Sehwag Interview

It has been 10 years since your first international game. How has experience changed your batting?
To be fair, I count it only as eight years. I became a regular only in 2001. Till then I had only played few games after my debut, against Pakistan in 1999. As for my batting the best part about it is I have never changed it. I have never changed my thinking, I have never changed my batting style. I have batted the way I batted in local tournaments and then first-class cricket, and I have applied the same approach in international cricket. Because I knew I had got success at Ranji level, I was confident I would get some success in international cricket too. But I was never expecting to become the first Indian to hit two triple-centuries, and become only the third player to do that after [Don] Bradman and [Brian] Lara. But that's destiny.

Would you suggest the same approach to a youngster who comes to international cricket: just play the way you have been playing?
A youngster should know his game first. If he knows his game he can modify it at the top level, if required. But if he doesn't know his game then it is difficult to get success at international level. You will get success occasionally but not regularly. If you know your game you can handle pressure, you can handle any kind of situation, back yourself and play your own game and get success.

But with so many coaches who pass through a player's career, is it not difficult for the youngster to maintain his own game?
The most important thing for any athlete is to know his ability. If you know your ability and have even a little bit of a strong mindset, you can get success, because your ability takes you to success. Then things like technique, hard work and practice come automatically, because when you get success you want more. Then you will work hard on your fitness, on your batting, on your technique, and you will want to learn how to tackle various situations, and start talking to a lot of experienced players.

Were there instances where coaches or senior players tried to change something in your batting?
There were a lot of players who gave me suggestions when I was young. At times they were very good suggestions and I took them seriously, applied them to my batting and got success after that. I will give you a very good example. Mr [Sunil] Gavaskar asked me why I stood on the leg stump. Instead, why didn't I stand on the middle stump because if I did that I would cover more area. He said, in any case I did not move my feet, so if I'm on leg stump then I'm too far from deliveries outside the off stump, and risk nicking them. But if I stand on the middle, I'm in a better position to play the delivery. This was around 2006, when England came to play India.



"If you know your ability and have even a little bit of a strong mindset, you can get success, because your ability takes you to success. Then things like technique, hard work and practice come automatically, because when you get success you want more"




The same thing was pointed out by Mr [Kris] Srikkanth, who even suggested I stand on the off stump because I'm very good on the on side and I can pick the ball easily off the pads. According to him, if I'm standing on middle and off and my front leg goes across, the impact will be outside off and I will negate the lbw factor. Also, I have lots of time to play the shot.

So now, depending on the wicket I change the guard: if the wicket is flat then I can manage to stand on the off stump, because nobody wants to bowl into my body as I will easily hit them for fours. So they will pitch it outside off. And if the wicket is doing a little bit, I stand on the middle stump. And I have tried these things straight in a game and never in the nets.

Many former cricketers, especially, tend to believe your game is based solely on attack. Do you agree?
I don't think so. Yes, my game is very aggressive and very positive. I love to play my shots and love to hit fours and sixes. I love to score runs rather than defending or leaving the ball. That is an important aspect of my batting: I don't want to waste balls in any form of the game. When I was growing up we would play a 10-over or 15-over game, and the asking-rate would always be high and I would end up scoring 30 or 40 runs in 15 balls, so I built that mindset right from the beginning and still continue to bat in the same manner.

There is this story about you declining a nightwatchman, where you said you were not an able batsman if you couldn't last 25 balls at the end of the day. Is that true?
It is true. What is the difference between batting at the end of the day or at the start? If you make a mistake you'll get out. So I don't think a batsman really needs a nightwatchman, but it is totally an individual decision. Whenever a captain or coach asked me for a nightwatchman I would say, "No, why? If I can't survive 10 or 20 balls now, then I don't think I'll survive tomorrow morning." I believe that's the best time when you have the opportunity to score runs, when everybody on the field is tired and you can score 20 runs off those 20 balls.


"If somebody is constantly bowling outswingers or outside off, even if he is bowling on length, for me it is boring cricket" © Getty Images




When you take guard, what goes through your mind?
When I take guard I like to clear all the negative thoughts out of the mind first. That I do by singing a song or a bhajan [hymn]. Then, if there is a ball to be hit I will hit it. It doesn't matter if it is the first, fourth, 12th ball. But if it is a good ball I have to respect it, because you cannot hit every ball.

What are the thoughts you look to drive away?
When I take guard, thoughts like "hit the first ball for a four or six" or "try to defend" enter my mind time sometimes. That is a time when my mind is preoccupied with various thoughts. But if my mind is blank, then I will play according to the merit of the ball. So if I'm singing a song, I concentrate hard on getting the right lines and finding a rhythm. And when I'm concentrating on something I'm automatically concentrating on the ball.

So that's your way of switching on. How do you switch off?
Once again by singing a song or talking to the umpires or the batting partner and sharing jokes or something else. But I avoiding speaking about cricket. Yes, you can check about what your partner felt about a particular ball, but not too often. And when I'm in the dressing room and I'm going back to the middle to bat, I just like to chat. If I stay quiet I'm in trouble.

Do you like the bowlers bowling at you?
I'm very happy if the bowler makes me play because then I get opportunities to hit boundaries. If somebody is constantly bowling outswingers or outside off, even if he is bowling on length, for me it is boring cricket. But if somebody is bowling to me, it is a very, very good opportunity for me to play a lot of options.

[Glenn] McGrath, [Muttiah] Muralitharan, [Chaminda] Vaas and [Jacques] Kallis are bowlers who always knew how to frustrate me and play on my patience. But it all depends on how I'm batting: if I'm in the groove then I can stay happy without playing a ball.

Let me give an example. In Multan, where I hit my first triple-century, in 2004, the last half hour the Pakistanis were bowling to an 8-1 field and they were bowling wide outside off stump and I was just leaving every single ball. I played nearly two to three maiden overs. I was batting on 220-odd, so it didn't matter.

Another instance was in Melbourne, when I made 195. In that first session we were just 50 without loss. I had to leave alone balls, defend at times and pay respect to good bowling. But after lunch I opened up. So it is not that Virender Sehwag only tries to score runs, but sometimes I play according to the situation or conditions.

