The premiere show of the Hindi movie ‘Dashavatar’ (Tamil: Dasavatharam) was among the better movie screenings I have attended. Atul Tiwari, who has penned the Hindi dialogues for the film, was polite and patient with the invitees and happy over the release of the movie. Some months back he had remarked that he was very eagerly waiting for the movie to reach across to the Hindi speaking audience.

The event was simple and solemn because limited people were invited for the screening. The media was given ample amount of time to ask questions to the actor Kamal Haasan and the director K S Ravikumar before the screening commenced. The Dashavatar team then welcomed the audience inside the theatre.

I was reminded of the premiere of the movie ‘Cash’ that was brimming with people. They shouted and hurled popcorn across the theatre and fought over the seats. They whistled at the girls on the screen and hollered at will.

The scene was repeated during the premiere of the movie ‘Victory’. The event was postponed by two hours and imported cheerleaders were made to perform ‘routines’ for the tired audience. The staff members of Cinemax were rude. After allowing people inside the theatre they asked them to relocate to the front seats to allow the “VIPs” to occupy the back seats.

Unlike the Dashavatar show where all invitees were equal, there were different levels of invitees at the Victory premiere. The ‘best’ of the lot were ushered into the ‘Red Lounge’ screen where all seats were cushioned.  The director and the actors went to this screen.

Lesser known celebrities occupied the regular screens with the non-cushioned seats. But they were awarded the back seats to differentiate them from the regular invitees. A popular critic requested the theatre staff to let him sit at a “good place” and managed with some pleading.

Dashavatar’s limited invitee scenario allowed people to approach and meet the movie team. This was a very different situation from the one I saw at the premiere of ‘Bride and Prejudice’ where the actors were armed with bodyguards to ward off hundreds of invitees. After the screening of the movie, I conversed and walked with actor Vivek Oberoi to avoid the screaming fans and make a quick exit. 

After the screening of Dashavatar, the audience clapped for the team that once again stood at the entrance to see off the audience. It was an equal affair. 

Actor Kamal Haasan with an admirer

A myth propounded by history-killers and aged freedom-fighter manuals is the enmity between pre-Independence leaders in India.

Subhash Chandra Bose and Mohandas Gandhi shared a healthy and principled relationship despite their opposing ideas on the relevance of violence. In effect, they were comrades in freeing India from British imperialism. Yet, it is not hard to come across learned men and women who speak of them as ‘almost-enemies’. These learned individuals are teachers, historians and journalists. They have never been able to guide me to the source of their exclamations on the Subhash-Mohandas relationship.
“I read it in a book” or “It is well-known”.

One such source had informed me that “Subhash and Gandhi had a fight over the means to achieve independence for India. Subhash was pragmatic and Gandhi backed out of his plans”.

I realised later that in all probability, their followers may have verbally fought and opposed one another. Subhash and Mohandas disagreed but never fought and this knowledgeable person was only bringing out his biases.

Marketers espouse fights between Bhagat Singh and Mohandas Gandhi in movies to promote a false sense of patriotism and increase ticket sales.

Shyam Benegal’s movie “Bose-The Forgotten Hero”, however, did not portray any imagined acrimony between the national leaders. Their opinion differed but they held one another in the highest regard.

Subhash would stop any activity and listen to Mohandas talk on radio and ‘The Indian National Army’, headed by Subhash, revered the services of Bhagat Singh and Mohandas Gandhi to the cause of an independent nation.

It was Subhash who first addressed Mohandas Gandhi as “The Father of the Nation” from Rangoon in 1944. He also gave full support to Mohandas’s call to “Quit India” and “Do or Die”

And though Mohandas was averse to Subhash’s violent battle, he said of him that “…He was Indian first and last. What is more, he fired all under him with the same zeal so that they forgot in his presence all distinctions and acted as one man.”

The comradeship between them is very relevant now as India goes to vote in the coming elections. At a time when name-calling and insulting have become the backbone of Indian politics, Subhash and Mohandas are a reminder of the crux of democracy and of India; unity in diversity.

Theirs is a case of employing opposing ideology for a common cause, a better India. All the brouhaha about voting for change and youth-power would assuredly fail if these leaders stand for elections today. One of them would win but the country would not lose. I imagine that post-elections, Subhash and Mohandas would meet and healthily disagree over the affairs of the nation.

