At first glance, there are quite a few striking similarities. While it might seem hard at this stage to even imagine Bangladesh winning the World Cup, but so was the case with India and Sri Lanka in 1983 and 1996 respectively. In both those cases, a motley group of bits-and-pieces players with a few stars thrown in (similar to what the Bangladesh squad currently looks like) were able to achieve what much more acclaimed squads from their own and other nations haven’t. Just like India had begun to show some signs in 1983 that they were finally getting the hang of the one-day game, and Sri Lanka made its presence felt in the tri-series in Australia in 1995/96, so has Bangladesh demonstrated to the world, through a 4-0 whitewash of the hapless Kiwis, that their victories against the top teams can no longer be regarded as upsets or one-off flukes.

To add to this, Bangladesh are playing all their matches at home, and the format is such that a win against any one out of India, South Africa, England or West Indies could be enough to take them to the quarter-finals, which again they are likely to play at home. And after that, it is just a matter of a couple of good matches.

Now, for the flip side. Bangladesh in 2011 is not really the same as India in 1983, or Sri Lanka in 1996. India had lost about thrice as many one-day matches as they had won against most of the major teams until 1983, and so was the case with Sri Lanka in 1996, while Bangladesh has lost about TEN times as many matches as it has won against the top eight nations. Moreover, against Zimbabwe and the Associate nations, Bangladesh is still likely to lose about a third of its matches, unlike India in 1983 or Sri Lanka in 1996, who might have been “dark horses” or “underdogs”, but were very much a part of the major cricketing nations and not just the “best among the rest”.

In the run-up to their respective fairy tales, India beat the West Indies in West Indies in 1983, and Sri Lanka beat Australia in Australia in 1996, in both cases the teams they would go on to beat in the finals of the respective World Cups. Bangladesh has only beaten New Zealand, and that too at home, and a final between these two teams is about as likely as Mr. Deve Gowda becoming the Prime Minister of India again.

Coming back to the home advantage, it might help spur Bangladesh on to the QFs or even the semi-finals, but after that, they’ll have to travel to Sri Lanka or India, and there, they might get overwhelmed by the occasion. In this regard, it will be much more prudent to draw a comparison with Kenya’s campaign in 2003 (which, btw, was helped along by a boycott and some favourable occurrences in the other matches) to understand where Bangladesh are likely to end up. Contrast this with Sri Lanka, who in 1996 beat India in Delhi in the group stage and England in Faisalabad in the QF, en route to the semi-finals.

Another point to consider is that if Bangladesh do reach the QFs, who will be their most likely opponents. If Bangladesh only wins 1 or 2 of the big group matches, then it will finish 3rd or 4th, and set up a QF most probably against Australia or Sri Lanka, and in the latter case, the QF will be held in Sri Lanka, which means Bangladesh will struggle to get past the QF stage itself.

All this might come to nought if Bangladesh end up under-performing and don’t even get past the group stage. Or they might pull off bigger upsets than ever seen before and go all the way to glory. We do not know, and whatever the result of today’s game against India might be, we won’t know for a few more weeks at least, even though this first game might provide some indications of things to come.

I, as an Indian fan, will be hoping for a different story altogether. Of a legend who has opened the batting in alternate World Cups, and taken India one step further on each of those occasions. Going by that logic, it is time for him to take India to victory in Mumbai on April 2.

It happened earlier when I posted on this blog with a link on cases against the Indian Army of human rights abuses in Kashmir, and the very next day, the controversy on Arundhati Roy’s and Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s seminar at New Delhi erupted. I began contemplating a more detailed post on the Kashmir issue and what exactly is Arundhati Roy’s problem, but waited to read more and understand the issue better.

A comment from a friend with a couple of links on Kashmir convinced me to respond through my next post, on the problem with Arundhati Roy and her ilk.

Two days ago, my friend commented again, this time with a link on how India’s elite are the real traitors, not people like Arundhati Roy, which convinced me to respond through this post.

To begin with, if posting links to others’ opinions is a good way to present counter-arguments, then here are some that I found:

Why should India not give away Kashmir, but instead be more assertive in using its power.

How Pakistan and China are exploiting Gilgit-Baltistan and its people, and no one is paying the slightest attention to that issue.

Why should ordinary Indians beware of these shameless activists who have a vested interest in hindering India’s progress.

