Deal or No deal??

Every time the Indo-US nuke deal was quoted to be running into rough weather in the US senate, I was of the impression India had probably asked for too much, specially when the Bush Govt was in the lame duck session. Naturally, I was lead to believe all the while, that India would be a great beneficiary of the deal. Even after the deal was passed by the senate, it was seen to be a historic deal as far as India was concerned. We were told to be getting more than what another nation in the same shoes would have got. Now what is more and what is less? We'll be able to buy nuclear fuel and technology for our civil nuclear programme, for producing electricity. Right now, only about 3% of our electricity comes from nuclear reactors. Through this deal, we would be aiming to get 10% and later 20% of our electricity from the nuclear technology. Cost-wise, it doesn't make too much of a difference, as most of our energy needs are satisfied by imported crude. More importantly, it would be 100% carbon-free.

If it's all about energy, then what's the big fuss about? Obviously, deals are never one-sided. There are said to be things related to US trade prospects improving because of the deal. It would be able to make inroads into our markets. Essentially I believe, the caps on investments would come down. But the opposition is busy fussing over nation's security. And that, I think isn't the real issue as far as they are concerned. That the BJP is just trying to get political mileage can be proved by the fact that Mr Vajpayee was the one who had initiated the deal and that they were happy to accept a deal half as good in their time. And as for the Left, who's the chief tormentor as far as the Govt is concerned, they're just making excuses by pointing at the so called objectionable content in the deal. While the fact of the matter is they do not want a deal as big as this with their ideological enemy, the US. They are the same party which is has been organising protest rallies against joint military operations involving Indian and US forces in the Bay of Bengal. They are nervous about India getting closer to the US and align ourselves with their foreign policy, like voting against Iran at the IAEA. I wonder how the left would have reacted had India had a similar deal with China!

To me, they're just coming out with justifications to oppose the deal by raising opposition to clauses in the deal which can cause ambiguity, most of which have been comfortbaly justified by the Govt so far. Like the scenario of India going for another test. The initial fear was that we feared if the deal would forbid India from going for further tests. But as we see it now, it doesn't really precondition us from not doing it. And additionally, the deal has given India the right to take care of reactors which could be dedicated for military purposes and these won't come under any safeguards. But, before even talking about tests, does India have to go for further tests at all? Is going for further nuclear tests more important than our economic development. Are we going to plan how bigger nuclear bombs we're going to make or plan to uplift the country by leveraging the tremendous position we find ourselves right now? For us, sustaining the present growth levels will only happen if we can drastically improve our infrastructure and prepare to meet our huge energy needs in the coming years. India has always been having problems trying to live up to her energy needs. And with most industries growing as fast as they are now, the needs will only burgeon on. I'm glad our present leaders have addressed it with the seriousness it rightly deserves.

The best thing about this deal is that through it, we'd be eligible to obtain fuel from the NSG, which I doubt we were so far able to obtain because of post-Pokhran sanctions. Even the best of our business leaders have given their thumbs-up to the deal. Nandan Nilekani said this deal would do to our energy future what the 1991 reforms did to our business ambitions. About 95% of our knowledgeable public thinks the deal is for our own good. Our PM has taken a great amount his personal interest in the shaping of this deal. And after having gone through so many deliberations and negotiations, specially at the US end, I don't think he'd be willing to go back on the deal. In fact, it would be a great embarrassment for us if we do take any retrograde step at this moment.

I would say, go for the deal. It's not time for thinking about bombs and worry about hazy security conerns. It's time to think double-digit growth. I just hope that someway this forward-looking deal goes through and we don't miss any stone unturned in realizing our country's potential.

The "Catherine Zeta Jones of Tennis"

When even Ian Chappell was silly!

