You said it right—Australia did register its 16th consecutive Test victory, but didn’t win too many hearts (Straight & the Narrow, Jan 21). The Aussies’ onfield behaviour has never been ideal in the post-War era, a far cry from the way Bradman’s Invincibles used to conduct themselves. As for India, we do crib and we do cry, but at the SCG it really was shoddy umpiring that failed us. And racism? I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if Harbhajan Singh did really call out names.
Shailesh Kumar, Bangalore
Forget the Aussies, they aren’t known to be sporting anyway. We must fix our debate on the biased umpires at the SCG. They were the ones who killed the spirit of the game. So much so that I’ve now started suspecting they are part of a match-fixing syndicate.
S. Ram, on e-mail
Why is it that India always seems to have a problem with umpires when it is touring? This seems to be a new trend: when on a tough tour, and poised for defeat and criticism, we blame the umpires. The boys in blue had complained of ‘dubious decisions’ even during the T20 World Cup and the tour to England. We even made it an issue when Australia toured India. I feel the umpires at the SCG just had a bad day in office! But we played it up as if the world had come crashing down. And if it wasn’t bad umpiring, then it was allegations of racism—which almost scuppered the tour. You can’t presume Bhajji is innocent just because he’s Indian. He is known to be hot-headed; even his mother admitted as much on a TV channel.
Vishal Mathur, on e-mail
Pull out of the series? Impossible, as the BCCI—notoriously money-minded—will have to pay a huge fine to the ICC. Our cricket board can mortgage pride, not property.
Amit Kishore, Patna
India lost the Sydney Test because we fell short of the numbers. We had only 11 players, Aussies had 14—if you include the three umpires.
Dr John V. George, Bangalore
It was poor decisions that caused our initial defeats. Among them was non-inclusion of Virender Sehwag for the first two Tests. As soon as he got in, we won the Perth Test.
Sanjay Ranade, on E-Mail
Calling somebody monkey is racism? Come on! At worst, it can be classified as Darwinism.
Satadru Sen, St Louis, US
Some of us Indians say Bhajji didn’t call Symonds a monkey. Other compatriots aver that the M-word isn’t racist. So which exactly is our defence?
U.K. Jayadev, Bangalore
In my part of the world, parents chide their naughty child by calling him a monkey—in fact, with a tinge of affection. To term such an address as racist is a needless insult to the very animal species us humble humans evolved from. Even Charles Darwin would be turning in his grave.
V. Seshadri, Chennai
Thanks to your panel of columnists for defending Bhajji ("Monkey isn't even a racist term in our cultural context"). Now, some say Bhajji said "Teri maa ki...". That’s even worse than what the Aussies allege he called Symonds.
Raj, Chicago
Harbhajan’s ‘verbal assault’ on Andrew Symonds pales in comparison with what The Courier Mail did. It grafted the Aussie’s head on to a picture of Hanuman (Plain Bhajji on the Pitch), little considering the feelings of Hindus the world over. Outlook could have refrained from carrying that image.
Abhimanyu Sharma, Delhi
The level of umpiring on display at the SCG by Steve Bucknor and company was terribly poor (Fast Exit for Mr Slow Death ). At 61, Bucknor looks way overthe hill and should retire post-haste.
C.K. Subramaniam, on e-mail
Wonder why we need human umpires at all when technology could be the best consultant— and more precise—for onfield decisions. Why can’t TV umpires replace them? I mean, players would appeal to the ‘umpire box’, the decision would be shown on the large electronic message board. Simple.
G. Natrajan, Hyderabad
It’s time to ask the question: is Mike Procter an appropriate choice for an ICC official? He was involved in Apartheid-era cricket, and as far as we know, was suitably supportive of the the White power structure. A leopard doesn’t change his spots, and so hasn’t Procter.
Dr G. Thomas, Kochi
Cricket—once a gentleman’s game, lately a gambler’s game. Today, there’s bad umpiring and racism. It’s more of warfare now. What a downfall!
Chidanand Kumar, Bangalore
I fully support the inclusion of psychologist reports as evidence in child sexual abuse cases where witnesses or concrete proof (Doctor’s Orders, Jan 21) are absent. Your piece comes at a time when a government-sponsored survey said as many as 53 per cent children get sexually abused, one-fourth of them by relatives. I think abuse scars a child permanently: robbing her of innocence and her trust of elders.
Dr Vittul K. Gupta, Bhatinda
I have no objections in treating a psychologist’s findings as support to an argument, but I find it a dangerous precedent when it’s taken as the final evidence in deciding cases.
Anand K., Santa Clara, US
The Delhi court’s verdict will now embolden similar girls across the country to speak up. That said, I feel people like Geeta’s father also need help from psychologists. Counselling such people too could help curb the menace.
