The end of a chapter...and the beginning of another

In my earlier blog on the Jessica Lal case verdict, I had said that justice should be deemed served only when the victims feel a sense of closure. Saddam Hussein, the erstwhile autocrat of Iraq, has been executed by hanging today. For a defender of capital punishment, this should be time to shut up and sit quietly, but then common men rarely keep quiet; it’s just that their voice is rarely ever heard.

Saddam Hussein had been credited by some of his supporters for modernising Iraq, and for having kept fundamentalist Islamic forces at bay by enforcing a uniformly secular policy in Iraq. This is all good, really, but I fear not enough to justify massacring innocent people, just because someone from their community tried to kill you. You may have been the symbol of Arab pride against invading American armies, but your conduct towards your fellow Arabs was never exemplary in the first place.

Augusto Pinochet, the former dictator of Chile, who passed away recently, also was credited by his supporters to have ensured that Chile emerged as the most developed economy in South America during his regime. But they don’t mention the countless thousands who simply went missing, just because they dared to oppose his excesses at times. That a ruler makes your life a pleasure doesn’t entitle him to taking it, if you should start asking him questions. A ruler is at best a symbol of the people, to govern their land at their behest, no more.

Saddam’s trial may have been a farce, considering its speed, and the manner in which it was conducted, but that doesn’t still refute one major point. No matter when Saddam would have been brought to trial, no matter by whom, in front of a tribunal appointed by the occupying American-British forces or by a democratically elected government, the verdict would have been exactly the same. His crimes were too explicit, too open to be denied, too horrible to be pardoned or to be given any sentence other than death. That this execution may smack of victor's justice is coincidental, not integral to the sentence.

And it would seem that no one in Iraq was even trying to. Maybe that is why Saddam in his last testament seemed resigned to his fate, and although he did lament his unfair trial, he advised his people not to hate, not even those who had hanged him, for hate blinds one to reason and makes one unfair. A poignant statement and perhaps a wise choice of words.

His victims and their families may now start the process of rebuilding their lives. They can now try to forget those scars which his regime forced on them, because now nothing would be served by them continuing to remember them. Let his final words, his advice to his people, be his legacy, and may it be taken seriously, so that Iraq returns to its former state, as a pristine nation, the jewel in the sand.

Have we lost it...?

Two cases have emerged, which would shock and appal even the most hardened of souls. The serial kidnappings and subsequent killing of children in Noida, and the murder of an 11 year-old child by his friends serve to remind us what a disturbed world we live in. That no matter how much we may advance in technological terms, in the context of the mind, the intellect, we are more backward than even the primeval man.

The Noida kidnappings were at one moment mysterious, and yet so long as the skeletons of the children had not been found, there still existed a semblance of hope that the children would return to their homes, maybe not unblemished, but definitely alive. But the discovery of the skeletons must have dashed all these hopes. The local law enforcement authorities predictably failed in their duties once again, and the end result is that too much innocent blood has been shed.

To my mind, rape and sexual abuse have always been the most horrendous and horrible of crimes that an individual may perpetrate. Even murder pales before it, because at least in the case of murder, the victim is granted death, thereby releasing him from his agony. But a rapist offers no such solace, no such reprieve. He impales not only the body, but also the soul, the mind, and leaves not a person, but an empty shell in the wake of his cruel passions. Such a crime is not just reprehensible; it is plain abominable.

But nothing compares with abusing children. I mean, how can someone be so depraved as to blemish an innocent soul, to so torment that which has been so often described as God’s most beloved, with such a satanic act? Paedophilia is perhaps the worst that a dissolute mind can conjure from the depths of Hell. It is still possible for adults to emerge out of the shock, out of the pain that rape may induce, but it is impossible to imagine that the ordeal that the juvenile victim faces could vanish or even be reduced in the face of the passing years of Time.

I say, hang these degenerate criminals; there can be no notion of mercy in such cases. I have always been a strong proponent of capital punishment, but can and will permit the judiciary’s decisions to grant punishments other than this in crimes such as murders. But when it comes to such crimes, crimes which don’t just break the law, but also threaten the very normalcy of society, there can be no reprieve, because such felons do not deserve any kindness, because to do so would be to rub salt in the wounds of the victims and their families. We cannot afford doing that, not now, not ever.

Justice is served.

Justice is deemed served only when the victims feel a sense of closure. It is imperative that one understands that while justice may be delivered, by virtue of a sentence or a verdict, it may still remain far from allaying or soothing the angst of the victim(s), if it doesn’t take into consideration their emotions, and merely judges the issue on the basis of cold facts.

The Jessica Lal case, which has rocked India, has come to an end. Some would exclaim the ultimate conviction of Manu Sharma and his accomplices as the victory of justice, and a reaffirmation of the trust that the common man reposes in the corridors of the judiciary. Some would see this as another indication, another vindication of the principle that all are equal before the law, be they a king or a commoner. And quite rightly they believe so.

And yet, 7 years is too long for justice to be served. In these years, the parents of Jessica Lal passed away, in wait of their daughter’s murderer’s conviction. Allegations of the most reproachable and reprehensible manner have been leveled against the late Ms. Lal herself, and not much was said or done about the one who made these comments. Evidence was tampered with, and the entire judicial process mocked at. What absolute power can achieve if it wishes to do so is aptly demonstrated by way of the manner in which the convicted tried to subvert the system. That despite all this, justice was delivered is in itself a matter of pride, a matter of great celebration.

The family of Ms. Lal had declined to ask for the death sentence for the convicted, on ideological grounds. So, life imprisonment for them is a just punishment, and perhaps somewhere these beliefs of theirs must have weighed heavily with the court when it took the decision of whether to pronounce the death penalty or life imprisonment.

I am a supporter of the death penalty, and advocate it being used to punish those who commit the most abominable crimes, such as pedophilia, patricide, matricide, and even rape. Homicide involving torture of the victim also ought to qualify, as it isn’t simply an act of passion therein, but a coolly planned crime, aimed at causing the greatest degree of horror.

But in this case, the rarest of rare criterion is inapplicable, simply because this was a crime of passion with no ulterior motive behind it. And I do not find it odd to say that by declining to punish Mr. Sharma by way of the death penalty, the court has judged rightly, and judged solely on the basis of the facts before it, and not on the media outcry and the public sentiments associated with the case. The fears of the defense counsel have been shown to have been unfounded, and one’s faith in the judiciary has been reaffirmed once again, manifold.