How India is withering away under attack from all sides.

I know how my friend would respond to such articles – he would look at who the author is, form an opinion based on that, and maybe not even read the article fully once that opinion is formed. I would also look at who the author is and form an opinion, but I would still go ahead and read the whole damn thing, and at times, feel compelled to argue against it on my blog. I did that recently with Tarun Vijay’s article on how India is an “Ayodhya nation”. Tarun Vijay has been the editor of the RSS weekly, Panchjanya, for two decades. On any other day, I might have argued similarly against the last two of the four articles above, which were written by RSN Singh, a former Indian RAW officer.

For my friend, it is not necessary to express his arguments in detail against the words of people like Tarun Vijay or RSN Singh. Their professional or political affiliations are enough for him to not take them seriously, call them names and summarily dismiss their arguments. My friend and I are still very young and unknown, so let’s look at some more well-known people.

That is also the typical approach of Arundhati Roy and her ilk, to form an opinion based on where a person works or has worked, what is his/her socio-economic status or background, what are his/her religious beliefs, or in case of organizations, where are they funded from, among other things. And then, based on this opinion, you call them names and just ignore their arguments. For example, Pankaj Mishra in his article on why the world is silent over Kashmir, uses these terms for the Indian mainstream media – “choleric TV anchors, partisan journalists and opinion-mongers of India’s corporate media”. Or for example, they might look at the author in the second link out of the four I posted above, on Gilgit-Baltistan, an activist originally from Gilgit-Baltistan, but they might see that he is now an expatriate and has been selected as a fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, Delhi. Is that reason enough to doubt his credibility or not take him seriously? If that’s the case, then let us examine Arundhati Roy and her types through the same lens.

Arundhati Roy is half-Bengali and half-Keralite, and both West Bengal and Kerala have been known as bastions of Communism. Her mother was a women’s rights activist, so her critics will argue that rabble-rousing runs in her blood. Her father was a tea planter, she studied at reasonably good and well-known schools, and her Booker Prize winning novel ensured financial stability for her.

Indra Sinha, who talks about how India’s elite are the real traitors, is half-English and half-Indian. He was educated in England and now lives in southern France. Seems like he is one of those Indian elites as well against whom he points fingers.

Similar “background checks” can be done on many other writers, activists and thinkers who have come out in support of Arundhati Roy recently and in the past. Coming from well-off families, products of a privileged education, many of them now residing abroad. This reminds me of the film “Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi”, where Kay Kay’s character, Siddhartha Tyabji, makes the most noise about a Marxist revolution and people’s rights and so on. Shiney Ahuja’s character, Vikram Malhotra, a typical middle-class ambitious youth, criticizes his outlook, saying that he can afford to think that way because he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Eventually, it is Vikram who ends up in the villages of Bihar, while Siddhartha, faced with torture and disillusionment, gives up his revolutionary ways and goes off to England.

Doesn’t that seem to be the case with all these activists today as well? They can afford to think the way they do, because they have been brought up in fairly insulated and privileged environments, and they always have the choice of going away from India if they find things getting uncomfortable for them here. Whether their obsession with the “have-nots” and their problems is a product of being ashamed at their own privileged upbringing, or a means to seek public attention, I do not know, but I do know that in this quest to paint everything as a struggle between the “haves” and the “have-nots”, they forget that there is a large middle which falls in neither of these two classes.

However, instead of continuing to point fingers at such thinkers/writers/activists, let me say some good things about them as well. Indra Sinha has been a passionate campaigner for justice for victims of the Bhopal disaster, much like Arundhati Roy has actively campaigned for several causes. There is a lot to learn from their experience, but it is lost when they are more interested in rabble-rousing and finger-pointing than in offering any solution or inspiration for others. Why is it lost, on me at least? Let me try to answer that by turning that lens of “background check” on myself, and talk about who I am and how that shapes my thinking.

I am an Indian. I want to see my country progressing, but that progress should be for all Indians, and it should not be at the cost of putting other nations or the entire planet in peril. I am well aware of the challenges that each of these clauses brings, and I respect those who actually work at different levels to deal with these challenges, whether it be a grassroots activist, a bureaucrat, a politician, a journalist, an entrepreneur, or an ordinary citizen who goes about his/her daily life as usual but finds some time out to do some good work. Even those “ordinary citizens” who don’t have the time or inclination to do any “good work”, but do their own job well, are worthy of appreciation.