Selected Stories from Outside YI
* Lalit Modi combines elections and IPL…

(Secularism implies no religious prejudice) 

A short introduction about the condition of secularism–no party is ‘secular’–followed by responses to comments on the story It is Okay to Not Vote. 

Introduction: The Present

In 1984, Congress was involved in the murder of Sikhs after the killing of Indira Gandhi.
More than twenty years later, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh from the Congress party apologised to the Sikhs and the nation for the acts of the Congress.

In 2002, BJP was involved in the murder of Muslims. BJP’s Atal Behari Vajpayee and L K Advani apologised for the “blot” on the nation.

Quite clearly, if the next Prime Minister happens to be from the BJP and like Manmohan he/she apologises for his party’s acts then the account is settled.

No political party is secular and secularism is not the ideal on which you must cast your vote. If BJP and its allies are accused of communalism then the Congress is no less. The difference lies in projection and intelligence. The Congress is subtle in its actions; they are smarter than the BJP, which appears brash and unnecessarily provocative. Congress can hide its actions from the people unlike the BJP.

For instance, the Jammu and Kashmir land problem was the creation of Congress. BJP foolishly involved itself in the problem after taking a lead from Congress’s vote bank politics. Somehow, Congress’s role in the problem was not brought out among the people by the media.

On the day Varun Gandhi was arrested for speeches against a community, Jagdish Tytler was given a ‘clean chit’ by the CBI for his involvement in the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. Once again the status-quo is maintained.

It is not prudent to vote on secularism.

Responses to Comments

However, I feel that every individual has at least some reason why he/she is voting.
I came across someone who said he is voting simply because he doesn’t want the other oppressive party to win

Response: Never said do-not-vote. But it is fine if you do not want to vote.
 Unfortunately the party you may vote for could turn out to be more oppressive than the one you didn’t vote for. At present it is not possible to make out which party is better. As mentioned in the introduction, no party is secular. 

It is important and absolutely essential to vote, irrespective of irritating ads. When you say “People have realised that they have been voting because they were lied to about policies”, I think we have let it become that way. The educated middle and upper classes just don’t care these days, that is what the line hides I think.

Response: If governance is good, then you would want to vote out of desire.
Perhaps the rich class doesn’t care. In any case they are mush lesser in number than the uneducated and lower income-group masses. The poor strive for the basics and not for the nation. It’s just that the rich have got the basics. One day, the poor may become like the rich and then everybody would vote for the nation. Precisely; instead of asking people to vote or be ashamed before election dates, the ‘NGOs and friends’ should ask the government (any) to work towards decreasing economic disparity in the five years given to them.

1) let us say a party ‘abcd’…bad politics, bad politicians. This party has its voting pools in places and its chauvinists will vote in huge numbers. When we don’t vote against this party, we simply ALLOW it to get an easy majority. Bad democracy, bad policies.

Response: So do vote for the good party. But people who do not find goodness in any party may not vote. There shouldn’t be any compulsion or a sense of patriotism in voting.
In addition: By chauvinists you probably mean supporters. Considering that the party is ‘bad’, the supporters would want to vote for it because they identify with its policies and they would not need any TV ads to inspire them. To counter that you have to find a good party and identify with its policies so that you too vote out of your own will. Now it is tough to find that good party. In your opinion, one party may be slightly better than other parties but they all have corrupt politicians and murder cases against them.

2) the poor in India will vote for the party offering them the smallest improvement, the slightest hope. 3 kgs of rice. 1 television. For them survival is important, but hardly do they realise that they need bigger and better things. They must be educated and it is the educated groups’ responsibility to make sure a party that has thorough policies for betterment of the poor be chosen.

Response: For 60 plus years no political party educated them. It is their job to do so.
The party with better policies is better for the people. If people find such a party then they may vote for it. If they don’t then they may not. Some political party may be better than the others but not brilliant enough to inspire confidence in people. These uninspired people may not vote and this is their prerogative.

We are complacent and we can make the difference by voting. Or by CHOOSING not to vote by dropping not the elections, but by using the “no-vote” option AT THE ELECTIONS.