Judging the judges...

The Judges (Inquiry) Bill, which has been introduced in the Lok Sabha, is a landmark bill, and will definitely cause some serious changes, should it get passed. The bill aims to deal with the problem of the lack of a suitable resolution mechanism vis-à-vis complaints of misbehaviour of Supreme Court and High Court judges.

Till date, the judiciary has remained beyond such introspection, as the incidence of such acts itself was very low, and hence actually setting up a mechanism to deal with them was deemed a time-consuming, and ultimately redundant process, which could best be avoided. But now the amount of complaints that have arisen against judges alleging their complicity and at times a biased outlook calls for some serious re-evaluation of the system itself.

One must not fear that this system could be the precursor to a systematic politicisation of the judiciary. If anything, this reinforces the principle that most of the wings of the State practice, that an organisation is best suited to deal with the misdeeds of its members. The Civil Services have their Administrative Tribunals, the Armed Forces their military tribunals, so why not the judiciary have its own tribunal to deal with those who deviate from its codes of conduct?

I have, in all my preceding blogs, been a fierce proponent of a strong judiciary. But, I do not find this decision of the Union Cabinet to be harming the strength of the judiciary in any way. On the contrary, it will improve the accountability of the judiciary and prevent the misuse of the powers and privileges vested in the judges by the Constitution. This becomes a most remarkable concept, because then truly no one is above the law in India, not even those who are to judge by the basis of these laws.

That this bill’s tabling comes so soon after the Supreme Court of India has suggested the inapplicability of constitutional protections accorded to members of Parliament, ministers and bureaucrats, especially in cases wherein the individual concerned is alleged to have broken the law, as also within a day of the Union Law Minister’s defence of the judiciary’s power of review, as also his repudiation of charges of judicial activism is also significant, because it firmly establishes that while the judiciary is critical of the protections which have been misused by guilty politicians, it is open to reform within its own house. It would have been unfortunate had the judiciary chosen to oppose this move, but that they have chosen to support it is a sign of their maturity and of their willingness to subject themselves to scrutiny. Whether this maturity lasts, and whether this scrutiny works to the advantage of the nation, only history will tell.

Ingratitude: Thy name be Politicians!

Today is a sad day in India’s post-independence history. And maybe it isn’t as much of a shock as a vindication of the oft-repeated stance that the life of any Indian, save those who are part of the political system, is not even worth the funeral shroud in the eyes of the State. And that such a stand gets vindicated in so cruel a manner is saddening, nay, distressing.

Five years ago, on the 13^th of December 2001, a group of terrorists infiltrated the Parliament House, and indiscriminately fired their weapons, with a clear intent to kill as many people as possible. Security personnel immediately shot back, and closed the gates of the compound. Members of Parliament were ushered into Central Hall, where they were protected from all this gunfire. Outside, all the five terrorists were shot dead, whereas six security personnel and a gardener were killed, as also 18 others were injured. No members of either the legislature or the executive were even hurt.

The then-incumbent NDA government immediately claimed the involvement of elements having support from Pakistan, and swiftly arrested, and convicted, within a span of one year, four Jaish-e-Mohammed members for their role in the attack. Of these four, two were subsequently acquitted by the higher judiciary for lack of credible evidence, whereas one received a death sentence. The personnel who had given their lives in the course of duty, to protect the members of the legislature and the executive, were honored with various gallantry awards. They were accorded the status of nothing less than heroes of the highest grade.

Fast forward to 2006, and the situation seems weirdly reversed. The terrorist, who had borne the brunt of countless insults and scorn, has appealed to the mercy of the President of India, after having been rebuffed by all levels of the judiciary. Politicians from his home state have urged the government to grant him clemency, else the state erupt into flames. The very politicians whose lives those security personnel died saving today are clamoring for his mercy petition to be received and possibly even approved.

And if that isn’t shameful, then I don’t know what is. To so dishonor the memories of those who have given their lives so that you may breathe the fragrance of existence is damnable, even abominable. I have consistently maintained that Mr. Afzal isn’t worthy of clemency, because this isn’t an act of passion, wherein emotions could have been seen to have warped reason. This was a cold-blooded crime, thought out in detail, decided with precision, and intended to destabilize the nation by eliminating the topmost layers of power and authority.

I am sorry to say this, but now I feel, I just feel that it would have been preferable that at least a dozen or more politicians ought to have died at the hands of those terrorists, before they were gunned down by security personnel. At least that way, no politician would have found it tenable to support a clemency petition with such impunity. Maybe then, the memories of those who have died would have meant more than it means now.

And even when I say this, I feel ashamed, because even as I am scathing in my sarcasm, I wound those who lost their beloved ones in this attack. They who had nothing to do with the scum their beloved protected, why must they be so tortured? That they today have returned all the awards the State conferred upon their loved ones is a right step, because if there is a semblance of shame in these shamefaced politicians, this repudiation of a falsely expressed sense of appreciation should be reason enough for half of them to drown themselves in some nullah in Delhi. Nay, even the waters of Hell would reject such ungrateful souls!

Judicial activism, say you?

The decision of the legislative and the executive to launch a joint attack on the judiciary for what they term as unwarranted judicial activism shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. After all, when such skirmishes have occurred barely 2-3 years after the birth of the Indian nation, that things should now come to this is neither a matter of surprise nor of astonishment. However, it is definitely a matter of concern.

The Constitution is clear in its demarcation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The legislatures are empowered to create laws, the executive to implement them, and the judiciary to ensure that all and any laws created are within the ambit of the Constitutional framework, as also that the executive is implementing the laws in the best and most effective manner. There is no ambiguity in this matter.

The authority of the judiciary to review the statutes created by the legislatures empower it to strike down such statutes as may be deemed as violating the provisions of the Constitution. Judges may strike down a statute, sure, but on what reason? And who is to say that their interpretation of the provisos of the Constitution is correct?

The judiciary may basically adhere to either of the two most prominent interpretative theories in law, viz. strict constructionism and living constitutionalism. Basically, the former asks of the judiciary to view statutes solely in view of their actual content, and not question the motive or intent of the legislature behind bringing about the said statute. They may only view the validity of the statute in terms of its adherence to the letter of the Constitution. The latter on the other hand grants the judiciary the right to interpret the statute in view of the Constitution provisos, but at the same time, keeping in mind whether the provisos with regard to the present have been adhered to, i.e. whether the statute adheres to the spirit of the Constitution.