B. Praveen, Palakkad, Kerala
The verdict in Geeta’s case would really be a landmark one if more such victims shed inhibitions and spoke up against the cruelties they undergo.
P. Prasand Thampy, Muthoor, Kerala
You can’t ignore the fact that a judgement based on this report will give uber-hip feminists yet another handle to traumatise men further. This, when society is already prejudiced against men in cases of sexual abuse.
Parthasarathy B., Chennai
Given modern-day China’s vast expansionist plans in Asia, Prem Shankar Jha is right in saying that India can’t afford to be belligerent with Beijing (Bordering on Reason, Jan 21). The situation confronting New Delhi now is much like what the West used to face in the Cold War era when Soviet Russia made moves to broaden its territory. Historically, naivete led India to strain its ties with China. Pt Jawaharlal Nehru, as our first PM, used to look at the Mao-led nation with awe, only to be thrashed in 1962. A great thinker otherwise, he erred in drawing inspiration from Fabian socialism.
Vijay Agarwal, Northampton, UK
Clearly, the pro-Communist ideology of Pt Nehru and his crony V.K. Krishna Menon led them to neglect the importance of modernising the military. Nehru didn’t worry much about the loss of Aksai Chin because he found it was one territory with not even a tuft of green. In other words, grass—or the absence of it—was the criteria for a region to be part of India or not!
T. Sathyamurthy, Folsom, US
Jha finds China generally pacifist, but I ain’t sure of it—at least going by the Chinese you meet in Canada or the US. Far from being religious or philosophical, they are crazy about money and power.
Varun Shekhar, Toronto
If Sardar Patel knew of the blunders the government was committing on defence preparedness, he should have quit the Nehru ministry and spoken up against it.
S. Aggarwal, on e-mail
The Nano is commendable if only for the fact that it dispels the perception that only the rich can afford a car (In a Nano Second, Good Buy to All That, Jan 21). A four-wheeler is also far safer than a mobike or scooter. Three cheers to Ratan Tata and his team!
K.R. Srinivasan, Hyderabad
The Nano represents a breakthrough in technology, design and manufacturing. Tata and co deserve fulsome praise. However, whether this small car will become a buyers’ favourite remains to be seen, considering the valid concerns about pollution and safety.
Sohan Aggarwal, Rockville
The Nano is likely to remain a tatty car. It may replace the autorickshaws, but not the two-wheelers—they are such a thrill to ride. Moreover, cars are status symbols to many and Nano would hardly qualify on that score. So, the middle class won’t go for it in a big way. And who knows, the price could shoot up by the time it hits the market this year-end. Then again, the government could hike taxes in the coming budget.
S.R. Prabhu, Alappuzha, Kerala
If the Nano has its share of detractors—mostly environmentalists—they have fair reason to be so. The car may be fuel-efficient and conforming to emission norms, but easy affordability means there could be thousands of them on the roads in no time. That would cause severe pollution and traffic congestion. This is worrying for a developing nation like India. We can’t afford to cut down on CO2 emissions at the cost of development. There have to be other ways of solving the looming green crisis. We could get cracking on better public transport, mandatory fuel efficiency norms, even taxes on private parking.
Farzana Nigar, Ranchi
The Nano, admittedly, is revolutionary, but there’s still a slot left for its rivals to compete in the small-car segment: the automatic gear car. Wonder why no one’s talking about it. Such a car would be a boon to people who suffer from diseases like spondylitis.
Anupam Kishore, Patna
I had heard somewhere that revolutions first occur in the mind and eventually manifest on the streets. Never thought, though, that a capitalist would himself engineer it.
Vineet Bhalla, Bhilai
Trust the green brigade to be a wet patch while everyone else is going ga-ga. Their new slogan: "Say no-no to Nano."
Remesh Aduvassery, Delhi
Your article A Sea of Subterfuge (Jan 21) wrongly mentions that the Delhi High Court has ordered the CBI to register a preliminary enquiry. The court had, while pronouncing its order on December 20, 2007, only desired that the ongoing probe into the Scorpene deal scam be completed in a fixed time-frame. It’s also incorrect to say that the CBI failed to produce any documentary evidence on the pertinent inquiry. Further, you say that the court said "...If you have tried to shield someone, then we will come down very heavily on you." We are not aware of any such observations.
Navneet Rajan Wasan, Joint Director, CBI
Our correspondent replies: These are the oral observations of the Hon’ble High Court and have been widely reported in the media.