How much in advance do you plan for a Test?
The night before the game I do watch videos to make my plans. Then, if both teams are practising I like to watch the opposition bowlers. A good example I can provide is when I came back during the 2007-08 Australia series. During the first two Tests I was watching all their bowlers closely, how they used their fingers, and I would share my insights with Robin Singh [India's fielding coach] while I was sitting on the bench. The moment I got the opportunity to play in Perth Test, I was ready. So it helps a lot to study the opposition.



"In Adelaide I told Tendulkar that I was absolutely tired. The reason was I was concentrating from both ends: not only when I was taking strike, but I was also thinking how I would face the ball when I was the non-striker. That was the first time something like that happened. Even during my two triple-centuries I was physically tired but not mentally"




There would have been pressure to perform in that series, considering you were not even in the original pool from which the squad was picked?
No, because I was confident despite having flopped for the whole of 2007. Then I even had a bad domestic season, scoring hardly 30-40 runs in the six Ranji innings I played. But I knew if they picked me a big one would come soon. You cannot flop the whole time. I went to Australia with a lot of self-belief and confidence, and I scored 30 and 40 in Perth, then 60-odd in the first innings in Adelaide, and got a big century in the second innings.

There was a first that happened in the first innings in Adelaide. I told [Sachin] Tendulkar that I was absolutely tired. He was curious. The reason was, I was concentrating from both ends: not only when I was taking strike, but I was also thinking how I would face the ball when I was the non-striker. I was putting pressure on myself because I wanted to score runs. I knew the wicket was good, the attack was not great, so I could, if I worked hard, get a hundred. That was the first time something like that happened. Even during my two triple-centuries I was physically tired but not mentally. But in Adelaide I was totally exhausted during those 60 runs. I hope that was the last time, and now I enjoy myself when I'm at the other end.

Tendulkar has said that when a player goes through a bad patch his technique remains the same, but every time you enter the ground it is your mind that keeps changing. Can you relate to that?
It is true. Referring to my batting in 2007, I don't think there was anything wrong with my batting or that I was making any mistakes. But in such a scenario the mind likes to deal with the situation in two ways: score quickly, or play with extra caution. But what remains the same is the technique; what does change is the mindset. You are asking too many questions and you are not concentrating on the ball and that's what was happening to me in 2007, which was the worst phase of my life.

I worked hard to come back and did some breathing exercises, used the [Rudi] Webster [psychologist who worked on and off with the team] method of backing myself and it worked out well. I didn't change anything in my batting. The only thing that changed was the mindset, the biggest change.

Did anyone, a selector, former player call up and lend a helping hand?
Srikkanth was the first to call me and tell me not to get disheartened. He motivated me, saying I'm a bloody talented player, and that when I came out of the bad patch I would score a double- or triple-hundred. He just asked me to spend quality time with my family, and when my time came I would score big runs.


"Ganguly was a good reader of the mind, and that's why he was such a great captain" © Cricinfo Ltd




His words came true on my comeback, after I scored a double-century in Sri Lanka, triple-ton against South Africa and more than 1000 runs in Test cricket. So if a youngster is not scoring runs and is out of the team, even an SMS to him will give him a lot of confidence. He might think, "At least Viru bhai has belief in me". Apart from Srikkanth, Anil bhai [Kumble], [Rahul] Dravid, Tendulkar, [Sourav] Ganguly, [VVS] Laxman said the same to me. I felt good.

Do you think that since you enjoy your batting it helps you build those big innings?
You can say that. I love to hit fours and sixes. When you are doing that you are enjoying yourself and people will enjoy your batting and you are not tired mentally. You are not concentrating very hard - you just see the ball, hit the ball, and if you see the gap hit it there. If you hit those fours and sixes, you have the comfort to relax every few balls.

Sourav Ganguly once said this about you: "The best way to know how Virender Sehwag's mind works is to sit next to him in the players' balcony when India are batting. Every few minutes he will clutch his head and yell, "Chauka gaya" or "Chhakka gaya". That's his way of expressing disappointment at somebody's failure to take advantage of a ball that he thought deserved to be hit for four or six. That's how he thinks, in fours and sixes."
He was a good reader of the mind, and that's why he was such a great captain. He knew what the player was thinking and he would back him and give him the confidence by saying, "You can play the way you want to play, nobody will touch you, nobody will drop you."

It is absolutely true. Even now, if you ask anyone in the dressing room, I still say the same things. But that is for me, not for the player in the middle because if I was there I could easily hit the ball for a four or six, but I'm not blaming anyone else.



What do you focus on in the nets?
I try to hit the ball along the ground, especially against fast bowlers. I also like the bat to come down in the right position and check if my body position is correct. If I'm really watching the ball carefully then automatically I'm in a good position to hit it down the ground. The last two to three minutes I like to hit fours and sixes, but if I'm batting for, say, 15 minutes, the first 10 I concentrate and in the last five I experiment with the shots.

John Wright had a simple way with you. In his book he writes, "All I say is, 'How's your mom, hope she is well? And what are you going to do today?'" He [Sehwag] would say, 'Watch the ball, play straight.'
Because we never discussed cricket it was good. He would come to me and ask how I was feeling. I would say "good". Then he would ask how my mom's back was. I would say, "Little bit of a problem, but she is managing really well." He would then ask, "So what are we going to do tomorrow?" I would say, "Watch the ball and play the ball." I would tell him, if there is a ball to be hit, I will hit it, and as a coach I know you will back me, and you have to back me. We had a lot of laughs. That helped me a lot as there was no pressure on me from either Wright or [Sourav] Ganguly. That is their job, to give confidence to the player and let him do what he wants because everybody wants to perform at international level. That is the key.

Did Greg Chappell give you any sort of valuable tips?
No.

What about Gary Kirsten?
Kirsten was himself an experienced player with more than 100 Tests and 150-plus ODIs. He knows what players want to do at international level, and the best way is to give the player his space and talk to him and give him confidence. The best thing after Kirsten has come in as a coach is optional practice. He says, "If you think you want to practise, you come, but if you think you are happy staying back in the hotel, that's fine, but do your fitness." That's his way of coaching. He is not like some captains and coaches who force the player to come to practice. And if he thinks something is wrong in your batting he comes and tells you that he has noticed over a couple of months that you've changed something in your batting. And he makes the player aware of what his thoughts are on the changes and leaves it to the player to implement his suggestions.

