### My Thoughts on the Narendra Modi Government: Reflection After 11 Years

As someone who's followed Indian politics closely, I've been increasingly disillusioned with the Narendra Modi government's performance over its three terms since 2014. While the BJP and its supporters hail Modi as a transformative leader, I see a regime that's delivered on a narrow ideological agenda but failed miserably in broader economic, social, and geopolitical spheres. In these 11 years, the government has fulfilled two key promises from the RSS playbook—the Ayodhya Ram Temple and the abrogation of Article 370—but the third, the Uniform Civil Code, remains stalled nationally. Economically, it's clung to socialist policies reminiscent of past governments, providing superficial stability without bold reforms, and succumbing to the very "revadi" culture Modi once criticized. Disasters like demonetization, backtracks on land and farm reforms, and a lack of big ideas have left India far short of its potential. Geopolitically, despite Modi's globe-trotting and claims of being a "Vishwaguru," India is weaker today than in 2014, with strained ties to neighbors and major powers alike. Sure, there's been some infrastructure progress, but net-net, we're a nation adrift, burdened by inequality, unemployment, and unfulfilled promises. Let me break this down with facts to back my views.

#### The Ideological Wins: Hollow Victories in a Divided Nation

I'll give credit where it's due: the Modi government has ticked off two major items from the Sangh Parivar's wishlist. The construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya was a long-standing demand, and its inauguration in January 2024 was portrayed as a cultural renaissance.

Similarly, the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special status and bifurcated it into union territories, was sold as integrating the region fully into India. On paper, it allowed non-residents to buy land and access jobs. However even in 2025, security remains precarious. Without granting Kashmir its statehood, the “peace” is uncalm.

And then there's the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), the third pillar of the RSS agenda, which has been conveniently shoved to the backburner nationally. Despite promises in BJP manifestos, as of August 2025, there's no central legislation. Uttarakhand implemented a state-level UCC in January 2025, covering marriage, divorce, and inheritance but exempting tribals, and Gujarat formed a committee, but that's it—no nationwide push. The Law Commission is still "consulting," but debates on religious freedoms have stalled it. In my opinion, this delay exposes the government's hypocrisy—bold on divisive issues but timid when it risks broader backlash. These ideological "wins" have solidified the BJP's core vote bank, but they've come at the expense of national unity, leaving India more polarized than ever.

#### Economic Stagnation: Socialist Policies and Missed Opportunities

One of my biggest gripes is how the Modi government hasn't broken from the socialist mold of previous regimes. Financially, it's business as usual—big government spending, high deficits, and welfare bloat—despite Modi's early rhetoric of "minimum government, maximum governance." Political stability from BJP majorities should have enabled radical reforms, but instead, we've seen complacency. India's GDP has grown to about $3.91 trillion in 2025, with Q1 FY25-26 growth at 7.8%, but this masks deep flaws. Unemployment is alarmingly high at 5.1-5.6% overall and 6.5-7.1% in urban areas, with youth joblessness at 15%, driving despair and even suicides. Inequality has worsened, with the top 1% holding 40% of wealth, and rural distress persists.

Major reforms? Hardly. GST in 2017 unified taxes, but collections at ₹1.7 lakh crore monthly haven't translated to broad prosperity. The Insolvency Code resolved some bad loans, but overall, manufacturing's GDP share is stuck at 15-16%, and exports lag. Demonetization in 2016 was a catastrophe—wiping out 1-2% of GDP growth, decimating informal jobs (45% lost in hit sectors), and failing to curb black money as 99.3% of notes returned. It's a prime example of poorly thought-out policies that hurt the vulnerable most.

Fiscal deficits at 6-7% of GDP, are unsustainable, funded by borrowing that burdens future generations. Per capita income has risen, but not enough to compete with China, and the government's hype about becoming the third-largest economy by 2030 ignores the jobs crisis—10-12 million new entrants annually with few opportunities. In my view, Modi has squandered stability on incremental tweaks rather than transformative liberalization, leaving India vulnerable in a perilous 2025.

#### Succumbing to Revadi Culture: A Sign of Weak Leadership

Modi once railed against "revadi" culture in 2022, calling freebies fiscally ruinous and a ploy to buy votes. Yet, his government has embraced it wholeheartedly, revealing weakness despite absolute power in earlier terms. Schemes like PM-KISAN (₹6,000 to 11 crore farmers) and free rations for 80 crore (extended to 2028) cost ₹11 lakh crore in 2024 alone. Ayushman Bharat and Awas Yojana are expansive, but they're band-aids on systemic issues like healthcare and housing shortages.

BJP states now dole out free gas cylinders and power, mimicking opposition "freebies" Modi criticized. This hypocrisy strains budgets—states like Punjab and Delhi are debt-laden—and diverts funds from productive investments. Welfare helped during COVID, reducing extreme poverty to 2%, but it's unsustainable, pushing fiscal distress. In my opinion, this U-turn shows Modi's electoral desperation, especially post-2024 setbacks, prioritizing short-term gains over long-term fiscal health.