I have no respect, though, for those who sit in their comfortable cocoons and point fingers at others for sitting in comfortable cocoons.

I am a Mumbaikar. I have lived most of my life in Mumbai and will identify with this city wherever else I may live in future. I have traveled in this city’s crowded trains and buses, and met thousands of its residents from all sorts of social, economic, religious and linguistic backgrounds. Having lived in India’s biggest city, I am aware that I may not know a lot about the most backward regions of India, even though I have traveled extensively, but I would rather know more about it from someone who has actually visited or lived or worked in those regions than someone sitting in a cocooned environment like me and shooting his mouth off.

I am a Hindu agnostic. I have my own beliefs and opinions regarding religion, but I do not force them upon others. And I don’t think anyone else should either. If I am against those who use their definition of “Hindu pride”, “Hindu culture” or “Hindu heritage” to go berserk on the streets, I am also against other types of ideologues, brain-washers, proselytizers or evangelists who find fault with everything “Hindu”, or those who claim to be liberal and secular but ignore incidents like this one.

A couple of days back, on the day of Diwali, my old Christian neighbour rang the doorbell and gave me a greeting card on behalf of the “small Christian community” of the housing society where I live, which has mostly Christian residents. This attitude of mutual respect and tolerance, or to “live and let live”, is also an important part of being Indian, according to me.

I have two tags – IIT and IIM – which apparently put me in the “cream of the nation”. However, my experiences both at an IIT and an IIM have shown me that except for the academic brilliance, these places are just microcosms of India, with all its faults and virtues. And most people in these places, just like elsewhere in India, only want better lives for themselves and for those who matter to them.

What do we mean by “better lives”? It may mean different things to different people, from two proper meals a day to new clothes to a permanent house to a steady job to a range of appliances, gadgets and luxury items. It may also mean a life of dignity and self-respect, and a recognition of one’s legitimate rights, and most people would want to achieve it peacefully. When they do not get it peacefully, they might be forced to try other ways, which is what has happened with Naxalites, but that still does not justify their violence, or calling them “Gandhians with guns”.

Some people in charge of security and administration in Maoist-affected regions have stated that the best way to deal with this problem is to provide the tribal families with television sets and make them “consumers” in the modern sense. That might be an oversimplification, but so is this whole notion of a perpetual class struggle based on the teachings of a two-century-old German thinker.

Arundhati Roy once stated the following, and Indra Sinha quoted the same:

“What we’re witnessing is the most successful secessionist struggle ever waged in independent India – the secession of the middle and upper classes from the rest of the country. It’s a vertical secession, not a lateral one. They’re fighting for the right to merge with the world’s elite somewhere up there in the stratosphere.”

I would like to say to them, that what we are actually witnessing is each of these classes fighting for the right to merge with the class above them, and that is part of human nature. You cannot change that, but you can definitely make some positive changes by offering constructive solutions to the problems you claim to know so much about. If instead of that, you choose to point fingers, you only need to remember that the remaining fingers are pointing back at you. You seem to be telling ordinary middle-class Indians that just because they are economically in the top x% of the population, they are traitors. No wonder they are calling you traitors instead.

Before proceeding to try and answer this question, let me define it more clearly. By record, I mean one “important” record – most runs in a Test career. Not ODIs because even a casual glance at the table of highest ODI run-scorers and century-makers will show how far ahead Sachin is of the rest, and if ODI cricket becomes less and less popular with the increasing popularity of T20, then no one might ever be able to play enough matches to break Sachin’s ODI records, a la Jack Hobbs or Wilfred Rhodes in first-class cricket. Other formats like first-class, List A, T20 and T20-Internationals are too mundane or too new in Sachin’s case.

So the question is – what will it take to break Sachin’s record of most runs in Tests? Sachin currently has 14,240 runs from 171 Tests, and he is going to play at least 6 more Tests (against the Kiwis and Proteas) before the World Cup. While it is widely believed that he will retire from ODI cricket after the World Cup, we do not know whether he intends to retire from Tests as well. If Sachin really means what he said a few days back, then it does not seem like he is going to retire from Tests any time soon. I quote:

However, he has mentioned that he would like to reach 15,000 runs in Tests, which on current form, he might achieve within the next three months. So let us suppose for the time being that 15,000 runs will be the mark that Sachin will set before hanging up his bat.