Ian Chappell must have been out of his mind! Consider this.
Sourav Ganguly is given out off Paul a Colligwood's dibly-dobler for an lbw decision. Ganguly instinctively gives the umpire Howell and the celebrating players a rye, sarcastic smile . You would wonder why. Replay and you see it's a massive inside edge off the bat! Ganguly had just come off a bad Simon Tauffel decision at Trent Bridge. And you'd wonder why Ganguly was just smiling. I thought I would have thrown my bat at the umpire had I been in his shoes! Think about it. You have just made a confident come back into the Indian team after a long lay-off. And after that, you are playing in your favourite part of the world, with a form reminiscent of your debut-century scoring season. One decision is understandable, but then second in a row! A few seconds later as I was ruing about the decision, Alan Wilkins, the ever sensible sounding Welshman, makes this comment: "May be the third umpire should have played a Tauffel here. The whole world watching TV knows it's not out. Why not tell the umpire to bring the batsman back?"(like it had happened with Keven Pieterson at Lord's). And the wily former Australian captain Ian Chappel, whose commentary we've over the years come to enjoy for the sheer technicality, seemed to disagree. His explanation (was something like this) : Bringing technology that way makes it unfair for the other batsmen. It's after all a game. Leave it the way it is.
Oh come on Mr Chappel! A prestigious series is being hijacked by bad umpiring and this is what you have to say? You are making yourself sound sillier than the umpire! Then why allow third umpire have his say in run-outs? why refer to him when there are dubious catches? You're in an era where most sports utilize technology in some way or the other, specially when there is enough scope to do so.
It's really sad we keep hearing the commentators saying a certain batsman X was "unfortunate" to be given out while he was not at all out. And 9 out of 10 times it will be an lbw decision. It's becoming a cliched cliche! How much more longer into the 21st century would it take for the ICC to consider introducing technology to assist umpires in adjudicating lbws? Understandable that it's not an easy decision to make. But how much longer are you going to make even the best of umpires look stupid? It's time to look for alternatives. Hawk-eye is one technology to consider. It's something that is being used in tennis pretty successfully, even with it's limitations. It can very well be used in cricket too by giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsmen on marginal decisions. Even if implementing Hawk-eye like technology is difficult, it has to direct third umpires to act when they see a clear decision being adjudicated wrongly. Such steps can make all the people involved have a better feeling about the way the game is being played - the players, umpires and the audience. Untill then, people would only have one reaction to bad decisions - scoffing! And it would just not be cricket no more!

Is Sania all hype?

Is Sania all hype? well, you'll have to define "hype" for me before you ask me that question.
Do you mean to say she was expected to do better? (than being ranked under-30 in the world)
If that is the case, it's downright harsh on your part to expect so much. Simply because there hasn't been a precedent to this. That is, there hasn't been an Indian women who has achieved this feat ever before. Had she been born in US, which at any point in time, dominates world tennis by the sheer number of talented players it produces, and been given the same amount of importance by the media then there would have been a case with all the fuss. Just because, we as a country are starved of sportsmen who can compete at the world level, we tend to focus our attention on the handful we have. And when it just happened to be girl with glam looks playing a glam game like tennis, the media is all over her. Mind you, a similar player with similar capabilities in the US could have just gone unnoticed. Just because, the media gives her that kind of attention, you can't say that Sania ought to perform better. It's not her who wants the attention. It's the host of channels who're always looking to create news-makers, who've created the expectation. If that is what you call hype, then you gotta be pointing fingers at the media for it's "hype" and leave the girl alone.
To put it plainly, nobody is being fair to her to even ask the dirty question. Not everybody can be a Sachin in handling pressure (and we know by now that he's human too!). Media hype shouldn't be equated to the expectations. You have to look at the sportsman's game. I hope Sania, and for that matter any of the upcoming youngsters are not bogged down by the pressure of expectations that is unduly mounted on them by the media. I for one am happy she's improved her game so much in the last few years (I honestly doubted she would come this far). Yet she has a mountain to climb in the progress she's got to make if she's got to be among the best in the world.
Let us just be a source of motivation by being an encouraging audience, than a demanding public/media. Hype being a deterrent to talent is the aberration of this century!