End of the Legend!

1996, Lords. Indian Cricket was to discover its 2 gems, one- who went on to become one of India's most succesful skipper - Saurav Ganguly, other- who donned different hats to give stability to it's batting line up for a long long time- the Rock Solid 'Rahul Dravid'.

Some critics who initially rejected Dravid 'as not fit for ODIs' had to chew their hats when he showed how indespensable he was for ODIs in the 1999 and 2003 World Cup. In the pre-Dhoni era when India was struggling to find a wicket-keeper batsmen, an altruist Dravid took up the keeping gloves to add muscle to it's batting line-up. Though he was not a regular keeper, India never felt wanting for one. After having dropped him unceremoniously after the 2007 world cup debacle he was called to the ODI team only to face the chin music on fast and bouncy pitches like England. He went on to amass over 10,000 runs in ODIs(which was infact 1 year before he did that in tests) before calling it a day in August 2011.

In 1996, having scored 95 in his Test debut, he played a mind boggling 94 Test matches for India on the trot. He's one cricketer who's not been bogged down by injuries when Indian players plagued by injury concerns often took long breaks. His commitment to the game, on and off the field, was unmatched, in the words of Big B "he talked cricket, he walked cricket, he slept cricket"!


He was an ardent student of the game which showed in his copybook shots which were like straight out of the cricketing manuals. Technically his batting was flawless, for he had a penchant for perfection. Budding cricketers are invariably advised to keenly observe Dravid's batting. Few people have rightly observed that he was the last traditional batsmen of Test Cricket.

A correspondent of 'The Telegraph' says, in UK, Dravid is liked more than Sachin! Glenn mcGrath once said, "if there was one Indian player who would get an automatic entry into an Australian team filled with stars, it would be Rahul Dravid"

Many people see it as blasphemous to put Dravid above Sachin or Sunny. But the order of precedence is surely contestable. Dravid like Sachin or Sunny was not a gifted cricketer. He has worked hard and evolved himself as a cricketer and created a niche for himself. The greatness of player like Dravid cannot be assessed only in terms of statistics, though Dravid has remarkable statistics. His contribution has to be assessed holistically, as there are a lot of intangible contributions he has made to the wider interests of the game. He has the highest number(88) of 100plus partnerships, which stands testimonial to the role of a sheet anchor which he played to perfection. He held on to his wicket on one side so that the other batsman could go for his shots.  When he was at the crease, he gave one thing which very few batsmen gave to the Indian fan - 'hope'.

An altruist, a perfectionist, a true Gentleman of the game of Gentlemen, the finest ambassador of the sport, will be missed like no other cricketer.

'Giving' - a new way of life.

With the advent of the "Oracle of Omaha" in India, the calls for the wealthy to part with their wealth seems to be steadily gaining currency. In 2006, when the legendary investor Warren Buffet pledged 99% of his wealth to philanthropic activities, it was and still is by far the largest charitable donation in history. His wealth as of 2011 is around $50bn. Now a first grade kid can do a simple math and tell you that it would translate to $49.5bn, but what the kid may not be able to tell you is the number of hungry mouths this money can feed, the number of diseases it can help cure, the number of primary schools it can build, the number of smiles it can bring on the faces of the poor and the marginalised, how much it can make this world a much better place to live in. It's really heartwarming to know that there are quite a few people who willingly give back to the society in a humongous way.

But why do people give in the first place? This can be best answered by Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Maslow argues that once people have their basic needs fulfilled, they start a quest for self actualisation. Maslow describes these people as the ones who embrace the facts and realities of the world rather than denying or avoiding them. They are interested in solving problems of the society. Solving these problems becomes a key focus in their lives.

A recent study has found that among the wealthy people in India, the top 1% controls 16% of our national wealth. Yet the philanthropic donations in India is about 0.6% of it’s GDP(its 2.2% in US). Why are more people not giving in to charity? Is it that they somehow don't seem to be reaching the 5th floor of Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid? Guess their elevator has got stuck on the 3rd or the 4th floor. May be its time to call the janitor and help jettison them to the top of the pyramid and make them attain 'kaivalya' and start donating their wealth!

It would be unfair to say that philanthropy doesn't exit at all in India. We do have examples of Azim Premji, GM Rao, etc., but they are far and between. People do have a few genuine concerns regarding philanthropy in India. The wealthy are wary that in the absence of a well established support system to utilise the donations professionally, their hard earned money may be misappropriated. At the same time there aren't many support systems due to the lack of flow of funds. This sounds like the familiar chicken and egg problem and a possible solution could be, as more and more people start to bequest more and more support systems may emerge.

We can broadly divide the wealthy into two types : Inherited and Self-made. Bill and Melinda Gates in their recent interaction with corporate India found that the first generation entrepreneurs, basically the self-made ones, are more willing to engage themselves in charity. That's definitely a good omen. For the former, may be the Govt. of India can take a cue from US and levy a hefty inheritance-tax(US has 35% inheritance-tax for wealth above $5mn). This may seem a coercive way but given the feudal mindset of our society it can be a good idea.

For many people making name for themselves is paramount in their life. May be they can follow the Nobel(Alfred) way and institute awards in their names for people involved in humanitarian activities. This can be an indirect-philanthropy. Others may take the route of 'venture-philanthropy' and fund researches like low-cost vaccines, etc.

Coming to the question of why philanthropy is so important in India, it's because we are still a developing country, and the government hasn't got enough resources to build the Social Infrastructure. And also post liberalization era, the so-called trickle down effect has remained an illusion, and the gap between the Haves and the Have-nots has further widened. It's high time the Haves take it upon themselves as a responsibility to give back to the society in a big way. Philanthropy should become more of a habit, a new culture, a new tradition in the society.