Whether the Indian judiciary follows the constructionist or the living constitutionalist approach is a matter of study. The current judicial environment points towards a slightly constitutionalist tilt, but whether this tilt can be viewed as activism is debatable.

Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court has made a very poignant statement regarding judicial activism. He says and I quote, “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.” But this doesn’t mean that the judiciary may not discharge their responsibility of interpreting the law and enforcing the limits the Constitution places on either the legislature or the executive. Judicial vigilance in upholding constitutional rights is in no sense improper activism. It is not judicial activism when the courts carry out their constitutionally-assigned function and overturn a decision of the Executive or Legislature in the course of adjudicating a case or controversy properly before the courts.

The courts, in having convicted two sitting Members of Parliament, have displayed maybe a sense of activism, but whether it is unwarranted activism is a matter of introspection. The legislature is deemed the representative of the people, and that within its folds, protected by its privileges, individuals continue to display wanton disregard for the law, flouting it day in and day out, is a distressing and disturbing thought. In such a matter, should not the judiciary be empowered to strike down or at least strip such individuals of such unjustifiable protections? Should not it be allowed to demonstrate that although Parliament is supreme as regards the law, it is Salus populi suprema lex esto (let the good of the people be the supreme law), which is the ultimate guiding principle?

The question is laid, and answers are sought. Time will tell the fate of this conflict.

Justice restored.

The Lady would be pleased today. For once, those who had always been beyond her pale, those who had refused to submit to her diktats, those souls now tremble at her feet, wondering what greater travails she will choose to inflict on them.

The conviction of Mr. Shibu Soren, 'distinguished' member of the Union Cabinet of Ministers, and 'father' of the State of Jharkhand, by a sessions court in Delhi, in a kidnapping and homicide case, and his consequent life imprisonment is a sign that India may be a flawed democracy, but it's flaws have a long way before they may be deemed sufficient to overpower reason altogether. That there are protesters who are declaring the 'innocence' of Mr. Soren doesn't deny this fact; rather it was expected, as Mr. Soren is after all a politician, a leader of the 'masses', and would be expected to find some support from amongst them.
But then I pray that there be no miscarriage of justice, that no laws be passed to overrule such revolutionary convictions, wherein an incumbent member of the Executive has been charged with homicide in cold blood, and has received the second highest form of punishment possible under the Indian Penal Code.
Let this judgement serve as a reminder to both the Executive as also the Legislature that they are at best the representatives of the people, their legates in the halls of power and authority, not their overlords. Let them know that the people have enshrined in their hearts the slogan of ancient Scotland, Nemo me impune lacessit (No one wounds me with impunity). Let this judgment be a wake-up call for all those who know where the rot lies in the system, and cause them to start cleaning it up, not just for this generation, but for generations to come. Let not the Lady be forced to pull on her blindfold again; let this be her prerogative, not her misery.

India in the Blues!

The recent debacles faced by the Indian cricket team in South Africa shouldn't ideally come as a surprise to people. I mean, a team that's more active on the ramp than on the field wouldn't display any better results, would it? Sure, a player is entitled to earn his bucks while he is still at the top, but isn't performance a parameter for earnings, or have we become so starstruck that we are content with vintage performances, rather than focusing on current achievements?

Maybe the team isn't to blame entirely. I mean, cricket in India is such an hectic activity, wherein barely has one tournament ended, that another one starts off. And we aren't talking about machines here; we are talking about sentient humans, people who are bound to feel fatigue, stress, and the travails of incessant playing. Where's the time for them to bond with their families, to let their hair down and relax? Of course, one would retort that they ought to cut down on their endorsements; that way, they would have plenty of time to relax and rejuvenate their body and soul. But let's be practical here. I mean, when there's no guarantee that you will remain in the team for the next match, which player will take the risk of not earning a potful of gold while he can? Besides, no one cares for a former player, besides sports channels. And mind you, the way the Indian team's playing now, I doubt that sports channels will want to host cricket shows, as they are sure not to get really interesting advertising revenues out of them.

So where does the rot lie? In the Board, perchance. Maybe the rot is endemic to the entire cricket establishment in India. When one reads of articles of how the inclusion or exclusion of a certain player becomes a matter worthy of discussion in the highest echelons of legislative and executive power, one comes to comprehend just how far politics has pervaded what was once merely a sport, a game that gave joy and delight.
Perhaps, these debacles are a good thing, as now people will want more professionalism, more performance-oriented incentives, and more sport-friendly initiatives from the powers that be. The killer instincts that we see in other teams is not so much because they are better than us; rather it is because they have no need to focus on things other than sports. Here, players must consort with politicians, bureaucrats, and other officials to ensure that they stay on in the team. Sure, this must occur elsewhere as well, but maybe, I believe, it happens to a greater extent here.

Domestic cricket in India isn't exactly seen as glamorous, and we tend to be pessimistic about the future, snatching from promising players the opportunity that they truly deserve, while aging players continue to fight on against much younger opponents, and expectedly, deliver defeat most of the time. Regionalism, while an appreciable sentiment at times, tends to get in the way of ensuring that the team that represents the nation gets the best possible talent, as and where it comes from.

Perhaps cricket in India needs to lose the moolah that has come to be associated with it in recent times. I mean, contracts worth Rs. 300 million are great, but are we seeing performances equivalent to all that expectation? This team, the current one, comprises of people who are regarded as the best sportsmen in their individual capacities, but why is it that this team of superheroes fails to work in unity? Where's and why is there a lack of strategy?
Just blaming one individual or a singular group of individuals will not work. The approach has to change for the behavior to change. We need to demand that we get what we deserve, as a right, as a privilege. And those who fail to serve, must be axed, period. Then whether they be Davids or Goliaths should not concern anyone.

Divisive matters!

