Tribute to the spirit of journalism

Johnston reporting for BBC in Gaza and just after his release from the captivity

(Pic 1 courtesy : Associated Press, Pic 2 courtesy: Reuters)

BBC correspondent Alan Johnston was freed by Palestinian militants on July 4 ending his 16 weeks of ‘terrifying’ ordeal. Johnston was abducted on March 12, and was taken at gunpoint by a group called the Army of Islam while he was on his way back home in Gaza city.

We at the GNBI pay tribute to the spirit of courage and fearlessness that accompanies those journalists, who risk their lives to bring to us those stories without which the world would have been darker and opaque.

We are reproducing an article of Alan Johnston which he had written for the BBC’s “From Our Own Correspondent”, and narrates his 1997 rendezvous with Uzbek warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum. Johnston was then posted at Kabul and reported the initial phase of the War on Terror, post 9/11 that saw the end of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

General Dostum’s Cavalry

Alan Johnston
(November 3, 2001)

Early one morning in the spring of 1997, I was standing on the Soviet-made airstrip outside Mazar-i-Sharif. Beyond the tarmac the flat steppe land of central Asia gave way to aline of mountains, a spur of the Hindu Kush range. Off to the left sat a dilapidated old military helicopter that looked badly in need of repair. I asked a militia officer where the helicopter was that was supposed to take me to the front line. Disturbingly, he just pointed at the machine that looked badly in need of repair.

Eventually, the pilot coaxed the clattering, shuddering, contraption into the air and we were off, low over the steppe on our way to the battleground and an appointment with General Abdul Rashid Dostum. The general started his career on the Communist side of the war, as a security officer in a factory during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. But he quickly expanded his horizons. He transformed his security unit into a fighting force drawn from his own Uzbek ethnic group, which dominates this part of northern Afghanistan. Soon his men were being used by the Communists government as shock troops against the Mujhaheddin guerillas. They were sent to do their brutal business in areas where the hold of the regime was most tenuous. And when General Dostum eventually switched sides and allied himself with the guerillas, it spelt the end for the Kabul government.

By the time I’d climbed aboard the helicopter in 1997, the war had brought the army of the Taliban movement to the borders of General Dostum’s northern stronghold. But that spring morning, the word was that his militia had made some advances on the long front line in the rolling hills of Badghis province.

The helicopter put us down close to the front. The place bustled with General Dostum’s fighters, many in traditional Uzbek dress: tightly bound turbans and long padded coats for keeping out the icy winds of the steppe. Far away, across a plain, a column of armed horsemen was making its way down a hillside. They hit the flat ground and broke into a canter. This was Uzbek cavalry, perhaps a hundred strong, surging towards us, dust rising from the pounding hooves. And there at the centre of the line, on a white charger, rode General Dostum himself.

As the riders reached us they reined in hard. There was a great neighing of horses and stamping of hooves. We were engulfed in dust, and the gathered soldiers roared in salute of their commander-in-chief. The general dismounted and strode towards me, a huge man in a turban, his Uzbek jacket reaching down his riding boots, and in his hand he carried a whip. He was orchestrating what amounted to a grandiose photo opportunity. His fighters had some success, and he wanted to make sure that the BBC and the outside world knew about it. In his deep, booming voice he joked with his troops and gave a running commentary as he strode down a line of captured Taliban vehicles. The general glowered briefly at a forlorn group of six Taliban prisoners of war.

He line up his senior officers and introduced them to me one by one. He’d been angered by some report in the media that his generals had been absent from the front. He wanted to make the point that they were, in fact, all there putting in a good day’s work. Next a string of jeeps took us rocketing up a hillside. At the summit, arrangements had been made for a picnic like no other. There were carpets and cushions spread on the grass, and there was chicken and rice and fruits and nuts. The guns on the front line were silent, and as we ate and drank we gazed at the hills that turned blue in the distance as they rose and fell towards Iran. The general talked of politics and war, and at one stage he pointed with a chicken bone at a peak off to the left and said: “See that mountain, the one with the snow on it? Well. I captured it three days ago.’

