A Prisoner of Its Own History

Test cricket has a long and proud history, and will always have a group of devoted followers, the Hatter among them. Where else can one find as much drama, twists and turns, heroism and all the sheer delight of sport in as much abundance? Never miss a test match in Bangalore, is the Hatter's motto, and he hasn't had much reason to regret it.

Even the most devoted fan must say that test cricket isn't in the pink of health at the moment. The dull draw cannot be banished, and not all tests quite live up to the description in the previous paragraph.

The dull draw at Mohali did bring out a lot of complaints from scribes about M S Dhoni killing the test match. Dhoni may have been long-haired until recently, and bats in what can only be described as cavalier fashion, but he's hardly been a romantic as captain. He's proved himself to be a ruthless strategist, coming up with audacious - Yuvraj to Pietersen - as well as dull but effective - restrictive bowling at Chennai, and the dull end at Mohali - strategies. As a captain, he's aware of what he needed to do - win the first test, and then maximise the chances of winning the series. A draw would do, and a draw he chose.

Given that Dhoni so correctly follwed his incentives, the question of whether the incentives themselves are the cause of dull cricket is inevitable. And the Hatter for one would answer in the affirmative. There just isn't enough incentive in test cricket for a win to be forced. A draw is often too appealing in the context of a match or series.

Test cricket is still living in the past; its small bunch of followers cannot sustain it for too long. It's already being subsidized by ODI and T20 cricket, where enough followers (riff-raff many of them may be, but they pay) turn up to deliver a profit.

So, cricket's powers that be can continue talking about how test cricket must be supreme, and watch it slowly slide into oblivion. Alternatively, they can face the facts and help it remain viable by eliminating the draw, or at least drastically reducing the number of draws.

But who'll bell the cat and how?

Here're a few ideas, for what they're worth:

Since test cricket is all about taking wickets, make the laws a little less slanted in favour of the batsmen. More wickets mean more results.

Let's start by making the LBW rule a little less batsman-friendly.

1. If the ball hits the batsman's pad in front of the stumps, ignore where it pitched. This would help left-arm bowlers, as well as make round-the-wicket bowling more of an option for right-arm bowlers.
2. If the ball hits the batsman's pad outside off-stump, and would have gone on to hit, ignore whether he played a shot at it or not.
3. If inside-edges onto the stumps make the batsman out bowled, why shouldn't inside edges onto the pad be out LBW? Let it be out if the edge is thin enough for the umpire to be confident the ball would have hit the stumps.

Get rid of extravagant "benefit of doubt" clauses. Use the best available technology to help the umpire make calls - for example, let on-field umpires be given the benefit of input from Hawkeye (TM) and Snickometer (TM). They may be imperfect technology, but they're at least consistent. Umpires today are imperfect and inconsistent.

Allow "partial-declaration" in the third innings of a test match - allow the team declaring to resume their innings if necessary. This will allow captains to take more risk with declarations.

Disallow leg-byes? Or perhaps limit them to 1 at a time. Let batsmen earn their runs.

Reduce negative tactics by bringing in the one-day wide rules into tests when negative bowling is being resorted to. The umpires have the discretion to do that today, but they rarely do.

Christopher Hitchens and the Single Issue Voter

The 9/11 attacks transformed Christopher Hitchens - a bear of pickled but substantial brain - from a trotskyite atheist columnist into an atheist ex-socialist champion of the "war against terror".

The Mad Hatter usually agrees with many of Hitchens' positions, with the notable exception of the cheerleading of the Iraq war. But he's wavering.

No, the Hatter's not going to come out with a piece in support of the Iraq war, he still considers it a big mistake. However, Hitchens' well reasoned pieces on why he's a single-issue voter on the security of civilization are interesting reading, more so now than ever.

A few classic Hitchens pieces:

• Here's Hitchens making a break from the left on their lack of willingness to respond to 9/11.
• An interview with Hitchens that clarifies his position on several issues.
• Hitchens' attempt to defend the Iraq war, in 2007 (that's one position he'll cling to, it would seem)
  
• Hitchens endorsing Obama (reluctantly, one gets the impression)
• Hitchens calling a spade a spade in South Asia.
  
• Hitchens draws a parallel between Pakistan's hand in Mumbai and Syria's hand in Lebanon.