This blog has, through its pages, been unequivocal that although reservations for the disadvantaged per se is not a bad idea, identifying the disadvantaged on the basis of commune or faith is a retrograde one, and one that deserves to be sent to no other place but the dustbin. Affirmative action loses its meaning when it becomes a sort of divisive mechanism, pitting people against their compatriots. And this is the danger that India faces today.
The Sachar Commission, appointed by the Prime Minister to evaluate the social, economic, and educational status of Muslims in India, has made its submissions, and from early reports, one comes to the conclusion that Muslims are just one step away from having distinct reservations, or at best reservations within the current scheme for themselves. I scarcely expect that any legislation brought about as a response to this commission's recommendations would stand in the eyes of the judiciary, but then politicians are politicians.
Firstly, that a secular state should differentiate amongst its people on the basis of their faith is a most puzzling irony, and that too when its Constitution affirms through

• Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
• Article 15(1): The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them.
• Article 16(1): There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

Let it be proven that, as in the case of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, there exists a bias in the minds of recruiters, when it comes to the Muslim commune. If no such bias exists, then the issue cannot be hoped to be resolved merely by reserving seats for them at educational institutions and at organizations under the State. If the commune remains woefully inadequate as regards to education, social status and economic status, then it would be worthwhile to look first at what the commune itself is doing to alleviate its problems, and whether these measures, instituted by the commune, are effective, and display an inherent desire of the commune to improve its lot.
Let this not be seen as a tirade against Muslims. I have always supported reservations, but only when the guiding principle is economic status. That a rich man is capable to getting all facilities made available to him in this modern age, irrespective of his caste or faith, is a given fact. I would not like to believe that all Muslims or rather a majority of Muslims are so deprived that only reservations can provide them succor.

Should there be a bias, then the Constitution provides those afflicted by such a bias a strong weapon, that being

• Article 29(2): No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.

Moreover, even under the Constitution, reservation was never viewed as an infinite process.

• Article 334 clearly states that reservation of seats in legislative bodies and special representation shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of fifty years from the commencement of the Constitution.

So basically what we would end up doing by granting Muslims or any other religious commune reservations solely on the basis of their religion would be to give them temporary crutches, which in no manner whatsoever would alleviate their problems, or resolve their issues. Once a man is given crutches to lean on, and is also made to believe that these crutches are his sole alternative, and without them, he would surely fall, even if his feet were to be able, this man would not be amenable to giving up his crutches.
The basic issue is not so much of ensuring fast development of a commune; it concerns the long-term progress of a people, a people who form an intrinsic part of this nation. Any piecemeal solution to their problems would only go to aggravate matters, only to further deepen the malaise. Let better judgment prevail!

Equality before law, I think not!

Over time, I have come to believe that the Indian family laws are deeply flawed, in that they encourage different interpretations of the same issues based on who the law is to be applied to. So, if a Hindu has some issues, his/her issues are to be resolved by some law, but the same law may not be applied to a Muslim or a Christian. Although I agree that religious and communal differences do matter, that a secular state should so differentiate amongst its people on the basis of their religious affiliations is to me an irony.

Private laws are defined to be that part of a legal system which is part of the jus commune that involves relationships between individuals. Family laws basically deal with, but not limited to, family-related issues, such as marriages, adoption, domestic abuse, divorce, alimony, parental responsibility, as also property settlements in the event of the termination of a marriage.

So, basically these are issues which are common to all faiths, to all people, to all communes. Then why have different laws to govern different people?
That customary law has been prevalent in India for so long is and can never be seen as justification for implementing a common civil code for its citizens. And mind you, the Constitution of India also envisaged the administration of an uniform civil code for its citizens, and as such included the same as a Directive Principle.

Basically a uniform civil code envisages administering the same set of secular civil laws to govern different people belonging to different religions and regions. This supersedes the right of citizens to subject themselves to different personal laws based on their religion or ethnicity. The superseding of this right should not be construed to be an attempt to destroy one's communal identity, and in truth, maintaining such an identity in the context of law and jurisprudence is contradictory to the concept of all being equal before the law.

That the communes who in India clamour for separate personal laws can very well exist peacefully under the common civil codes in European countries and beyond shows that in truth common civil codes are not conflicting with religious obligations. Perhaps I am being a tad optimistic about their existence, but as far as I know, and I stand to be corrected should I be wrong, there seems to be no real problem in these countries. So why should India have such a problem with implementing what it had envisaged at the dawn of its freedom?

Different personal laws for different communes are inherently unequal, and hence in contravention of Article 13 of the Constitution which guarantees the equality before law and prohibits discrimination among citizens on the basis of their religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

It isn't that there doesn't exist an example of a uniform civil code in India, which has been accepted by people of different faiths. The Portuguese Civil Code, applicable in Goa till date, owing to the promise exacted by the people of Goa from the Government of India in 1960 that their hitherto applicable laws would remain in force, is a fine example of such a code, and should ideally serve as a model for a larger Civil Code for the entire Indian nation.

The idea that the Muslim population per se is incapable of being governed by laws other than those mandated by the Shariat is wholly incorrect. Pakistan, which maintains itself to be an Islamic Republic, has altered, amended, and modernized its Muslim Laws to a greater extent than the 'secular' India. Turkey and Tunisia, predominantly Muslim countries, have outlawed polygamy, a privilege that India denies to all save its Muslim citizens.

The Special Marriage Act of 1954, similar in all aspects to the later Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, envisaged a uniform treatment of all citizens with respect to marriage, divorce and alimony issues. That this act was later stonewalled by the conservatives in the Muslim community is sad, for this law would have considerably reduced the inherent inequality that the Muslim Personal Laws continue to display between men and women. The Muslim Personal Laws offer no strong penalties against child marriage, marital abuse, nor do they confer upon the wife the right to terminate her marriage, as it does for her husband. Implementation of these Laws also have been sadly not inspiring, wherein people have violated not just private laws, but also Sharia laws, and have done so with remarkable impunity.

It isn't that I am opposed only to the Muslim Personal Laws. The Hindu Inheritance Laws, until recently, discriminated amongst men and women. Daughters have a lesser right upon the properties of their parents than their male siblings. A husband may appropriate a greater share of his deceased wife's properties in preference to her parents or relatives, but a wife may not do so in preference to her deceased husband's relations.

Christian law permits a husband an easy divorce on merely stating grounds of adultery, while the wife must prove her claims of her husband being adulterous or cruel. Christians are forbidden from willing their properties to charitable and/or religious institutions, as stated by the Indian Succession Act. The Hindu Undivided Family or HUF enjoys a special tax system, but an undivided family adhering to any other faith may not claim such a privilege. Sikhs are permitted to carry a kirpan or dagger on grounds of religion, but should any other person carry it, he/she is liable to be arrested as a danger to public safety.