Response: Last heard, the following stood true: If out of 100 people, 80 choose ‘no-vote’, and 15 choose Party A, then Party A forms the government. No-vote does not stop politicians from coming to power.
Without the ‘no-vote’ option, most of the 80 people could have wrongly chosen Party B and the good party A would have suffered. So the ‘no-vote’ option is useful only when any one party is brilliant. Tough chance.

The manifestos of various parties are available online. Their are websites which help you to be aware of the contesting people.

Response: No political party promises the worst.

It is implied that by voting, you are a citizen aware of issues and are prepared to do something about it.

Response: It may be so. Or this could be like showing-off. I may know nothing and yet vote because advertisements tell me it is ‘cool’ to do so. 

I’m also sceptical however, as to how much does my vote account for. None of the possible candidates in my area are up to the mark (not even close). So according to the ad, if I don’t vote, I’m supposed to feel all guilty. But what if I vote for the wrong candidate. A moron who’ll do more harm than good for my community? Am I supposed to feel guilty then too?

Response: You may vote if you want to. It is fine if you don’t vote. Voting should be an act of self-will.

Quoting from “It is Okay to Not Vote”
“It is nobody’s duty to vote. If at all there is any iota of responsibility, it is to vote correctly. Correctly. Let the politicians come to the people and tell them to regain trust in the electoral process. Le them reach out to the villagers and promise them no more lies but a better life. And people should vote only when they feel convinced. When they feel like entering the polling station despite the heat and ill-health. And not because of any obligation.”

Selected stories from outside YI
*Don’t read this if you don’t like pathos
*So What…?   

I met the poet Gulzar some days before he was nominated for the Oscar award. We were at the National Centre for Performing Arts (NCPA) that was hosting a theatrical adaptation of his writings on Indo-Pak border issues titled ‘Lakeerein‘.

“Would Pakistan have allowed such a performance in its theatres?”
“Is the polity there as embracing as it is here?”

Such questions got lost in the midst of questions in the post-play section where the audience got to interact with the poet.

“What happened to us (26/11 attacks in Mumbai) and what our neighbour allows in its territory is unfair and needs condemnation,” some ladies discussed someplace behind me.

A question about Pakistan supported terrorism was asked and Gulzar said that many warnings were given to the Indian government about the possibility of such attacks but it did nothing. A vague answer; he could have declined to answer any political questions; his prerogative.

A lady stood up and said that her family member had suffered in the 26/11 attacks and in a long-winded statement that was hard to decipher she stated that an Indian soldier during the rescue asked the troubled member if he was a Hindu or a Muslim.

The people were confused but they got the last part of the statement and some of them started murmuring and clapping. While clapping, the ladies behind me and many other men and women were confirming the details of the statement. Nobody bothered about the actual turn of events. No clarifications were sought form the lady. But they all clapped in support of the lady and against communalism.

Outside the theatre, a small group was still decoding the statement. But it was agreed that the soldier was communalist.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

The superhero stumbled as he jumped across the roofs of the neighbouring buildings.

Superhuman effort.
Saviour.
Proud of you.

The superhero reached the building and saved the maiden from the raging fire.

“Come now, say something romantic to me”, the maiden said to her saviour.
The saviour thought about the green fields.

“Ai lady, are you country or city?”
“City”, she blushed.

The saviour thought of cow and milk.

“Working or homely?”
“Homely”, she shied away.

Then the saviour thought about her habits, her style of greeting and what she wore when not these torn clothes.

“And lady, are you Hindu or Muslim?”

Then the lady told the people about her talk with the soldier.

They didn’t understand why he asked her about milk and green fields and religion. But he asked about religion.
“Tch..tch..”
He must be communalist.

An introduction to the story “The Lost Tribe” that talks about personal and cultural disintegration.

Celebrated and ‘you must read’ author Mahasweta Devi says through the newspaper ‘The Age Mumbai’ (The Asian Age):

“It’s time to bust the myth and sieve the fact from fancy. In my opinion, the adivasi women are more liberated in their lifestyles. Their (sic) might be a threat of promiscuity* but the fairer sex can willingly go for independent weddings, divorce, and even take recourse to remarriage after separation from their former spouse. There’s no question of dowry system at all. I think, we have more barriers in mind to frame the straight-jacketed canons of society.”
 