#### Backtracking on Reforms: No Big Ideas, Just Retreats

The government's retreats on key reforms scream indecision. The 2020 farm laws, meant to liberalize markets, were scrapped in 2021 after protests that claimed over 700 lives. Farmers feared corporate takeover, and without alternatives by 2025, agriculture remains inefficient, MSP demands unmet.

Land reforms? The 2015 ordinance eased acquisitions but lapsed amid opposition, reverting to the cumbersome 2013 Act. This has stalled industrial growth. Even lateral entry in bureaucracy was withdrawn in 2024. These flip-flops, despite majorities, show a leader afraid of confrontation, leaving India without the "big ideas" needed for progress.

#### Geopolitical Failures: From Vishwaguru to Isolated Player

Modi's traveled more than any PM, visiting 70+ countries, and flaunted the 2023 G20 as India's moment. But claims of global respect ring hollow—India is worse off geopolitically in 2025 than 2014. Neighbors are alienated: Bangladesh pivoted to China and Pakistan after Sheikh Hasina's 2024 ouster, demanding her extradition and straining ties. Nepal's border disputes flared in 2020 and persist; Pakistan relations are frozen since 2016, with a 2025 crisis escalating to missile strikes.

China? Border clashes since 2020's Galwan remain unresolved despite partial disengagement and Modi's August 2025 visit—the first in seven years. Trade deficits balloon, and security concerns limit cooperation.

Europe critiques human rights; Russia ties are strong but pressured by US sanctions. The US, under Trump, slapped 50% tariffs on Indian goods in August 2025 over Russian oil imports, threatening $48.2 billion in exports and souring relations. This "low moment" exposes Modi's non-alignment as isolationist folly.

#### Infrastructure Gains: A Silver Lining That's Not Enough

Infrastructure has improved—highways doubled to 1.46 lakh km, airports to 157, and ₹11.21 lakh crore budgeted for 2025-26 capex. But even here, it's uneven: rural connectivity lags, and projects often overrun costs. FDI hit $81B in 2024, but it's concentrated in urban areas, exacerbating divides. In my view, this is window-dressing—necessary but insufficient to offset broader failures.

#### Net Assessment: A Weaker India in 2025

After 11 years, Modi's government has left India economically strained, socially divided, and geopolitically weakened. Growth at 6.5-7% is touted, but masks unemployment, inequality, and policy U-turns. Ideological triumphs are pyrrhic, welfare populism hypocritical, and global standing diminished. Modi survived through publicity, but his regime has failed on promises, exposing leadership limits. For India to thrive, we need accountability, not hype.

Reclaiming Sita

The narrative of Sita, as etched in the original Valmiki Ramayana, is a masterpiece of character development, presenting a woman of profound strength, fierce intellect, and unyielding agency. Far from the meek and submissive figure often portrayed in later retellings, Valmiki's Sita is a dynamic heroine who challenges authority, critiques moral failings, and fearlessly asserts her own will. Her character stands as a testament to the progressive ideals of its time, offering a nuanced and powerful portrayal that was subsequently "watered down" in more devotional, and arguably patriarchal, versions like Tulsidas's Ramcharitmanas. To truly understand the progressive spirit of Valmiki's epic, it is crucial to delve into the specific instances where Sita's voice, her critiques of her husband, and her defiance of societal norms shine brightest. It is this authentic, progressive Sita whose story we must share with the girls and young women of today.

From the moment of Rama's exile, Sita’s agency is on full display. When the news of his banishment reaches her, she is not a passive recipient of fate but an active participant in their shared destiny. Her husband, in a well-intentioned but patriarchal gesture, attempts to dissuade her from accompanying him, painting a picture of the dangers and hardships of forest life. He frames her role as being to serve his parents in Ayodhya and wait for his return. Sita’s response is a landmark moment in the epic. She delivers a powerful and eloquent monologue that is a masterclass in challenging patriarchal assumptions. She argues that the hardships he speaks of are trivial compared to the agony of separation. "What joy can I have in palaces and luxuries when you are not there?" she asks. She goes further, chastising Rama for speaking "like a common man" who fails to understand the true essence of marriage.¹ A wife, she argues, is not a possession to be left behind, but an intrinsic part of her husband's being. She asserts her fundamental right to share in his life, both in fortune and in misfortune, declaring, "A wife's devotion is her greatest strength, and my place is by your side." Her powerful, logical, and emotionally charged arguments leave Rama with no choice but to concede. This scene is a profound statement of her self-worth and her refusal to have her life dictated by others, even her beloved husband.

 

Sita’s intellectual and moral authority is most vividly highlighted in her critical questioning of Rama's actions. In the Aranya Kanda, after the couple has settled in the forest, they are approached by sages who beg for Rama's protection against the rakshasas (demons) who are disrupting their sacred rituals. Rama, ever the righteous prince, readily agrees to use his divine bow to eliminate the threats. Sita, however, does not silently approve of this. Instead, she initiates a philosophical debate with Rama, raising a series of profound questions that challenge the very nature of his duty. She meticulously lays out her concerns, arguing that a hermit, living a life of self-restraint and non-violence, should not be wielding a weapon. Her logic is unassailable: "A king's duty is to protect, but a hermit's is to live without harming. You are in exile, living as a hermit, not a king. Is it proper to carry arms when you are meant to live in peace?" This is a breathtaking display of her moral fortitude; she is unafraid to hold her husband accountable to a higher ethical standard.

