Just about the most innovative approach to conservation...ever

Conservation efforts not working? Too many animals being "bumped off" in "unfortunate accidents"? Eugene LaPointe suggests we legalise hunting to, well, boost animal numbers. I'm not really qualified to comment on the matter - my knowledge of the extent of poaching and elephant populations in Africa is limited at best - but I found it intriguing nevertheless. Of course, any attempt to legalise trophy hunting will need strict regulations and monitoring of animal populations, as it is likely that we may see a sudden drop in the number of exotic species if the park owners are not vigilant.

The potential benefits are mostly economic - the park would be able to provide employment for native residents while commanding high hunting fees for those involved. It could also boost tourism, but at the possible cost of further endangering some species. The money would be expected to be used for conservation efforts, although critics have cast doubt over how much would actually trickle down to the park.

While contrasting Kenya's protectionist policy with South Africa's more open view towards hunting, LaPointe fails to account for habitats and the political climate, which could be deciding factors in the success of a conservation effort. Moreover, it has been pointed out by some that it is likely that hunters will focus on the fittest and most biologically desirable members of the species, thus resulting in a more limited gene pool for the species. This may not be a problem in Botswana or South Africa, where elephant numbers are booming, but it could have disastrous implications for Kenya, which has a much smaller elephant population and is struggling with poaching as it is.

What LaPointe is really suggesting is sustainable hunting, which would protect the current population and boost the country's economy. However, ensuring sustainable use of the National Park's resources itself requires great effort and resources, which may not be available in Kenya. It's not a bad idea, but one must look into its feasibility before embracing it as a panacea for conservation efforts.

Of course, Dick Cheney couldn't care less about elephants. He's still going for the prize kill - 78 year old men. Rumour has it he might settle for "peppering" their facial region.

Ah, the internet

I was browsing through Kabaddi.org (as you do), and stumbled upon this:

Kabaddi Cops is the remarkable story about a determined group of Canadian police officers from the Toronto area, who take up a 4000 year old sport from India called Kabaddi, in order to bond with the South-Asian immigrant community.

After witnessing a protest over racial profiling in front of Peel Regional Police headquarters in 2002, Inspector Barry Dolan believed sport could ease tensions and promote harmony between police and South-Asians. His method was unorthodox and surprising to everyone who watched.

The Inspector formed a Kabaddi team made entirely of Police officers from his own department, selecting a small group of dedicated young men who knew nothing about the sport and very little about the culture. The team practiced hard on their days off and began competing in tournaments and festivals to the delight of thousands of enthusiastic spectators. In doing so, the Peel Police Kabaddi team became the only non-Asian team anywhere in the world. Their focus was on becoming closer to the community and bridging the gap that often exists between police and immigrants.

Kabaddi Cops is a short documentary in the classic style with the participants telling their story. It begins with a breakdown in relationships between police and a large segment of the community they are sworn to serve. What follows is a unique and progressive display of people rising to the challenge of maintaining harmony in a multicultural urban environment.

Nowhere on earth will you find amore diverse country than Canada and Kabaddi Cops captures the essence of this land - people working together towards a truly inclusive society, overcoming their differences and grievances in a productive and peaceful manner.

Mutha****ing cops playing mutha****ing kabaddi! This'll be the most badass film since Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (as the title suggests, the song was pretty badass).

Seriously though, how screwed up is Canada if a film about white kabaddi-playing constables "truly captures the essence of the land"? Hell the subject wouldn't even capture India's essence, and we invented the game!

Mind you, if there's any subcontinental game that has the potential to reach out to the average frat boy and become popular in the West, it's kabaddi - semi-naked males trying to touch each other while being wrestled to the ground and beaten to a pulp, all the while holding their breath. American colleges embraced mutated versions of this ancient pastime as fraternity initiation rituals. We went one step further and made it our national sport.

Okay it isn't as bad as I made it sound - it is in fact a rather challenging and demanding sport that requires true athletic ability and has very little to do with American frat culture. I just don't get why we have to play it in our boxers.

For those who are unfamiliar with kabaddi, here's a primer, replete with a crazy Punjabi commentator, who sounds rather like an old uncle playing with a bunch of ten year olds.

"Bilkul Deeeeeee de upar muqabla!"

"Pehlwan-uh! Lagi hoye dooty! [Ed: wtf?] Touch hoya ke nahin? Hone Ppppinder-uh! Haan, hato gabruah!"