Whether you agree with him or not, he's the definitive exponent of the defence-of-civilization position. And that position is becoming increasingly tough to ignore.

Nothing

Can you fault the Hatter for being a cynic? His feeble attempts at cheering for the newfound spine of the UPA have been dashed by the Antulay episode. Messers Gandhi and Singh aren't quite there yet, one has to say.

Antulay and his defenders have dragged us into what everyone was hoping to avoid - a communal divide in the post-26/11 scenario. A small one at the moment, but one that could be exploited by those who will have the opportunity to in the next election. It only remains to be seen who will manage to do the exploitation most effectively.

And that leads to the inevitable question - what must one make of all the drum-beating and aggression one hears these days? Will it actually translate into any action?

Action, if it is to be taken, must be done so quietly and quickly. Too much time has passed, and too much noise is being made for the right kind of action, quiet and covert, to take place. So, it must be expected that a face-saving exit is being searched for on both sides, and no serious action is intended.

And what of all the alleged 'diplomatic offensive'? Nehru tried that in 1948. Apparently, we do not learn our lessons.

Nothing: that's what all of this is likely to boil down to.

Draw your own conclusions.

Update: as if on cue, the external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee is reported to have said that the next terror attack would "escalate tensions" and that restraint would not be shown "next time". Righty ho then.

Growing a Spine?

The Mad Hatter is a cynic (though he wishes he were a stoic).

Therefore, while he is forced to admit the possibility that the Congress party is finally growing a spine - first due to Kapil Sibal taking on the ulema and now Manu Singhvi talking of smart retailation - he is still sceptical.

Time will tell, but history indicates this is likely to be either posturing, or a short-lived burst of reasonableness until normal vote-bank politics resumes.

Even the most ardent optimist must have learnt not to hope by now.

But there's a small bit of optimism in everyone, even the Hatter.

Economic Countermeasures?

An option to retaliate economically against the neighbour that's not often discussed on TV channels. Perhaps it's time to think of these ideas.

If you're a monetarist by persuasion, you have reason to believe item 5 in the list may actually help them. So perhaps that needs to be reconsidered. Item 10 is also of dubious practical use.

We the People

We the People of India, having solemnly resolved

to be utter and complete idiots

to rail at our politicians, but not back up that message by voting appropriately; to be totally oblivious of the message that is being sent when you vote for one bunch of donkeys versus the other

to hold candlelight rallies, yell, scream, but then go back and give our "netas" the very excuse for inaction that they craved

to take each and every opportunity to prove that we the masses are asses

hereby thank the voters in the recently concluded state elections.

Enjoy the inaction you've voted for. Have a nice day.

Thank God for a Responsible Media

Unlike our politicians, who're trying to convert any incident into votes, it's good to know that our media has their priorities right in these hard times.

With Friends Like These

With all the ire being vented at our neighbour, and "politicians" in general, it's perhaps time to remember some specifics.

Here are some heroes of modern India:

• I K Gujral, who made RAW pretty much ineffective against our western neighbour.
• A B Vajpayee - the man who must take responsibility for arguably the most shameless surrender to terrorism ever.
  
• Mufti Mohammed Sayeed and VP Singh, who turned India into a soft state when Rubaiya Sayeed was kidnapped.
• Those who went after K P S Gill and the policemen of Punjab under the guise of human rights.
  
• Arundhati Roy, who can always be counted on to speak up in defence of terrorists. From Batla House to Kashmiri terrorists to Mohammed Afzal "Guru", she's always known who her friends are.
• Those who can't stand a convicted terrorist being punished: Praful Bidwai among them
• Manmohan Singh and his allies, who must bear responsibility for the repeal of POTA, and steadfast opposition to its reintroduction. The repeal may be forgiven, the lack of reintroduction cannot.
  

No, it's not because we're "divided" that terrorists strike with impunity. It's because we suffer the enemy within. Nay, we celebrate the enemy within. And we forget too much too fast.


P. S. Want to bet how long it will take Ms. Roy and Mr. Bidwai to crawl out of the woodwork with their revisionism this time? What shall it be - perhaps the Mumbai hostages shot themselves?

P. P. S. Want to bet how long it will take for some of the aforesaid to be celebrated again in the media? We forget way too soon.

Comic Relief

The Onion surpasses itself. The only thing we now need is for some airline to actually do that.