Can you cite an example?
There were a couple of occasions when my front foot was not going across. He pointed that out, and said my front foot was going in front of the wicket and if it went across towards the off stump, I would cover more area. So if the ball is pitched outside off and comes in and my front foot is straight, there is a lot of gap between bat and pad. These are small adjustments that are vital.

I checked with him once about how whenever I played towards midwicket or square leg the ball usually went in the air. He said, "It doesn't matter if your feet move or not, but your head needs to be in front of your body. When that happens the ball will go along the ground." I practised and noticed it worked. The same thing was told to me by [Sachin] Tendulkar and [Rahul] Dravid. I knew it myself, but you still need people to point it out from time to time.



"I have asked Tendulkar many times what the zone is. He tells me that's when 'I see nothing except the ball'. I have asked Rahul Dravid the same thing. He says sometimes when he is in really good form, he sees the ball and not even the sightscreen, the non-striker, the umpire or who is bowling. I ask how that is possible. I have never entered that zone"




Would you agree batting is not always about technique, it is about adjustments?
In my view, if you have good or bad technique it doesn't matter. But you will survive if you can adjust your game at international level, you are mentally strong, you know your strengths and how to score runs. When you start the game coaches will tell you to do stuff in a particular way and kids do that. But the moment you start first-class cricket the coach needs to tell you "try this, try that" instead of "do this, do that". If you feel comfortable you can take it, otherwise leave it.

Sunil Gavaskar and Ian Chappell have always stressed that you are not just about hand-eye coordination. That you can play all those shots because of one important factor: balance.
They are right. It doesn't matter whether you move your feet or not, if your head is still and body is in balance, you can score lots of runs. This I learned from Tendulkar. He pointed out that if your head is still you can see the ball clearly and pick the length quickly. If the head is not still, you will make mistakes. That's why I don't have trigger movements and my body is still and I'm balanced and I have lots of time to play the ball. Why do you want to go towards the ball? Let it come to you, then you can play it. Tendulkar, in one of my first conversations with him about handling quick bowlers, said, "If you're confident about playing a shot, just go ahead and play. Don't hesitate, because then you will make a mistake."

What about being in the zone? Tendulkar said that what people call the zone, he calls the subconscious mind. "… All you need to do is look at the ball and play and the body is going to react. The concentration is such that you don't think of anything else." What's your definition of being in the zone?
I have asked him many times what the zone is. He tells me that's when "I see nothing except the ball". I ask how that is possible. I have never felt something like that. I have asked Rahul Dravid the same thing. He says sometimes when he is in really good form, he sees only the ball - and not the sightscreen, the non-striker, the umpire or who is bowling, he just sees only the ball. But I have never entered that zone even if I've scored triple-centuries twice. Maybe I will enter that zone they talk about in future.

Perhaps you are always in the zone?
You can say that, maybe. Perhaps the definition of zone is different for me. They have both experienced what I have never experienced. Right from the time I was growing up there would be people moving along the sightscreen, but I would never get distracted. But if somebody shouts and says there is someone near the sightscreen then I will stop and move the guy.

When does the bowler get the upper hand against you?
I can handle swing movement, but when there is seam movement I cannot handle it properly. In New Zealand in 2002 the wickets were really not good for batting and I struggled and scored something like 40 runs in four innings. Nobody did well except for Tendulkar and Dravid. So later I started to spend a lot of time at the wicket. I would cut if it was outside off and flick if it was on my legs. I found out that works on a bad wicket: to stay at the wicket.


"If Kirsten thinks something is wrong in your batting he comes and tells you that he has noticed over a couple of months you've changed something in your batting" © AFP




Are you hampered by doubts or insecurities?
When I faced the likes of Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee for the first time I had a little bit of fear in my mind. My thoughts were, "Would I be able to face them? Would I be able to play them? Would I be able to hit boundaries?" There were so many questions, and fear also that if the ball didn't hit my bat it might hit me on the body. Those doubts come when you are sitting in the dressing room or walking towards the wicket, and that is when I sing a song and drive away those thoughts. Once you play that first ball then you relax and say, "They are good bowlers, but I can hit them for fours and sixes also."

Tendulkar recently told me that he still gets butterflies in the stomach when he goes in to bat. I was surprised, since he has played for 20 years. He said, "True, but the game is like that. If you think you are on top of the game then you will start going down."

You possess one of the most uncomplicated games, free of clutter, yet you have been influenced by mind specialists like Rudi Webster and Paddy Upton. How come?
Basically there are a lot of frustrations inside and you are telling the person who is listening to you all the rubbish. I'm just trying to clear my mind and heart. Once I've taken all that out of me I'm relaxed and happy. Nowadays I do that with my wife and she is a good listener. Webster and Upton have been good, and they have pointed out examples of good and great players and how their minds would work. Webster told me how Viv Richards, regardless of his form, would always walk like a tiger. Richards knew that everybody was scared of him so he would never change that. So the message to me was, "No matter what the situation is, you need to behave like a champion. And at some point you will deliver." So I think, I've scored two triple-centuries, I have scored [one of the] fastest hundreds, and such thoughts give me confidence and I walk out with belief.

Tendulkar has been an integral part of your career. What's you favourite Tendulkar innings?
When he was there in Multan during my first triple-century. Because I batted the full day with him. He always likes to chat and can get serious and caution you not to hit unnecessary shots. During that innings he told me, "If you try to hit a six I will hit you on the bum." He gave me a simple example - about my Melbourne innings in 2003, when I tried to hit a six on 195 and got out. Till then India were in a good position, but after that we couldn't make a big score and we lost the Test. So he made me realise my mistake. That is why I didn't hit sixes in Multan, but when I was near 300 I told him that I was going to hit Saqlain [Mushtaq] and he could hit me on my bum!

Is there one shot of Tendulkar you would like to have?
His cover-drive, but I don't think I can do that probably because of the lack of feet movement.