In his review of The Oxford India Anthologies (Books, Jan 21), Khushwant Singh is unfair in claiming that he alone translated Umrao Jan Ada—he had a co-translator in M.A. Husaini. As for Godaan, it was not S.H. Vatsyayan ‘Ageya’ who translated the Premchand novel, but Gordon C. Roadarmel. As I understand it, a post-1850 anthology should ideally include only those writers who made a mark after that date, which is why the omission of Zafar, Zauq and Ghalib makes perfect sense.
C.M. Naim, on e-mail
It was unjustified. Outlook should not have let such an important anthology be reviewed by someone like Khushwant.
Arther Farouqui, New Delhi
The statements of Kancha Ilaiah and V. Sandhya on Dalit women priests were in bad taste (The Oracles of Devi, Jan 21). On matters like rituals, Hindus need no advice from people like Ilaiah, someone who has written a book called Why I am not a Hindu. It’s like Muslims seeking advice from Salman Rushdie on their religious customs.
A.K., on e-mail
I’m highly amused by this cat-on-a-hot-tin-roof reaction of the entire ‘secular’ brigade, including Bhaichand Patel (Delhi Diary, Jan 21). Now that Narendra Modi has been re-elected Gujarat CM, they have stopped abusing him, and instead started calling the voters names. The fact is that the people of Gujarat, unlike the ‘brigade’, don’t see Modi only through the 2002 prism. Their state has developed by leaps and bounds since. It’s time people like Bhaichand woke up to this reality.
Kiran Bagachi, Mumbai
Bhaichand is off the mark when he says Hindus and Muslims in Gujarat don’t mix. Even this year, on Makar Sankranti, it was Muslims who made a major chunk of the kites that sold in the market.
Jyotindra Khandwalla, Surat
Visit my native Saurashtra to know how cordial Hindu-Muslim ties are in Gujarat. Bhaichand should stick to writing on food and drinks.
Nina Kapasi, on e-mail
Gujarati Hindus have proved to be a progressive people, so there should be some valid reason if they hate Muslims.
Harish Vidya, London
Gujarat isn’t bigoted, but it can’t forget the pillage of Somnath. Big historical events decide the psyche of a society.
Pooja Shah, on e-mail
Hate your Muslim neighbour: that’s the Gujarati Hindu’s tip to the rest of the people in his community for leading a prosperous life.
Arun V., New Delhi
I’m honoured that a writer like Khushwant Singh, who takes pride in knowing Urdu, should review my work (Books, Jan 21). That alone indicates the importance of the anthology and is a tribute of sorts. It’s said that as one grows older one becomes ingenuous, even guileless. I’m thankful Mr Singh has made his pique with my selections apparent: my omission of his translations would not have been so glaring had he not pointed it out himself.
1. If Mr Singh had read the book and not just the flap, he might have understood my rationale of the term ‘modern’. If Zauq, Ghalib and Zafar were "alive in 1850", this doesn’t mean they were modern poets. Modernity is a sensibility, and in any case, 1850 is not my cut-off.
2. Mr Singh refers to Iqbal’s poem Lala-e-Sahra (Wild Poppy) as "obscure and short". He chooses to ignore the second, even more beautiful poem, Ruh-e Arzi Adam ka Istiqbal Karti Hai (The Spirit of the Earth Welcomes Adam). These two are among the most famous poems in Urdu. Mr Singh is miffed simply because his translation of Shikwa and Jawab-e Shikwa, which he announces is in its 14th reprint, is not included.
3. According to Mr Singh’s theory, the translator should have only an "adequate" or "working" knowledge of the original language, but have "mastery" over English. If the translator is not aware of the nuances of the original, how will he or she produce an authentic translation?
4. Mr Singh brings up Edwin Arnold, Fitzgerald and Brough to "prove" that these translators had only a "working" knowledge of Sanskrit or Persian. Has he forgotten in his pique that Light of Asia is not a translation but an original work and its literary value is so forgettable that it is not properly remembered even by an admirer like Mr Singh? As for Brough, Mr Singh’s memory has failed him again. Brough was an honoured scholar of Sanskrit and taught the language for a long time. And no one in their right mind today would treat the sad, syrupy production of Fitzgerald as a translation of the original Persian. I honestly fail to see how "being emotionally involved" with a language guarantees that the "essence" of the original will be conveyed.
5. Besides reading up on translation theories, Mr Singh should also try to keep up with the latest scholarly work on Urdu’s origins. I thank him for bringing up the hackneyed "general belief" that Urdu was born in military camps and take this opportunity to reiterate that Urdu or Camp is an abbreviation of Zaban-e Urdu-e Mualla or the language of the royal camp/city, for that is where Urdu became the accepted language of poetry and distinction, displacing Persian.
Mehr Afshan Farooqi, Editor, The Oxford India Anthology of Modern Urdu Literature