General Abdul Rashid Dostum

As it turned out, one of the commanders lounging on the cushions at that picnic betrayed General Dostum a few months later. It was the kind of act of grand treachery that is very much part of Afghan warfare. General Dostum lost his front line in the hills of Badghis and soon the whole of his northern stronghold was gone. The general endured a brief exile in Turkey but stormed back within months to retake his lands. In another stunning reversal he lost them once more to the Taliban the next year. And Mazar-i-Sharif could be about to fall yet again. General Dostum is back in the north, and he is determined to drive the Taliban from Mazar one last time. He has complained that he lacks heavy weaponry. He is reported to be using riders armed with Kalashnikovs, just like the cavalry I saw four years ago before that picnic on the Badghis front.

So here we are, at the start of the twenty-first century and Mazar-i- Sharif is still locked in a scene that could be drawn from the darkest passages in central Asia’s history. Armed horsemen laying siege to a city on the steppe; it is a drama in which Genghis Khan would have felt at home.

(Excerpts from book titled: From Our Own Correspondent)

My papa’s Thatcherism, my own Blairism

Sudhakar Jagdish
(Managing Editor)

It was a cold November morning of 1990 when Margaret Hilda Thatcher finally bid adieu to one of the most revered address in the World –the 10, Downing Street- after making an emotional speech from its doorsteps.

Thatcher before 10, Downing Street giving her farewell speech on November 28, 1990

(pic courtesy: BBC)

The iron railings standing behind her stood motionless as the Iron Lady, who ruled the United Kingdom for last 11 and a half year , almost in tears said: “We're happy to leave the UK in a very much better state than when we came here."

My papa has still the cuttings of the next day newspaper where it questioned ---“End of Thatcherism?”

Moving to sunlit June 27 forenoon this year, Tony Blair in almost similar fashion left the white arched doors after residing in the house for a decade. However, Blair was not alone like Thatcher. He had company of his fashionable wife Cherie and sons and a daughter, as the “happy family” posed for the shutterbugs.

Blair family

But there was a marked difference-Blair was no more iconic.

Thatcher’s last trip to Buckingham Palace to tender her resignation was termed as “unfolding of history before your eyes” by the BBC.

Media had no such ablution for Blair. The US magazine Newsweek wrote: “After a shamelessly long and high-profile six-week farewell tour, Tony Blair finally leaves office on Wednesday”.

(The last global summit that Blair attended as British premier- The G8 Summit at Baltic resort of Heiligendamm)

The BBC did not look back at Blair-era and refused to even say so. It focused on the new Premier Gordon Brown and on his Cabinet formation discussion. So was the Guardian.

Blairism was hardly heard, spoken and written, for it has been scarred with events that are not taking place either in the UK or its neighbourhood, but miles away in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As Blair for the last time answered questions at Westminster, where he admitted to the dangers faced by British soldiers in Iraq, two of them got killed in a Taliban attack in Helmand province in the yet to be normalized Afghanistan.

My father was in love with Thatcherism as I was growing, and had also predicted its end with her ‘retirement’, but I had witnessed neo-Thatcherism launched by rival New Labour under a ‘bright charming Blair’ as I gained adulthood.

The Iraq fiasco drained out sheen from the charming Premier in such a huge proportion that Michel Sheen as Blair in the 2007 Oscar winner ‘The Queen’ looked a much better Prime Minister than the real one---Confident, sharp, who would not like himself be referred as US Prez George Bush’s ‘poodle’.

Blair and Thatcher have much thing in common apart from their profession as a barrister, their reformist agenda, support to gay rights and their close to a decade rule that shaped the UK, the Europe and the World.

Both began their political life with challenges thrown at them. While Thatcher made her way to the Parliament from Labour stronghold Finchley on a Conservative ticket, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair gained victory from orthodox Labour seat Sedgefield on a reformist New Labour agenda that later paved his way to unprecedented three consecutive victories of him and his party in the general elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005.

