Statement from United For Peace and Justice and the Bail Out the People Movement
Join Us for Actions on Wall Street in New York City
Friday April 3 and Saturday, April 4
On April 4, 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke out against war at his historic 'Beyond Vietnam' speech at Riverside Church in NYC. A year later to the date, April 4, 1968, Dr. King was assassinated in Memphis where he had traveled to lend support to the struggle of striking sanitation workers.
This year, on April 3 and April 4, we honor the legacy of Dr. King with our urgent call for a new direction by marching on the financial capital of the country: Wall Street. What brings us to Wall St. is clear:
The human costs of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mount every day, and each month upwards of $12 billion are drained from our national treasury. Now is the time to end these wars, now is the time to bring all the troops home! The long term solution to our nation's economic crisis must include major cuts in military spending and putting our money to work in the rebuilding of our communities.
Instead of pouring our money into bailing out wealthy bankers, we need government investments in spending that creates new jobs, provides health care and quality education for all, ends the foreclosure epidemic, and supports sustainable, clean energy.
Dr. King understood that the struggle for economic and social justice at home is tied to our work for peace abroad. On April 3 and April 4, we are taking the next step on this journey. By bringing people into the streets of the financial center on these two days, we will send a strong, clear message: Now is the time to raise our voices in a unified call for the changes we know must be made, the changes millions of people are demanding!
The activities on Friday, April 3 are being led by the Bail Out the People Movement and the April 4 activities are being led by United For Peace and Justice. On Friday, April 3, United For Peace and Justice will join Bail Out the People's program on Wall Street. On Saturday, April 4, Bail Out the People Movement will gather on Wall Street and join United For Peace and Justice's March on Wall Street that will end at Battery Park. We encourage you to participate in both days of action, but if that's not possible, we hope you will be out with us on at least one of these days.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Sri Lanka Ceasefire Petition
Sri Lanka Ceasefire Petition
India was represented at the SAARC meeting in Colombo this week by Shri E. Ahamed, Union Minister of State, and not by Shri Pranab Mukherji, External Affairs Minister. Shri Mukherji's decision not to attend is significant, and is an indication that New Delhi is responding to mounting public pressure from within Tamilnadu and around the world. Let us keep up the pressure on multiple fronts until a ceasfire is declared, and a meaningful peace process is set in place.
To: Ministry of External Affairs, India
H.E. Shri Pranab Mukherjee
Union Minister for External Affairs
South Block, New Delhi
Tel: +91-11-2301 1127/1165/1463
Fax: +91-11- 2301 3254
Ref: India must urge ceasefire agreement at the SAARC Foreign Ministerial meeting to be held in Colombo on 27th and 28th February, 2009.
Your Excellency, Shri Mukherjee,
When you represent India at the SAARC Foreign Ministers’ Meeting to be held at Colombo later this week, we urge you to use the opportunity in calling for an immediate ceasefire between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE. The civil war in Sri Lanka has its origins in complex socio-economic issues, but has now shamefully devolved into a one-dimensional “ethnic conflict”. While people of all ethnic and social groups have suffered greatly, the Tamil population is, currently, in the most vulnerable position. The Sri Lankan government has launched what can only be described as the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Tamil minority population. Under these circumstances, India’s presence at the SAARC meeting must not carry even the remotest suggestion of “business as usual” with the Colombo regime.
India’s strident anti-terrorism / anti-LTTE stance cannot possibly justify its failure, or refusal, to intervene and to halt this bloodbath. What is happening in the northern and the eastern parts of the island is, quite simply, a form of collective punishment being inflicted on the entire Tamil civilian population.
Recently, Union Minister of State, H.E. Shri Anand Sharma, declared at a press conference that India could only “counsel”, and “not intervene”, in the affairs of another country. In principle, this is true, but in fact, we have now reached a critical point which mandates Indian leadership. The civil war in Sri Lanka concerns India at all levels.
At the global level, this is a humanitarian crisis of staggering proportions, and India, as the world’s largest democracy, cannot remain passive. Each moment’s delay in calling for a ceasefire translates into more avoidable deaths. The aggressive military action of the Sri Lankan government risks permanently alienating the Tamil minority, thereby rekindling separatist aspirations and crushing hopes for a future federal structure. For the sake of future peace and reconciliation within a united and stable Sri Lanka, India must assert leadership now.