So basically the rot is in all communes. No religion or commune is ready or willing to forsake its unique privileges and rights that their personal law confers upon them. 50 years have passed, and Article 13 remains just another noble intention in a great text. When and how this nation will truly treat its citizens on an equal footing in all matters remains to be seen.

Comments reserved...

The recent furore over the judiciary's reported interference in the sacred duties of the legislature seems rather sad and unfortunate. After all, each has its own assigned jobs and responsibilities in accordance with the Constitution.

But that surely doesn't mean that the judiciary may not intervene when it comes across any instance of the legislature attempting to, either on purpose or inadvertently, contravene the basic tenets of the Constitution. After all, the legislature isn't sacrosanct; it too must be subservient to the law, even if it be the lawmaker itself. And that doesn't mean that the judiciary should also start to scrutinize all and sundry legislations coming out of our 'worthy' legislatures. We already have a 20-year backlog, so let's keep off such political squabbles.

But the current debate merits some discussion. After all, the H'ble Supreme Court of India hasn't said anything wrong. Considering my stand on the reservation issue so far, I have always stated that reservations should be only for those who really deserve them, and not for those who simply are deemed to deserve them on the basis of their communal affiliations. In this country, economic status plays a very important role in how a person goes about his/her life in society. This may seem retrograde, but it is true: money matters. If you have the dough, then you can even make the State change its policies.

In such conditions, that any person who can afford a reasonable avenue of education should avail of reservations seems to me as a most unfortunate occurrence. After all, aren't we defeating the very purpose of reservations? Reservations, in my belief, must have started out as a means to ensure that the poorest of the poor, the most disadvantaged of people have equal access to opportunity. Their inability to conjure up enough capital to finance their dreams and aspirations had hindered their flight hitherto, but the State would ensure that it happened no more.

So, if an individual who can afford a good education should stand competing for reservations vis-à-vis someone who cannot, who, as per all the norms of Reason, all the laws of Logic, should be deemed deserving of assistance? I propose those who cannot.

So, where's the whole quarrel here?

Well, while the OBCs can be divided on grounds of economic status, the SCs/STs, the politicians reckon, cannot, because the 'injustice' that they have borne for centuries cannot be surely wiped out by a single generation's prosperity. No one's saying so. That a father is a millionaire is no guarantee that his wards will also be the same; on the contrary, prodigal descendents often undo all the good that an enterprising ancestor may achieve. But surely this millionaire father shouldn't be eligible for any more benefits so long as he is a millionaire, and surely while he can ensure his children get the best of education, his wards also should be beyond the purview of reservations. If and so his wards should go the way of most children of rich people, then they would be poor, wouldn't they, and hence in the purview of the law.

I am not advocating that once a family has been deemed to have crossed the creamy layer, it should be debarred forever. I am only saying that so long as the family is above the creamy layer, debar it from the benefits, else permit them all that is their due.

But then, why restrict it only to those who fall within some designated community? Open this scheme to all those who should be deemed eligible for these benefits. That way, we can ensure that reservations serve their purpose to the fullest, to the best.

The law must take its own course - II

So finally the State crumbled before the demands for clemency. The edifice of justice, so often assaulted and insulted in the long decades of our independence, may never have faced such a barrage, such a mockery of its actions. The Emergency may have asked of the judiciary to bend themselves before the powers that be and ensure favourable verdicts, but now the judiciary must agree to even changing their verdicts, should they not be in conformity with what is deemed as popular opinion. And what determines popular opinion? God alone knows? I for one, was neither asked my opinion on the demand for clemency, nor am I so presumptuous to believe that my previous blog could have had any effect on the Executive. That remains the case of many in my know and surrounds.

The justification that the State provides for having even stalled the scheduled execution of Mr. Afzal is that the President is seized of the matter, and pending his decision, the matter is on pause. And yes, had the State rejected the demand outright, it could have ensured that the Vale burn for another decade. Perhaps the worthy minister who issued the statement wishes to imply that a delayed rejection would have a somewhat different result. If the State will permit the Vale to burn, the Vale will burn! Let us not pretend to innocence, for we aren't bottle-suckling babies.

But what if the State crumbles so far as to grant Mr. Afzal a reprieve on his life, what is one to say that every other criminal sent to death row would muster up a crowd, and a following, and ensure that his/her death sentence is commuted? The Supreme Court has, through its directives, ensured that the death penalty is used only in the rarest of rare cases, and surely high treason falls in that category. To grant Mr. Afzal a reprieve would be to call into question the State's decision to hang Dhananjoy Chatterjee, who even if guilty of the most gruesome of crimes, still is innocent of treachery against his people.

Mr. Afzal's being an educated soul, a devoted family man and his assumption of other such roles shouldn't be used as a pretext to grant him clemency. Many men before him have died as traitors while assuming these and many other such ideal roles. If he is all that it is claimed he is, and I don't wish to doubt that even for a moment, then perhaps he would never have done all that he did, and I would not be writing this blog. But sadly, his happiness couldn't preempt him from committing high treason, could it? So the punishment is justified.

The State may wish to be seen as merciful, but I pray, not now. Not when your honour as a nation is at stake. Forget not those who have lain their lives to ensure that the scourge of terrorism is kept at bay. You, the keepers of Power, have the onerous responsibility of doing what will make history. Pray, do this job well!

The law must take its course...

The Indian judiciary may not be the paragon of virtue that the Goddess of Justice would have been proud to acclaim as her own, and yet it is as dignified and respectable as any judiciary is in a developed country, and even better in some cases. Its decision to reject the appeal of Mr. Mohammed Afzal is one rooted in common sense; no crime can be allowed to go unpunished, no criminal may presume that his/her act against society will be pardoned with the largesse that he/she denies that very society.

Whether Mr. Afzal is guilty or not is a matter that the good judges have debated over for weeks together, and I have full confidence in their impartiality in this, as in many other matters.

But it would seem that those whom we entrust the responsibility of safeguarding these laws are themselves set to undermine their efficacy. The Chief Ministers of Jammu & Kashmir, and Tamil Nadu, in their official capacities, have entreated the President to grant Mr. Afzal clemency and commute his sentence to life imprisonment.

