It's been awhile....

~
and I'm sorry I caused a few of you to wonder what's been going on that's so exciting that I haven't been updating this blogue. The short answer is that I've been trying to get on with w.o.r.k -- that thing that I'm really in India to do: I've been setting up formal interviews and informally talking to people and it's taken me a lot longer than I thought it would to organize what they've had to say in reasonably accurate and easily retrievable passages.

Other than that, I've had a short foray into the world of public health care in India (for my aunt, not for myself). I've lots to say about it but I'm still processing it so that's a post for another day.

And perhaps more interestingly, one of me cousins has gone and gotten hisself engaged and married! All in the space of two weeks, too. The Fam has been abuzz with curiosity and more curiosity about it all, especially since the wedding was held with a week's notice in Bombay. Which meant that no one apart from said cousin's Ma and sister attended. No, it's not what you're thinking -- this is still India: there's very little pre-marital sex and pregnancy here. At least among the so-respectable middle-classes. But there's to be a fancy-schmancy reception at a private members' club in Bangalore tomorrow night and ofcourse, we're all gonna be there. It's not often we get a chance these days to experience any kind of Monsoon Wedding off the big screen; there aren't very many unmarrieds left, even given my extremely large and extremely trying Fam. And never mind that I don't approve of private members' clubs; this might be my last chance to get all dressed up in a fancy sari while I'm in India. It also means that I don't have to go visiting all the distant rellies to say hello and goodbye; they'll all be at the reception so I can see 'em all in one go. One night of plastering a smile on my face as people I haven't seen in a couple of decades take it upon themselves to tell me how much I've grown since then and how I should be married with sprogs by now. I'm planning to bare my teeth and bring up all the gossip about erring children and straying spouses that I've been assiduously gathering since I arrived for precisely this purpose. All in all, it should make for a fun night -- bad bollywood music, greasy Indian food, hundreds of Indian relatives and a few hours in a swish costume with no alcohol and no one to flirt with -- ah, what would a trip to India be without an Indian wedding to attend!

I shall report back. Till then, enjoy the tiddlywinks games that are going on all around the US: I gather it's South Carolina and Florida next.

By the way, for those of you who care, my entirely unscientific survey of y'all has Obama in the lead, with Edwards second. Only a couple of youse folks plumped for Hilary. Interesting. For what it's worth, I'd take an Obama-Edwards ticket just fine. Though one can only imagine what the Reps would do with that come election time. Feeding time for the sharks, most likely.

I'm gone.

"It's Not Tiddlywinks."

~
Cricket, that is. At least, according to Cricket Australia's head, this game ain't tiddlywinks. No kidding. The "cricket crisis" has been making the headline news in India for 4 days now and I'm bored of it. There, I've said it. Yes, the racism charge caused a bad reaction here. The Board of Control for Cricket in India -- the Indian version of Cricket Australia -- and ain't just the name enough to make you think of 1984? -- sees the charge and the conviction handed out to "Bhajji" as a national insult and is now out for blood. BCCI's official response cites India's "proud" stand against apartheid.... I'll let you imagine the tone of indignation and fury. Meanwhile, sources inform me that "sledging" (that's the correct term for on-field slagging in cricket) often involves racist, sexist and homophobic language. General all-around offensiveness. Apparently the Australians call it "mental disintegration" and use it as a deliberate strategy for throwing their opponents off their collective game. So I've said my piece about it -- I still think it's a pity that the racism is all tangled up with the particularities of this match and these teams -- but I'm now moving on.

A game of tiddlywinks, anyone?

Actually, what I wanted to move on to tiddlywinks for political junkies. Heh. I'll admit to getting up at 7am Indian time yesterday so I could find out who'd won the New Hampshire Democratic primary. Course, I got up, checked the nets, and went straight back to sleep. But still. I'd like to point out that that's probably showing way more interest in the US election than most American citizens do. So, tell me, y'all -- if you were Americans -- who'd you be voting for? I like to think that I know all of y'all pretty well so it's going to be Obama, Hilary, Edwards or Richardson. If there's a Giuliani fan reading this blog, please.... keep browsing. There's aint' going to be anything of interest to you here. I've been a fan of John Edwards ever since I saw footage of him addressing a small volunteer crew in post-Katrina Louisiana on my last trip to the US. I was stuck in a hotel in Philadelphia, infuriated by the racialization of poverty that I'd seen in that prosperous city.... I couldn't believe the contrasts to be found between black and white within a city block or two. I thought it crazy then and I think it crazy now: I still don't understand why there aren't riots on the streets. Anyway, that night, as I pretty much gave up the ghost on looking for academic work in the US, I turned on the TV and happened upon Edwards talking about the relationship between poverty and race and class in the US. And he was angry about it -- not in a contrived, this is an on-camera moment kind of way but blazingly, furiously angry. Since then, I've done a little bit of reading up on his positions and I'm convinced that he's as good as any of the mainline Democratic candidates are gonna get. If I were an American, my choice would be... Martin Sheen as Jed Bartlett. But if I couldn't have my Nobel-prize winning Professor of Economics, I'd probably go with Edwards.