The New Labour crafted by Blair took Britons to 21st century with growth, glitter and grin. Dipped unemployment rate, growing service industry, tactical improvement of healthcare and education helped the UK citizens overcome the identity crisis post British imperialism’s death and the demise of the Cold War.

If Blair ‘loved’ Bush, Reagan was Thatcher’s philosophical soul mate.

(Bush-Blair pic courtesy: CNN)

But Thatcher never allowed the media to look her cordial bonding with Reagan look akin to Blair’s subordinate behavior vis-à-vis Bush.

Thatcher played a crucial role in mollifying US’ hardline ‘deterrence’ policy to détente (relaxing of tension, especially between nations, as by negotiations or agreements) during Cold War.

Blair failed to do so in Post 9/11 world, when Bush got infatuated with ‘pre-emptive’ strike policy that has led to mortar prone seismic Kabul, oozing blood and flesh in Baghdad, ‘nuclear’ Iran, hungry Libya and Sudan, and tumultuous Middle East.

(Blair speaking to British troops in Iraq)

Thatcher also had her own share of ‘outsourced’ wars akin to Blair’s troop struggling in Hindukush and Euphrates. She had to fight Falkland Wars in Latin America in 1982 after ruling Argentinean military invaded the Falkland Islands. But the island was at least a disputed territory and remnants of British imperialism, and Thatcher wrapped up the campaign with a success.

Thatcher fortunately did not have to cope with suicide bombings, jihadi British Muslims who have taken the war on terrorism at the doorstep of Downing Street.

Blair had too.

The nearest brush Thatcher had with terrorism was on the early October morning in 1984 when Provisional Irish Republican Army bombed Brighton Hotel injuring her cabinet colleagues. Thatcher escaped unhurt but returned a day after at the same venue without venomous speech against the perpetrators.

A year later Britain signed the Hillsborough Anglo-Irish Agreement with Irish Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald that for the first time gave the Republic of Ireland at least an advisory say in the governance of Northern Ireland.

The Bush-Blair’s War on Terror is yet to conclude and it would be premature to pass judgment on its outcome and the change it has brought to the World -good or bad either.

Blairism for me will not end up with remembering Iraqi blood stain on his shirt but as the end of a turbulent decade that was enveloped with Taliban’s cloak, collapsing WTC, dropping of stealth bombs, execution of Daniel Pearl, Osama’s famous tapes , handcuffed prisoners at Guantanamo Bay , Saddam’s smile fading with his capture and execution that we all watched on World Wide Web etc etc.

As Blair put it on his last day: “I wish everyone -- friend or foe -- well. And that is that. The end," we look forward to see the end of this quagmire.

(Blair seen with his successor Gordon Brown)

But the truth is that Mr. Blair, it would take a long long time till climate change threatens the entire mankind altogether.

Wait a minute! Here is the final dissimilarity between Thatcher and Blair as I wrap up.

Thatcher continued as Member of Parliament determined to remain a thorn for her successor John Major. But Blair has become more global by accepting to become representative of the Quartet- the UN, US, Russia and the EU—in the Middle East peace process.

Hope the peace prevails just like my papa sighed after Thatcher’s exit. Then there was peace, now we require peace.

When Steve Waugh loved the hated phenomenon of losing!

Vikram Vishal
(Chief Sports Editor)

Nobody likes losing. Actually, we hate it, particularly if it’s a game.

But there is an instance when Australia’s World Cup winning captain Stephen Rodger Waugh, who played cricket consistently for his country since the tour of India in August 1985 and ended it with Team India’s Down Under visit in 2003-2004, loved this hated phenomenon.

Having started his international career against India and then beating all the Test playing nations in their own backyard, except his debut opponent, Steve always visited this country with more determination to win (and conquer the Final Frontier) than any of his foreign tours.

However, the tour of 1998 turned out to be a ‘catalyst’ for his involvement in charity work, a development that the former Sydney cricketer termed as “very much a turn of fate.”