At the regional level, India has always remained a part of the equation for historical and geo-political reasons. At this moment, it is well within India’s capability to use its diplomatic leverage in compelling Colombo to agree to an immediate ceasefire. If India cannot help resolve a conflict in the Indian Ocean region – in its own neighbourhood - it cannot present a credible case for global power status, or for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council.
At the national level, there are two compelling reasons for urgent action by India; namely the public outrage in Tamilnadu, and the political future of Sri Lankan refugees in India. Even nominally apolitical segments of the Tamilnadu population have been angered by the deaths, displacements and mayhem unleashed on Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka. The Union government can no longer ignore this sensitive situation, and must act to rectify the public’s perception that New Delhi is condoning the chauvinistic policies of the Rajapakshe regime. Further, the political future of over 80,000 refugees living in Tamilnadu, hangs in the balance. How the conflict ends will determine how well they can re-integrate into post-conflict Sri Lankan society. If there is a negotiated settlement led by India, the refugees have a higher chance of returning home in safety and dignity.
In conclusion, we urge the Indian government to act in a courageous and principled manner by calling for an immediate ceasefire, and by ensuring that international protection is accorded to Tamil civilians who are stranded or caught in the crossfire. India must urge Colombo to work closely with the UN, and to facilitate the return of international humanitarian workers and media to the conflict zone. Finally, India must help carry forward a process that advocates a permanent and honourable political settlement to the current conflict, rather than wait for the military annihilation of one side by another.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
India was represented at the SAARC meeting in Colombo this week by Shri E. Ahamed, Union Minister of State, and not by Shri Pranab Mukherji, External Affairs Minister. Shri Mukherji's decision not to attend is significant, and is an indication that New Delhi is responding to mounting public pressure from within Tamilnadu and around the world. Let us keep up the pressure on multiple fronts until a ceasfire is declared, and a meaningful peace process is set in place.
To: Ministry of External Affairs, India
H.E. Shri Pranab Mukherjee
Union Minister for External Affairs
South Block, New Delhi
Tel: +91-11-2301 1127/1165/1463
Fax: +91-11- 2301 3254
Ref: India must urge ceasefire agreement at the SAARC Foreign Ministerial meeting to be held in Colombo on 27th and 28th February, 2009.
Your Excellency, Shri Mukherjee,
When you represent India at the SAARC Foreign Ministers’ Meeting to be held at Colombo later this week, we urge you to use the opportunity in calling for an immediate ceasefire between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE. The civil war in Sri Lanka has its origins in complex socio-economic issues, but has now shamefully devolved into a one-dimensional “ethnic conflict”. While people of all ethnic and social groups have suffered greatly, the Tamil population is, currently, in the most vulnerable position. The Sri Lankan government has launched what can only be described as the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Tamil minority population. Under these circumstances, India’s presence at the SAARC meeting must not carry even the remotest suggestion of “business as usual” with the Colombo regime.
India’s strident anti-terrorism / anti-LTTE stance cannot possibly justify its failure, or refusal, to intervene and to halt this bloodbath. What is happening in the northern and the eastern parts of the island is, quite simply, a form of collective punishment being inflicted on the entire Tamil civilian population.
Recently, Union Minister of State, H.E. Shri Anand Sharma, declared at a press conference that India could only “counsel”, and “not intervene”, in the affairs of another country. In principle, this is true, but in fact, we have now reached a critical point which mandates Indian leadership. The civil war in Sri Lanka concerns India at all levels.
At the global level, this is a humanitarian crisis of staggering proportions, and India, as the world’s largest democracy, cannot remain passive. Each moment’s delay in calling for a ceasefire translates into more avoidable deaths. The aggressive military action of the Sri Lankan government risks permanently alienating the Tamil minority, thereby rekindling separatist aspirations and crushing hopes for a future federal structure. For the sake of future peace and reconciliation within a united and stable Sri Lanka, India must assert leadership now.
At the regional level, India has always remained a part of the equation for historical and geo-political reasons. At this moment, it is well within India’s capability to use its diplomatic leverage in compelling Colombo to agree to an immediate ceasefire. If India cannot help resolve a conflict in the Indian Ocean region – in its own neighbourhood - it cannot present a credible case for global power status, or for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council.
At the national level, there are two compelling reasons for urgent action by India; namely the public outrage in Tamilnadu, and the political future of Sri Lankan refugees in India. Even nominally apolitical segments of the Tamilnadu population have been angered by the deaths, displacements and mayhem unleashed on Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka. The Union government can no longer ignore this sensitive situation, and must act to rectify the public’s perception that New Delhi is condoning the chauvinistic policies of the Rajapakshe regime. Further, the political future of over 80,000 refugees living in Tamilnadu, hangs in the balance. How the conflict ends will determine how well they can re-integrate into post-conflict Sri Lankan society. If there is a negotiated settlement led by India, the refugees have a higher chance of returning home in safety and dignity.