"In my view if you have good or bad technique it doesn't matter. But you will survive if you can adjust your game at international level, you are mentally strong, you know your strengths and how to score runs"




What's the best compliment you have got from a bowler?
I don't think any bowler has given me good feedback. Shoaib Akhtar was telling me in Multan that I was only hitting him to third man, so the next ball I hit a straight-drive. "Now you have to accept it was a better shot," I told him. He accepted it.

What is it about spinners? You seem to just get turned on by them?
I was a middle-order batsman who was too good against spin and hit sixes consistently in Under-19 and Ranji cricket, and I still have the same confidence. Once Gary Kirsten asked me, "What would you do if there is a long-off, long-on and deep midwicket?" I asked, "Gary sir, do fielders matter to me?" He burst out laughing.

Any big hitter, like Yuvraj Singh, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Tendulkar, all can hit a six but they don't want to get out. There is a 1% risk.

Let me give an example: I was batting on 291 at Chepauk, against South Africa. I told Paul Harris, "Come round the wicket and first ball I'll hit you for a six." He accepted my challenge and the very first ball I hit him for a straight six, and there was a long-off, long-on, deep midwicket and a deep point. I was so tired and he was bowling on the pads and I was getting bored. So rather than spending 10-15 minutes to get to the triple-century I gave him good advice.

Obviously that confidence comes with experience. On the topic of clearing the field, Andrew Strauss made an interesting comment after your match-turning two-hour mayhem in the Chennai Test. "He plays a game most people are unfamiliar with. He almost manipulates the field. You change it, and it's like he says: 'Right, I'm going to hit it somewhere else now'." Do you really do that?
I don't think so. Because I just said fielders don't matter to me wherever they are standing. If there are two slips and two gullies I will still hit them there. But yes, if they change the field and then bowl according to the field and they are getting success then I'll try and change my shots. I did that against Australia a couple of times when they were bowling into my body and had placed two midwickets, a square leg, a deep square-leg - there were five to six fielders on the leg side. So I went outside leg stump and tried to hit to point or cover and get fours but they didn't change their line or the field. But that happens once in a while.

Company Secretary To Replace Inspector

 

 

By Subhash Gatade

14 September, 2009
 

New Delhi: While the Manmohan Singh government's Left-free second innings is expected to usher in changes to India's archaic labour laws, the labour ministry is working on a quick-fix solution to help drop the country's notorious 'inspector raj' tag.

If all goes to plan, India Inc would no longer have to deal with labour inspectors turning up at their premises to check compliance with 43 central and myriad state labour legislations. Instead, firms can submit a certificate from a company secretary that validates their compliance with the numerous employment laws.

( The Indian Express, Vikas Dhoot, Posted: Wednesday, Aug 05, 2009 at 0137 hrs IST, Updated: Wednesday, Aug 05, 2009 at 0137 hrs IST)

 

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh led government's 'left free second innings' seems to be taking the battle against 'archaic labour laws' full steam ahead. The outgoing Union Labour Secretary, Ms Sudha Pillai, some time back shared with the media about the draft which is being prepared in the labour ministry to this effect.

 

The proposal, which would be shortly submitted in the form of a cabinet note, seeks to 'permit company secretaries to file compliance reports for labour laws, just like they give compliance reports for other laws.' As of now the role of the company secretary is limited to certifying the said firm's compliance with various statues, which includes the companies act, 1956 and also the listing agreement with stock exchanges and the issue of compliance with labour laws is handled by the labour inspectors.

According to the government this new regime would boost India's global perception also. Ms Sudha Pillai, who has since demitted the post of Union Labour Secretary and has joined Planning Commission, explained the 'rationale' behind this move "At most international fora, the pathetic compliance levels of Indian labour laws, especially in small and medium enterprises and the services sector. Our labour laws were made purely for industry, but services now contribute over 55% of GDP and operate under a vague Shops & Establishments Act. Many countries are using labour issues... "

 

As can be expected the proposed change is a win-win for industry, employers and regulators which had been clamoring hard to do away with 'labour market rigidities'. A key point which usually finds mention and supposedly provides a legitimacy to these changes veers around a simple argument. It is said that with such institutional rigidities which result in high levels of labour costs it becomes difficult for the developing economies to compete at the world market which includes new production sites having weak labour institutions and hence, lower labour costs. Ranging from the IMF to the World Bank to the OECD, everybody seems to be pushing this what is known as labour market flexibility. It is a different matter that employers in countries like India "..[e]njoy the freedom to employ and exploit more that ninety percent of the workforce without taking account of any norm of civil society or rule of law. And, contrary to the European case, productivity of labour and profitability of capital increased manifold over the last two decades." (Employment and Labour Market : The Myth of "Rigidity" - Satyaki Roy, Alternative Economic Survey, India 2007-2008, Daanish Books, Delhi)

 

Interestingly, despite more than a month that (mainly) business dailies covered this press conference, there seems to be no reaction from the unions, organisations engaged in uniting labour at various levels. Should it be seen as a reaction to the way normally the 'inspector raj' unfolds itself before the labour - which seems to cover rather than expose the violations of different labour friendly laws at the shop floor level - or it is just a matter of underreporting that all those concerned people/formations have not noted it.

 

For close watchers of the labour scene in India, there is nothing surprising or disturbing about this 'radical' sounding proposal. In fact, the issue of deinstitutionalising and dismantling labour has been high on the agenda of the proponents of neoliberal changes in the Indian economy for a long time. And the proposal to do away with 'inspector raj' - which is constituted to verify compliance with labour laws - is part of this agenda only.

 

Of late, one has been witness to the determined assault on the labour laws in India through judicial caveats or legislative measures. A decade ago the then NDA government led by Mr Vajpayee had formed the 'Second National Labour Commission' (Oct 1999) to suggest rationalisation of existing laws relating to labour in the organised sector and also suggest 'umbrella' legislation for ensuring a minimum level of protection to workers in the unorganised sector. And without waiting for this commission to submit its report important changes were announced in the Industrial Disputes Act and Contract Labour System (Abolition and Regulation) act.