She then advances a more dangerous and psychologically astute argument. She warns Rama about the corrupting influence of violence itself. "The very sight of a weapon can incite a desire to use it," she says. She feared that the act of killing, even if justified, could harden his heart and turn him into the very thing he was fighting against. She even questions whether killing beings who had not personally wronged them was an act of true righteousness. She feared that by becoming a killer, even of demons, Rama would lose his own moral purity. This line of questioning—“how are you any different from them?”—is an astonishingly prescient and modern-sounding critique of the moral compromises of war. This is not a conversation between a man and a submissive wife, but a debate between two equals on a matter of profound philosophical importance.

The stark contrast between Valmiki's Sita and the Sita of later retellings is nowhere more evident than in the absence of the Lakshman Rekha in the original epic. This widely popular motif, which blames Sita's abduction on her transgression of a boundary drawn by Lakshman, is a later addition, most prominently featured in the Ramcharitmanas. In Valmiki's version, Sita is abducted through pure deceit. Ravana, disguised as a mendicant, tricks her into a moment of vulnerability, but her downfall is not a result of her own disobedience. She is driven by the virtue of offering alms, an act of compassion. By introducing the Lakshman Rekha, Tulsidas’s narrative subtly but significantly shifts the blame onto Sita, implying that her misfortune was a direct consequence of her own failure to adhere to a man's command. This narrative change serves to water down her agency and promote a regressive idea that a woman’s security is contingent on her submission to male authority, a message that stands in direct opposition to the fearless, strong-willed Sita of Valmiki.

Sita's unyielding strength is further showcased in her defiant refusal to be a trembling victim in Ravana's palace. She is not a passive captive; she is a defiant woman who consistently and eloquently rejects Ravana's advances. She scoffs at his power, mocks his arrogance, and tells him to his face that his doom is sealed by her husband's hand. When he threatens to eat her, she is not terrified but composed, declaring that she would rather die than be his wife. Her refusal to be intimidated and her unflinching loyalty to Rama are a profound display of her mental fortitude and self-respect.

The tragic climax of her story, the Agni Pariksha, is often misconstrued as a moment of submission. In Valmiki’s hands, it is anything but. When Rama coldly declares that he cannot accept her back immediately, citing the need for public proof of her purity, Sita’s response is a torrent of heart-wrenching anger and righteous indignation. She tells him that his words have pierced her heart like a lance. She asks him why he is judging her based on rumor rather than on his intimate knowledge of her character. She then voluntarily enters the fire, not as a submissive wife proving her innocence to a suspicious husband, but as a woman making a final, tragic assertion of her honor and dignity. Her act is an ultimatum, a powerful statement that if her purity is questioned, she has no place in a world that would dishonor her.

This spirit of defiant self-respect culminates in the final act of the epic. After a second, unjust exile, Sita is living with her sons in the hermitage of Valmiki. When Rama, upon discovering his sons, invites her back, she delivers her final, unwavering refusal. She declares that she has endured enough humiliation and public scrutiny. Instead of returning to a life where her virtue will forever be questioned, she gives one last, poignant speech and asks her mother, Mother Earth, to take her back. Her final act is not a suicide, but a profound and ultimate assertion of her agency. She chooses her own end, refusing to be a victim of circumstance or public opinion any longer.

Valmiki's Sita is a feminist icon before the term existed. She is intelligent, outspoken, fiercely loyal, and unafraid to challenge the men in her life on matters of ethics and duty. Her character provides a powerful model for young women today, teaching them that strength is not about physical prowess but about moral clarity, intellectual independence, and the courage to demand respect. Her story is a timeless lesson that a woman's voice should never be silenced, her choices should be her own, and her dignity should be inviolable. To reclaim and spread the story of Valmiki's progressive Sita is to honor a narrative that has been a beacon of female strength for millennia and to empower a new generation of girls to find their own strong, unflinching voices.

However in the end we should also appreciate that Tulsidas's portrayal of a less "strong" Sita was not a mistake but a deliberate and calculated choice driven by his theological, socio-political, and literary goals. He had to create a version of the epic that was accessible to the masses, centered on a divine and infallible Rama, and that reinforced the devotional and social ideals of his time. It has to be noted that Tulsidasji wrote his version in 16^th Century where Mughuls were ruling it. The concept of Laxman Rekha to keep Site in “Maryada” was a social necessity. The addition of the Lakshman Rekha in Tulsidas's version is a prime example of his didactic and moralizing approach. It serves as a simple and powerful metaphor for the dangers of crossing boundaries—both physical and social. For a society grappling with instability, this narrative provided a clear, cautionary tale about the importance of order and adherence to norms. The blame for the abduction is subtly shifted from pure evil (Ravana) to Sita's momentary lapse in judgment, which reinforces a social message about obedience and the consequences of straying from prescribed behavior. The times (of 16^th Century) required re-shaping Sita from Valmiki's complex, questioning heroine into a submissive but spiritually powerful consort, whose strength lay in her unwavering and unconditional devotion to her divine husband. 