In conclusion, we urge the Indian government to act in a courageous and principled manner by calling for an immediate ceasefire, and by ensuring that international protection is accorded to Tamil civilians who are stranded or caught in the crossfire. India must urge Colombo to work closely with the UN, and to facilitate the return of international humanitarian workers and media to the conflict zone. Finally, India must help carry forward a process that advocates a permanent and honourable political settlement to the current conflict, rather than wait for the military annihilation of one side by another.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
Become a Coca-Cola Free Community
One of the Human Rights' Abuse cases, trying to be brought mainstream - at the Labor Day Parade, September 6, 2008 - New York
Read more here -
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
CRD or LCD?
CRT or LCD?
I get an email about energy conservation in offices - "Switch off the monitor when not in use", and thought I would get specific information regarding the energy cost savings and pay- off time for a flat screen vs. a CRT monitor.
There are many specific factors that go into calculating this. Among them are:
1. Time Usage – how often your monitor is on (and for a CRT is it asleep or awake?), hours used per day, days usedper year.
2. Energy usage – the wattages of the specific two monitors you wish to compare.
3. Local energy costs – the cost charged per kW by your electric provider:
First, you need to calculate the kW used per year for each monitor. The energy usages can then be converted into costs by multiplying by your energy rate. The difference between the two costs reflects the cost savings you will recoup after using a flat screen (instead of a CRT) for one year. You can apply this annual savings to the price difference between the two models to determine how long it will take to pay off the more expensive flat screen.
The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN) is part of the US Dept of Energy. At the EREN website they list the wattage of many appliances - http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/ec7.html
http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/ec7.html
The wattage of a CRT monitor is listed as 150 watts (awake) or 30 (asleep). This means that in energy use, one hour of awake time => five hours of sleep time for the EPA example monitor.
According to IBM, the T Series flat panel monitors consume 3-4 watts asleep and 30 – 65 watts awake - http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/accessories/access_promo/flatpanel/tour/
Note that the awake energy use changes by a factor of more than 2, depending on screen size. For a flat screen monitor which uses 3.5 watts (asleep) and 50 watts (awake) 1 hour of awake time = 14 hours of sleep time.
For an example solution (for a CRT) see below:
Time Use – hours/day: 6.5 (to account for sleep time)
Time Use – days/year: (52weeks/yr – 2weeks vacation/yr) x (5days/wk) => 250 days/year
Monitor Watts: 150
Cost per kWh: $0.07
[(hours/day) x (days/year) x (watts)] / 1000 watts/kW = annual kWh
consumption (kW) x ($/kWh) = annual energy cost
[(6.5hr/day) x (250days/yr) x (150watts)]/1000 = 243.75 kWh
annual energy consumption (243.75 kWh) x ($0.07/kWh) = $17 per year
A CRT monitor costs $17 per year in electricity. Using the above calculations for a flat screen monitor with the following data:
Time Use – hours/day: 6.2 (to account for sleep time)
Time Use – days/year: (52weeks/yr – 2weeks vacation/yr) x (5days/wk) => 250 days/year> Monitor Watts: 50
Cost per kWh: $0.07
A flat panel monitor costs $5.40 per year electricity.
To determine your annual energy usage, use the wattage values printed on the back/bottom of the two monitors you are comparing. To determine the Time Usage for a CRT that goes to sleep, use an average value of time based on the % time the monitor is awake/asleep.
Additional Information ->> Many resources can be found where the energy efficiency of flat screen monitors is touted. Several of these sites are:
UC Irvine News, March 14, 2001 ->
http://www.today.uci.edu/ucinews/0314f4.html
National Renewable Energy Laboratory -> http://www.nrel.gov/sustainable_nrel/energy_saving.html
While the EPA Monitor Power Management Calculator is helpful in> computing cost savings on the basis of certain criteria, this calculation does not allow you to calculate costs based on monitor type.
http://yosemite1.epa.gov/Estar/consumers.nsf/content/powercalculator.htm
I used the following search terms: flat, screen, panel, monitor, energy use, efficiency, watts, utility, cost, electricity.