The growing clamor to end the 'Inspector Raj' raises few disturbing questions. Why it is that the 'Inspector Raj' becomes a dirty word in case of labour laws only and why the rulers seem to gloss over the fact that the phenomenon of 'Inspector Raj' of a different kind continues playing havoc with the lives of the ordinary wo/men. On the other hand there are attempts to strengthen it and make it powerful. e.g. There has been no curtailment of the powers of the Inspector Raj of the Indian police which was castigated as the 'biggest organised goonda force' in the country in a famous judgment by Justice A.N. Mullah decades ago.

 

As already explained corruption is rampant in the labour department and it is always a difficult task to locate genuine personnel in the department who are above it. Labour inspectors or their seniors who act at the interface of the department and the public seem to be afflicted with this 'disease' more. Definitely that does not seem to be the reason to end this 'regime'. If that would have the case then the powers that be would have been forced to take the unusual step of 'shutting down' all the government departments as none seems to be free from this malaise. Transparency International the global corruption tracking watch dog. recently downgraded India's ranking from 72 to 85 in the list of world's corruption-plagued countries.

 

Why is it that the government wants to substitute the labour inspector by the company secretary?

 

A point worth noting is that despite presence of corruption at various levels in the labour department, the whole arrangement where the labour inspectors are authorised to verify compliance with labour laws in different units, does help the workers (albeit in a very limited way) to get some relief or forces the employers not to do away with labour laws completely. Apart from this at times judicial intervention also helps workers get some relief or compels the labour personnel to deal with a case properly. Perhaps one can get an idea of the limited impact this 'notorious inspector raj' has on the industrial units/owners/contractors from the no of cases filed by these personnel in different courts of the country and the amount of fine they have been able to recover from them as penalty. This amount runs into crores which can definitely be enhanced if we have stringent application of the laws and are able to overcome many of its loopholes. Another significant aspect of the intervention by the labour inspectors can be noted if we are able to look at judgements by different courts in all those matters where the labour inspectors have filed criminal cases against employers. A cursory glance at such judgments tells us that in more than 95 per cent of such cases the judgments are in favour of the government ie. in favour of the labour inspectors and the employers are forced to admit mistakes.

 

It is clear that for the owners of factories / industrial units /contractor / other employers the 'notoriety' of the 'inspector raj' arises from the 'nuisance' they seem to create at various levels. One can easily notice the glee with which they welcomed the proposed move to substitute the labour inspector by company secretary.

 

Who is a company secretary ? First and foremost thing is that s/he is an employee of the industrial unit/ service centre. Can we expect an employee of a concern to go against the interests of the owner and take steps which can hamper its immediate / long term interests. Definitely not.

 

To be fair to them they are not even trained for that work. A cursory glance at the syllabus formulated by the Indian Company Secretraries Institute (ICSI) for teaching company secretaries brings out the correct picture. During the three year degree course students have to cover subjects worth 1,800 marks. Out of this 1,800 only 40 marks are meant for labour laws. In fact, they are taught only limited no of labour laws.

 

The move to substitute the labour inspector by the company secretary has many other loopholes. The system of company secretary is present only in organised sector where merely 7 per cent of the working population finds employment , rest of the 93 per cent working people are engaged in unorganised sector. It is clear that the government wants to leave the broad masses of the working people at the mercy of the owners/employers/contractors by dismantling all such structures/arrangements which can provide relief to them in this unequal battle against capital.

 

Proponents of wide ranging changes in labour laws - supposedly to serve the interests of the capital better - also package their move in the binary of 'old' versus 'new'. In fact, they talk of doing away with 'archaic labour laws'. If one were to stick to this argument then by the same rationale we will have to get rid of many other laws which are not only more old but also better known. e.g. Indian Penal Code - 1860, Transfer of Property Act - 1882, Trust Act - 1882, Telegraph Act - 1885, Registration Act - 1908, Negotiable Instrument Act - 1881, Land acquisition act - 1894. One can go on enlisting similar laws which are still in operation and more old than the so called 'archaic labour laws'. In fact all these labour laws are quite 'young' as compared to most of these laws/acts/ codes etc.

 

A close look at their genesis makes it clear that they have come up in the post second world war period which witnessed the emergence of a socialist bloc and militant working class movements in many other countries. The rulers of the newly independent India were also fired with the utopian sounding imagination of building an inclusive, equitable society. The state thus willingly entered into a historic pact with labour which was reflected in the different labour laws in India which are meant to regulate labour market, protect employment and ensure social security of workers. It was also seen then as a state's entering into a historic pact with labour. One can also see the impact of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in their formulation, which had come into existence then as part of the building and strengthening of United Nations Organisation (UNO).

 

In its hurry to placate India Inc and help boost India's 'Global Perception' government seems to have selectively forgotten its commitments towards labour and labour laws on international fora. It would be opportune to have a look at the Convention -81 which is related to labour inspection. It needs to be underlined that Indian government has not only accepted this convention but has been a signatory to it also. The task of labour inspection facilitates implementation of recommendations of International Labour Organisation. In the ILO Conference held in 2006 where there were discussions on a report on labour inspection it was duly emphasised that labour inspectorates should be fully independent of local authorities and labour inspectors should be such public servants who have permanent tenures and are free from any external pressures.

 

It was also underlined that to ensure proper implementation of labour laws it is incumbent that inspections take place at regular intervals and labour inspectors are allowed free access to different establishments and production units. Para 17 also seeks to ensure immediate legal action in case of violations of labour laws.

The report also mentions that in its 60 plus year history ILO has always recognised the importance of labour inspection. And looking at the recent changes in world economy - namely segmentation of labour markets, quantum jump in the no of migrant labourers, privatisation, growing sense of job insecurity and increasing pressure on workplace - it says that it is all the more necessary that labour receives extra protection.

 

It further adds that the manner in which more and more countries are implementing Convention 81 is a marker of the fact that labour inspection has played an important role in security of workers and implementation of labour laws. It concludes with the observation that a strong and effective labour inspectorate not only provides better protection to labour it also guarantees productivity of labour which is good for all.

 

Whether anybody sitting in the labour department and burning midnight oil to prepare the cabinet note is listening ?

 

email : subhash.gatade@gmail.com

---

Add other email accounts to Hotmail in 3 easy steps. Find out how.