Whoever aims to reach even close to this number will have to perform exceedingly well for an extended duration of time. How do we define “exceedingly well”? Let us say an average of 1,000 runs a year. Ponting has managed it over the last decade (2,233 on 1st November 2000 to 12,250 today), which is why he came to be regarded as a potential challenger to Sachin’s record. Though Sachin has been pulling ahead of him recently, Ponting still has a chance to catch up before age catches up with him. So we can still look at Ponting’s record, as well as those of other potential challengers. Here, we restrict ourselves to batsmen who have scored at least 5,000 Test runs. It does not make sense to analyze the statistics of a Suresh Raina or a Tamim Iqbal, as they have a long way to go and you never know what path their careers might take. We do not even know how much or how little Test cricket will be played 15 years from now.

With this criteria in place, I looked at the table of highest run-getters in Tests, and came up with the following names who have scored at least 5,000 runs and are still playing – Ricky Ponting, Rahul Dravid, Jacques Kallis, Mahela Jayawardene, S Chanderpaul, Kumar Sangakkara, Mohammad Yousuf, VVS Laxman, Graeme Smith, Virender Sehwag, Chris Gayle, Andrew Strauss, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Kevin Pietersen, Younis Khan, Mark Boucher.

To shorten this list further, I subtracted each player’s current age from 40 (assuming that 40 is the maximum age up to which someone can play respectably in today’s times), multiplied the remaining number of years by 1000 (assuming that they score, on average, 1000 runs a year, according to our definition of “exceedingly well”, till they reach the age of 40), and eliminated those who are still not able to reach 15,000. The following are thus eliminated – Rahul Dravid, S Chanderpaul, Mohammad Yousuf, VVS Laxman, Andrew Strauss, Younis Khan and Mark Boucher.

For the remaining batsmen, here are their current statistics:

Since all of these batsmen made their debut after Sachin, we can look at one more statistic – runs Sachin has scored since each of these batsmen’s debut.

From these tables, we can conclude the following:

1.)   Chris Gayle and Ramnaresh Sarwan are nowhere in the race. Their inclusion here was by statistical accident, because their figures so far show no sign of being able to compete with Sachin’s.

2.)   The most immediate challengers to Sachin’s record are Ricky Ponting and Jacques Kallis. While Ponting has been regarded as a challenger for some time now, Kallis has quietly sneaked up behind him. Their task is fairly well cut-out – to try and narrow, or at least maintain, the gap between them and Sachin while he is around, and then go for the record once he retires.

3.)   The numbers of Jayawardene, Sangakkara and Sehwag also compare favourably with Sachin’s. Jayawardene has an advantage in terms of many more matches played than Sangakkara and Sehwag, but the latter two have been closer competitors to Sachin since their debut. Since all of them are currently in top form (ranks 4, 2 and 3 respectively in the ICC Test batsmen rankings) and have quite some time left before retirement, it will be interesting to see how their numbers shape up in the years to come.

4.)   Graeme Smith and Kevin Pietersen are the youngest of the lot here and also have good records so far. Their best in Tests may be yet to arrive, and they might be the batsmen to watch out for once the others in this list hang up their bats. Graeme Smith has the advantage of having started his career much earlier than Pietersen, due to which he is currently well ahead, but that advantage could be wiped out in a few years, much like Ponting did to Sachin between 2003 and 2006. However, unlike Ponting who is younger than Sachin, Pietersen is older than Smith, and how crucial this age advantage can be for Graeme Smith, we will see below.

For a more quantitative answer to our question, let us see how old each of these batsmen will be when he reaches 15,000 runs, if he scores at the rate of 1,000 runs a year from now on. Ponting, Kallis and Jayawardene will be around 39, while all others except Graeme Smith will be close to or just above 40. Graeme Smith can achieve it before his 38^th birthday, much like Sachin is likely to do in the next few months. So in the long term, Graeme Smith has a better chance of seriously challenging Sachin’s record of most Test runs than anyone else. Unlike Ponting and Kallis, he is not in Sachin’s rearview mirror as of now, but his record so far and the advantage of age put him in this position.