One more article is : http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/07/11/stories/2006071102140400.htm>>>
Another article on this is:
http://savingenergy.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/saving-energy-one-monitor-at-a-time/
I get an email about energy conservation in offices - "Switch off the monitor when not in use", and thought I would get specific information regarding the energy cost savings and pay- off time for a flat screen vs. a CRT monitor.
There are many specific factors that go into calculating this. Among them are:
1. Time Usage – how often your monitor is on (and for a CRT is it asleep or awake?), hours used per day, days usedper year.
2. Energy usage – the wattages of the specific two monitors you wish to compare.
3. Local energy costs – the cost charged per kW by your electric provider:
First, you need to calculate the kW used per year for each monitor. The energy usages can then be converted into costs by multiplying by your energy rate. The difference between the two costs reflects the cost savings you will recoup after using a flat screen (instead of a CRT) for one year. You can apply this annual savings to the price difference between the two models to determine how long it will take to pay off the more expensive flat screen.
The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN) is part of the US Dept of Energy. At the EREN website they list the wattage of many appliances - http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/ec7.html
http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/ec7.html
The wattage of a CRT monitor is listed as 150 watts (awake) or 30 (asleep). This means that in energy use, one hour of awake time => five hours of sleep time for the EPA example monitor.
According to IBM, the T Series flat panel monitors consume 3-4 watts asleep and 30 – 65 watts awake - http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/accessories/access_promo/flatpanel/tour/
Note that the awake energy use changes by a factor of more than 2, depending on screen size. For a flat screen monitor which uses 3.5 watts (asleep) and 50 watts (awake) 1 hour of awake time = 14 hours of sleep time.
For an example solution (for a CRT) see below:
Time Use – hours/day: 6.5 (to account for sleep time)
Time Use – days/year: (52weeks/yr – 2weeks vacation/yr) x (5days/wk) => 250 days/year
Monitor Watts: 150
Cost per kWh: $0.07
[(hours/day) x (days/year) x (watts)] / 1000 watts/kW = annual kWh
consumption (kW) x ($/kWh) = annual energy cost
[(6.5hr/day) x (250days/yr) x (150watts)]/1000 = 243.75 kWh
annual energy consumption (243.75 kWh) x ($0.07/kWh) = $17 per year
A CRT monitor costs $17 per year in electricity. Using the above calculations for a flat screen monitor with the following data:
Time Use – hours/day: 6.2 (to account for sleep time)
Time Use – days/year: (52weeks/yr – 2weeks vacation/yr) x (5days/wk) => 250 days/year> Monitor Watts: 50
Cost per kWh: $0.07
A flat panel monitor costs $5.40 per year electricity.
To determine your annual energy usage, use the wattage values printed on the back/bottom of the two monitors you are comparing. To determine the Time Usage for a CRT that goes to sleep, use an average value of time based on the % time the monitor is awake/asleep.
Additional Information ->> Many resources can be found where the energy efficiency of flat screen monitors is touted. Several of these sites are:
UC Irvine News, March 14, 2001 ->
http://www.today.uci.edu/ucinews/0314f4.html
National Renewable Energy Laboratory -> http://www.nrel.gov/sustainable_nrel/energy_saving.html
While the EPA Monitor Power Management Calculator is helpful in> computing cost savings on the basis of certain criteria, this calculation does not allow you to calculate costs based on monitor type.
http://yosemite1.epa.gov/Estar/consumers.nsf/content/powercalculator.htm
I used the following search terms: flat, screen, panel, monitor, energy use, efficiency, watts, utility, cost, electricity.
One more article is : http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/07/11/stories/2006071102140400.htm>>>
Another article on this is:
http://savingenergy.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/saving-energy-one-monitor-at-a-time/
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Computing Green - Chennai
[article source: The Hindustan Times, February 19, 2008]
Is the south greener than the north? So it seems, as far as construction is concerned. According to a report released by real estate consultancy Jones Lang LaSalle Meghraj on Tuesday, Chennai leads in India in terms of the number as well as the total volume of certified green building space.
Out of the 17 LEED — Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a green building rating system developed by the US Green Building Council — certified buildings in the country, Chennai alone is home to eight of them. This accounts for 67.3 per cent of the total green building space in India.
The ‘India Green Buildings Anthology’ report makes another startling revelation. Contrary to what most people think, in the context of the Asia Pacific region, India is ahead of China both in terms of projects certified as well as registered under LEED. While India has 17, China has only 4 certified projects.
However, experts say that the total area of green buildings registered in China exceeds that of India as large township projects as well as the Olympic Games infrastructure are going in for green certification, says the Jones Lang LaSalle Meghraj report.