In his autobiography ‘Out of My Comfort Zone,’ Steve says he is “forever grateful” for losing the 1998 Kolkata Test, that too in just four days, at Eden Gardens, a ground which he calls the ‘Lord’s of the Subcontinent’.

The comprehensive defeat at the hands of India ensured, directly or indirectly, that his life would never be the same again.

On his return to the hotel room after the defeat with a day to spare, Steve found a letter pushed under his doors. It was neither from an autograph seeker nor a request for a donation, not even someone asking him to sponsor a family to Australia. It was this piece of paper that kicked off his journey to Udyan-- a Barrackpore-based rehabilitation home for children whose parents suffer form leprosy.

The next morning (March 22, 1998), which otherwise would have been the final day of the Test had the match lasted for that long, Steve, accompanied by the lady who wrote that letter, drove to Udyan located on the outskirts of the City of Joy. It did not take him long to realise that it was a lifetime task he wanted to be a part of.

And, he immediately saw his role as being the “vehicle” through which funds could more readily be accessed through sponsors, donations, fundraising evenings and personal endorsements.

The letter not only proved to be a big turning point for Udyan, it also helped a ‘professional’ cricketer shape into the ‘person’ he is today and gave direction where he is heading.

Steve recalls, “I’m forever grateful that we lost that Test back in 1998-- not because of losing, but because we did it with a day to spare.”

Whatever happens, happens for good! Right Mr. Waugh?

Belated Happy Birthday!

Maya break! Not at all

It's been a month that the whole team of GNBI POST were out of the loop.Between this we MISSED 'UP election'--- Mayawati's meteoric ascension to the gaddi of Lucknow.

We were out when Mumbai's hit and run accused Pereira got scot free, the sensational encounter of LeT militants who were 'hatching Narendra Modi's assassination turned out to be fake and senior IPS officers were booked, Maran became Karunanidhi's ISI-factor in the quarrel between his two sons for the DMK legacy and above all Abhi-Ash tied nuptial knots amidst frenzied Indian media who were unapolegetic-ally shunned out by apologetic Big B.


Our newsblog is facing difficult times with some high profile reporters being unable to contribute and myself got embroiled in certain out of career problems. This had led to the blog going kaput.



Now we are back with a much smaller team, but hopefully sincere enough to give you insight of news that had been due. So the question you must be asking what is this cute bear on the newsblog page .

Take a look once again. Its the same KNUT bear of Germany which has become a symbol of GLOBAL WARMING. We leave with the images of the bear that gives us the message of a fragile ecosystem and the unique relationship that human should have with our nature. [NOTE: KNUT is a captive-born polar bear , who was rejected by his mother at birth and brought up and bottle-fed by his keeper, Thomas Doerflein. A 20-year old polar bear Tosca had given birth to Knut and his brother on December 5, 2006. But Tosca, who is a former circus performer, rejected Knut and his brother. After four days, the brother died and Knut was separated from his mother by zoo workers. He spent the first 44 days of his life in an incubator. On March 23, 2007, Knut was presented to the public for the first time. And he will be the mascot animal for a conference on endangered species to be held in Bonn next year.]



Cheers!

Aurora Ray
Managing Editor,
GNBI

Off the records!

Rural Minister stumped by rural women

Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, Union Minister for Rural Development recently visited his constituency Vaishali in Bihar and addressed a group of women. But the experience for RJD leader was not rosy but a highly embarrassed one. While narrating and making claims of his UPA government's welfare measure the minister was stumped when women openly rejected his claims and that too on his face. When the minister said that the Centre had released some astronomical crores of rupees for welfare schemes, women in groups replied "we have not received". When he said the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme has generated millions of jobs, many women stood up and replied, "Not a single women have got one". Flummoxed Singh left the venue and scolded the organisers for "embedding" the crowd with opposition parties members. However, the ladies said we just stumped the Minister. Time for Indian women team to send to World Cup! Not a bad idea at all.