"Dekho idhar pase Gurulal!"

Check out the great tag by Jassi from "Trunto" (Toronto) Truck Driving and Repairs at around 1:20 (I'm not making this up). Wah gabruah!

Cold, callous and cruel

I had meant to post this earlier, but was hampered by a slow internet connection. The clip pretty much says it all. It's one of the few times the world has been fully exposed to the harsh reality of China's occupation of Tibet.

Happy Diwali

Hope you had a great Diwali. I wish I were in a country where skyrockets were legal. I'll learn to like this well-meaning nanny state, but until then I'll complain about it.

Chaos. Beautiful chaos

Never a dull day in Pakistani cricket. Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif have been sent home for testing positive for nandrolone in a scenario reminiscent of Shane Warne's dismissal prior to the 2003 World Cup. The charge is far more serious this time, however, as the drugs involved were performance-enhancing as opposed to the masking agents used by Warne.

The drug tests were not carried out by the ICC - rather, it was Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer's decision to test 25 players in September, two of whom returned positive tests from WADA's labs in Malaysia. Unfortunately for Pakistan, those two just happened to be their frontline bowlers, both of whom were recovering from injuries.

In all likelihood, both players will receive two-year bans from all forms of cricket. For Asif, this is merely a setback but for Shoaib, it could mean the end of his career. There are those who argue it could actually prolong rather than curtail it, as in the case of Shane Warne, but the two players are hardly cut from the same cloth. Shoaib thrives on extreme pace, for which he needs to be in peak physical condition. Two years out of the game will rob him of his sting and given Pakistan's plethora of fast bowlers, he will struggle to regain his place in the side once he returns.

Asif is a different proposition altogether. Only 23 years of age, and not as reliant on pace as his superstar colleague, he will most probably be welcomed back to the Pakistani fold once his ban reaches its conclusion. Pakistan are more likely to feel Asif's absence than Shoaib's due to the former's consistency and ability to move the ball both ways off the seam. It's a skill few bowlers can consistently demonstrate, and Asif's ban will be a huge blow to them.

Shoaib Akhtar maintains that he did not knowingly take performance-enhancing substances, and I tend to believe him. Doping regulations are fairly new to cricket, and the game itself is not suited to the übermensch types that one normally associates with drug use. Fast bowlers need to be well-built, but their speed is generated by driving through the hip and the twitch muscles in the abdominal area. Of course, fast bowlers also need strong shoulders and a good approach velocity to the crease to generate extra pace, but otherwise do not need a great deal of bulk to do so. Ajit Agarkar, for example, is a rather small man but manages to bowl between 80 and 90 mph. The point is that most bowlers don't really need extra muscle mass to generate pace. If anything, extra muscle in the wrong areas could hinder a fast bowler rather than help him.

It is quite likely that Shoaib and Asif have both been prescribed drugs by their physios and took them unknowingly. This does not however absolve them from blame. The Pakistan Cricket Board have stated that they regularly update their players on banned substances, thus implying that the two cricketers in question knew what they were doing. Whether this is a case of the board covering its tracks is another matter altogether - the players must accept some of the blame for what they did. Having said that, one cannot realistically expect cricketers, or sportspeople in general, to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of banned substances. They usually delegate the responsibility to the team doctor and in this case, those responsible failed miserably. The ban will affect the players the most, but perhaps some action must be taken against the people who prescribed the banned substances.

I feel their pain

Seriously, I do. Air India was obviously not responsible for the bird hit that caused their 747 to be grounded at Heathrow airport for two days. They were, however, responsible for the comfort and travel arrangements of their 434 stranded passengers, and once again, they failed miserably. Where most carriers would do their utmost to provide emergency accommodation, or reroute passengers through partner airlines, it appears Air India did the bare minimum.

Normally I would give the airline the benefit of the doubt, keeping in mind that catering to the needs of 434 irate passengers isn't the easiest job in the world, but considering Air India's track record, and my own personal experience with the airline, it is hard not to empathise with the passengers. In 2002, my flight from Bombay to Delhi had to return to Bombay due to heavy fog in Delhi. Fair enough, one cannot help the weather - except Delhi had been fog-bound for the last four days and Air India did not have a contingency plan yet. It was the proverbial fly crashing into a window. I can only assume that planeloads of passengers were constantly ferried from Bombay to Delhi and back again for four consecutive days, and yet the staff appeared surprised every time they saw a fresh group arrive. Being international travellers, no one was allowed to leave the airport to spend the night at home, in spite of most of us (myself included) being Indian citizens. No accommodation or other arrangements were made available, barring a coupon for 'refreshments' i.e. stale chips and some water, and we ended up spending the rest of the night in the departure lounge. In spite of their incompetence, the Air India staff continued to treat customers with contempt, which only angered us further, thus intensifying their contempt, and so on.