Coming back to India, Kolkata is second only to Chennai with 15.7 per cent share of the total green building space, even though it has only one green building, the Technopolis.
However, with a total size of 6,50,000 square feet, the project assumes colossal proportions.
Kolkata is closely followed by the National Capital Region in the ranking with a 8.7 per cent share in the total area spread over three projects. Mumbai comes fourth with only one project and a share of 2.9 per cent. Other cities where certified green buildings have been built are Kochi, Hyderabad and Gulbarga.
“This shows that apart from the major metropolitan cities, projects registered for green building certification are spread far and wide across the country in around 12 smaller cities and towns,” the report points out.
Also, apart from residential, healthcare and hospitality projects joining the bandwagon, there are some examples of large infrastructure and township development projects also going green.
Of mention are the Hyderabad International Airport Passenger Terminal as well as an integrated township in Asansol that have been registered as green buildings, says the report.
>> If you want to know more, check this link
Monday, February 04, 2008
Harbhajan - Symonds ... et al
Check out the video tape released by the Indian and the Australian cricket boards w.r.t the incident.
[Video source: Youtube - Link provided in the header of this post.]
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Rationale thinking - Players in the Balance
What started out as a fantastic series is fast disappearing into one of 'the' most noted series (for a lot of unforgettable moments) in the history of the sport of Cricket.
Everyone has been highly opinionated - either taking sides on Harbhajan, or with Symonds, Ponting & Hogg. We hear Navjot Sidhu telling "It is not about Cricket; it is about National Honor" - well, we all know how he can voice his opinions, even when he doesn't know anything concrete about it. On the other side, we hear the CAB backing their side, and we know that both the CAB and its players have, for years long, voicing their opinions on the field, sledging the opponents (and the umpires), making intimidation a part of their reportoire.
Now, where is the balance?
Everyone is highly caught up with 'defending' their country and player(s), and while they are doing it, it appears that they have lost rationale thinking. Blindly supporting either side is not going to give us a solution.
So, why was Bucknor was taken out of the Perth test? Has no other umpire made wrong decisions in any other test or one day international in the history of cricket? Has no other team lost or won a test match because of wrong decision taken in the heat of the moment by an umpire? What are we accomplishing by this?
We all talk about the stress on the bowler and the batsman, and the runs that the fielders give away. But, the most difficult job on the cricket field is held by the Umpire on the 22-yard turf. He has to:
1. Count the number of deliveries bowled in an over
2. Count the extras, and the runs scored by a batsman
3. Give No-Balls, Wides, and other extra runs that would make the bowlers frown
4. Check for any variations caused by the players to the turf
and, most importantly,
5. Give appeals for LBW, for the bat-pad catches, for the catches taken by the fielders which appear to have been grounded - ALL IN A MATTER OF SECONDS.
How many of us would be able to do that job precisely, whether we have done it for one year or 20 years? Everybody has a bad day. Everybody makes a wrong decision. Everybody plays an important part in winning / losing the game.
If we go against the umpires who have given wrong decisions all these years, we wouldn't have any umpires, leave alone an ICC Elite Panel of umpires.
Everybody would remember the India-Australia match at Sharjah on April 24,1998, where Sachin scored 134. We had 27 runs to win with 5 overs to spare. You might argue that it is not as close as it gets, but it still was a close game. Sachin was given LBW to a ball which was pitching on the 6th or 7th stump, by umpire Javed Akhtar. But the Indians did not argue that day, because they won the match. What would have happened if the Indians lost the match? Would we have argued against Javed Akhtar, alleging that he was a Pakistani and because of that gave decisions against the Indians? Would we have stopped playing against Pakistan? Or, would we have made allegations of Match-fixing like Ali Bacher of the South African Cricket Board did?
There have been lot of instances similar to the recent one in Australia. The only exception to this has been the on-field credibility displayed by the players. We don't know whether Harbhajan called Symonds by any name, or whether Symonds instigated Harbhajan.
However, we could see one thing from the video telecast of the test match - Ponting did not take the catch. Ponting is one of the greatest players in the Cricket history, undoubtedly. But his on-field and off-field compatibility with the opponents is miserable. It appears that there is no 'team spirit' in him; everything he wants is - to win more matches, to get Australia more victories. And he is willing to take chances, come what may. And, that is the attitude that is questionable. And, nobody, not the players, not the CAB can do anything about it. Only Ponting has to realise that its high time he changes his perspective on things, and becomes a better individual.