'Mad' Discussion

The Defence Secretary level talks between India and Pakistan have just concluded with both sides agreeing to disagree. One more failure and a Brigadier posted in J and K was heard telling his colleagues in South Block, "Were they mad to have optimism on the first place." With such mood, we can understand why the two sides talk, talk, talk and talk, but agree on nothing.

Priyanka's roadshows !

Will Priyanka Gandhi be accompanying his brother Rahul in the roadshows? If murmurs in the inner Congress circle and Raisina Hill are to believe, it could be true. Priyanka may join his brother in Amethi, Raebarelli, and east Uttar Pradesh that will be going to polls later this month. A young sisterly help for elder brother!

I’m the Boss, boys!

(pic: courtesy --Getty Images)

Vikram Vishal

(Chief Sports Editor)

Wo betide, you dare not take your BOSS for granted. You have no right to squander my “hard earned” funds. You all frittered away my money and efforts put in for the World Cup. Now, pay for it.

Is this the message the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) trying to convey to the Men in Blue by scraping the contract system and limiting their other sources of income?

Well, if seen closely, this is what the mirror on the wall reflects. For, it’s hard to believe that the contract system and players’ endorsements led to India’s Cup debacle.

Ironically, the obvious indication that money is the root cause of Indian cricket’s poor show in the recent past has come from the world’s richest cricket body. This is a revenue-spinning organisation that has mastered the art of amassing wealth from virtually nothing.

By putting a cap on players’ match fees and disbanding the grading system-- a move that will now see Sachin Tendulkar and a debutant ‘Chironjeelal’ on the same podium-- it is more than apparent that the ‘owner’ of Indian cricket has engaged itself in a battle with the ‘mafia’.

Most of the “revolutionary” decisions taken in the glass house in the backdrop of the Wankhede are undoubtedly intended to give the senior pros of Indian cricket a nasty reminder-- “Boys, I’m the boss. Don’t try to make inroads into my system”.

But does the Boss care to explain if money has imprisoned our cricketers’ mind, then how come the Indian hockey, where the big bucks are nowhere in the frame, has failed to retain its magic?

Why the soccer fans in India are more of “European soccer” fans, who can name the whole team of Real Madrid, Man U or Inter Milan, but will laugh it off when asked to list even five footballers playing for their own country?

Make no mistake, it’s because performance does not come with money, but money comes with performance.

And, it would be a blunder if we think the BCCI Pvt. Ltd believes the other way round. It can never. The owners of cricket in our country are the shrewdest people around. At least they are smart enough to brainwash the fans who don’t see cricket beyond cricketers.

For the fans, the board has done all that needed to be in order to improve the standard of the game.

Henceforth, Indian cricket will be minus graded contracts; same retainership for all having Indian cap; slashed match fee; only the skipper interacting with the media; fitness test before every series; more than one coach; no more zone-based selection; paid selectors on fulltime basis; and new wickets and system at domestic level.

Certainly, it does generate the ‘feel good’ feeling. But not for long. The unprecedented ‘rulings’ miss one BIG thing-- the Board of Control for Cricket in India.

Who said no one in this world is perfect? Hadn’t the person heard of the BCCI?

The board blatantly absolving it from cricket’s on-field failures has never been a surprise. But if it finds fair enough reasons to serve probably the country’s finest ever cricketer Sachin with a notice and keep a check on players’ accounts, isn’t a high time for some modifications in the board as well?

It wants “its players” to do an Australia. But when it comes to discipline and professionalism for itself, the board appears to be rather happy to do a Zimbabwe.

The very day the board decides that only captain will be allowed to speak or write for media, it forgets to mention who would interact with the fourth estate on behalf of the board.

Much to the surprise of many, the media briefing about a meeting-- that caught the imagination of all and probably was the most talked about in the history of Indian cricket-- was made by the Treasurer of the BCCI.

Who will issue a notice to them for not sending the Secretary or appointing a media manager to do that job?