The CM of Jammu & Kashmir, the native state of Mr. Afzal, reckons that should the Government of India fail to accept this request, the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir would erupt into flames. While it is true that popular sentiment is on the side of Mr. Afzal in some sections of society there, surely that is no excuse to deny those deserve justice their due. And if the CM is so very sure of his inability to control any conceivable situation, let him abdicate his chair, and let a more competent individual occupy it. But at least do not make such a mockery of the State that you claim to represent, from which you derive the legitimacy of your authority. And please, don't make this into a India vs a particular state affair, or a particular religion's matter because it is ever so much the affair of every denizen of this nation, irrespective of religious and regional affiliations.

Terrorism begets terrorism, and yet, the death penalty for Mr. Afzal is perhaps the least we can do in our society to people who have plotted against their nation, against their people, for whatever their reasons may have been, no matter how benevolent their motives may have been. Mr. Afzal has committed treason, and there ought to be no pardoning such crimes, for then what remains the efficacy of the laws?

True, laws are made for men, not the other way around, and yet I appeal to the better sense of the powers that be to refuse any demands for leniency. In 1989, we released a few terrorists and unleashed terror on the Vale. In 1999, we released another terrorist, and reinvigorated the flagging struggle. Let not Mr. Afzal become another symbol for these demons, who would kill innocents for their own ends!

I presume Mr. Afzal to be guilty, and yet, if he be innocent and has been framed, then he will be served justice in a Higher court, but on earth, let the laws of men take their course.

Trouble in BPOLand...

The Indian BPO professional has never felt as threatened by the world as now, and mind you, this has nothing to do with protesting crowds in front of state legislatures in far away Ohio or Indiana; no, this is all because of Channel 4.

Channel 4 who, or rather what? Well, this guardian of truth, the harbinger of liberty, has unleashed an 'unpleasant' truth on the world: India's not a safe place with your private information. And to prove this point, it uses a technique so the rage nowadays: a 'sting' operation. I wonder who got stung and by whom.

Channel 4 journalists are all set to reveal how a couple of unsavoury miscreants endeavoured and actually were ready to arrange for private and personal details of British citizens, collected by a BPO in India in the course of its interactions with them. Such details are by law required to be kept absolutely confidential, and only revealed if the individual concerned has no objection to it, and has explicitly stated so. So, clearly someone's breaking the law. Fine, bring out the guillotine, we have work to do.

But hold a second. Is Channel 4 insinuating that BPOs worldwide suffer from such problems, or is India the only culprit? Has Channel 4 conducted a sting in all countries wherein BPOs are located, and evaluated the standards of information management therein, and if so, what are the results? By results, I don't just mean India's; rather I am keen to see where India stands vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Because I refuse to accept that India is the only devil in this piece.

I mean, in the US, 148 cases of theft worth over $33 billion was reported last year. Worldwide, a French company has calculated frauds worth something like $60 billion. When these notables have shown their worth, surely one cannot grudge India her faults? I do not seek to be jingoistic or even suggest that the world is against India, and this is all part of a grand conspiracy to derail her progress in the world order. Hardly, because it don't make no difference to India.

But if Channel 4's only investigated India's BPOs and primarily because they happened to be in India, then I have reason to question the motives of the channel. Benevolent reporting is quite one thing, and malevolent mud-slinging is a different matter altogether. And mind you, this sting doesn't directly interact with a single BPO; rather it bases its conclusions on its interactions with two middlemen, men of questionable repute. I could advertise that I was in possession of such data, but that doesn't mean anything, does it? And hackers can hack into any secure system; so who's to say that these infamous gentlemen don't subscribe to the anarchist tendency of keeping all information open for all to see?

I may be wrong, maybe these allegations, these charges are true. If there be even an iota of truth in them, let those who have brought infamy on this sunshine industry be punished, and stricter control mechanisms put in place. Let us show to the world that we will not tolerate such nonsense, not now when we are seeking to conquer the world.

WOW!

I have never really been an avid TV serial watcher, much less an English serial watcher. Maybe because at my place, my folks aren't that keen on English sitcoms, and moreover, I never myself was able to understand the jokes, at least not until recently.
So all you fans of Friends, Seinfeld et al, here's a candid confession: I haven't watched a single episode of these fabulous series, but I guess I must start from now on.

Who or what has heralded this change of heart, or rather of sensibilities? Ankit, God bless his soul, is this absolutely incorrigible rascal at my workplace. I mean, this fellow's a genius; he's the reference point for all programming-related trouble-shooting, he reads (and man what an eclectic taste), and his taste in music is absolutely fantastic.
But what I think has been his best contribution to my routine so far has been introducing me to the wonder that is the English sitcom. In particular to this delightful series called 'Dead Like Me'. Although I have seen but one episode, I am floored: this is absolutely mind-blowing stuff. I mean, if this were our sun, Hindi serials are like in a different star cluster altogether.

The series is about this community of the Undead, although there's nothing sinister about these ones, like Bram Stoker's clan. These people are plain dead, and yet, they have the unpleasant task of gathering the souls of people, sometimes just before they are about to die, just to save them the pain and suffering of death. George Lass, the serial's protagonist and primary narrator, is a sorry case of a teenager. A college dropout, George can't get a job anywhere, and her attitude's not helping out either, what with her repartee with her career counselor ending up in her being assigned a most hellish job. And where all this is bad on the professional front, her relationships with her family is on similarly shaky ground. so all said and done, life pretty much sucks for young Ms. Lass.

When all's so 'nice and cosy', death comes knocking, at that in the most ironic way, what with a zero-G toilet seat from Mir's wreckage crashing down on her. And that introduces George to Rube, Daisy, Mason and Roxy, her local team of Reapers. Here begins the story of how George starts her journey of being a Reaper, her doubts about her task, and how one by one, she comes to realize that she had it all, and yet, while she lived, she had never realized its true worth.

A fabulous endeavor, and a most enjoyable watching experience! A must-watch for all those who value their time and their minds!

How to score a self-goal?

I don't think anyone could have said it any better. A must read for all 'reasonable' people.

Gurcharan Das's article on the Cola Pesticide Matter

Should cause a serious rethink, if you have already made up your mind.
Am not writing a separate piece because as I said before, no one could have said it any better. Plus, not in the mood to be verbose on such a beautiful Sunday morning.

Unforgettable!

This is one of my most favourite songs, keeps playing the whole time. Nat King Cole’s the best!