Of course, what I have assumed here, scoring 1,000 runs a year on average, is a very tall task for any batsman. Ponting has managed it over a decade, while Sachin himself, plagued by injuries in his early 30s, has managed an average of 1,000 runs a year only from 1999 to 2002, and is now poised to attain it in the “since 2007” period if he continues his form into the upcoming series. Moreover, such statistical analyses could have been conducted at different points of time over the last 20 years, and would have thrown up a wide range of names as challengers to Sachin, Brian Lara having been one of them for a long time, all of whom were eventually left behind. Sachin’s arguably greatest achievement has been his longevity, having started much earlier than others and still going strong when others his age are panting and walking away into the dusk.

That brings me to my last point. All this analysis could mean nothing if Sachin decides to play on for a couple more years even after reaching 15,000, and maintains his current form. That could see the record being set at something like 17,000 or even 18,000, so high that it may be outside the reach of batsmen for generations to come. That is something a lot of his fans, who cannot imagine cricket without him, would like to see.

Firstly, let’s talk about the seminar. What was a liberal, free-thinking, staunch feminist like Arundhati Roy doing sharing the stage with Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who dreams of a ‘free’ Kashmir under a strictly parochial rule which will strangle the lives of ordinary citizens, especially women, in the name of ‘Islamic law’? I have put the word ‘free’ in quotes because Mr Geelani is a staunch supporter, not of Kashmir’s independence, but of its accession to Pakistan. You can find a couple of articles by people who attended the seminar and even spoke there, which state that Geelani now has a more moderate stance, but at least one of them also confesses that he is surprised at this changed stance.

For anyone concerned about the status of Kashmir, what Mr Geelani says is not enough, what matters is the opinion of the masses. And these masses do not mean only those who were applauding Geelani or Roy at this seminar, or the stone-throwing mobs on the streets of Kashmir, but also those who wait inside their houses waiting for the endless cycle of stone-throwing, curfews and massacres to end, and also those who have been forced to leave Kashmir and settle elsewhere, e.g. the Kashmiri Pandits, some of whom turned up to protest against Geelani and Roy at their seminar.

If we look at Geelani as a parochial, fundamentalist leader who advocates violence to enforce his will and preaches hatred for others, he seems eerily similar to some leaders here in Mumbai, who have also been in the news recently for their latest attack on a liberal author and his book. They routinely transgress the boundaries of the freedom of expression, both through their actions when they snatch this right from others, and with their words which threaten to disrupt public order. Will Arundhati Roy ever share the stage or nod in agreement with any of them? No, and quite rightly so. Then why share the stage and nod in agreement with Geelani?

Let me state here that from the account of those who attended the seminar, and from reading Roy’s writings or speeches in their entire context, a discerning individual would agree with her at least on some points. However, the masses and even the mass media are not always so discerning. Arundhati Roy has been known for regularly making statements which can be variously termed provocative and outrageous. She might be right in her opposition to nuclear weapons, to the US-led War on Terror, to big dams and other forms of top-down development, to the imposition of draconian laws and heavy-handed armed action against peaceful protesters or innocent civilians, but her utterances often seem to suggest that she is too blinded by her own ideology to see its limitations.

For example, her sympathy for Maoists stops her from seeing that exploitation and abuse is as rampant in the Maoist ranks as outside. Or at least, if she sees this, she does not express it as vehemently as her support for the Maoist cause. The Naxalite-Maoist insurgency may have started as a spontaneous reaction of the most backward groups against neglect and oppression, and the underlying causes still remain unresolved and continue to drive people to extremism, but one cannot ignore that this movement has turned into a perennially violent struggle which refuses to recognize any peaceful or democratic initiatives as legitimate, and is as destructive for those within its fold as for those outside. It is also probably sponsored by rogue elements from outside India’s borders. It has large numbers of deserters and former members who have been disillusioned by its violent ways. It may be spread across some of the most backward and deprived regions in India, but has failed to take root in some other equally backward parts of the country. Most importantly, Maoism or Mao’s ideology has been conveniently sidelined in the country of its origin, and a pseudo-capitalist system has been put in its place.