Who will issue a notice to them for locking horns with the ICC every time the latter comes out with marketing policies for its tournaments?

Who will issue a notice to them for having a politician and not a paid fulltime CEO at the helm of affairs?

Who will issue a notice to them for making the broadcasters airing Indian matches bear loses due to its vague telecast rights?

Who will issue a notice to them for always saving their skin at the cost of players, captains, coaches and selectors?

Probably no one, as they are above the law of cricket. A law-- made by the BCCI and made for the BCCI, giving them the ‘exclusive right’ to grab the credit (besides of course all the money) for all “good things” and penalise others for any ‘untoward’ episode.

Come, let’s do the ‘post-mortem’!

Vikram Vishal

(Chief Sports Editor)

So it’s all over now (at least for Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly and Kumble), and it’s time to play the country’s second most participated sport-- the blame game. And the nominees to be targeted are: the Men in Blue, the Captain, the Coach, the five ‘wise men’, the Media, we the people, and last but not the least, the ‘owner’ of Indian cricket-- the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

I am going for the last one. You can also pick your own choice, and go ahead to perform its, his or their ‘last rite’ or erect barricades to stop the ‘culprits’ from entering their homes.

With the team crashing out of the World Cup in the very first round after having flown to the Caribbeans as one of the favorites, it goes without saying that some heads are set to roll down. But what needed to be said or rather asked is that what has necessitated the ‘would be’ changes?

Is it for improving standard of the game? Is it for sending a strong message to the upcoming ‘Gods’ that don’t take your places for granted? Is it for punishing the public’s culprits? Or just to save their (BCCI) skin?

Well, with the BCCI president Sharad Pawar making the statement-- the time has come “to start encouraging younger players”, just after India’s ouster, it appears more as if the time has come for the Board to look for the scapegoats.

“Our team has disappointed me and the nation. BCCI provided maximum facilities to the players… It (Cricket Board) will decide on the future course of action,” is how Mr. Pawar reacted, indicating that all the efforts put in by the BCCI Pvt. Ltd. went in vain, so they must be castigated.

But if we are talking about some modifications for the betterment of cricket, isn’t it the high time now to look beyond players and the selectors. For, those at the helm of affairs also have some accountability that goes further than sacking and replacing players, captains, coaches and selectors.

Ask any board official if the BCCI is a cricketing body, then why no cricketer is heading it, and he would be off in a flash, saying it needs administration. If it needs administration, then why it has no CEO? It won’t be surprising if he comes up with an answer saying-- because it’s India.

But the easiest question, which unfortunately none of the board members would answer or rather would not want to answer, is that why a political heavyweight of the country having a Union Minister’s portfolio is running the world’s richest cricket governing body?

We “the people of India” fancy our team winning consistently, defeating all others at their homes, massacre minnows as if they are ‘minnows’, never lose to weaker teams, and if it’s some of those bad days, then at least show some resistance.

To be precise-- play like Australia or South Africa. And, if it’s not happening, then we “the people of India” are always ready to hit the roads.

But much to the disappointment of the players, we “the people of India” prefer minding our own business, when the BCCI fails to provide the team with their official uniform ahead of a foreign tour; when all cricketing nations concur with the ICC’s marketing policies, but for some obvious reasons, the Indian cricket board doesn’t, when broadcasters airing Indian matches have to bear loses.

No doubt, Indian game in the West Indies was one of the most humiliating performances in the Indian history of the World Cup, and players are more accountable for this than anyone else. But it would be even more shameful for us “the people of India” if the board tries to absolve it from the team’s early exit from cricket’s most coveted tournament.

After all, it’s a “collective responsibility”, isn’t it Mr. Chappell*?
*Greg Chappell is BCCI’s most loyal employee.