Protectionism... the truth is on a $10 bill

 

by Ha-Joon Chang:

 

 I have a six-year-old son. His name is Jin-Gyu. He lives off me, yet he is quite capable of making a living. After all, millions of children of his age already have jobs in poor countries.

 

Jin-Gyu needs to be exposed to competition if he is to become a more productive person. Thinking about it, the more competition he is exposed to and the sooner this is done, the better it is for his future development. I should make him quit school and get a job.

 

I can hear you say I must be mad. Myopic. Cruel. If I drive Jin-Gyu into the labour market now, you point out, he may become a savvy shoeshine boy or a prosperous street hawker, but he will never become a brain surgeon or a nuclear physicist. You argue that, even from a purely materialistic viewpoint, I would be wiser to invest in his education and share the returns later than gloat over the money I save by not sending him to school.

 

Yet this absurd line of argument is in essence how free-trade economists justify rapid, large-scale trade liberalisation in developing countries. They claim that developing country producers need to be exposed to maximum competition, so that they have maximum incentive to raise productivity. The earlier the exposure, the argument goes, the better it is for economic development.

 

However, just as children need to be nurtured before they can compete in high-productivity jobs, industries in developing countries should be sheltered from superior foreign producers before they "grow up". They need to be given protection, subsidies, and other help while they master advanced technologies and build effective organisations.

 

This argument is known as the infant industry argument. What is little known is that it was first theorised by none other than the first finance minister (treasury secretary) of the United States - Alexander Hamilton, whose portrait adorns the $10 bill.

 

Initially few Americans were convinced by Hamilton's argument. After all, Adam Smith, the father of economics, had already advised Americans against artificially developing manufacturing industries. However, over time people saw sense in Hamilton's argument, and the US shifted to protectionism after the Anglo-American War of 1812. By the 1830s, its industrial tariff rate, at 40-50 per cent, was the highest in the world, and remained so until the Second World War.

 

The US may have invented the theory of infant industry protection, but the practice had existed long before. The first big success story was, surprisingly, Britain - the supposed birthplace of free trade. In fact, Hamilton's programme was in many ways a copy of Robert Walpole's enormously successful 1721 industrial development programme, based on high (among world's highest) tariffs and subsidies, which had propelled Britain into its economic supremacy.

 

Britain and the US may have been the most ardent - and most successful - users of tariffs, but most of today's rich countries deployed tariff protection for extended periods in order to promote their infant industries. Many of them also actively used government subsidies and public enterprises to promote new industries. Japan and many European countries have given numerous subsidies to strategic industries. The US has publicly financed the highest share of research and development in the world. Singapore, despite its free-market image, has one of the largest public enterprise sectors in the world, producing around 30 per cent of the national income. Public enterprises were also crucial in France, Finland, Austria, Norway, and Taiwan.

 

When they needed to protect their nascent producers, most of today's rich countries restricted foreign investment. In the 19th century, the US strictly regulated foreign investment in banking, shipping, mining, and logging. Japan and Korea severely restricted foreign investment in manufacturing. Between the 1930s and the 1980s, Finland officially classified all firms with more than 20 per cent foreign ownership as "dangerous enterprises".

 

While (exceptionally) practising free trade, the Netherlands and Switzerland refused to protect patents until the early 20th century. In the 19th century, most countries, including Britain, France, and the US, explicitly allowed patenting of imported inventions. The US refused to protect foreigners' copyrights until 1891. Germany mass-produced counterfeit "made in England" goods in the 19th century.

 

Despite this history, since the 1980s the "Bad Samaritan" rich countries have imposed upon developing countries policies that are almost the exact opposite of what they used in the past. But these countries condemning tariffs, subsidies, public enterprises, regulation of foreign investment, and permissive intellectual property rights is like them "kicking away the ladder" with which they climbed to the top - often against the advice of the then richer countries.

 

But, the reader may wonder, didn't the developing countries already try protectionism and miserably fail? That is a common myth, but the truth of the matter is that these countries have grown significantly more slowly in the "brave new world" of neo-liberal policies, compared with the "bad old days" of protectionism and regulation in the 1960s and the 1970s (see table). And that's despite the dramatic growth acceleration in the two giants, China and India, which have partially liberalised their economies but refuse to fully embrace neo-liberalism.

 

Growth has failed particularly badly in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, where neo-liberal reforms have been implemented most thoroughly. In the "bad old days", per capita income in Latin America grew at an impressive 3.1 per cent per year. In the "brave new world", it has been growing at a paltry 0.5 per cent. In sub-Saharan Africa, per capita income grew at 1.6 per cent a year during 1960-80, but since then the region has seen a fall in living standards (by 0.3 per cent a year).

 

Both the history of rich countries and the recent records of developing countries point to the same conclusion. Economic development requires tariffs, regulation of foreign investment, permissive intellectual property laws, and other policies that help their producers accumulate productive capabilities. Given this, the international economic playing field should be tilted in favour of the poorer countries by giving them greater freedom to use these policies.

 

Tilting the playing field is not just a matter of fairness. It is about helping the developing countries to grow faster. Because faster growth in developing countries means more trade and investment opportunities, it is also in the self-interest of the rich countries.

 

The author teaches economics at the University of Cambridge. The article is based on his book Bad Samaritans - Rich Nations, Poor Policies, and the Threat to the Developing World (Random House).

---

Add other email accounts to Hotmail in 3 easy steps. Find out how.

Money Is God, Greed Is King And Corruption Runs The Game

 

By Siv O'Neall

19 August, 2009
Axis of Logic

 

Never has the world been subjected to as pure and destructive lunacy as at this time in history. Never have the anti-civilization voices been heard as stridently as in the so-called debate that is going on today. The insane and desperate noise of the single-party political scene in the United States, the deafening roar of the Mafia, is threatening, and seemingly managing quite well, to out-thunder the few reasonable and civilized voices that are attempting to be heard over the din.

 

The civilized debate that might be expected to be going on about health care, tax reforms, regulation of financial speculation, the criminality of imperial wars, improving education and much more, is poisoned while still in the womb, by the formidable power of the one political party that is spelled M O N E Y. Their power tools are the mass media, the ceaseless propaganda machines, the formidable use of hypnotic slogans and, added to that, the severe lack of insight and intellectual curiosity of the U.S. citizens. All this is made possible through the obscene lowering of educational standards and the carefully programmed lack of information that is the normal state of things today in Middle America.