And the joys of globalization mean that even though I'm not -- and can't imagine ever being -- American, the US elections matter to us in more ways than we know. Bah.

Anyway, back to tiddlywinks. Who'd you be voting for?

It's Just Not Cricket!

~
Kiddies, I can't believe I'm spending my time in Mysore blogging about cricket! If only all the nice Canadian boys who tried to explain hockey to me could see this.... but since four of you -- you know who are -- asked, the cricket embroglio continues: the Sydney match ended with an Australian win but as the sports columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, Peter Roebuck, put it "India have been dudded. No one with the slightest enthusiasm for cricket will take the least satisfaction from the victory secured by the local team in an S(ydney) C(ricket) G(round) Test that entertained spectators, provided some excellent batting but left a sour taste in the mouth. It was a match that will have been relished only by rabid nationalists and others for whom victory and vengeance are the sole reasons for playing sport. Truth to tell, the last day was as bad as the first. It was a rotten contest that singularly failed to elevate the spirit. Until another shocking decision was made by a 61-year-old umpire, reliable in his time but past his prime, the fifth day of this unattractive contest was offering plenty of tension to put alongside the memorable hundreds contributed by capable batsmen on both sides. Thereafter they might as well have drawn stumps, as all interest had been removed. Once justice and fair play have been ejected there is no point in playing the game."

(Here's the article in its entirety.)

So now more controversies swirl around this game with a name that has come to mean good sportmanship. Roebuck's column is brave, and he's concerned about the state of the game and the state of the reputations of the Australian side. I'm concerned about the fallout from the racism charge, given this poisoned environment. It seems that the match was followed by a hearing, wherein it was determined that Harbhajjan did call Andrew Symonds a monkey and he's now been banned from playing in the next three Test matches that India plays. Like I said yesterday, having watched the match as it was being played, I've no doubt that emotions were high and that heated language was used. And I've no qualms about saying that there is a line in the sand and racist remarks cross that line. But... and here's my concern -- if the International Cricket Committee, the voluntary board that makes the ultimate decisions about international cricket -- wants to make a point about zero tolerance, this ain't the match to do it in. As I write, Indian news agencies are reporting that India has filed a counter-charge about abusive language used on the field by an Australian player. The Indian population at large -- those for whom cricket is not a game but a religion (think hockey meets world cup soccer) -- is furious at what they see as Australian intimidation on and off the field. I'm not exaggerating: this was the top news story on every news channel in India (I looked at ones in English, Hindi, Kannada, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam); there were irate emails and call-ins to the shows demanding that the team be brought home immediately, that such "unfairness" be protested and rejected; and I'm willing to bet my ticket home that this is going to go on for the next couple of days. In this atmosphere, the seriousness of the charge of racist abuse against "Bhajji" is lost -- it's seen by most as another in their list of grievances about the treatment their beloved boys have received in Australia.

Remember Lagaan, anyone? Nothing makes a team close ranks like the kind of scathing criticism that both the Indians (for being sour losers, and for boorishness) and the Australians (for not displaying proper sportsmanship, and for boorishness) are now getting. I wonder... do the complaints sound at all similar? But back to Bhajji and his alleged name-calling: nothing bring this country together like cricket -- if it isn't quite a religion in India, cricket is at least the only national pass time that supercedes religion. And in this orgy of national hair-pulling and chest-thumping that both these testosterone-soaked sides are now indulging in, there is no room for any kind of honest examination of mutual faults and errors.

Ah, the joys of sport. I never knew how much I was missing.

Playing Cricket

~
I've found a new fave website : yes, yes, it's Literature Map! If y'all knew about this one before, why didn't someone tell me? I don't know how accurate it is but it's a wonderful idea -- it's like Pandora for books!

We've been spending a fair bit of time watching India play Australia in cricket these past few days. And darlings, I know: I'm not the sports type. But let's call this an exercise in anthropology, shall we? Anyway, the reason I mention it here is that there's a pretty big controversy brewing in this series -- and it's all about race and nationalism and political sensitivity. You know me: I can't resist this stuff! So, for all those of you who don't follow cricket, the Indian national team is in Australia on a 6 week long trip during which they're playing 4 test matches and 15+ one day games. All you need to know is that the Test matches go on for days and days (like 4 or 5) and they're considered the true test of a team. Australia is currently the top rated team in the world; India is one of the very that can take them on and give them a good match.... at least in theory. My sense from having watched a few India-Australia games (the Australians toured India in late 2007) is that the Indian team has a lot of the greatest players in the world currently, but they are brilliant on occasion and not on requirement, whereas the Australian side, though perhaps lacking the same kind of brilliance, work harder and are way more disciplined. Brilliance is all very well but doesn't often trump discipline. In our language, playing cricket ain't like being an academic!