निठारी पर भारी निठल्ली व्यवस्था

Team GNBI

कई हिन्दी फिल्मों में ऐसा होता है कि बड़े विलेन को बचाने के लिए छोटे विलेन या फिर किसी मासूम को बलि का बकरा बना दिया जाता है। कहते है कि फिल्मों की कहानी भी रियल लाइफ से ही प्रेरित होती है। या फिर कभी रियल लाइफ रील लाइफ से सीख लेती है। लगता है निठारी कांड में भी ऐसा ही कुछ हो रहा है। मानवता को शर्मसार करने वाले निठारी कांड में पहले तो समाज के पहरेदार निठल्ले बने रहे और अब क्लाइमेक्स में स्टोरी ही बदल देने पर आमादा हैं। 22 मार्च 2007 को सीबीआई ने प्रेस कॉफ्रेस के जरिए जो बताया उससे तो यही लगता है कि बड़े विलेन को छोड़ छोटे विलेन पर ही गाज गिरने वाली है। सुरेन्द्र कोली कह रहा है कि सारी हत्याएं उसने ही की हैं और उसके मालिक मोनिंदर सिंह को इनकी कोई जानकारी ही नहीं थी। ये सरासर फिल्मी लग रहा है। मानो किसी ने पटकथा लिख दी हो और सुरेंद्र डॉयलॉग की तरह बयान दे रहा है।

क्या ये संभव है कि आपके घर में ही एक नहीं दो नहीं पूरे 19 मासूमों के कत्ल हो जा रहे हैं और आपको भनक तक न लगे। भले ही आप घर से बाहर हों तब भी। मान भी लिया जाए कि सुरेंद्र मानसिक तौर पर विकृत हैं तो क्या मोनिंदर को कभी इसका आभास नहीं हुआ। ये तो समझ से परे है। जिस तरह मोनिंदर सुरेंद्र पर रुपए लुटाता था उससे ये मालिक-नौकर का रिश्ता कम हमराज़ का रिश्ता ज्यादा लगता है। सुरेंद्र उत्तराखंड कि किसी दूर-दराज के गांव का है। जब वो अपने गांव जाता था तो मोनिंदर की गाड़ी उसे छोड़ने जाती थी और गाड़ी ही लेने भी आती थी। क्या हाई-फाई मोनिंदर सिर्फ एक नौकर के लिए ऐसा करता होगा। वैसे भी इतना बड़ा कांड हो जाने पर जिस पुलिस को भनक नहीं लगी या फिर भनक न लगने का नाटक किया गया हो उस पर यकीन करना मुश्किल है। हमारे यहां सच्चाई हर स्तर पर पैसे, सत्ता और रुतबे के नीचे दम तोड़ती रहती है। अगर लोग इतने उग्र नहीं हुए होते तो मुमकिन था कि निठारी कांड भी पुलिस की फाइलों में धूल खा रहा होता। लोगों की सक्रियता की वजह से ही मामला सामने आया और सीबीआई जांच की घोषणा हुई। पर फिर सच्चाई का गला घोंटने की कोशिश हो रही है।

इससे इनकार नहीं किया जा सकता मोनिंदर रुतबे और पहुंच वाला शख्स है। पैसों की उसे कोई कमी नहीं। कहीं ऐसा तो नहीं कि मोनिंदर को और उसी कड़ी में और भी सफेदपोशों को बचाने का अभियान चल रहा है।

निठारी कांड के बाद जिस तरह लोगों का गुस्सा फूटा उससे इस मामले को दबाना तो लगभग नामुमकिन हो गया था। इसलिए किसी न किसी को तो सज़ा देनी ही है। ताकि हमारे रखवाले या कहें कानून के रखवाले लोगों के गुस्से को शांत कर सकें कि देखो..हमने तो मुजरिम को खोज निकाला और सज़ा भी दे दी। पर इस संभावना से इनकार नहीं किया जा सकता कि बड़े लोगों को बचाने के लिए सुरेंद्र कोली को बलि का बकरा बनाया जा रहा है। मतलब ये कतई नहीं है कि सुरेन्द्र कोली बेगुनाह है...ये कहने का बस इतना मकसद है कि सुरेंद्र कोली के साथ बड़े दोषियों पर शिकंजा क्यों नहीं कसा जा रहा है? कोली के साथ बाकियों को सज़ा देने की कोशिश क्यों नहीं हो रही है? क्यों बड़े दरिंदों को बचाया जा रहा है? क्यों मासूमों के सफेदपोश हत्यारों पर मामूली धाराएं लगाई जा रही हैं?