Unforgettable, that’s what you are
Unforgettable though near or far
Like a song of love that clings to me
How the thought of you does things to me
Never before has someone been more

Unforgettable in every way
And forever more, that’s how you’ll stay
That’s why, darling, its incredible
That someone so unforgettable
Thinks that I am unforgettable too

No never before
has someone been more

Unforgettable in every way
And forever more, that’s how you’ll stay
That’s why, darling, its incredible
That someone so unforgettable
Thinks that I am unforgettable too

Don't you think so?

I accuse!

Today marks the 62nd anniversary of the noting of the last entry by Anne Frank in her famous diary. For those who don't know who is Anne Frank, well, this article should be informative enough. What is so remarkable about a diary entry, you ask? 

Only because this diary serves as the human face of the Holocaust, of the mirror that reflects back the horror, the terror, and yet the humanity with which the victims of the Nazi scourge lived their last days on Earth. Ms. Frank's diary, in the words of the Dutch journalist and historian, Jan Romein, stammered out in a child's voice, embodies all the hideousness of fascism, more so than all the evidence at Nuremberg put together. She has, for decades, represented or rather symbolised the millions systematically massacred by the Third Reich, and to this day, her diary remains one of the most haunting and impressive accounts of the lives of the persecuted masses. 

 So why the sudden focus on a diary? Because Ms. Frank died not because of her political views, but because she happened to be an adherent to the Jewish faith. The state of Israel came into being, and with renewed urgency, so as to preempt any such systemic annihilation of their race in the future. One would expect that such a State would then be sensitive to the value of innocence. 

But sadly, Israel chooses not to, and justifies its jaundiced vision with Augustinian logic. The writings of Saint Augustine of Hippo, pre-eminent Doctor of the Church, have often been used to put forth the tradition of the just war. Israel contends that its war on the Hizbollah is justified, in keeping with the criteria of jus ad bellum. 

Jus ad bellum justifies a war should it be for a just cause, such as to defend against an external attack or to recapture something taken illegally. In Israel's case, it contends that the capture of its soldiers by the Hizb fits within the criteria. Again, although Israel has never denied that the Hizb and in particular the people of the Golan Heights have suffered as a result of its conflict, the injustice that it has suffered or could suffer should it remain silent significantly outweighs that suffered by the Lebanese people now. 

 Again, Augustine justifies war should it have been waged for a right intention, as to correct a suffered wrong. Israel contends that it has suffered a grevious wrong, and that the Lebanese State, by tolerating the Hizb, has indirectly acknowledged its own responsibility in this whole matter. Israel also believes that the overall destruction that may happen in the course of its campaign will be significantly outweighed by the good achieved should the Hizb's machinery be destroyed therein. 

And last but not the least, Israel submits that since the Hizb has rejected all attempts to arrive at a peaceful solution, there remains no other option before the Israelis, save that of war. 

 Ok, so jus ad bellum is vindicated, in this case. One point to Israel. 

Now moving to point two: Jus in bello, or how to conduct a just war. The tradition of St. Augustine strictly forbids the bombing of civilian residential areas, which do not include any military targets, on the grounds that the war must be strictly directed against those who have perpetrated the wrong. 

Again, the force used must be proportional to the wrong endured. Meaning, if you start having too many civilian casualties, your claim to justness becomes even more hollow. Also, a just war must use minimum force, to limit unnecessary death and destruction. This tradition is retained in the Geneva Conventions as well, to which Israel is a signatory. So far, Israel is failing on all points. 

Israel has bombed civilian areas indiscriminately, and has killed hundreds in the two weeks since the escalation of the struggle. True, the Hizb's machinery is also taking a hit, but couldn't there have been a more practical alternative? Also, the Israeli armed forces have had a continuously horrendous accuracy as far its targets have been. Israeli airstrikes have hit clearly marked Red Cross ambulances, UN posts and convoys, grain silos, medical and relief trucks, fuel containers and service stations, the Jiyeh power plant (which incidentally caused the worst environmental disaster for the Mediterranean region) and Lebanon's largest dairy farm. Wonder what Mr. Peretz was thinking? 

The worst charge however is yet to come. The Israeli Defense Force is reportedly using depleted uranium warheads against the Hizb. True, desperate times calls for desperate measures, but this desperate? 

The Holocaust took the lives of nearly 6 million Jews, and in total of nearly 9 to 11 million people. The world stood watching as this happened. Innocence died once then. I accuse Israel of killing it once again.

Baccalaureus In Arte Ingeniaria!

Finally, it's over. Engineering could well classify as one of the Seven Plagues of the Heavens, what with all the trials and tribulations it inflicts upon those who seek to walk in its path. And yet, it has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life so far. I have found friends, friends whose company I have come to treasure more than anything. I also got to understand that although failure is to be avoided at all circumstances, but it isn't the end of things; rather, it is the beginning of a new struggle, to better oneself, to face the world in a better and more effective manner. I also came to realise that I wasn't as dumb as I thought myself to be. True, my friends would beg to differ, and I might even agree, but then I never deny that I am sometimes dumb, maybe just as much as to be completely condemned to an institution.

Having those two letters B.E. (with the two periods in between as well) is perhaps the greatest prize that one can achieve after having tolerated tortuous lectures, numbing practical sessions, and dumb assignments and journals. Suddenly all that time seems so very bearable, because now in a moment, one has suddenly grown from a nervous student to a confident engineer, a person in one's own right. The convocation is in December, and maybe I will be here in Mumbai, or maybe not. Whatever it may be, there's no force on earth (other than my boss) which can stop me from attending my convocation, and wearing that black robe, with the chocolate (don't ask me why chocolate) sash.
Could there be a more delightful thing in life? I am still trying to figure it out.

Humanity at its best!

I guess it was expected. Mumbai would fight back, it won't be cowed down. She has seen too much of this to now be affected by this. This may seem inhumane, for one needs time to recover from such a fatal blow, and yet, Mumbai knows that to stop, even for a moment, in its pace would be even more fatal to it. And won't she be playing into the hands of those who have desecrated her peace? Won't she, by slowing down to grieve, demean the memories of those who have died, for did they not live to work, in all their industrious and determined spirits? No, she must go on, as before. She will survive this day, and many more like these. Justice will be done, one day, but it will be done, either on earth or above.