DIVERSITY OF INDIA AND CURIOUS CASE OF “STUPID” RISHABH

 

Hindustan/ India/ Bharat has been a land of Hindus for time immemorial.  Without going too deep, it can be said that it is well accepted that  to call “Hinduism” a “Religion” is also a stretch of imagination. This is because unlike the monotheistic religions where there is acceptance of only one God (mark that G is capital), Hindus never have had one God. In Monotheistic  religions you have only one God, there are these set of rules (commandments if wish to refer to them as) and then there one life. You live life as much as possible following these rules and then there will be a judgement day.  It is therefore an endeavor to live the most “correct” life  as possible as per the set of rules laid down. Conformity to the rules and following one God is hallmark of such religions. Christianity, Islam and Judaism emerge from this school of thought. Now compare that to Hinduism where core to the belief is the idea of “rebirth” (which is a metaphor for cyclic nature).  In Hinduism one believes in nature everything is there for a reason. There is no judgement. Hunger is the primary driver of our actions. If the tiger is hungry, it will eat sheep. If as a human we prevent Tiger from eating the sheep, we are in turn killing the tiger who will die of starvation. Hence there is no judgement as well here. Hunger demands food and actions for the same cannot be judged. “Imagination” differentiates us from animals. However Hindus firmly believe in Karma. All actions will have a consequence. Hindus have lived their lives across the country believing in their own “gods” which could be a tree, an animal, a mountain, a statue. Since there is no beginning or an end and no judgement, Hindus have been diverse. Hindus have also followed their own different ways of life for example a dalit from Kashmir has nothing in common with dalit of Tamil Nadu.

 

India has been barraged with a lot of influences from people from the monotheistic religions and have unsuccessfully tried to convert Hindus/ India to a uniform block. It is for all practical purpose, it is easy to govern a uniform society rather than a diverse one. It can be argued it will be more efficient way of governing. Businesses also like uniformity. Let us take an example here. If you were to market a detergent in India, wont a businessman ideally like one language of communication and one sensibility. Makes for an easier way of doing business.

 

Same is the case for politicians. Present dispensation who has been funded by the “Hindu Vegetarian Merchant class” has also strived for the homogeneity. So be it one Nation- One national language, one education curriculum. In fact if the present dispensation would have its way we would have to declare India a vegetarian country by now. They have already declared some parts of India, alcohol free (as if in Hinduism alcohol is prohibited). BJP under Modi has even tried to reduce Hinduism to one avatar of Vishnu, RAM. Mind you no Sita, Laxman or Hanuman  with Ram in the Ram temple. Or lets say since it’s a Ram Lalla temple then no mother of Ram? They would like to talk about Krishna but not Radha. Radha is a difficult relation to explain through their world view. So you shall find absence of Radha from BJP under Modi. The present dispensation obviously would like to claim  the politics of BR Ambedkar but would never address the core issue BR Ambedkar had with his understanding of Hinduism. BJP under Modi would like sameness as diversity is too complex for them to handle.

With the tone of the passage so far it would be clear, I am fan of  diversity. I grew up in Nashik where near by we have Shree Saptashrungi Shaktipeeth. It is common practice there to offer goat as sacrifice. She is reverent to me. I also happen to be son of north Indian Parents who revere Vishnav Devi of Katra. Non Vegiterian food is strictly prohibited at her place. I have lived in peace with both the ideas. No judgement. No one was correct and no one was  incorrect. In India, in Hinduism there is not correct or wrong way of living life. In fact there are no judgements. Nature does not operate that ways.

Yet in other walks of lives, Indian Hindus or Indians in general have become monotheistic. Cricket (Test Cricket)  is a way of life. The way you play cricket tells a lot about you. In cricket there is a coaching book issued by MCC. MCC is the club who are self appointed custodians of Cricket and own the famous Cricket ground Lords. It tells you have to hold a bat, how much to open up legs. Which shot to play and when. It tells you the run up you need to have as a fast bowler, the jump, the rotation of the arms everything. MCC in England obviously are inspired by their monotheistic way have prescribed the way game is to be played. I must confess I haven’t read the book 1^st hand but over the years listening to experts have figured out that a number 9 is expected to be formed in your stance while playing a cover drive. I know by hearing what a smooth fast baling action looks like.

 

The problem arises when there is someone who does not follow these rules. Shewag is the name that comes to the mind when we talk about someone who did not follow the rules. His feet hardly moved but he made that up with excellent hand eye co ordination. Moreover his obsession to get to milestones with 6s made him a outlier. The coaching books was thrown out of window more often than not. He scored  some of India’s biggest scores in Test cricket. However he disrupted the way the test cricket was played at the top. People “judged” him against the coaching manual and he was found guilty of not following the same. The man who played more than 100 tests for India with an average of 49+ did not get a proper send off. In 122 tests Virat Kohli has an average of 47.2. Despite that it is safe to say that Shewag never enjoyed the popularity that was bestowed on Virat. While we like to pride our self as a diverse society, we have turned monotheistic due to our education.  

