Mani Shankar Aiyer, the intellectual sycophant

A few weeks ago I was at a dinner party where a very senior veteran journalist was also present. Election season was fast approaching, and inevitably the conversation veered around to politics. Over the last year or so I had developed an intense dislike for the congress politician Mani Shankar Aiyar. As soon as an opportunity presented itself, I launched a strong, emotional attack on Mr. Aiyar, flinging some choice abuses at him, and talking at length about his sycophancy with respect to the Gandhi family.

The journalist interrupted me after a few minutes and informed me that Mr. Aiyar was a good friend of his. Of course that didn't deter me from expressing my views, and I carried on after a gentle "Oh I didn't realize Aiyar is your friend, but...".

Eventually the journalist lost his cool and stomped off, but not before addressing the group and shouting loudly "You know, Narendra Modi is a hindu fascist"! He repeated this a few times before walking away.

I was flabbergasted! At no point did I ever mention Narendra Modi during the conversation. I was just expressing my (considerable) dislike for Mani Shankar Aiyar. So why did this journalist fly off the handle about Modi? I don't know for sure, but I can hazard a guess. The argument probably went like this...

You hate Mani Shankar Aiyar, who is a congressman. Mani is my friend, so I need to defend him. Since you hate a congressman, you must love the BJP. Narendra Modi is the most visible symbol of the BJP and an easy target for criticism. Therefore insulting Modi is a good proxy for defending my congressman friend.

I know this is pretty convoluted logic, but that is the best I can come up with.

Why do I feel the need to tell this story? Because journalists are human. They may have their own agenda, which means they can't always be objective. Therefore treat their opinions with a healthy dose of scepticism.

And remember this about Mani Shankar Aiyar. He is a former IAS officer, a man of immense intellect and potential. He hates Narendra Modi because of 2002, but absolutely drools over Rajiv Gandhi in spite of 1984. I am sure he can craft a very logical response for this anomaly. Just like our journalist friend did.

Hang on tight, here comes Narendra Modi

Narendra Damodardas Modi was sworn in as the 15th Prime Minister of India yesterday. He is a man who evokes strong emotions. You either love him, or hate him - it is tough to be neutral about the man. I have been watching him for the better part of a decade, and I have gone through a roller coaster of feelings about him through the years. So I thought it appropriate to write down what I think on the dawn of the biggest political change in independent India, with Modi leading the charge.

I believe Modi is an extraordinary human being, and most people who hate him or adore him fail to understand the man. He is not perfect - no one is - and he made one grave mistake in 2002. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that he is complicit in, if not responsible for, the deaths of many people. Most people think that since he has got away with 2002, he will be emboldened to commit similar acts on a larger scale. I disagree and believe that he will live the rest of his life atoning for that  mistake, creating a positive impact on a large number of people, leaving his legacy as a statesman.

2002 is the reason Modi has been unstoppable. He is a man on a mission, an extraordinarily intelligent and driven person, attempting to have people remember him for something other than Godhra. He knows he made a mistake, but he doesn't want that to be his legacy. It will take a lot over the next 5 to 10 years, but I don't underestimate this man.

He had to win the election, and win it convincingly to be able to drive his agenda as India's PM. The entire election campaign is the stuff of an HBR case study. He used every trick in the bag, touched the intellect and emotions of crores of people, and when he was sure of victory, pushed for that extra support to help him cross 300. He is not making this superhuman effort to be remembered as a Hitler or Jinnah. He is doing it for redemption. That is what makes him so compelling and powerful.

Modi is a man in a hurry. His first few days in office have seen more activity and intent than the first 100 days of the Manmohan Singh regime. The change from the pre-election street fighter to a post-election statesman is not just a pleasant surprise. It is an extraordinary transformation that has taken many people's breath away.

Very few doubt Modi's capacity for hard work and great administration. For all our sakes, I just hope that I am right about his intent.

Bravo Ajit Agarkar the commentator!

Ajit Agarkar could well become one of the best Indian cricket experts on TV.

I was flipping channels yesterday, and happened to see a news channel interviewing Agarkar and Dean Jones about the latest IPL matches. Agarkar has flair, is very composed, has great insights, and is surprising well prepared. I have watched most Indian cricket experts on TV over the years, and have been deeply disappointed at their mediocrity. Agarkar and Ganguly could be the breath of fresh air that we have sorely lacked over the years.

Shastri is suave and polished, but can't go beyond the usual cliches - he has learnt from the good ones, and has learnt well, but has no originality. The less said about Navjot Sidhu the better - whenever he appears on TV, I thank the inventor of the mute function. All others including Gavaskar are masters at stating the obvious. Sanjay Manjarekar had emerged as an outspoken commentator with good insights but has quickly joined the pack of the mediocre.

Will we have our own Ian Chappell, Barry Richards, Ian Healy, Shane Warne, or Nasser Hussain? Or will the Indian cricket commentary teams continue to wallow in mediocrity?

It is early days, but Agarkar is the best hope I have seen in years.

Bravo Michael Clark and the Aussies

Australia are back as the number one Test and ODI side in the world. Serious cricket followers knew this was coming, but perhaps not so soon after they imploded so visibly with crushing losses against India and England.

The one thing Australia know about winning Test matches is that the most important ingredient is aggressive, wicket taking fast bowlers. They pursue this principle with a single mindedness that is lost even on sides that have won consistently with this formula in the past. So Mitchell Johnson, Ryan Harris, and Peter Siddle are the backbone of their side, with Clark, Warner, and Watson playing supporting roles. The key is the bowlers.

Unfortunately India have never figured this out. Our focus is always on batsmen. Our heroes are always the Merchants, Gavaskars, Dravids, and Tendulkars. Never Nissar, Kapil, Srinath, or Ishant. We idolize our batsmen, and once in a while throw a bone to the wicket taking fast bowler. That is why India will never be a consistent world beater in Tests and ODIs. Period.

Unless one of our administrators figures out this simple truth and focuses single mindedly on producing and nurturing aggressive, wicket taking fast bowlers. With the Tendulkars and Gavaskars playing supporting roles to help the side win.

I can't see it happening any time soon because it will take courage and conviction to take the necessary steps. We can't even raise a voice against a corrupt and arrogant BCCI chief like Srinivasan. We deserve to be mediocre.