 

One of the most obvious and insidious weapons of the Money Party is the use of the word socialism. U.S citizens have been thoroughly brainwashed to a state of visceral fear of socialism as the great demon that is out to destroy everything that is decent in life, keep us from having any form of an individual choice as to how to live out lives. It is a decadent form of government that Europeans are victims of, where the spirit of free enterprise is deadened by too much welfare protection, where the rich have to take care of the poor who can thus go on idling their lives away in apathy and shameless dependence on the government.

 

While U.S citizens are either working themselves to death or being spiritually stifled by joblessness and the lack of hope for a better future, they still seem to believe that the U.S. is the greatest democracy in the world, the only really free country where everybody has the right of vote, has the possibility of climbing up the rungs on the social ladder, has the right to an excellent education, the right to free speech, 'the good life' in a country with a strictly limited role of the government.

 

The United States is supposedly in the political, military and cultural forefront all over the world and has the right to interfere wherever its authority is questioned or threatened. The terrifying lack of insight of U.S. citizens into the various passions and ambitions that make up the foundation for a meaningful life for all people in all nations and civilizations completely derails any potential of understanding how the world is made up. What drives us human beings to productiveness and to a feeling of comfort and satisfaction in our own capacity of leaving a positive imprint on the world around us? 'Go out and buy' say the American Money men. Give everybody a realistic chance to try his own motors, say I, and help him pull himself out of the quicksand if he fails in his efforts, due to lack of encouragement and lack of initial means of support.

 

The Money Party has led a centuries-long effort at deadening any humane impulse, stifling any creative and imaginative attempt to use leisure time in a constructive way, replacing all that would be of true value by inventing phony needs of accumulating wealth and symbols of status. With the effect that people are now generally convinced that money is value in itself, an end rather than a means.

 

The world is becoming an amoral and totally disjointed arena where insanity and unlimited greed rule and no humane principles can survive the attacks of the all powerful Money Party.

 

The poor are not supposed to survive, the old and sick have no more rights to a decent life. The words in the ongoing and stumbling efforts to create healthcare for all are being so completely distorted that the average American is made to believe propaganda phrases that no decent human being could possible have intended. But the average person does believe it. The hate-mongers on television have a credulous audience. It is really so simple. Socialism is the clue. Just tell people again and again, ever since McCarthyism held sway over fears and sanity, that socialism is the Devil. Make all those fundamentalists believe that anything that resembles a welfare net is a product of the anti-Christ and reason matters no more. Reason is burned at the stake. Mass hysteria takes over, leading to generalized insanity.

 

The men and women with a callousness that makes your blood run cold take the lead in inventing slogans – they are out to kill your grandparents, government bureaucracy will squash healthcare efficiency, you will die before your turn comes to get medical treatment. Public healthcare will cause national bankruptcy and taxes will go through the ceiling. Blatant lies are repeated again and again until a hypnotic phenomenon has converted them into truths to ignorant 'Americans'. Government-run healthcare equals socialism – the Devil himself.

 

And the insane healthcare debate, if that is what it can be called, is far from being the only issue where reason has gone astray and nationalistic hubris and blindness have taken over.

 

'America' is the foremost, 'America' is the moral guardian of the world, 'America' is the only civilized nation, the only true democracy, are slogans that are so widely believed that no realistic arguments, no criminal wars, no senseless killing of innocent people, no perfectly visible crimes against citizens' rights and screaming social injustice can possibly change the stern belief of U.S. citizens that they are at the top of the world and that nothing can limit their rights to let loose their cluster bombs and their mad destruction wherever and whenever they are told that there is a reason for U.S. intervention.

 

U.S. citizens are never taught to reason, to disagree, to doubt. The average American wears blinders so impenetrable that he can't possibly see the world the way it is. 'Truth' is a malleable piece of clay that is made up for him and he swallows it hook, line and sinker.

 

Civilization is dying. The very notion of civilization is dead. Money has taken over. Money has been the heir apparent for centuries and in the Empire's frantic reaching out of its tentacles over the rest of the world, it has already managed to convert a majority of the Western world, and more, to the belief that the Free Market is the solution to global well-being. As all people with open eyes know and see, the Free Market was set up in order to get rid of the poor and to enable the Money wizards to rule with virtually no opposition. The fact that the planet is destroyed in the process seems to be of no importance to these lunatics. Maximizing profit is the only real goal and people and the planet be damned. The Free Market juggernaut crushes everything in its way. That's what it was invented for and fascism is the name of the game. It is worse than any previous fascist regime since it has more power and practically no opposition, since the lawlessness is mostly hidden behind a screen of secrecy and lies.

 

The only hope for humanity today is in the form of socialism that is growing in Latin America, in spite of the violent resistance and frequent sabotage from the U.S. governments. This enormously important phenomenon is what sends chills along the spines of U.S. politicians and the Money men all over the Western world.

Siv O'Neall is an Axis of Logic columnist, based in France. Her insightful essays are republished and read worldwide. She can be reached at siv@axisoflogic.com. Read her Biography and more of her articles on Axis of Logic

 

---

Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email accounts. Find out how.

When trickery was afoot

 

On two spinners who made the special art of deception their own, and gave the game a gripping narrative in the process

Sriram Dayanand

September 11, 2009

	The master purchaser: Bedi in action in 1971 © Getty Images
Related Links Players/Officials: Bishan Bedi | Shane Warne | Erapalli Prasanna

Most childhood myths endure for longer than they should. Some are never forgotten. So it has been with me in the matter of Bishan Singh Bedi, the Sardar of spin and the most prolific of India's famed quartet of the sixties and seventies. Once mythical status had been bestowed on Bedi by me, mesmerised I was and remain, by the exploits and imagined possibilities of the man blessed with that poetic bowling action.

It all started with a conspiratorial revelation by an uncle when I was at an age when wonder and superheroes rule, and logic and reality are alien concepts.