 

Another outlier that comes to mind in who paid the price of who he was the cricket he played was Kevin Pietersen. The man made “Switch hits” popular. However he questioned the way cricket was being played by England at the time. He paid the price and was not allowed to play at least 3-4 years of cricket.

 

People from India who are supposed to embrace diversity suddenly turn to monotheism when it comes to cricket. This is a good place to talk about Rishabh Pant. Rishabh, we all know, is a free spirit who likes to take the match to the opposition. He works hard on his unconventional technique. It is a testimony of his dedication that he is playing at pinnacle of the cricket after the life threatening accident. He is a fighter. He backs himself and his technique to counter punch  any bowler and any situation. In the last tour of India to Australia in 2022, he won game for India from place where no one saw it coming. Players like Pant who are exceptionally talented and work hard on their skill are no doubt different from the ones you get out of coaching manual. They are who they are because of the way they think and the way they execute their skills. In the 1^st innings of the MCG test when he got out playing a falling flick, he was called “Stupid, Stupid, Stupid” by none other than Sunil Gavaskar. It was understandable. Sunilji played his cricket exactly as was written in the “Commandments of cricket”. His criticism should be taken with a pinch of salt especially because he is also an very old man now. However I saw people who otherwise seem to be normal Indians, who cannot embrace the diversity of idea that Rishabh brings to table,  react rather violently to that shot. One of my close mates mocked the shot by showing us the demonstration. (the demonstration was not good as it takes skills to play the shot and fall the was pant does). These are people who are working at top 1% organisations of the world where they make a conscious effort to be diverse. They are Hindu Indians who are supposed to embrace the chaos that comes with diversity and yet when it comes to unconventional players, it is thrown out of window.

 

My problem with this criticism of Rishabh is as under

·         Just because the shot is not in your manual it cannot be termed wrong. We Indian wont follow the “commandments” of Cricket.

·         If a player has practiced a shot (like KP had done with switch hit) and plays it with good percentages, it is wrong to talk ill about it till the time Risk to reward ratio is skewed in wrong direction.

·         What you cannot understand cannot be wrong. It is lack of your imagination. To link the success of such shots to luck is undermining the hard work of the athlete who has developed innovative shot to get an advantage over his rival

·         I also hear that if Pant needs to play the game he does he needs to come down the order. He cannot play that game at 5. The simple counter is if no, 4 can get out 90%  times playing a 5% shot Pant can play his game at 5 without any issue. His records shows he has been successful doing so.

 

Over this series Virat got out 9 out of 10 times playing cover drive. Every time cheaply. There is absolutely no percentage in that shot for him and yet he was not called stupid. The same friend failed to demonstrate the “Cover drive” of Virat.  Why ?  May be because a cover drive is in  the book and no matter how many times you fail playing it, you cannot be “Stupid” playing it. Why ? Why is Virat not called Stupid playing the cover drive when he doesn’t know how to play it.

 

Manjrekar rightly said, one cannot judge Pant by the way he get out. Currency of Cricket is Runs and Wickets. If you have to criticize Pant do it when he isn’t scoring enough runs.

 

Diversity is supposed to corner stone of Indian ethos. The Hindu ethos is respecting and acknowledging what you do not know. India has failed Rishabh Pant by reacting the way they did. Gautam Gambhir, the coach, would be an idiot if expects a horse to walk like a donkey or vice versa.  As a coach he needs to use the different styles each player brings and divert it for the well being of the team. There is no one way to live life. There is no one way to play test cricket! Embrace diversity is my message to all who have read this so far.

My 2 cents of advice to Rishabh Pant : STAY  STUPID  ….. STAY HUNGRY !!!!

The fall of My hero

 

When I was studying for Engineering, I distinctly remember my brown folder in which I would keep papers for submissions. At its cover - on the top I had neatly stuck a half A4 size close pic of Mohammad Azharuddin with his Reebok bat. The picture was cut with great care as and I took time and pain to cut the part where Azhar’s body and bat was extracted. Those were also the days when I had 3 Sportstar posters of Azhar in my room.

In the 90s, Sachin had truly arrived. It was natural that Sachin was the declared love of most who followed cricket. However most of these romantics of the game had another “forbidden love”. Mohammed Azharuddin. For me he was my first love. In fact people of a certain vintage will hate to confess their love for Mohammed Azharuddin in cricket and Sonali Bendre in films.

My first memories of cricket are from 1986 World cup and there abouts. I remember a small booklet of Indian players representing India in the world cup in the Hindi “Cricket Samrat”. It was mentioned on Azhar’s page that during that time he was the only cricketer in the world to have scored 3 hundreds in his first 3 tests. As a matter of fact that record still holds till such date.