* The “threat of promiscuity” is actually the threat of sexually transmitted diseases

• Some years back in New Delhi, I ventured into the Jawaharlal National University (JNU) campus with an old acquaintance who superbly briefed me about the university culture. There were bills stuck on wall with excessive glue asking girl students from north-east India to be “careful”. I understood later that they were considered promiscuous and immoral by the North Indian students. Their food was not pleasant smelling; “bamboo shoots and other smelly food” disturbed the students. Their dresses were too short, too revealing or “transparent” as a local mentioned; “Revealing dress should be avoided. Avoid lonely road/by-lanes when dressed scantily.”

Girls in Delhi-among the worst sufferer of crimes-are expected to be modest in clothing, as in the other modern cities of India in Mumbai, Kolkata and Bangalore. But women from the predominantly tribal areas-poorer and lesser educated-are ‘more independent’.

• Last year, I met a retired Army Officer in a hospital who told me about his days in north-eastern hills. He said that the women there were ‘loose’. There were mothers who wouldn’t mind sending their daughters to the officers for some drugs or alcohol. But otherwise, the officer informed me, the culture there is not very prudish.A simple internet search would tell you that women in north-east are facing problems of drug addiction and alcoholism. Add to this their liberal social attitudes and you may feel assured that they would be bracketed as immoral in the conservative cities of India.

The liberal attitude, however, is not at fault. In fact, it is something to be conserved. Without going into details, let me say that Indian philosophy admires this liberalism.At home, they don’t have food or work; no development like in Delhi and Mumbai.   

Their homes are without clean water or bread
For work they have to oceans tread  

And when they come for work or education to other parts of India, they are discriminated. Called nasty names. Asked to shed their liberal attitude.

We talk of Women’s Day/Week/Month. It should be happy for all women in India.  
 
.

Image Source

Next: The Lost Tribe

Khalid Mohammed and Anurag Kashyap

 
Cinema should inspire new thoughts and discourage blind adherence to custom. Right?

If you accept the compliments of somebody, then you must also accept their abuses. Fair.
When a critic tells you that you are a non-understandable movie-maker, you take offence and abuse and rant about the critic, in this case a well-known film-critic. But then he tells you that your latest film is amazing and you thank him!

Something is amiss. Aren’t you, then, directly telling the film-critic that he must praise your films or else you will abuse his thoughts?

Surprisingly, this well-known critic is being thanked and garlanded for liking Anurag Kashyap’s latest movie ‘Dev. D’.

Here’s how it goes.
Some time back:

John Abraham

Actor John Abraham to Anurag, after a movie and John’s performance got a bad review from critic and film-maker Khalid Mohammed.

John:

“why Khalid mohammed has to write such mean things about me?Just because i refused to do his film? Well i did what my director asked me to do?”

Anurag:

“Don’t let him worry you john..the man doesn’t know his ass from his mouth..and he has already proven it thrice..”

[Source]

 
And now, after Anurag’s Dev. D, guess who thanks Khalid when he writes a good review? Yes, it is Anurag Kashyap.

“bloody awesome.. i log on and pop.. there is your review.. thank you so much.. now it seems complete.. thank you and am so glad you like it.. drinks on me..”

 
Something may have transpired between them during the release of the two films. Perhaps. But I don’t think that “the man doesn’t know his ass from his mouth..and he has already proven it thrice..” can change.

 Let all of us be reminded that Khalid gave popcorn films like ‘Kuch Kuch Hota Hai’ a five star rating. And Dev. D gets a four star. And Anurag is thanking him and promising him some drinks.

“Now it seems complete“, says Anurag. Oh well.
Was he waiting for some kind of approval?

 Most importantly, the ‘fans’ are following Anurag.
Aren’t they being fooled? Who, you ask. Those people who write in the comments section; bloggers, doctors, artists who claim to be ardent admirers of genuine cinema; now they are being part of the herd mentality:

‘Let’s wait and see if our favourite chap likes or dislikes this critic. We’ll accordingly change and respond’.

Part one can be read here: Cricket and the Indian Woman–Part One
 

I have written about women who don’t know cricket but talk about it and about women who know that their interest in the sport is actually their interest in men. I shall now write about their social position in the context of the sport. Surely, they are not equals to men.