Naturally, I missed my connecting flight from Singapore to Auckland, though Air India was good enough to reroute me through Hong Kong to Singapore, finally arriving in Auckland a day later than expected.

And that was when I realised Air India had lost my luggage.

For more air-travel horror stories, check out Sepia Mutiny's piece on a Punjabi-Slovak airline.

Disney says "non" to Mouse orgy

Personally, I'm surprised Mickey, Minnie and Goofy managed to hold out for almost 70 years. But that's just me.

I should have outgrown this...

...but I haven't, so sue me. This is one of the funniest headlines I've read in ages:

Karunakaran's party DIC-K to merge with NCP next month

Mmmph...hahahahahahaha. You know, I don't care about the political implications of this merger, except that we won't have any more headlines with 'DIC-K' in them after November 12. In the spirit of the occasion, here's another reference to my favourite political party from the same piece:

Karunakaran formed the DIC-K in May 2005

So, here's to a well-loved DIC-K, whose life was tragically cut short by a sudden and unexpected merger at the tender age of 18 months. The greatest political party of all time shall be sorely missed.

For more phallic jokes, refer to Lund University's extensive library, especially the work of Tiny Lund. Hey, it's not dirty if it's in another language!

You can't be serious...

Only in India can a monkey attack spark communal tensions. Clearly, his Muslim masters indoctrinated the poor beast to such an extent that he only attacked Hindu children - those devious fiends. Almost makes you think he deserved to be locked in a cage for five years at the local police station, doesn't it? Almost.

The Hindustan Times runs a stereotype-ridden piece in a lame attempt at humour. Watch out for the words 'jihadi', 'terrorist', 'simian fundamentalist' and 'secular' - that's quality reporting with a pinch of irony (note the sarcasm dripping from my own post).

Meh

Krisann tells me my previous post is boring and could be condensed into five words. So, in the interests of my reader(s) who are not inclined towards cricket, here are those five words:

The Champions Trophy starts today.

Thank you, and good night :-P

P.S. India are carving England up. Fielding first, they have England on the ropes at 74/5. Mind you, Paul Collingwood is at the crease so the game could go either way.

Update 1: England bowled out for 125. The bowlers have done their bit, and hopefully the batsmen will finish the job quickly. A magnificent start for India so far.

Update 2: A comfortable victory in the end, although India made heavy weather of the run chase near the end. The batting remains a concern, but Tendulkar, Yuvraj and Pathan all looked good, even though none of them converted their starts into bigger scores. India will need to prevent middle-order wobbles such as this against Australia, who will punish them without a doubt. The most heartening feature of the match was the return to form of Irfan Pathan, on whom so much depends. A magnificent performance with the ball was followed by a decent innings at the top of the order, playing the sheet anchor role while Tendulkar attacked the bowling.

India will be happy with this start, and they can kick back until October 26, when they play West Indies in Ahmedabad, and are looking good for a place in the semi-finals. England, on the other hand, have it all to do. They must win their next two games if they are to stand any chance of progressing. They play Australia on Saturday, a team they will get to know very well over the course of the summer, with the Ashes and VB Series to follow after the Champions Trophy.

Here we go

In a few hours - four to be precise - the ICC Champions Trophy will be underway, with hosts India playing England. While both teams will look at this game as a must-win, with tough matches against Australia and the West Indies to come, India will probably be more confident at the outset despite their poor recent one-day form. England return to India on the back of a stirring revival at home but their 5-1 mauling in India earlier in the year must still be fresh in the memory. Since that tremendous series victory, India's fortunes have faltered, losing 4-1 in the West Indies, and then failing to make the final of the DLF Cup in Malaysia - a triangular tournament featuring the other two teams in the group - Australia and the West Indies.