We can talk about his statistics and records. There is a bit of tragedy in there. He played 99 tests for India. Not 100.  But 99!!!! When he had to be done with his career, he had played more ODIs than anyone else in the history of cricket at that time. For a while he had been the most loved cricketer in the country. There was an innocence about him, a shyness that was startling, even irritating in an international superstar. He burst into tears when sledged in Australia. He was God-fearing, polite, soft-spoken, modest - all the qualities Indian fans love in a player. And he used the cricket bat like a magic wand, seeming to merely wave it over the ball to send it to the boundary. There was a gentleness to it; even the fiercest drives never screamed or imitated tracer bullets. His wrists brought back memories of Gundappa Viswanath and even Ranjitsinhji, especially for those like me who hadn't seen these greats play. How could you not love him? And man did I love him!

One cannot talk about Azharuddin  and  now talk about “Wrists”  of M Azharuddin. The joint between the hand and the forearm – the wrist – gives humans a degree of dexterity and flexibility. When an artist leverages the benefits of the wrist and makes use of this “rare” art, magic is created. Take the wrist-play out of Mohammad Azharuddin and you would take away the soul from his batting. His batting was delectable to the eye when he was in full flow. The struggles made him look ordinary. But Azharuddin, throughout his career, was the harbinger of the hope that a miracle was around the corner. When on song, he would decimate the opposition, not with brute force, but with silken touch.

Similarly, one cannot talk about M Azharuddin and then not speak of his fielding. He can extraordinary in gully. His slip catching could only be matched by Mark Waugh till such day. The speed with which he would reach the ball, the release of the ball with wrists from back of the body …. Man there was a swagger even on the field. He definitely had a swagger with his walk, his collar half up. This was however not the Viv Richards kind of swagger. It was confident and yet not flamboyant. It was an Indian swag which was confident but respectful to others.

When it comes to his best innings people will point out the 1^st 3 hundreds in Calcutta, Chennai and Kanpur followed by 93 Not out on his ODI debut against Pakistan in Benson and Hedges world championship or or his Adelaide hundred in  92. What I remember is his defiant innings in 1996 in Eden Gardens when he hit Lance Klusener for 4 fours in an over. India lost that test and the series was on the line. Azhar scored a quick 163 in Kanpur to set up 2-1 series win. Immediately in a month India was playing tests in South Africa. In the 2^nd test at Cape Town, Azhar and Sachin’s partnership of 230 is the story for the ages. Azhar was at his aggressive best scoring a 110 ball 115. Yes it was a test match. Such stories were not new with Azhar’s batting. In 1988, Azhar smashed the then fastest ODI century bringing up his hundred off 62 balls against New Zealand. In 1996, he equalled Kapil Dev’s record for the fastest test 100 which he smashed in 74 balls! He also has scored 100 runs by himself in a session in 1990 against England in England.

So here was the rockstar of Indian cricket who captained for a long period of time and yet when he scored a test 100 in South Africa in his 99^th Test, the Match fixing scandal broke out. Not that this was totally unexpected. 81 All out chasing 120 at Bridgetown was a reminder. Many in Indian cricket knew, India was losing matches it should have one. The Hansie Cronje revelations and CBI report came with Tehalka revelations. BCCI banned Azhar from playing for life. While the life ban was lifted later but Azhar’s career came to an end diametrically opposite the way it started. The heart break for fans like me was enormous. I lost my cricketing innocence. I was disillusioned and didn’t watch the game for almost 6 months to a year. He did not betray the country but every fan of his.

To make it worse, he has never publicly acknowledged the mistake. On the contrary he remarked that he was being targeted as he was a minority. Truth cannot be far from this. Someone even like a Balasaheb Thackrey had called the former captain “An Ideal Muslim”.

Millions like me have had their hearts broken and unfortunately the closure never came. Azhar has never acknowledged the mistake. In fact a butchered and low grade movie makes the closure even more difficult. It was the 1^st hear break and one has still not be able to close it and move on. Even now like an old lover, when one quietly snoops at his batting videos, one cannot but forget the truth and immerse in his artistic batting. Like most love stories, this story ended with a tragedy and no closure.

My hero had fallen !  

UNBURDENING OF KOHLI : MASTERSTROKE

Act 1 : Melbourne Cricket ground is filled with 90,000 spectators for 1^st T20 World Cup encounter between arch rivals India and Pakistan. Pakistan had scored 160 in 1^st innings on a swinging day. India were 45/4 at the end of 10 overs. They needed another 116 runs in 10 overs. Kohli was at 12 off 22 balls.

 

What followed was, in words of Kohli, “his best T20 innings” where the world stood and acknowledged the greatness of the KING. Clearly to many, the potential was realized. The promise was kept!

 

The question to be asked is therefore, what led to this surreal performance. Virat Kohli had made his debut way back in 2010 in Zimbabwe. He was Captain of RCB in IPL from  2011 un till 2021. He labored as a captain of Indian International team from 2017 to 2021. Kohli has played 110 International matches at an impressive Average of 51.97 at a SR of 138. Also in the IPL he has played 223 matches at average of 36 and a SR of 129. Important point is that he hasn’t been able to win a single International or IPL title.