There are women who don’t like the sport and they don’t feign interest in the sport. They don’t buy tickets to go to cricket stadiums or spend hours watching live telecasts. Then there are women whose interest is solely sexual. What bonds both the types is the subservient position that this sport has given them. Globalisation and relaxation of morals has exposed several cricketing countries to India’s sexual insecurity and her attitudes towards women.

And Indian women don’t seem to mind if they know about their stature.

They are relegated to looking pretty on television, talking about male adrenaline and asking the male ‘experts’ questions about playing techniques; the women are not experts themselves.

Women who can talk about cricket (Anjum Chopra, prolific) are not media darlings like the spaghetti and noodle strap-wallas. They are not asked to promote cricketing events; at least not in the same stead as the models in mini dresses. So along with fairness cream ads and ‘item-numbers’ in movies, cricket reinforces stereotyping of women. The social position of women as aides to men is redefined every time the woman is seen as doing nothing greater than gushing over cricketers.

Last year, foreign women were brought to India to work as cheerleaders in the IPL tournament. Indian women are generally not seen as promiscuous unlike foreign women. So they were not approached to wear tiny clothes and dance every time a batsman hit a ‘sixer’.

Foreign cheerleaders (bottom) are doctors, lawyers and even students who have to earn their education and livelihood. Their bodies are supple and dances are sexy. They are not seen as scandalous in their countries. Indian cheerleaders (top) are untidy imitations grappling with fear of a conservative society.

And then the fairness cream ads have ensured that men salivate over white skin and women aimlessly apply loads of cosmetics on their skin. So, Indian women were sidelined in favour of the foreigners. The cheerleading act was criticised but men drove in large numbers to watch the dancing girls or stayed glued to the television sets waiting for the camera to show them semi-naked bodies. On one hand the white girls were being criticized and on the other hand men were whistling with joy.

The cheerleaders from foreign countries are much more honourable than the Indian women in context of the sport.

They are lawyers, nurses, sportswomen and even students who have to earn money to make it through college. They wear the tiniest dresses to excite the men and bring in more crowds. No Indian women can imitate them or take on their role without some scandal and societal problems.

The ‘white’ cheerleaders are equal to men in the sense that they can openly admit that they see sport (any sport) for the handsome men. Many Indian women would be considered shameful for expressing their sexual nature and most women in rural India would accept their desires in private or only in comfortable male company.

In addition, women in India are exposed to images of foreign women thronging football stadiums and enjoying themselves. In India, it is nearly impossible for them to enter the stadium if it is packed with men; most of them fear sexual assault.

Unlike the women in Europe who can go to stadiums with lesser fear of being attacked by men and who can wear the clothes of their liking, women in India have to take on the mantle of respect and conservatism. Men are the shouters, the aggressors; women have to be quiet and cheer or stand and clap but not as much as the man.

Not possible in Indian stadiums: It is not safe for women in India to attend packed cricket stadiums without fear of sexual assault

This may sound as an example of misogyny. If so, then women don’t seem to mind it. Actresses profess their admiration for cricketers but the journalists never ask them any tough questions. It is understood that women’s knowledge about cricket is limited and they are not to be expected to observe the sport closely.

Women are thus an accessory; they are an ornament to decorate the sport and provide it with glamour; attract men who don’t like the sport and serve as a tool to a sex starved male population. In essence, they are bought as a commodity through good money and sold as unintelligent temptresses, thereby re-enforcing the decisions of Indian men to discount the intellect of women.   

As long as the woman understands that she is masquerading as a cricket lover and walking the ramp with cricketers solely for money, there is little problem for her psyche.

Not quite 'homely': Former Indian captain Anjum Chopra will play her fourth successive World Cup this year. She is also a panelist on a cricket discussion show.

The problem here lies in the mindset of men who look at these women as show-pieces and don’t see that she is simply performing to earn money. The image of women as ‘cricket trophies’ is problematic for them in the male-dominated Indian society. It may not be a major problem for the woman if she is aware of her role in the sport and accepts it with the understanding that she has talents beyond serving as a temptress. The woman should be able to maintain her self outside the glamour of her job.

There is something for us to admire in the cricketer crazy women who watch the sport for the men alone and don’t pretend any affection for the sport. Once again, this is healthy because the woman is in control of her mind and desires. It is the woman who does not understand the gamut of their desires and the lies of advertisements that needs to be watchful.