The competition has undergone yet another change in format. What began as a pure knockout competition to whet the public's appetite for the following year's World Cup has rapidly evolved into a parallel World Championship in its own right, with a group stage being introduced in the 2002 edition in Sri Lanka. This was presumably an attempt to cash in further on the success of the 1998 and 2000 tournaments by increasing the number of games played. The change led to the tournament becoming a catalogue of dead, one-sided matches in the opening stages. Each group contained two highly ranked nations, and one that just showed up to make up the numbers. Although it got off to a decent enough start, with South Africa edging the West Indies by two wickets, the rest of the group stage dragged on for another 10 days, with only the India vs England match being of any note, and that too only for Virender Sehwag and Sourav Ganguly's magnificent opening stand of 192 off 28.4 overs. The semi-finals were far more exciting, and the cricket on show was top-notch, but the tournament had lost its earlier sheen, taking far too long to reach its denouement.

The 2004 competition, held in England, was even worse. Inexplicably, the organisers chose to stick with the same format, in spite of its obvious flaws. To compound matters, all the 'dead' matches (Australia vs USA, anyone?) were scheduled for the start of the competition, and the first 'competitive' match - Australia vs New Zealand, took place a full six days after the tournament started. Quite how the ICC planned to maintain spectators' interest through this period is anyone's guess. From that point onwards, the cricket was tense and competitive, and two dark horses - West Indies and England - found themselves in the final. What transpired on that day will forever remain etched in the memories of its protagonists. Finding themselves all but defeated at 147/8 while chasing 218 for victory, tailenders Courtney Browne and Ian Bradshaw rallied to engineer a sensational victory for the West Indies in the fading September light. The victory provided hope for a revival of a once-great team, but subsequent matches would prove that to be a false dawn.

This year, the organisers have once again changed the format, eschewing the bloated twelve team structure for a more practical eight team tournament. The top six Test-playing nations automatically qualified for the group stages while the remaining four played a round-robin qualifying stage, with the top two progressing to the tournament proper. The qualifiers, as expected, were the West Indies and Sri Lanka, who overcame the hardly challenging opposition of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. At first glance, this format promises to be more exciting than previous attempts. Cutting down the number of groups to two means there will be more games pitting top teams against each other. Each game in the group stage appears to be evenly-balanced, with only the Australia-West Indies pairing offering anything close to a mismatch. Compared to previous years, the race for a semi-final spot will be tighter than ever, and while a straight knockout is probably the ideal format for a tournament such as this, the current structure isn't bad either. And of course, there's the perennial Australia vs England rivalry to look forward to, as well as Australia vs India. Then there's the mouth-watering prospect of an India vs Pakistan or Australia vs New Zealand match in the later stages. All in all, the organisers may have got it right for once. It is now up to the teams to put on a show.

On a personal note, it's great to see Brabourne Stadium reinstated as Bombay's official venue for the duration of the tournament. Bombay cricket should never have moved to the concrete monstrosity that is Wankhede Stadium. Brabourne has a sense of history and grandeur that Wankhede could never have hoped to emulate, and hopefully this move will be a permanent one. Along with Mohali and Eden Gardens, Brabourne ranks up there as one of India's great sporting arenas.

Naturally, Australia enter the tournament with high expectations. The Champions Trophy remains the one competition they have never won, with their best performance being a semi-final appearance in Sri Lanka in 2002. Their one-day record against all three teams in their group indicates that they should go through without too much fuss, though they have never beaten India in this competition, and lost to England in the 2004 edition, although it must be noted that England were playing at home. For all the talk of theirs being an aging side that is over-reliant on the likes of McGrath and Ponting, they are still the best team going around. Their fast bowling is a concern, but the recent emergence of Mitchell Johnson is a good omen for the future of Australian quicks. While they have undeniably been in decline over the last two years, it just means that they have gone from being almost invincible to being beatable on a good day. They may have one eye on the upcoming Ashes series, but should at least progress to the semi-finals, and are good enough to win it for the first time.

England have had a tough time in the one-day arena lately. After losing 3-2 in Pakistan and being hammered 5-1 by India, they appeared to have hit a new low when Sri Lanka travelled to England and smashed them 5-0. In recent times, however, they appear to have regained some of their edge, rallying to draw a home series with an albeit distracted Pakistani side after being 2-0 down. Playing in India is going to be a completely different prospect, however, and that too against teams with the batting prowess of Australia, India and the West Indies. Their pace attack isn't likely to be effective in unhelpful conditions, although their batsmen might help themselves to a few runs on easy batting tracks. England's lack of genuine spin options might be their undoing on subcontinental tracks, and it will take some effort for them to get through this difficult group.