 

Similarly, while Kohli has been a team member of the World cup winning 2011 squad, he hasn’t been able to convert his ability to Championships for India in 50 over format. India lost for the 1^st time in an ICC tournament to Pakistan  in 2017 finals of ICC Champions Trophy. Similarly, as his last assignment as captain in T20 cricket, India lost to Pakistan in World Cup. Kohli has the dubious distinction to be the only Indian Captain to lose to Pakistan in a World Cup in any format. He in fact as a  captain he has lost twice to Pakistan in ICC Tournaments. That is not welcome in Indian Cricket.

 

His personal success against the backdrop of failure of his team is not something new for Indian Cricket . Sachin Tendulkar will recount his  tenure as a captain. However, what needs to be understood is that the team that played with Sachin was different from the team that played with Virat. India under Virat had arguably the best resources in World Cricket at that moment in any format of the game. The battery of fast bowlers, the skill and diversity of its all rounders, the class and aggressive nature of its batting lineup. Add to it the fact that the unit was  the best fielding unit of the world. Kohli indeed should be credited for lifting the fitness standards of the team.

 

Clearly the only reason for Indian team to be not winning has to do with Coach Ravi Shastri and Captain Virat Kohli. The team capitulated at every knockout moment in an ICC tournament. That they could not deliver an ICC championship with all the resources of the world. Here Indian cricket asked itself a question: what is more important: pleasing ego of a “Star” or to try and win the most coveted Championship the sport has to offer. BCCI selection committee chose to replace Virat with the most decorated T20 Captain available i.e. with Rohit Sharma. It is well known that Rohit’s approach to the game allows teams to focus in pressure. Also what it has done is that it has freed Virat to focus his efforts on what he does best - batting. While his ego and that of his followers will not allow them to see this fact but the unburdening of failed Captain was apt both for Virat and Team India. Also the fact that Virat’s attitude is what it is, he will try and prove people wrong. That attitude is now being channelized positively for the championship we so cherish. One does not care what he thinks of people who removed him from his captaincy as long as that is contributing positively to the interest of Indian Cricket team.

 

This team and please mark my words….. has what it takes to win this and many more forthcoming championships. To me, with the resources we have, if we do not win every 2^nd ICC championship, we are not doing justice to our talent and resources. I am of the firm opinion that in Melbourne on 13^th Nov 2022 India will bring home World Cup after 15 years. That shall be the final act of the script written by Dada. Act 1 is done. Final act shall be on 13^th Nov 2022.

It has been a bit too long that we had to wait.  THE WAIT IS OVER !!!!!

 

SECULARISM AT 46 …….. INDIA AT 75

 

Secularism at 46

It is a known fact since the Modi Government displayed the original Preamble in 2015 and not the altered one that contains the word SECULAR, that the word was introduced in 1976 by Indira Gandhi through 42^nd constitutional Amendment.

 

Secularism is a much more complex subject actually than what people think it is. Some people can think it is negation of all religion, while to others it can mean an absolute separation of religion and state. Still others might feel that the Constitution should advocate articles that govern aspects of a religion; a few might even say the state should not involve itself in matters of religious education; many might even feel that a truly secular Constitution should demand a uniform civil code. I shall not attempt to interpret it.

 

It is again a very well known fact that Dr. BR Ambedkar was against the word “secular” and also “Socialist” being used in the preamble or in the constitution itself.  He said in Constituent assembly in 1948

 

“Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof KT Shah. The Constitution is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism whereby particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether”

 

Our Constitution has laid down rules as to how certain practices within religions are unconstitutional, even criminal, while other practices that hurt a particular religious sentiment but are practiced by other religious groups – like cow slaughter – were banned. Additionally, the question of religious education – grants provided by governments actually do not allow us to be really secular by any stretch of imagination. So Indian secularism was conceptually very hollow by design.

 

Hence it is not my endeavor to raise calls for “Saving Secularism”. In the name of “Saving Secularism”, one cannot be blaming or mocking the Hindus or ‘normalising’ Aurangzeb or Ghazni. However I would like to raise a more pragmatic question. Do we want one in seven Indians alienated because of their faith? At the very least, this would make for a very imperfect Indian democracy.

 

With the end of Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, M.J. Akbar and Syed Zafar Islam’s Rajya Sabha tenures, Narendra Modi’s BJP will be left with no Muslim in either House. Read this with the following:

 

•In both the 2014 and 2019 elections, the Modi-Shah BJP won full Lok Sabha majorities without any of their seven and six candidates, respectively, winning. This, while 20 crore Muslims live in India. Or one in seven.

•In Uttar Pradesh, in 2017 and 2022, the Modi-Shah-Yogi BJP won humongous majorities without fielding any Muslim candidate. Muslims are about 20 per cent of the state’s population. Or one in five.

•In Assam, the Modi-Shah-Himanta BJP won two majorities in 2016 and 2021. It fielded 17 Muslims in the two elections combined, but only one won, in 2016. One in three of Assam’s people is Muslim.

•It is that rare juncture in our history when a Muslim sits on no constitutional chair in New Delhi (there’s one governor, Arif Mohammad Khan, Kerala), nor holds a position in the 76-member council of ministers, isn’t a chief minister anywhere. Of the 87 secretaries in the central government, two are Muslim.