Coming back to Kashmir, it might be right to say that every human being or a group of them has a right to self-determination which overrides the laws or constitution of any nation-state. Arundhati Roy has already exercised that right once when she ‘seceded’ and declared herself an ‘independent, mobile republic’. Similarly, Kashmiris could possibly secede and declare themselves independent, and India might be forced to agree if it sees no alternative. But is the issue as simple as that? As I have written above, what about those who were forced to leave Kashmir due to threats to their lives? Will a referendum, if any, include their opinion as well, or only of the current residents? What if, out of the current residents, say 40% favour secession? The movement will be defeated on the ballot, but will those 40% remain silent? And what if 60%, or even 80%, favour secession? Will the remaining 40% or 20% be forced to go with them? Will such a referendum extend to the parts currently controlled by Pakistan? And if an independent Kashmir is formed out of this entire exercise, how long will it remain truly independent, and free from interference by Pakistan and China? All these questions deal only with Kashmir, but can we assume no trouble for Jammu and Ladakh? After all, militancy-related reports keep emerging from Rajouri, Poonch and Doda as well (all of these are parts of Jammu), and Kargil and Siachen (both are parts of Ladakh) have been at the centre of conflicts between India and Pakistan.

Questioning the present or the future of Kashmir, and making suggestions for the same, even if those suggestions include a possible secession from India, may not be considered seditious. However, an openly provocative and belligerent stance against the nation-state, as has been adopted time and again by Geelani, is not only sedition, but treason, and Geelani should consider himself lucky to be in a tolerant nation like India. The same goes for Arundhati Roy, who can afford to say whatever she wants and some more, and still get away with it, precisely because she’s in India. If her fear is that this right will be taken away from her, then we need to be supportive of her and this right, for it concerns all of us. It is expected, however, from an author and thinker of her stature that she will understand when her words cease to convince and begin to provoke, when her speeches do not exhort people to think and reflect, but fill them with anger and add to the existing complications. With that, I shall move to the two articles on Kashmir I mentioned earlier in this post. Both the authors seem to suffer from broadly the same problem as Arundhati Roy.

The first article, on the silence over the Kashmir conflict in Western circles, makes some good points, e.g. that the Indian mainstream media has not shown enough sincerity in representing the ground situation in Kashmir, and that Kashmiris who have lived through these times will still remember and find ways to express themselves. However, calling that mainstream media “choleric”, “partisan” and “opinion-mongers” in a sweeping, generalized manner does little good to his arguments, and exposes the author to equally caustic accusations by those who disagree with him.

Another example is as follows:

A month before his election, Barack Obama declared that resolving the “Kashmir crisis” was among his “critical tasks”. Since then, the US president hasn’t uttered a word about this ur-crisis that has seeded all major conflicts in south Asia. David Cameron was advised a similar strategic public silence on his visit to India last fortnight. Those western pundits who are always ready to assault illiberal regimes worldwide on behalf of democracy ought not to be so tongue-tied.

Perhaps both Obama and Cameron were advised by their aides that the Kashmir issue was different and more complex than the others they usually comment on, so they decided to reserve their comments until they knew better? Perhaps they also realize that India is not, after all, a typical ‘illiberal regime’.

The author paints a black-and-white picture of Kashmir – of a population desiring independence but living under the oppression of Indian guns. If only things were that simple. Besides the political and demographic complexities mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, it might also be informative to note that the ground situation in Kashmir is a maze of pro-Azadi, pro-Pak and pro-Indian people whose opinions have shifted over time and been influenced by a range of factors. They are caught in a tangle of violence and peaceful struggles, terrorists both home-grown and from abroad, former terrorists-turned-informers, informers who are also double agents or even triple agents. Add to this a cocktail of politicians and leaders of different hues, all fighting to cultivate their own narrow domains, and surrounded by three of the most populous countries in the world, all three nuclear-armed. However, the author simplifies this situation to suit his sweeping arguments, and ends up leaving doubts in the minds of the reader.

The second author, writing on whether India should voluntarily withdraw from Kashmir, seems to have similar problems. He gives excellent arguments about how holding on to Kashmir gives India nothing but false pride, and how a voluntary withdrawal can not only leave India more secure and prosperous, but fatally cripple the undemocratic powers at the helm of affairs in Pakistan. However, through some of his other arguments, he undoes the good work. Here is an example:

Indians are not the leaders of Asia — the Chinese are. If India wishes to be considered a good second to China, it should not fritter away its resources on nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, or Commonwealth Games. India should use its scarce resources where they are most needed, to help people raise themselves out of poverty.