India, as always, begin as the dark horses, in spite of having a massive home advantage. After setting a world record for the most consecutive successful run chases last season - a run which included a 6-1 hammering of Sri Lanka at home, a 2-2 home draw with South Africa, a 4-1 away win over Pakistan and a 5-1 molestation of England at home - they were brought crashing back down to earth by an away defeat to the West Indies by a 4-1 margin at the start of this season. This was followed by a failure to qualify for the final of the DLF Cup in Malaysia, albeit after a narrow defeat to Australia. Of greatest concern was the loss of form of key batsmen, such as Yuvraj Singh and Mahendra Dhoni. Irfan Pathan's sudden downturn in fortunes, both with bat and ball, also affected the team severely. The return of Sachin Tendulkar has provided a huge boost to the team, but the overall combination is still unsettled, especially at the top of the order. Both Virender Sehwag and Rahul Dravid have been tried as openers alongside Tendulkar, with mixed results. The middle order looks good on paper, but is known to collapse when under pressure, which is why a strong opening partnership is vital to India's chances of success. In spite of all their problems, India should be there or thereabouts in the end, as it is telling that most of their recent one-day woes have come away from home. At home, their record is exemplary, and they will take some beating here. Their past performances in this competition (two finals and one semi-final) suggest at least a semi-final spot, and it would be hard to argue with that.

Sri Lanka may not be the greatest travellers, but their recent thrashing of England in England suggests that they may be on the right track. The conditions in India will be very similar to those in Sri Lanka, and the old guard of Jayasuriya, Vaas and Muralitharan should enjoy themselves. Newcomer Upul Tharanga and captain Mahela Jayawardene have been in great form of late, and could be the stars of the tournament. A few of these players will have fond memories of the last major tournament to be held in India - the 1996 World Cup - which Sri Lanka went on to win. The Lankans cannot be written off, and are likely to fancy their chances against New Zealand and South Africa, although Pakistan will be a different prospect altogether. If things go to plan, Sri Lanka should be in the semi-finals.

When listing favourites for a cricket tournament, one team is a virtual ever-present - Pakistan. Blessed with a conveyor belt of supremely talented cricketers, they were often let down by their inability to work as a team, until the arrival of Bob Woolmer as coach. He successfully revived Pakistan's fortunes as a major cricketing force, following their disastrous home defeat to India in 2004. Of course, old habits die hard, and signs of Old Pakistan surface every now and then, most recently in the furore over ball-tampering and captain Inzamam-ul-Haq's suspension, leading vice-captain Younis Khan to first reject and then accept the captaincy for the tournament. This side may not be as blessed as their predecessors, but on their day can dismantle any team. The 2006 Champions Trophy may not be well-timed for them, especially considering the suspension of their captain and top batsman, Inzamam-ul-Haq, and the signs of discontent within the camp. However, Pakistan are nothing if not surprising, and a semi-final place isn't beyond them.

New Zealand are the absolute antithesis of Pakistan - a nation that has produced fewer than ten world-class players in the last three decades, yet manages to consistently punch above its weight. Recently, their fortunes in both Test and one-day matches have dipped as a result of a power struggle between captain and coach. Their players are quite familiar with conditions in India, having played there frequently in the recent past, and that should hold them in good stead. However, looking at their group, there doesn't appear to be much hope for the Black Caps. Unless their players pull off a repeat of their efforts in Kenya 2000, an early exit is on the cards.

One can never discount South Africa or the West Indies. In spite of their dismal loss to Sri Lanka in the qualifying round, the Windies managed to land arguably the easier of the two groups. Their recent record against India is very good, and they also managed to run Australia close in the DLF Cup, so their familiarity with the opponents should give them a chance. They might also back themselves against England, who have been abysmal in the one-day arena. South Africa, on the other hand, will be looking to win the whole competition, although they will have to negotiate a tough group. They have the personnel and experience of Indian conditions, having played there last year, but the only concern will be the ongoing investigations into match-fixing involving Herschelle Gibbs. The last thing the team needs is a distraction, and Gibbs' revelations about past indiscretions by South African players is just that. Even so, they remain a formidable team, capable of beating anyone in their group.

India last hosted a major tournament in 1996 when it co-hosted the World Cup with Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Ten years on, the world's greatest cricketing nations return to whet our appetites for next year's World Cup. Here's hoping for a great show and an Indian victory (screw "fair and balanced" - I'm getting right behind my team!).

