De-politicise Sports - A Few Measures

I have written earlier about our politicians in sports, here, and here. My readers might have noticed that I rant a lot about our system. I realize that too. Hence from this post onwards I will also try to incorporate some suggestions instead of just complaining. It is always very easy to criticize, constructive work is difficult.

These are times Indian hockey fans will remember, for reasons good and bad. India beat Pakistan in China to clinch the Champions Trophy, while the International Hockey Federation (FIH) has chosen to move the 2011 Champions Trophy out of India to New Zealand owing to internal problems in India. We have two opposing bodies in India today for one hockey. This should come us a grim reminder for us to de-politicise sports and bring some rationality into our sports administration.

Another weird incident happened in London. At an ICC awards ceremony, where ironically Dhoni won an award for playing the game in its true spirit no one from the Indian cricket team attended. There are no prizes for guessing who did attend - Sharad Pawar and Rajiv Shukla - members of the BCCI and don't hold your breath, politicians. Our political class would do well to support Maken in his endeavour to de-politicise sports. But seeing that there is a conflict of interest in many politicians' cases, the question comes up, will this ever happen? Maken makes perfect sense.

1. Sports are played by young people, and for lack of a better word, by sportspersons. I believe one would be hard pressed to find many (active) sportspersons above the age of 40. Hence it makes no sense to have people who would very well fit the government's definition of senior citizens on our sports boards, both administering and selecting.

2. I believe the logic behind government servants getting transferred (frequently or occasionally) is that they do not develop any unwanted or unethical relationships with anybody by being posted in one location for a very long time. Further as time passes complacency creeps. This logic can be applied to sports boards also. So once again Maken's suggestion on the cap on the number of terms to two makes perfect sense.

3. Non-performing sportspersons are penalized by being dropped. One would like to know the measures applied to our boards in that sense also. There has been a huge hue and cry over selection proceedings being brought under the RTI Act. The way some governments declassify some files, is it not possible to make the meeting minutes public after some time elapses? Agreed, this gives people a chance to change the records, but at least this would probably be better than the current situation.

4. We occasionally hear people saying BCCI's funds should be used for other sports too. This is one option. There is another option. When boards like BCCI make hundreds of crores of revenue and profit how does it make sense to label them as charitable organizations? Bring it under the tax net, use that money for other sports. This way there is no charity involved. Obviously this would not be enough, this is where the government or the private sector can step in.

5. We are becoming a country of parrots today. We have students who get things by heart and spit them out in the exam. This is the definition of a good student. Many schools today do not have a proper playground. NDTV has a Marks for Sports Campaign. I am not saying that. But any new school that is set up today should mandatorily have a playground where children can play. Remember the saying, "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".

Was Fareed Zakaria Right?

Recently I saw an interview on CNN-IBN with Fareed Zakaria, the Editor-at-Large (funny name, generally I thought legal offenders were referred to be at large) of Time magazine. Fareed is in fact of Indian origin and is a naturalized US citizen. His credentials speak for themselves, both education and career-wise. He is today one of the most respected journalists in the world today. He was all praise for the way the US has dealt with terror, how al Qaeda has been dealt with. There were three points he mentioned (in response to the interview questions) as to how India can deal with terror. Unfortunately I do not remember them verbatim. But I remember the basic gist and would like to take a look at his points.

One was intelligence. In his opinion Indian agencies have never been famous for their efficiency. We in fact stand a better chance of infiltrating terror networks compared to the Americans due to similar looks and linguistic backgrounds and thus have an advantage in that aspect. This is definitely true. We had no idea when Kargil happened. 26/11 seems to show that might not have changed much.

A second point was the state of our police forces. In his opinion they are pathetic. Also unlike in the US where the police are in a way part of the community here that is not the case. One would be hard-pressed to disagree. Just look at the weapons our armed forces use. Most of the police forces uses ancient rifles if I am not mistaken. We hear of massacres of CRPF personnel in Maoist areas. The poor chaps (security personnel) stay miles away from civilization and live in deplorable conditions. These people might have to lay down their lives for our security then we (or more specifically the administration/government) treats them like this! There were some recent operations in Jharkhand where a large number of security personnel fell sick with malaria as the operations were held in the jungle in the monsoon. I heard recently that some boats which had been bought after 26/11 are lying unused as there is nobody trained to operate them. Also the munition and weapons used by our armed forces vary widely. There is no proper standardization. Where are bullet-proof vests for security personnel who operate on the frontlines (even if these frontlines are in the heart of our metropolises)? Also today unless I am wrong the police inspire fear more than the belief that they are there to help the citizens. One of our professors at IIFT used to poke fun at the Delhi Police slogan which translates to mean "with you, for you, always".