Giving should become a new way of life.

100th 100?? It's BAU for Sir Sachin

At the outset I must confess that I am not an unswerving, hard-core Sachin fan, however, I bow my head and offer my obeisance to the unarguable God of the Monotheistic Religion of Cricket in India.

The Inventors of Cricket may as much want to confer the Knighthood on Sachin and make Him "Sir Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar", but alas, the Constitution of India just doesn't permit it(All kinds of Non-Military and Non-Academic Titles have been abolished by article 18). I guess Dr. Ambedkar in his grave may be banging his fist ruefully, as to why he dint have an exception clause in there. Although I have always been a law-abiding citizen, today I want to break the shackles and call Sachin, "Sir Sachin".

Sir Sachin is every Statisticians Delight! He is adorned by all the mind boggling statistics one can think of. You name it, he has it in his kitty. Thinking of a 100th 100 may be unfathomable for all the lesser-mortals, but Sir Sachin has made it look like a child's play. Critics have always argued that Sir Sachin suffers from what they call "the nervous nineties". Well now He is on the big 99 of His life, and one has to really appreciate that, even at this level He has shown exemplary Sportsmanship. Just to quote- in the previous match against West Indies, Sir Sachin preferred to walk without even waiting for the umpire to recall his granny(courtesy Lagaan:)) and give him the marching orders. Contrast this with Ricky Ponting, the only person who is close to breaking a few records of Sir Sachin, with a caveat that all his stars are in the right place, who prefers to see the umpire's finger come what may, and in turn drawing flak from his own selectors!!

I guess after Mahatma Gandhi if there is anyone who enjoys such a huge fan following cutting across all religion, caste, creed, etc., it is Sir Sachin. Well, given the rise in India's population since Independence, the number of fans following Him may even be greater than the Mahatma. During Independence, Gandhiji had a stick in his hand, a magical stick. He just had to raise it and ask people to march in that direction, and the whole nation would follow. The 'God of Cricket' also has a magical willow in his hand, every time he raises it, 100 crore heads turn towards the sky. So now you know what you need to do to have a huge fan following - go get a stick!!!

There is so much hype and hoopla surrounding Sachin's 100th 100. People are looking forward to it as a rare celestial occurance, something that happens once in a 100 years!! As much as all the 100 crore heads would like to look towards the sky for a 100th time for his 100th 100, I guess for the "Little Master, it's Business As Usual. It's just another day at the office for the Champion.

Long live Cricket, long live the "God of Cricket"

whAt's In A nAmE?

whAt's In A nAmE?

Whenever you read or hear a list of names, generally what are the things that are going to strike you? From which place that person is? i.e. the ethnicity. The person’s religion- Hindu, Sikh, Moslem, Christian etc? Another important thing that is going to strike you is the gender-Male or female?

On reading or hearing a name in most of the cases it’s not difficult to make out the gender. One can easily identify the feminine touch in the female names. But What about names like Kiran(it may be Kiran Bedi or even Kiran More!) Sheetal, Swaroop, Pritham, Suman, Kanchan??

Well these are a few names that are used commonly for both the sexes.

Consider a few names:

1. Anil, Ratnakar, Rahul, Sachin, Amithab, Dhanraj.....

2. Sushmita, Preethi, Anju, Kalpana, Sunitha, Aishwarya, Ujjwala....

3. Kiran, Sheetal, Pritham, Suman, Kanchan, Madhur, Swaroop, Roshan, Neelam........

4. Ravi, Shiva, Kishore, Bala..........

Confused as to why these 4 different groups? Before going into that, a small note - I’m considering only Hindu names here. Well on having a closer look at the groups one can fairly make out that the names in group 1 & 3 end with a consonant where as names in groups 2 & 4 end with vowels. Also one can see that groups 1 & 4 contain exclusive male names and group 2 contains exclusive female names and group 3 has names common to both sexes. Well if you would randomly pick a name and try to place it in one of the 4 groups, then in 9 out of 10 cases you would end up in group 1 or 2!! Interesting right. So in brief, if you randomly select a male name then in most cases it ends with a consonant and if its a female name in most cases it ends with a vowel (even in that 'a' is the most likely terminating alphabet and then 'i' is the second most likely). Reason: Almost all Hindu names are derived from Sanskrit, and in Sanskrit only 'aa' and 'ee' are the female 'karanthaas'. So the female names generally end with ‘a’ or ‘i’.

It’s also important to note that the spelling/pronunciation of some names is affected by the accent of the people. Viz. people in south India tend to add ‘a’ at the end of even male names. Example ‘Rama’, which is originally ‘Ram’. Shiva(Shiv), Krishna(Krishn), Harsha(Harsh).

Now group 3 is of special interest to us, names common to both sexes, which seem to end with a consonant!!

Now based on the above observation i would like to generalise and put forward a few postulates:

1. A female Indian name usually ends with a vowel.(a/i/u)

2. A male Indian name usually ends with a consonant.

3. If you have selected a female name and if its terminating with a consonant, then its very likely that its a name common to both the gender.

4. The inverse of "3" doesn't hold. i.e if you select a male name & it ends with a vowel then its not necessary that it has to be a gender neutral name.

Well the above stated postulates can have exceptions.Though the postulates have been stated taking Indian Hindu names into account, the first & second postulates may fairly hold good for other ethnicity/religion as well.

My Quotes

"It is extremely difficult to be a perfectionist, when the world around you is so perfectly imperfect"

My Quotes

"For every problem, there always are more than one solutions"

My Quotes

"Experience is the best teacher"