England just made my day

England loss + comical goal = me happy :-D



The more cynical among you would point to India's record in Asian Cup qualifying. Mind you, none of the 10 goals we conceded to Japan over two games were as mirth-inducing as this.

Does it REALLY matter?

The moral police have found their latest victim - Harbhajan Singh, who appeared in an advertisement with his hair down. Once again, it appears a wardrobe malfunction is all that stands between salvation and and endless cycle of birth, death and rebirth. Seriously speaking, uncut hair may be integral to the Sikh faith for historical reasons, but what Harbhajan Singh does is his own business - he isn't projecting Sikhism in a poor light, nor is he impinging on anyone else's freedom. Conversely, it is the SGPC that is coming off worse by demanding an apology.

Still, if he's damned to an eternity of rebirth, Indian cricket will be well served. If only we could get Sachin Tendulkar and Kapil Dev to commit some heinous crimes against religion...

The media's sense of perspective

The Mohammad Afzal saga makes me sick. The man has been found guilty of planning the December 13, 2001 attacks on the Indian Parliament, yet the media finds it necessary to report on every bleeding-heart story in favour of his clemency. Here's the latest piece of drivel, in the finest tradition of gut-wrenching soap opera rhetoric that our mainstream media has become famous for:

Afzal Guru, the man who faces capital punishment in the Parliament attack case, had a special petitioner who knocked on the President’s door to save his life. His seven-year-old son Ghalib accompanied Guru’s wife Tabassum to Rashtrapati Bhawan, requesting clemency for him.

Ghalib told the President that his dream was to become a doctor and for that he needed his father around. “I cannot fulfil my dream if you hang my father,” he reportedly told APJ Abdul Kalam in the 20-minute-long meeting.

A student of class I, Ghalib even tried to hang himself after his schoolmates informed him that his father faced capital punishment. Lawyer Nandita Haksar who accompanied the Guru family told DNA, “Ghalib knows that injustice is being done to him and his father. He wanted to hang himself to know what his father would have to go through if the death sentence were to be carried out.

Cute. It's hard not to feel sorry for the kid - he's only seven years old and doesn't know any better, and maybe he's onto something. Perhaps the children of the security guards and policemen killed during the Parliament attacks should shoot themselves, just to know what their fathers went through when Afzal and his men made their little political statement.

The child, of course, is merely being used as a pawn by his family and the media - a blatant attempt at tugging at the public's heartstrings in order to release a convicted terrorist. I don't doubt that he is truly distressed at the prospect of losing his father, but surely the legal system cannot be subverted by the testimony of a seven year old, much as the media would love it to happen (compromised national security pales in comparison to a good human interest story).

As is only natural and proper, Arundhati Roy and Medha Pathkar have spoken out against Afzal's sentence (when have they ever agreed with the Indian government?). While the Lion King defence (kid watches his father get killed, grows up to take revenge via a hilarious segment featuring a meerkat and a retarded warthog) is the most popular argument against his execution, it is by no means the most bizarre - that distinction has to go to JKLF chief Yassen Malik, with this observation:

There is a serious engagement going on between India and Pakistan now. The execution of Afzal will derail the two-year-old peace process and may create an atmosphere where in Kashmiri youths will take the path of violence

The man has been found guilty of crimes against the Indian Union. Technically, the 'peace process' will be derailed by having his kind roaming free and perpetrating more attacks against common civilians. Then again, coming from the leader of the JKLF, one wonders whether that statement was framed as a mere warning or a more sinister mafioso threat.

The real surprise is that no one (apart from Gandhians, and who listens to them?) has questioned the ethical implications of the death penalty itself. Rather, they have moved to appeal for clemency in just one case. Personally, I feel there is a chance that Afzal may attain martyrdom through execution, thus spurring on more youths to take up arms. A lifetime of solitary confinement in brutal conditions would be a more apt sentence, but there is then a chance that he would become a Mandela-esque figurehead from his prison cell, which could be even more damaging. Moreover, he could become a major bargaining chip for terrorists in case of a hostage situation such as the IC-814 hijack in 1999.

The moral issue of a death sentence in general is another issue altogether. Taking the life of someone doesn't provide closure to anyone, and it could be argued that it has proven an ineffective tactic against curbing terrorism. It should probably not be abolished, but only used in extreme cases, where the individual's survival directly threatens others' well-being. One must also look at the mode of execution currently in practice in India. Isn't death by gallows an essentially outdated and inhumane practice? Surely death by injection would be a more humane method.