It is humbling to see the people of this fair city come forward and assist total strangers in this crisis. And this comes from a city called the 'rudest' city by a periodical? Wonder what they will say now? The timely assistance delivered by the passer-bys to the injured may have saved countless lives, for had one waited for the official arrangements to arrive, god knows how many more would have died. And the system also must be credited in its quickness to react. One could see policemen at every corner, in a reassuring manner, to tell people that even if such dastardly acts have occured, they must maintain their calm and composure. The radio spoke of the need to be calm, people poured in with information, about the traffic conditions, about their desire to be of assistance. This is the true face of Mumbai, a city of love, compassion, humanity. Stripped of her garb of fame and glory, and stark in her humane glow. Living her motto, 'I Will Survive'. Gloria Gaynor would have been pleased.

A city bleeds!

My city bleeds again, and I weep for it. I weep for its people, industrious, noble, good at heart, unconcerned with what their neighbour is doing, and yet eager to rush to his succour should he need it. I weep for the land that has seen so many of her children fall to the crazed mania of demented souls. I weep for the skies that had to behold the painful sight of watching the tongues of fire consume bodies and souls. It is in these moments of anguish that one questions, "Has He forsaken us? If not, why does He torment us so? Why does He question our faith in Him?"
And weeping is not the only thing I wish to do. For there is rage, anger, wrath to be felt as well. Anger at those who believe the senseless killing of innocents, oblivious to the cause of their to-be murderers, will serve any purpose. Rage at those who assist these demons in the guise of human beings, and condemn their fellow beings to a most dastardly death. Wrath at those who will offer these sons of Lucifer support, even if it even be moral and diplomatic.
What good will this violence serve? Will the blood of innocents be the standard of the nation they seek to form? Will the cries of widows and orphans be the song of their rejoicing? Will the tears of those who suffered be the water that they partake of? And do they expect their own state to be in peace when bought at such a horrific price? Thou shalt reap what thou hast sowed.
I can offer nothing but my condolences to those who have lost their loved ones in these cowardly incidents. It is hard, and I cannot even begin to imagine the pain, the suffering, and the horror that they are going through right now. I ask of them to take some comfort in this that their beloved at least must have felt no pain when they died, that the unholy cataclysm in its flares granted them the most peaceful of departures. Of those whose beloved have died of injuries, believe that he/she has finally been freed of the pain, the suffering, and that it is just a silent sleep for them. Those whose loved one(s) are still in hospital, I pray and hope that they recover well and as soon as possible.
To the government, I ask: Will we get to see a State that is for its people, or will you again bungle up and deny people justice? Let this be a warning, the penultimate one! No more, I pray!

And Then There Were None!

Once in a while, one comes across a book, that raises the hair on one's back. Sometimes it does so even without claiming to be a horror novella, or even a thriller. And in that lies its genius, for to claim to be something means one must conform to the basic expectations thought of that genre. But when it doesn't claim to be anything but itself, when it simply is itself, and yet it creates an atmosphere of being something else, of being one thing at one moment, and another at the other, that is the mark of a superb effort, of a magnificent art.
I have always had the highest regard for Agatha Christie's writings, be it her Poirot series, or her Miss Marple books, or her Tommy & Tuppence books. But it is in her unrelated books, books that could not be classified into any specific series that she shows her mastery. Be in 'Death Comes As The End' or 'Endless Night' or 'The Mysterious Mr. Quin', Christie does best when not required to be constrained by a singular character. With all due regard to her heroes and heroines, but I have loved her 'unclassifiables' more than her 'classifiables'.

But her crowning glory is without doubt 'And Then There Were None'. Those of you who have seen the television series 'Lost' will identify the similar underlying story of a group of people stranded on a deserted island and dropping dead one by one. The murderer is unknown, there is no way anyone other than the members of the group could be on the island, and so the blame is pinned on the group itself. One member is killing them all, and then there were none.
I had the ill sense to read this book in the night, in a nearly deserted house, with only one light room, the wind blowing ominously outside, and nothing but the sound of the owls hooting to keep me company. You can imagine how I must have felt as each character starts falling dead. Let me tell you: I WAS SCARED SHIT! Just one suggestion: Never, ever, read this book when alone at night!
The lucid narration and the beautiful descriptions that Christie provides are examples of a finesse most modern authors lack. Her built-up of atmosphere is retained right till the last page, even when the identity of the murderer is revealed. And that is Christie at her best, at her finest. Salutations to the Queen of Crime!

Le Coupe du Monde!

Finally, it’s over. The World Cup has been passed on, new champions have been created, and older ones have been humbled. Heroes have been created and installed on lofty pedestals, while some have been brought down with such force that their pedestals lie shattered to pieces.
Who would imagine that twenty-two men, dressed in flimsy jerseys and shorts, running behind a ball, would be so interesting, so gripping? Who would believe that such play could keep millions, nay billions in its grasp, watching every kick, every move, sighing when one’s favourites are down, and exult when they rise again?
Le Coupe du Monde is not just a symbol of a glorious undertaking, of a magnificent effort; it is the just reward for those who chose not to rest on their past laurels, but forged ahead to receive newer ones. So, it would seem that the Greats forgo their moment of glory, for they were under the illusion of being great, and offered the minnows the chance to shine under the sun, to bask in the warmth of fame.

Italy aren’t first time winners, having won it thrice before in 1934, 1938 and 1982. And yet this victory is special, for it holds the promise of heralding a new era in its domestic football, sort of like the cleansing of the Augean Stables by the floods of the rivers Alpheus and Peneus. France will have another chance after four years, only Zizou will not be there.

Speaking of Zidane, the manner in which he was shown the door was rather unfortunate, and people would say that his behaviour was unwarranted. But given the provocation he faced, maybe this was the least he could have done. True, one expects a man of his calibre to have patience, to forgive the slur as the words of a frustrated man, but then sometimes a slur is just too tortuous a barb at the heart. Many a hearts must have broken at the sight of Zidane retreating to the outer precincts of the ground, many would have wondered whether Les Bleus would be able to grab the Coupe again without the reassuring presence of Zizou. Their doubts came home to roost, and France was denied its place under the sun, and maybe had Zenedine Zidane been there at the penalties, then perhaps it could have been a different story altogether.

The World Cup in 2010 will be a different affair. Most of those whom we saw and fawned over in this session might not be there. And if they be there, it is highly probable that they might be but shadows of their brilliant selves. What one prays and hopes is that the game go on, in its true spirit and that it may confer its grace upon us, and for once, make us believe that we are one people, united in our dreams, in our aspirations!