakistan seceded to become an independent nation, Pakistan's bubble burst.
In any case, the state of Pakistan is quite a paradox. It was ostensibly created for the Muslims of undivided British India and the princely states adjoining it, but to date, there are more Muslims in India than the entire population of Pakistan put together. The man who championed the cause of Pakistan, Jinnah, whom they call Quaid-e-Azam (leader of leaders) was himself not a practising Muslim. This Oxford-educated barrister, ate pork and drank liquor—two practices that are "haraam" in Islam. In fact, he was an agnostic in the early days and never prayed.
Furthermore, Jinnah was a Khoja (Ismaeli) Muslim—a Shia—and Sunni Islam is the official religion of the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan", in which while the Shias are tolerated, the Ahmaddiyas are persecuted. Jinnah was more comfortable speaking English and his native Gujrati than Urdu. What is more, he was a poor public speaker although he was excellent when arguing a case in English in the law courts.
The national or official language of Pakistan is Urdu, which happens to be the mother tongue of Muslims who migrated to the new state of Pakistan from UP and Bihar soon after partition. The provincial languages spoken in Pakistan are Punjabi, Sindhi, Pushtu and Baluch. These migrants or refugees are still referred to as Mohajirs in Pakistan. The word, 'Mohajir' means refugee. On the other hand, the Sindhis and Punjabis—mainly Hindus and Sikhs—who migrated to this side of the border never attained such a permanent status—of "refugees".
*** To be continued...

I hate Dan Brown!

Bertrand Russel and Dan Brown have both attacked traditional Christianity. Russel's 'Why I am not a Christian', became a classic of sorts. Brown churned out, 'Da Vinci Code', which became a bestseller. But, while I admire Russel, I abhor Dan Brown. What's the difference between the two? Dan Brown, to my mind, lacked intellectual honesty, which Russel had in plenty. Intellectual honesty and the courage to even say towards the end of his life, "philosophy has been a washout for me".
When Russel attacked Christianity, he used logic and reason. He relied on authentic historical information. He did not weave a magic of words and create fictitious characters who would mouth his own prejudices, assumptions and beliefs as if they were all incontrovertible historical facts. He did not blur the line between fact and fiction and take his readers for a ride. He did not make false claims, which have since been refuted—thankfully. That is the difference between the two men. That is why while I like one of them, I can't stand the other.
No, I am not a Christian fundamentalist. I am not even a Roman Catholic who seeks to hold a brief for the Vatican. I have issues with Catholicism myself. So, what am I? Well, I am a liberal Protestant, a "progessive Christian". To know what we believe in, log on to http://www.tcpc.org/. That is if you would like to know where I stand with regard to matters pertaining to my own religious tradition—the one into which I was born.
So much of what Dan Brown says in Da Vinci Code is inconsequential to me any way. Even if Jesus Christ would have been married—like any other young Jewish man of his time—that would not have lessened my admiration and respect for him. It does not matter to me if he travelled to India or died in Kashmir much after the crucifixion, as some claim. For that matter, even if it should be conclusively established some time in the future, by means of reliable historical evidence, that Jesus never really existed, it would still not have a bearing on my basic faith that stems from the ideology that is enshrined in the Bible. However, this ideology is not some kind of blind belief, but a rational appreciation of my tradition in light of logic, reason and the latest scientific discoveries.
I don't take the Bible literally like fundamentalists do. I am not a literalist. The Bible is a collection of writings over two millennia that faithfully records the spiritual experiences and evolving religious identity of the Jewish people and later Gentile converts to the new faith during the Christian movement in 1st century Palestine. The Christian movement itself was many-sided with three major groups competing for supremacy during the time.
My problem with Dan Brown is his intellectual dishonesty. He is a clever novelist who for commercial considerations created a controversy that contributed hugely to making his novel a bestseller and sent the unscrupulous fellow laughing all the way to the bank. That is what upsets me. The claims he has made are nothing new. His arguments don't hold much historical water. They have been torn to shreds by those who have called his bluff and exposed his half-baked knowedge of history and metaphysics. How I wish those who go ga-ga over his novels would care to read the other side of the argument before they make up their minds.
After all, he makes a poor judge who pays heed to just one side of the argument.