 

Contradict all of the above with the fact that Muslims alone were once solely responsible for Mr. Vajpayee to lose the trust vote by 1 vote in 1999. The Word secularism was used like untouchability against the BJP then. One BJP leader has said “The Muslims have a veto on who rules India.”

 

However can any Indian say that in the “Golden Era” of “Secularism”, the state of affairs for the muslims in India improved their condition.  Truth be told, most Muslims continue to remain one of the most economically and in terms of education, the most backward class of people. The only promise muslims were served was a sense of security against the BJP at that time. Now the hell has broken on them ! So you see the choice they had…. Choice between very bad and ver very very bad !

 

The question I am asking is what has “Secularism” delivered in last 46  years since the same was introduced in our constitution in 1976. If anything, I think, the muslims of India have been more “Othered” than ever! The forefathers of the constitution, rightly so, did not keep it. The word has only polorised our country than bought it together. BJP has been the ultimate winner. They must thank Indira Gandhi to have served it to them on a platter.

 

 

India at 75

Now coming to our review of India at 75. I will start with two question. Which is the best Engineering / Management / medical institutes in India? Answers will definitely be the IITs, the IIMS, the AIIMS etc. The common thread between them is that they are all Government institutions. Sympathizers of Congress might just remind us that all started by J Nehru. The next question might bring them to place. How many of those reading this piece send their children to Government schools? I will be surprised even if one individual wants to send their wards to a Government School. This example itself is enough for me to conclude that our country is a land of missed opportunities and misplaced priorities.

 

In the year of “Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav”, Indian Government approved “Revival package” for BSNL amount to Rs 1.64 Lakh Crores! What has the government to do in running of a telecom company in India in today’s day and age is best left for the reader to analyse. If one doesn’t want to criticize the present dispensation, then we can say that the government of the day, like their predecessors, have misplaced sense of priority.

 

Right from Nehru to Modi, Indian governing class has made blunders after blunders. The insurance sector of India has LIC as the biggest player, SBI is India’s biggest bank by some distance, the DESCOMs in every state of the country run into huge losses…… and yet we run the country with exactly the same mindset as was done in the 1950s. Even today, Indian government tells us what we can export and what we cannot. Farmers today, thanks to their senseless opposition to farm laws gave that power on the platter to the government who anyways wants to control what we see, what we eat, what we export and so on.

 

Look at the discourse of the politics today. The entitled ruling party MP announced in parliament in the monsoon session, “Humne Freefund ka khana khilaya 80 Crore garibo ko COVID mein”. The gentleman does not realise of his statement. No. 1 the statement comes from the place of entitlement. We are the kings and we feed people. No. 2 the gentleman is not ashamed that 80 Crore people are so poor that they needed the “Freefund ka Khana”. No. 3, he forgets that it is not Modi- Shah’s money that is spent on this scheme. It is yours and mine that we pay in form of taxes. So in these 75 years we have this as a ruling class.

 

At this point in time I must also speak about the Yuvraj of India. What can be said more about the shallowness of Indian democracy that a 5^th Generation dynast (dynasty started in 19^th Century end) is your chief opposition leader in 21^st century. We celebrate the fact that we are the “biggest democracy”. Question we must ask as a nation to ourselves is. Seriously are we?

 

One must also confess that it is not the government alone the part of the problem. I work in Electrical Engineering field in UAE. Here we deal with vendors from across the globe. As an Indian, it is my natural instinct to try and get more “Made In India” products to this market. However in my limited experience I find even the private sector happy with status quo. They do not wish to address issues related to quality of product, services etc. Excuses range from “Humare yahan to aaise hi hota hai (in our country we do it this ways)” to innumerable public holidays to anything and everything. The Indian private sector is not ready to take on the world! It is no surprise to me that we levy heavy duties on even import of consumer electronics and now even gold! We as a country do not have an attitude towards competing with the world. We enjoy the “my baap Licence raj” where the government decides what business we can do, how much we can do  and hence also protects Indian manufacturing from external competition.

 

What has changed with India in the last decade of these 75 years is the way votes are garnered. From the 1980s until 2010, votes of Muslims + any numerically dominant caste would win an election for you. The politics of parties like the SP (Yadav+ Muslim), BSP (Dalits+ OBC+ Muslims), RJD (Yadav+ Muslim) was run with this thread. It was Mandal- Kamandal Politics. Muslims were the common denominator in this politics.

 

Today, Modi – Shah combine have changed the equation from Caste based to religion based. So the Muslim vote of 14% is irrelevant. Their audacity stems from the fact that till the time even if 50% Hindus vote for them, they shall win hands down. The politics does not recoginse that the “Othering” of 1 in 7 Indian is a dangerous volcano. We have seen glimpses of that strangled anger during the CAA NRC row.

 

India at 75 is what could have been rather than what we are. Most of the Whatsapp university lessons shall be of glorious times of medieval age. Not what is the state of the country today.

 

To me India at 75 is a story of missed opportunities and misplaced priorities!

 

Jai Hind !!!

 

(PS: I will not change my DP to Tricolor)