I would like to end with a stark example of cricket consumerism that involves the nation’s heartthrob M S Dhoni. But first you should know that Sachin Tendulkar is married to a woman who is older to him and who is professionally a doctor; hardly a suitable combination for most Indian men.

The media and many Indian women went gaga over Dhoni and ignored a statement that talks about the idea of women in Indian society

“My ideal woman’ is someone who is caring, understanding and ready to compromise. Basically, I would like someone homely.”

Nimesh Advani

[The writer describes his friend's suffering at his job; his talents are ridiculed and his youth is held against him]

 My friend Sid at his job

Mr. Gupta threw the file, smirked and promptly indulged in digging his nose. Then he started rambling about how competitive the world is and how people are treated in the film industry and how experienced he is and how Sid needs to follow him. Sid didn’t say much after this outburst. This had become a routine. Come to office and get fired.

It’s not that Sid is not efficient. Mr. Gupta has the habit to vent out his frustration regularly; sometimes every twenty minutes. What made Gupta behave irresponsibly? Sid often wondered if his wife beat him at home. But having a woman must be an achievement for Gupta. Misogynist.

Sid had thought that his dreams of becoming a movie director would be realized soon when he started working in a popular production house. However, when Gupta replaced his first boss, Sid found himself busy with tasks like buying samosas in the evening and contacting air-conditioner repairing service centres.

According to Gupta, people have to face flak and “take shit” in the early part of their career and he wanted Sid to join the bandwagon …

My Take

I hate such intentions and ideas (Gupta’s) … I asked Sid to leave the place but the pressure of economic recession and a nagging father were enough to over-power my advice.

I wonder why people behave like Gupta. Is he rude to others just because he has been dealt with in a similar manner?

Let me analyze a bit. Just because Gupta was treated cruelly, it means he will treat everyone who is junior to him, very cruelly.

We do not like it if someone is living comfortably because when we were in their position, we were treated badly…This sounds absurd to me. Why can’t we encourage a newcomer …?

If people were not encouraged during their youth, then should they discourage newcomers or simply avoid the mistake? It is against the ego to let somebody younger do better than them.

The mindset: “We were not given an opportunity at that point of time so why should these guys start early…why don’t they suffer like us?”

We have heard so much about healthy competition but the competition is anything but healthy. The moment somebody gets ahead of us, instead of us trying to overtake them with our own capabilities we try to pull them back.

Instead of thinking how we can get better we start thinking how the other person can get worse.

Can a newcomer start his career with the hope of being treated with dignity? Will this vicious 360 circle of life ever come to an end for him?

Ananth Venkatesh

[Australia enjoyed unquestioned supremacy in international cricket. However, the resurgence of the South African and the Indian cricket team and the retirement of the finest Australian players has caused the downfall of Australian cricket. Currently it is grappling with consistency and defending increasing accusations of sledging and rudeness
Know more about cricket, here]

The success of South Africa (SA) in the 5-match one-day series against Australia along with its resplendent accomplishments in the preceding 3-Test series is a testament to the effectiveness of the overall structure of the country’s cricketing establishment.

The central selection committee chaired by the distinguished Mike Procter, the headship of the CEO Gerald Majola, the proficiency of the self-assured SA coach Mickey Arthur, the on-field leadership of Graeme Smith and the modestly productive Johan Botha and the indefatigable commitment by the SA contingent manufactured a dazzling phase for the Proteas ‘down under’, which will not be forgotten rapidly by the connoisseurs of cricket. The emergence of two players from previously disadvantaged communities, Lonwabo Tsotsobe and Jean-Paul Duminy, is evidence of the success of the transformation policy, which should hearten the hearts of the coloured communities in SA.
 

                            Jean-Paul Duminy

The duel between the Kangaroos and the Proteas, always intensely competitive, which commenced in the daunting Perth in December, was beforehand labelled as an intriguing contest. Australia, severely enfeebled by the voluntary departure of several brilliant players like McGrath, Martyn, Gilchrist, Warne, Langer, etc, were nevertheless expected to demonstrate their forcefulness in familiar home conditions. But ever since SA mauled the Australian self-belief at Perth in the first Test by surpassing the seemingly impenetrable target of 414 runs, the future seemed bland for Australia.

