Of course nation-wide celebrations are in order after India’s nail-biting victory in the recent T20 series. Determination, enthusiasm, courage, character, self-possession were the qualities on display, notably also a refusal to retreat into a shell after the slightest setback. Collectively they usually ensure success in most fields of human activity; and the applause they merit and receive are meet and proper. Yet they have no exclusive bearing on cricket.

We are cheering, not the game but the victory, the festivity, the high Jinks, the carnival and the very close finishes that are a feature of the format. Is it unfair to define this as a parts of the world? A decline in the attention span, an impatience with subtleties, a contempt for nuances and an appetite for fast conclusions are now dominant. Add to this the fabulous monetary rewards for those temperamentally equipped to cope with high tension drama and we have a form of cricket that is also “serious business”.

Cricket which is self-evolving and defines itself is one thing. Cricket that adjusts itself to populist demand is quite another. It is finding its place beside fast baseball, fast food, fast cars, fast football, audio books, and simplified newscasts. No surprise then that America also is taking to T20, characterised as it is by features that bear the unmistakable American hall-mark. Let us by all means rejoice provided we know what exactly we are celebrating.

Contradictory stance of CPI(M)

After all the Karatian alarums and excursions on the nuclear issue the CPI(M) general secretary now concedes that he supports nuclear power, though not the nuclear deal with the US. This obviously is quibbling. If nuclear power is OK how is it possible to achieve it without US support? Jyoti Basu says that the nation needs nuclear power. West Bengal’s Chief Minister says “we cannot avoid nuclear power.” That flatly contradicts Karat’s stand and his insistence that “there are no differences” in the Leftist camp. A brave effort to save face but the truth is emerging.

The issue is and has always been nuclear power and not the government from which we are asking for cooperation and help. Karat rejects America but endorses nuclear power, a distinction that is false but throws light on Karat’s obsessive hatred of the US. He declares that he doesn’t trust the US and that the strategic relationship, as an offshoot of the nuclear deal, is riddled with pitfalls. He is not alone in his distrust, nor is New Delhi unaware of the problems of steering away from the pitfalls. Perhaps what Karat needs is a touch of the spirit that enabled our players to win the T20 world trophy.

China’s share in the N-deal
Meanwhile Beijing has successively graduated from registering disapproval of the Indo-US nuclear deal, to noting that a majority of Indians support the deal, to hinting that exceptions for India should be available to other countries and finally to its current position that it doesn’t endorse the deal but will not oppose it. Thankfully Karat’s reaction to this remains unknown.

Beijing obviously is hedging against the probability that the deal will go through and that in the overall international context opposing the inevitable is pointless, given the political capital invested in Sino-US relations and the goodwill it hopes to garner from the Olympics.

It understands that if China is striving for big power status so is India and that meanwhile it needs to keep an open mind on this issue. A rare pragmalism in New Delhi has caused some unease in Beijing but China is prepared to take this in its stride.

Integrity in judgement
When the integrity of a judge is questioned the dignity of the court is not imperilled if the accusers are unable to prove their case. Nor is contempt involved if a judgment is criticised provided there is no reflection on the integrity of the judge. An accusation at the point it is made falls short of contempt until it is rejected on acceptable legal grounds. To do otherwise and bring counter-charges of contempt is surely to jump the gun.

Protection of the judiciary’s status is vital but the excessive seal with which this is sometimes done is unnecessarily confrontational. It also places two judiciary in a defensive mode. Freedom of expression is not an acceptable excuse for contempt but when the former merges into the latter the line between them is - in the absence of rules - difficult to locate and much is left to the discretion of individual judges. Hence the controversy. What is certain is that if this is to be put right the judiciary itself must do it in a way that satisfies both the good sense of the public and the legal proprieties.

Always the Babu’s way
Was the Supreme Court justified in enabling an MLA or MP to get a government employee transferred on his or her recommendation? That recommendation is an individual’s opinion and is not a sense of the House. He or she, as the Court has said, is a representative of the people but being representative is not alone an assurance that a recommended transfer is justified. Nor is any disrespect for Parliament or legislatures intended if the MP’s or MLA’s recommendation is scrutinised and either accepted or rejected. A babu surely has the right to have his say.