It doesn't appear as if the media controversy over Afzal's execution will die down any time soon. If the Dhananjay Chatterjee case is anything to go by, the circus will follow him all the way to the noose, scheduled for October 20. Perhaps then we can all rest in peace, Afzal included.

Update: The execution has been put on hold.

Cross-posted on Random Thoughts of a Demented Mind and India Uncut

Till death do you part...

...unless you're in China, in which case death is the great matchmaker, the proviso being that you live a life of celibacy before you can enjoy an eternity of ghoulish lovin'. Yes, distraught parents throughout the Loess Plateau are hard at work looking for prospective brides for their deceased sons - a tradition that Tim Burton lovingly translated to the silver screen. Don't worry, there's no necrophilia here - the brides are dead too, and the best part is that everyone lowers their standards. What's a few maggots here and there? Her overall measurements are rather favourable...0-24-36. It's a pity her upper half was ravaged by wolves. And of course, there are no pesky love triangles holding up this arranged match made, quite literally, in heaven...or hell, I don't know. Point is, they're dead.

Seriously though, have the parents considered the odds of their son/daughter being gay? That'd really screw up their afterlife.

Mushy on the Daily Show

No doubt most of you have already seen Pervez Musharraf's interview with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, but for those who haven't, here it is:



I'm a big fan of Stewart's show, and usually agree with him on most matters, but I can't help but feel cheated during his interviews with major political figures. While he's comfortable lampooning most politicians from a safe distance on his show, it appears that he is reduced to a sycophantic buffoon (with the odd quick-witted remark) whenever one of them enters the studio, and this was no exception. He had an opportunity to ask Musharraf questions regarding Pakistan's active role in propagating cross-border terrorism, his protection of terrorists such as Dawood Ibrahim, controversial comments about the result of the Kargil war (though I doubt an India-Pakistan debate would hold the average American viewer's interest), or even his supposed lack of knowledge of AQ Khan's activities in Iran. Instead, he chose this gem:

Let’s say if there was an election held today in Pakistan — not, clearly, for your job, ’cause you’re doing a wonderful job…

More clearly, because he's a despot who seized power through a military coup - just the sort of leader the White House can get behind, especially since his name doesn't start with 'Saddam' and he's been oh-so-helpful to the Yanks. Forget his support of militant groups in Kashmir and failure to crack down on terrorist training camps at home, forget his country's secret service being involved in the July 11 blasts in Bombay - this is the man you want fighting a war on terror.

Of course, it is more than likely that Stewart's hands are tied by the network, as he can be brutally candid during his interviews on other shows, most notably his appearance on Crossfire. Moreover, it was probably Musharraf's entourage who booked the interview, and not The Daily Show - a shrewd PR move on the Pakistanis' part - thereby limiting the number of really 'tough' questions Stewart could ask.

While it was disappointing to see The Daily Show ape the news channels it so gleefully lampoons, Stewart's first question was an absolute crack-up - brilliant build-up, fantastic payoff.

By the way, check out his interview on Crossfire in 2004 to see him at his frank best.


Update: Musharraf says "India blaming Pakistan for the Mumbai bomb blasts is regrettable". To be honest, I don't know what I was expecting. The police findings were never going to be accepted readily by the international community, and they won't be until India actually acts upon them by toughening its stance on Pakistan. The United States, for one, has decided to take the moral high ground and asked India to discuss the issue directly with Pakistan, rather than going through the media, thus casting further doubt on the Indian police's findings in the eyes of the world. It's quite clear where their support lies in this conflict and it's about time Manmohan Singh grew a pair and actually held Pakistan accountable for its continued aggression towards India, rather than setting up joint mechanisms for combating terrorism. Then again, maybe he could use this opportunity to put this mechanism into practice and get Pakistan to reprimand itself for its actions.

Wayne Rooney's form

Wayne Rooney has criticised the Football Association for the three-match ban he received at the start of the season, and well he should. The ban was ridiculously harsh, especially given Steven Gerrard and Neil Mellor's dismissals in the Amsterdam tournament three years ago - red cards that did not lead to domestic suspensions, arguably for more serious offences.