To get to the meat of the controversy now: an Indian player stands accused of a racist comment toward an Australian player. I know it sounds ridiculous but it's not: the Australian in question is Andrew Symonds, the only Aboriginal member of the their team, often described -- both by the Australian media and by the worldwide cricket media (who, I presume, take their lead from the Aussies papers) as Australia's "only black player." Harbhajan Singh, the Indian -- incidentally a Sikh man -- is supposed to have called Symonds a monkey. There's some history here: Symonds was part of the Australian team that was in India in 2007 and he was taunted with what were described as "monkey sounds" by the Nagpur audience. There was a bit of a hoo-hah and a complaint was filed but since the taunts were from the audience and those who were caught on TV cameras producing the noises were kicked out, nothing much was done about this, I don't think. So before we get to the incident on the field, I should say that there's a fair bit of what I would call heckling that goes on between teams during matches, Australia in particular are known to verbalize a fair bit when things are not going their way, Symonds had had a miraculous miscall from an umpire in this match that had allowed him to go on playing after he'd been outed (he admitted this himself after the fact) and "Bhajji" -- as Harbhajan Singh is known in India -- is notorious for his quick temper over heckling, be it from audience members in the stands or other players. All in all, it made for a high pressure situation all around: then the cameras show Symonds saying something to Bhajji as they cross paths, Bhajji does a double take and indicates taht Symonds should come closer and then there's a bit of quick talk to each other. A couple of other players come up to see what's going on, Symonds recounts something to his captain, Ricky Ponting (I know, don't you love these names?), who is joined by the two umpires (including the one who let off Symonds with the miscall) and words are exchanged. Bhajji is clearly being admonished for something, and he is clearly responding vehemently -- but everyone is very discreet and hands are held up to obstruct lip readers!

The next day -- today -- it's all over the media that Harbhajjan is up on a "code of conduct" charge for calling Symonds a monkey. He says he didn't, that what went on was normal on-field talk, the umpires haven't actually overheard anything, there are a couple of players from each of the sides lined up on each side supporting their guys. But the cynic in me says of course they would.... it's a question of national pride, and reputation, at this point. There's no question in my mind that heated words were exchanged though I don't know whether the word "monkey" was ever uttered; I don't doubt (for I saw it) that Symonds provoked Harbhajjan.... nor do I doubt that Bhajji is capable of being racist and offensive. One of the weirdest and saddest legacies of colonialism is that India has internalized a racial totem pole of hierarchies. But this is a weird place to end up: for one thing, given the clear distinction made in North American contexts between "black" and "brown," if I'd been asked to describe Symonds' race, I'd have called him a "brown" man so I find some irony in one brown man being racist toward another. A cricket commentator -- displaying his own naivete and internalized racism, no doubt -- remarked that he didn't see the room for the furor, given that Symonds looked "as Indian" as Harbhajjan!!!

The kerfuffle here seems to me to be a two-fold one: there are a fair number of cricket types emerging from the woodwork, including former Australian and English captains, suggesting that this kind of thing is all too common on the field and that "what happens on the field should be left on the field." If this is true -- and I see no reason why it shouldn't be -- then there's a lot wrong with the state of play. I'm a believer in lines in the sand; I think that there's no place -- and there shouldn't be any tolerance -- for this kind of stuff anywhere, and especially not in the high-profile world of professional sport. But -- and tell me if you think I'm wrong here -- I'm not convinced that the "make an example out of this" is the best way of addressing what appears to be an endemic problem. There's been a lot of coverage of this -- as you may expect in both the Aussie and Indian media: what I'm intrigued by is that the Oz media itself isn't all that happy with this -- there's a particularly interesting piece in the Sydney Herald that makes the point that Symonds and Bhajji have been pitchforked into changing global perceptions of what is appropriate behaviour. And to me, underlying all of this, there is -- as there is in so much of anything deemed a national sport -- a sense of national honour, or pride, at stake. India seems to want to make the case that the Australians dish it out but can't it back (actually, this isn't my take on it -- that's Grieg's (the former English captain's take); Australia wants to demonstrate that they're a politically correct and sensitive country with a team that's left behind any racist and colonial inheritance it once had. Andrew Symonds, about whom I know very little, but who I imagine had to fight pretty hard to make it as far as he has, given his constant identification as "Australian cricket's only black player" is caught in the middle, as is Harbhajjan Singh, a young man from with little education and little control over his temper. In the end, they are the two who actually have to deal with whatever fallout there will be from this row. What say you, at least those of you who made it this far?