जैसा कि फिल्मों में होता है...मालिक अपने नौकर से कहता है कि मेरे गुनाह भी अपने सर पर ले ले। तुझे तो वैसे भी मरना ही है...मेरे गुनाहों की सज़ा भी तू ही भुगत ले तो मैं तेरे परिवार की लाइफ बना दूंगा...। कहीं रील लाइफ की पटकथा ही रियल लाइफ में तो नहीं चल रही .... सतर्क रहें...

We Killed Bob Woolmer!

Sudhakar Jagdish

(pic: courtesy --cricinfo.com)

Shocked, startled and provoked were the initial reactions to find the Pakistan cricket team coach Bob Woolmer dead in Jamaica, where his team of three years and the 1992 champions had to make a 'humiliating' exit from the World Cup.

The reactions then changed to grief and then to remorse for we- a subcontinent of cricket frenzied nation have killed the person with whom we even never had any physical contact.

As Bob is dead, people of the two countries of this part of the world have to realise that we have pushed the excitement of cricket to a much farther limit, where it is no more a sport but an obsession in all wrong connotations.

Cricket in India and Pakistan has transformed from a national sporting passion to an individual violent psychotropic obsession that fails to differentiate between a game and a war.

As you read this, some light on Bob's death may have been already shed. It could be anything – a drug overdose, to Bob's failure to withstand the agony of defeat (or fear of public humiliation in Pakistan) or it could be even a conspired murder to prevent him from exposing the 'dirty politics' of Pakistan Cricket Board.

Whatever it may be, there is only one underlying fact that it points to –Cricket is no more a holy grail, but has changed to an unholy one.

If hours before bob's death or we could say it like this: Hours after Pakistan's defeat at the hands of Ireland, if a former Pakistan player tells an Indian news channel, "knives are out in Pakistan against Inzamam (Pakistan skipper) and Woolmer", one could realise , where the murderers besieged.


Within us

Bob's death is a tragic reminder and a wake up call for everyone to realise: Lets play the game of cricket.

Not the likes of hoarse cries that our Hindi news channels shout – Zimmedar kaun? (Who is Responsible?), after they found India lose its opening match against Bangladesh.

Media, however deflect criticisms against it saying, "People are passionate to know about cricket and cricketers, and hence they hog our frontpage and prime time".

They knowingly do not recognise their own role in whipping up the frenzy by writing and telecasting all stupid things and creating a mania, which finally turns a fan into a fanatic.

Finally, we are caught in a vicious circle of whipping up the bitter frenzied cricket cream and then getting served with it.

The degree of our fanaticism can be gauged from the fact that a news channel runs programme titled 'Cricket Controversies', that shows how we each one of us love to analyse, criticise, gossip and also give advise about all 'wrong things' that happen in the cricketing world.

Players in media have still to realise that media carries a double-edged dagger whenever they come close to you.

If it could shower pleasantries outnumbering your contributions and holding you in high esteem, the next moment it could brutally shred you in piece; little realizing the harm it has already done to the sport.

Cricket, like any other sport, began with a simple objective of infusing amusement and happiness in our life and taking a time off from regular monotony.

No one even in his or her wildest dreams would have ever thought of a game becoming 'larger than life' – a fact that has surfaced with the unfortunate demise of Bob.

This madness now has become a potent drug for people of the two warring nations to turn them impotent.

Keeping the cricket bat in hour hands would be a better idea than keeping it on our head. Playing cricket, rather than discussing it, would be far better idea to spend a Sunday afternoon.

Having written that, just watch our hands; it's already red with Bob's blood.