The Indian board could not have asked for a better chance to show its patriotism. The players could not have asked for a bigger distraction from their own pathetic display in the second innings at Sydney. Two batsmen got poor decisions. What about the others? Is batting through two sessions to save a Test? And, we call ourselves the greatest batting line-up in the world? It is all so convenient.
It is time that players of both teams become men and take things into their hands and move on and play better cricket rather than slashing each other through the media and their boards.
If this is the state of cricket for years to come, we would be the examples of what Churchill said - "11 fools are playing; 11,000 fools are watching". Only in this case, the well paid 11 fools are backed by 11 billion fools.
Everyone has been highly opinionated - either taking sides on Harbhajan, or with Symonds, Ponting & Hogg. We hear Navjot Sidhu telling "It is not about Cricket; it is about National Honor" - well, we all know how he can voice his opinions, even when he doesn't know anything concrete about it. On the other side, we hear the CAB backing their side, and we know that both the CAB and its players have, for years long, voicing their opinions on the field, sledging the opponents (and the umpires), making intimidation a part of their reportoire.
Now, where is the balance?
Everyone is highly caught up with 'defending' their country and player(s), and while they are doing it, it appears that they have lost rationale thinking. Blindly supporting either side is not going to give us a solution.
So, why was Bucknor was taken out of the Perth test? Has no other umpire made wrong decisions in any other test or one day international in the history of cricket? Has no other team lost or won a test match because of wrong decision taken in the heat of the moment by an umpire? What are we accomplishing by this?
We all talk about the stress on the bowler and the batsman, and the runs that the fielders give away. But, the most difficult job on the cricket field is held by the Umpire on the 22-yard turf. He has to:
1. Count the number of deliveries bowled in an over
2. Count the extras, and the runs scored by a batsman
3. Give No-Balls, Wides, and other extra runs that would make the bowlers frown
4. Check for any variations caused by the players to the turf
and, most importantly,
5. Give appeals for LBW, for the bat-pad catches, for the catches taken by the fielders which appear to have been grounded - ALL IN A MATTER OF SECONDS.
How many of us would be able to do that job precisely, whether we have done it for one year or 20 years? Everybody has a bad day. Everybody makes a wrong decision. Everybody plays an important part in winning / losing the game.
If we go against the umpires who have given wrong decisions all these years, we wouldn't have any umpires, leave alone an ICC Elite Panel of umpires.
Everybody would remember the India-Australia match at Sharjah on April 24,1998, where Sachin scored 134. We had 27 runs to win with 5 overs to spare. You might argue that it is not as close as it gets, but it still was a close game. Sachin was given LBW to a ball which was pitching on the 6th or 7th stump, by umpire Javed Akhtar. But the Indians did not argue that day, because they won the match. What would have happened if the Indians lost the match? Would we have argued against Javed Akhtar, alleging that he was a Pakistani and because of that gave decisions against the Indians? Would we have stopped playing against Pakistan? Or, would we have made allegations of Match-fixing like Ali Bacher of the South African Cricket Board did?
There have been lot of instances similar to the recent one in Australia. The only exception to this has been the on-field credibility displayed by the players. We don't know whether Harbhajan called Symonds by any name, or whether Symonds instigated Harbhajan.
However, we could see one thing from the video telecast of the test match - Ponting did not take the catch. Ponting is one of the greatest players in the Cricket history, undoubtedly. But his on-field and off-field compatibility with the opponents is miserable. It appears that there is no 'team spirit' in him; everything he wants is - to win more matches, to get Australia more victories. And he is willing to take chances, come what may. And, that is the attitude that is questionable. And, nobody, not the players, not the CAB can do anything about it. Only Ponting has to realise that its high time he changes his perspective on things, and becomes a better individual.
The Indian board could not have asked for a better chance to show its patriotism. The players could not have asked for a bigger distraction from their own pathetic display in the second innings at Sydney. Two batsmen got poor decisions. What about the others? Is batting through two sessions to save a Test? And, we call ourselves the greatest batting line-up in the world? It is all so convenient.
It is time that players of both teams become men and take things into their hands and move on and play better cricket rather than slashing each other through the media and their boards.
If this is the state of cricket for years to come, we would be the examples of what Churchill said - "11 fools are playing; 11,000 fools are watching". Only in this case, the well paid 11 fools are backed by 11 billion fools.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Portrait
Portrait of my parents drawn by an excellent Screever near Rockefeller Center on
January 6, 2008. He drew it in around 25-30 minutes....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)