The self-belief of SA rescued them from a perilous predicament in the Melbourne Test as an incredibly unruffled Duminy, a coloured South African, and the tail-enders constructed a stunning recovery, which saw SA move from 141/6 to 459. The faster bowlers embodied their fearsomeness, headed by the tirelessly determined Dale Steyn and Makhaya Ntini. Their potency amazed many Australian batsmen, who simply did not possess the wherewithal to counter the SA bowlers’ efficiency.

The SA batsmen imposingly countered the collective armoury of the Aussie bowlers.

AB de Villiers, who has intensified his valuableness for SA since debuting in December 2004, contributed crucially to the SA chase of 414 by hammering a magnificent century. Duminy portrayed fidelity to his pre-series billing as a promising player. His glorious calmness characterized his 166 in the Melbourne battle.

Smith, of course, managed SA inspirationally in all the three Tests, contributing colossally with the willow, only to be mournfully interrupted by a vicious short ball delivered by Johnson in the Sydney encounter. The hit forced him to retire hurt but he arrived hugely handicapped in the second innings of the Sydney Test with the endeavour to save SA from losing the inconsequential third rubber. Smith carried with him a persistently painful ‘tennis elbow injury’ into the series. Indian cricket aficionados will find the term tennis elbow familiar as it afflicted the genius Tendulkar as well.

The Australians performed with insipidness in certain phases of the Test series, which contributed to their defeat. The replacements for the retired stars couldn’t deliver noticeably lethal performances. Ponting, who batted credibly, found the assignment of captaining a rather inexperienced Australia without the veterans difficult. Johnson was the only bowler who bowled lethally.

The One Day International (ODI) series presented Australia with a wonderful opportunity to regain their lost pride. Eventually, it turned out to be disastrous for them. The SA one-day side, which is by no means deadly and is in the process of rebuilding, proved to be mighty for the Aussies. The fabulous Duminy, the explosive de Villiers, the traditionalist Amla, the reformed Gibbs and the blaster Albie Morkel played pivotal roles in the ODI series. Morné Morkel demonstrated his considerable improvement as a player. Wayne Parnell and Tsotsobe typified their skillfulness in the ultimate ODI. Steyn was terribly penetrative and deserves to be supplied the tag of the ‘Man of the Tour’.

The rejuvenation of Australia will take many months and they certainly aren’t unconquerable anymore. But the incontrovertible powerlessness of Australia shouldn’t deflect our attention from the fabulousness of the performance of SA, the deserving victors, the loss in the 2-match T20 series notwithstanding.
 

                        Ricky Ponting: Trying Times

When I am drenched
And the heart feels aloof
Absent to the constant pain

Let me drown, that moment
And not think again
Or doubt
The profundity of my talents

In killing I have taken a decision. Undeterred by humanity. Or the countless million voices that reason with reason. I belong to myself, a complete, I am. In me lies the final pang of life; in me lies the strength to reach out to the shore.

I am the anti-artistic vision that permeates homes and valleys; an antonym to young dreams of valour. But valour is viscous; it rides to impress multitudes. I am, the multitude.

In water I think of green grass, its blades curvaceous, and appalling, to the vanity of a woman. I have made love to grass and joyfully partaken, Her hungry glance. My lover, with its plentiful deaths, and rebirths, is more alluring than the fickle sounds of human love.

Am I, a synopsis of my life, or am I, a harbinger of change? I dipped into my well and drew a map they call art, I was, reminded, of art’s affiliation to the depth of colours, amassed, by mankind. Like my head that dips into water, my colours faded in the archetype of human emotions.

But I am fadeless. I possess, the qualities of my skin; my liver breathes life into me, alone. And the bubbles in water, come from within me. They are, perhaps, my last mercurial creations.

It had thus been decided, to impose upon the human, institutions of fear, of control. And the artist, born to be free, to leap, and choose, the colour of his self, was clad in white and his body, his soul, defined. He leapt within the definition and proclaimed his freedom, his soul, as supreme.

When I am one with water, and I seep into soil, and blossom as flower, I shall reign supreme, over vitrified walls, and yet, not reign, not repeat the invented human folly.

My head hits the water bed and with me ends the philosophy of work, of talent, that is unrivalled in thought and shape. And that bowed to none. I see the last shards of sunlight and onto my skin, a fish nibbles me slowly.