Another point was integration. External terror cannot find a firm foothold in India if there is no local support. He in fact pointed out that Gujarat is a sore point even today among Muslims. However I must point out, without trivializing the atrocities that happened, that Gujarat is today one of India's most progressive states, under the same Chief Minister. Further if the perpetrators of India's blasts are proved to be from Gujarat I think Zakaria's words would hold actual weight. That we have not been very successful at solving various terror-related cases and that communiques from terrorists regularly point to Gujarat are frank admissions that have to be made. Now Muslims in India are considered to be at a great disadvantage as far as development is concerned. India has generally been an inclusive society. So should we blame our rulers for the state Indian Muslims find themselves in today? Further integration is not as outright or a one-way street as Zakaria's statements might make it out to be. The government and people can reach out to Muslims and they have to. Muslims are as much a part of this country as a person from any other religion. However we must remember that for Muslims (in many cases) religion is a factor more important than nationality. Unrest in the global Muslim world at the way Palestinians are treated is a direct reminder. Further many of us must have heard of instances when celebrations erupted when Pakistan won a cricket match. So, integration is a two-way street. There will always be fringe elements. But Zakaria is right, we need to do more to integrate our Muslim brothers into our national fabric especially in terms of development.

Moving on, however, somehow Zakaria missed out mentioning Pakistan in his initial assessment of India's terror situation. The spark (may be Gujarat riots) might exist but there also has to be fuel to sustain the inferno. This is helpfully provided by our neighbour. Comparing India with US in anti-terror action is not justified. Why? The US is bordered by Canada (an extremely peaceful place) and Mexico. Now, Mexico has huge narcotics-related problems. However there are no governments or armies (official) actively opposed to the US in its vicinity. Further launching an attack on continental US has a lot of logistical complications. This is not the case with India. In the south till recently we had the LTTE who had assassinated our PM. In the west we obviously have Pakistan. Even if the borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh are fenced, our borders with Nepal and Bhutan are very porous. Further look at how the US addressed terror. It attacked Afghanistan and then Iraq (the latter on the basis of spurious allegations). It set up Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay so that US laws would not apply to detainees there. The captured fighters in the "War or Terror" are not brought under the Geneva Convention which deals with prisoners of war. It set up interrogation centres in foreign countries where coercive interrogation techniques and/or outright torture were applied. I am not saying India did not indulge in human rights violations. But to the US the ends definitely seem to justify the means. Imagine what would happen were India to launch a war against Pakistan. The US had the luxury of fighting opponents who were technologically greatly inferior and it still had a tough time. The number of people killed in the "War on Terror" is in large multiples of the 9/11 casualty number (about 3000). What does the US care as long as the casualties are non-US? For instance when a stray missile or bomb, or one guided by faulty intelligence kills civilians in Afghanistan the US just apologises and moves on. There is huge outcry however in the US when US soldier casualties mount. 

Mr. Zakaria is in love with his adopted nation. He says that today, in spite of all restrictions (frisking at airports, laws) an arrested civilian has the greatest chance of getting justice in the US than anywhere else in the world. Maybe he is right. But he has to remember that his adopted country is a nation that condones killing thousands internationally to justify securing "American lives".

Omar's Dangerous Precedent

The younger Abdullah is becoming quite well known for his tweets. However the latest one has caused quite some controversy, and justifiedly. I do not believe what the Tamil Nadu Assembly did in the first place was right. Requesting clemency for Tamilians in spite of their offence set the wrong precedent in the first place. Murugan's daughter might be justified in asking clemency for her father and mother, after all, she has never been able to enjoy her childhood fully.

Karunanidhi finds himself in a strange situation today. His daughter is in jail. So is the dalit face of his party. Remember that this is a state which has 70% reservation (if I am not mistaken). His family and party members have been hounded on the basis of various accusations like land grabbing. He has faced a whitewash in the last assembly elections. The senior citizen is grasping at straws to reclaim some political legitimacy in this situation. The political situation in Sri Lanka has always been an emotive issue in Sri Lanka due to their language affinity. It is sad that the government and in fact the entire state assembly decided to jump onto this populist bandwagon. Remember, whether or not the visionary or saint that he is made out to be by the Congress today, Rajiv Gandhi was in fact a former Prime Minister of our nation. So by supporting his killers is not a state government not going against the law of the land? Does this not show disrespect to the entire legal process and to the position of the President of the Union of India itself?

In Omar's case the situation is a little more complicated. He should remember that Sri Lanka as a nation was never anti-India (to my knowledge). However this seems to be the raison d'etre of Pakistan, or at least the military and/or political leadership. Note that I took the name of the military first. Why is this? Even when Nawaz Sharif was talking peace with A B Vajpayee his army chief, Musharraf was planning and conducting the Kargil war. Thus in Afzal Guru's case the issue is not about simply supporting a person of your religion, or your native land. It is about supporting a nation, an ideology that by its very essence is against our nation. It is sad that the Chief Minister of a state, and that too of a state that has been the bone of contention between India and Pakistan (irrespective of whatever our political class might admit publicly), says this. Apparently now the J & K Assembly will pass a resolution on Afzal Guru. Omar Abdullah and the entire state assembly should be ashamed of their conduct. Two wrongs do not make a right. We have a saying in Telugu - pulini choosi nakka vaatha pettukunnattu - which essentially means says that a fox wanted to look regal like a tiger, it wanted the stripes, so it ended up branding itself with a hot iron.

At the same time the entire issue brings into question the time our legal process of disseminating justice takes. Raiv Gandhi died in 1991. Twenty years later we have still not completed the process. I am not advocating that the condemned be hanged. I am just remarking about the time the process takes. The Bofors case which came out in the 80s was recently closed inconclusively. Afzal Guru was convicted in the Parliament attack case, the attack happened in 2001. The longer the legal process takes the greater is the chance for complications to arise.