Since returning from his suspension, Rooney has seemed a different player, and I don't mean that in a positive way. His performance against Benfica was the worst I have ever seen him play - he visibly lacked confidence and sharpness, giving the ball away regularly with Fletcheresque panache. Despite the improvement in the weekend game against Newcastle, he was still relatively anonymous, especially in light of the efforts of Ronaldo (who by contrast has been absolutely outstanding this season), Saha, Scholes, Carrick and...Darren Fletcher. Naturally, in spite of a dip in form, his workrate hasn't dropped. He may in fact be trying harder than ever before, and the sight of Rooney harrying opposition forwards in front of the back four is becoming all too common for United fans.

The English press has been quick to cite a variety of reasons for his mysterious dip in form, mostly pertaining to lack of match fitness as a result of his suspension, as well as his long lay-off from injury prior to the World Cup. The article linked to at the beginning of the post implies as much:

Coupled with a two-match international suspension for his red card in the World Cup quarter-final against Portugal in the summer, Rooney has featured in just six competitive games so far this season and looks as though he is lacking in match sharpness.

To begin with, Rooney had a fantastic game against Fulham on the opening day of the season, so it didn't appear as if he lacked match sharpness then. Moreover, he hasn't missed games due to injury, as Gabriel Heinze did, and six competitive games is a fair amount when you consider that Manchester United have only played nine competitive games so far this season. Rooney has played more games than Gabriel Heinze - who has returned after a much longer layoff and appears to be showing no ill-effects - and the same number of games as Paul Scholes (who was also sent off and suspended in Amsterdam and has made a fantastic comeback since), yet it seems like the match fitness excuse is still doing the rounds. Lack of match fitness doesn't reduce one's first touch to that of a brick wall, nor does it transform a dynamic wonderkid into a confused young child hopelessly found out of position. The problem is clearly deeper than that. Henry Winter thinks he knows the reason behind the mess:

All those feverishly seeking answers to Wayne Rooney's current impression of a lost puppy should direct their questions to Ruud Bossen, Holland. Ever since the referee ridiculously dismissed the Manchester United striker in a pre-season tournament in Amsterdam, Rooney has been assailed by self-doubt.

The red card, brandished when Rooney challenged Porto's Pepe for an aerial ball, is at the root of Rooney's distracted nature. A creature of instinct, a footballer who learnt his game in rumbustious street kickabouts in Croxteth, now fears his naturally combative approach to football leads only to referees' bad books. The street footballer finds himself trapped in a cul-de-sac.

A classic tactic - if all else fails, blame the ref. Ruud Bossen may have been hasty in sending off Rooney and Scholes, and even hastier in filing a report on the incidents, but surely he isn't to blame for the former's poor form in subsequent months. Rooney's no stranger to being booked or sent off, and I doubt the incident would have, or should have had any effect on him. Winter's rather romanticised vision of Rooney leads one to believe that the boy is just a brainless wonder, when in fact he is a highly intelligent footballer who is capable of making his own decisions on the pitch, even if he does lose his temper on occasion. Moreover, it'll take more than a crash course in anger management (courtesy of an over-zealous ref) to calm the beast. Scholes also provides an interesting comparison to Rooney. Sent off in the same match, and forced to serve a similar ban (although it could be argued that his was more justified), he has returned to the team and made an immediate impact with his neat passing and intelligent runs off the ball. Like Rooney, he had a long layoff during last season, missing most of the campaign due to an eye problem. Unlike Rooney, however, he did not have the World Cup in which to regain match fitness, yet has had very few issues with slotting back into the team upon his return. That could be attributed to his greater experience, but is an interesting contrast nevertheless.

Isn't it entirely possible that Rooney is suffering an early-season dip in form, as most footballers do at some stage? He is barely 21 years old, and is bound to make errors. His return to the first team hasn't been helped by Ferguson's ever-changing tactics. It's common knowledge that Rooney's best position is as a withdrawn striker, yet in most games since his return, he has been deployed as a lone striker or a left winger in a bizarre 4-2-3-1. The only time he seemed anywhere near regaining his form was during the game against Newcastle, when United reverted to 4-4-2. The best remedy for the situation is to just let Rooney recover his form at his own pace, and the onus for this falls on the manager, who should ensure that two of his best players - Rooney and Ronaldo - are allowed to play in positions that favour their strengths. The constant media attention and questions regarding his fitness and/or ability will only serve to prolong Rooney's slump, although I suspect there are sections of the media who wouldn't mind seeing Manchester United's best player out of commission for a few more months.