And India should not play dirty pool with China, and harbour Tibetan governments-in-exile. Let it not be forgotten that one of the causes of the India-China border war of 1962 was the covert activities of the CIA from Indian bases. Yes, it is sad, the Buddha lived in India 2,500 years ago, but none are true to his vision; nor are the Tibetans. India should mend its fences pronto with China, and accept the glaring fact that they are bigger, and better — just as it wants Pakistan to acknowledge its leadership.

Firstly, the Chinese might be bigger in many respects, but they are still not regarded as the leaders of Asia by all the other countries. For every country hostile or indifferent to India and close to China, there is some other country which is wary of Chinese ambitions and only too happy to engage more with India. Secondly, despite all its problems and poverty, India does need something for its security, and some spectacles to showcase its sporting and other abilities. There is, rightly so, a lot of debate over how much should be spent on these ventures, if at all, while people continue to live in poverty. When was the last time you heard such a debate in China? Has anyone in China dared to question the Beijing Olympics, or the high-handed measures taken to ensure its perfect execution? Here is an article which tells how the same story is being repeated for the Guangzhou Asian Games.

Thirdly, harbouring Tibetans is not just about playing dirty pool with China, but also about a fundamental commitment to provide asylum to those who have been unjustly driven away from their homeland. Regarding the India-China war of 1962, here is a much better and more detailed story of what exactly happened. It explains in great detail how India was probably more at fault for the war, and not China, but does not make arbitrary comments about how China is good and India is bad, which is what this author can be accused of saying. Indians know quite well that China is bigger in most aspects, but they are justifiably proud of their democracy, irrespective of its faults and malfunctions. Telling them to prostrate before another country for being bigger and better is not exactly a good way to convince them of your viewpoint, however sound it may be.

These examples tell you how liberal and free thinkers who are genuinely concerned for the good of people, or at least claim to be so, leave themselves prone to criticism of being anti-national or seditious, or of being apologists or agents of external powers. Unfortunately, in complicated situations like in Kashmir, it is difficult to find the truth between the lies and propaganda of different sides. As my friend in his comment on my last post states, in cases of human rights violations, it doesn’t really make sense for us to take the word of the accused over that of the victim.

But in a region where you cannot enter safely until you are assured protection from one side or the other, what do you do if you decide not to listen to the Army at all? You can go and meet the “local people”, and listen to their stories, but how do you know that some of those “ordinary people” are not miscreants deliberately planted to spread misinformation? And even if we keep aside the “false allegations”, the 35 cases found genuine also offer enough scope for propaganda. 35 stories of human rights abuses with graphic details and some survivors or relatives to showcase the associated human suffering in each of them, are enough for any separatist leader to further his agenda and foment trouble, to provoke more youth into taking up violent means and adding to the endless cycle of violence and repression. And adding 1,471 “false complaints” to the list only makes the situation worse.

It is highly likely that the actual number of genuine cases is higher, that the Indian Army and government have ignored or brushed under the carpet some of the cases, or unjustly declared them false. It is also well-known that successive Indian governments have committed a series of blunders in Kashmir, which has added to the region’s troubles, and that keeping such a huge region and population under such a heavy siege is not only unfair, but unsustainable. The Indian government already realizes that, which is why it has been willing to engage with even the most hardliner separatists in its bid to find a solution. Equating such a government to its more roguish counterparts from across the border, or to the former colonizing powers, as Arundhati Roy does here, is not exactly a good way of speaking one’s mind.

The first one is for those who think that our armed forces are the biggest human rights violators in Kashmir, and also for those who think that they can do no wrong. This one tells you that they have indeed made some mistakes, but thankfully, they still have the guts to admit them, as well as the processes to address them. This also tells you that they have been accused of much more and much worse than what has actually happened. These accusations have been a handy tool for those who want these forces out of Kashmir for their own ulterior motives.

The second one lends an interesting viewpoint to the debate on capital punishment. I do not have a strong opinion on that, but I have heard of people who claim that death might be preferable to a long life in prison. One such person is Gregory David Roberts, the author of Shantaram, who spent years in solitary confinement in Australia and India and saw some of his prison-mates trying hard to kill themselves in any way possible to escape a long life in prison.