Clustered around the radio we sat one day, listening to the commentary of a Test match India was playing in. A gaggle of excited kids, surrounded by our own expert commentators - vocal fathers, uncles, and the odd grandfather thrown in to maintain a semblance of decorum amid the mob.

And then, in what I am certain was a tense situation in the match, Bedi proceeded to concede not one but three boundaries in one over. Consternation all around. A forest of hands thrown up in dismay, followed by shouts of "He is going to ruin this for India if he continues!" and "Bring Prasanna on right away!" from not just the kids but even the adults in the group. In the midst of all this agitation, my eyes caught an uncle sitting there, smiling at the radio, a sea of calm. He leaned over to me and whispered with theatrical intrigue, "Don't worry. This is just a part of Bedi's plan. He will make the batsman pay in a few overs. He is setting him up to look foolish. Be patient."

Disbelief replaced the alarm on my face, but cashing in some of the trust and goodwill the uncle had accumulated in me, I turned to the radio again. Surely he was putting me on? Payback in a few overs' time? How does that work? Surely the batsman was no fool to get sucked into Bedi's extended sting operation?

The next Bedi over upped the ante. A relatively quiet over; no wicket falls. Quick look at the uncle begets just a knowing smile and raised eyebrows. Back to the radio again, staying away from the rest of the mob, now being led by the grandfather himself in hollering for the local lad, Erapalli Prasanna. Two or three balls into Bedi's next over and I hear, "And he has bowled him! Through the gap between bat and pad. Completely deceived him in flight. Bedi strikes!" Look up in disbelief and see the conspiratorial look replaced by a look of satisfaction, hands rubbing in delight.

Thus the myth enters the imagination. So the bowler pays up, and pays up again and again till the batsman coughs it up and hands it over sheepishly. The phrase "buying a wicket" was now de rigueur all of a sudden. It also proceeded to cause endless headaches every time Bedi was bowling. Following the progress of the match became a temporal jigsaw puzzle that had no solution. Every ball was a head-scratcher in itself: furious thinking would ensue as one tried to place it in a pattern initiated overs ago. Or was a new sequence of trickery starting with it? Now, was that a set-up ball, to be cashed in by the Sardar a few overs later, or just a bad one? Or was it just an innocent bridge piece in the composition before the cymbal crash came, causing the batsman to walk back? Wicket balls were the easy ones, and a relief, too, for they reset the puzzle. Yes, those times were magical. The period when the strategy has sunk in but the tactics are shrouded in mystery.

With exposure begins the fraying of the edges of the myth. The rewards for the watcher are substantial. When the fundamental aspects of a spinner's art reveal themselves gradually, causing one to follow the game in a completely different way. When the batsman's footwork begins to reveal secrets about the ball that was bowled. When the amount of daylight between the umpire and the bowler at the point of delivery is keenly noted. And when a batsman's looking foolish as he loses his wicket is not a reason to giggle at him but a time to look at the bowler in admiration. Foolishness needs to be pried out of good batsmen, and it is truly special when it happens.

	Every ball was a head-scratcher in itself: furious thinking would ensue as one tried to place it in a pattern initiated overs ago. Or was a new sequence of trickery starting with it? Now, was that a set-up ball, or just a bad one? Or was it just an innocent bridge piece in the composition before the cymbal crash came, causing the batsman to walk back?

Once this comprehension had set in, Bedi's bowling was a fascinating study. I remember, for example, a dismissal of Kim Hughes in the seventies. Hughes, with his superb ability to use his feet against spinners, had many memorable battles against Bedi, but this one stands out to this day. Flighting the ball and pitching it up each time, Bedi proceeded to get Hughes to use his feet and advance repeatedly to smother any turn and drive the ball into the V. Then, as if feigning a realisation of folly, he proceeded to draw back the length of his deliveries over a few overs. Of course, Hughes caught on and the advances down the pitch became less pronounced as this developed. Till the momentous over when the length had been dragged back, ever so gradually, enough to be unobtrusive. Then, the offering. A flighted and floated delivery that was creamed into the stands for six. A slightly fuller ball followed, but Hughes was ready with his immaculate drive for four. But he had already swallowed the bait, except he didn't know it yet. Till a ball later. Floated up again, but a shade shorter. Hughes rocked back to cut but the arc of his bat was still at its midway point when the ball crashed into his stumps. The dipping faster arm-ball had done him in. The sting operation had lasted at least five overs. Hughes made it to the front pages as proof the next day, bat in mid-air, stumps pegged back, looking down in horror and looking a tad foolish. And my uncle was still a prophet.

You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to,
So that when they turn their backs on you,
You get the chance to put the knife in.
- "Dogs", Roger Waters (Pink Floyd)

Those were the rock n' roll days, and thus it went on with Bedi for years to come. Many were the heists that were designed and executed by him, with his accomplice Prasanna, another genius in the genteel art of mid-air deceit and deception, against players of all ilk, at venues of all geographical persuasion. Newspapers regularly brought us pictures of duped and out-plotted batting stars, looking the wrong way, staring back perplexed at stumps astray, stranded out of position having whiffed at the ball, or nailed on the back foot seconds after the ball fizzed into their pads bang in front. Looking foolish all the time.

THE RETIREMENTS OF BEDI AND CO. brought on a dry period in world cricket of the hoodwinking spinner, with just one notable exception in Abdul Qadir in the eighties. The nineties gave us some wonderful spinners in Anil Kumble and Muttiah Muralitharan. Very special bowlers they were and are, but they somehow didn't fit the image of the con artist or the trickster that was tattooed on my brain. Nirvana came in the form of the blond bamboozler who announced himself to the world in the most dramatic manner, with his first Ashes ball, conferring honorary legendary status on Mike Gatting instantly.

As the second Test of the recently concluded Ashes series started at Lord's this summer, in the Sky Sports box was Shane Warne, fresh off the poker tables of Las Vegas, donning his latest role, of commentator. As he added a welcome Aussie angle and drawl to the mix, with his "Aww, look mate…" exclamations, he also provided an acute reminder, right through the rest of the series, as to what we were profusely missing this time around. Just the 2005 Ashes in themselves contained among his haul of 40 wickets a cornucopia of poster shots memorable to this day, of wide-eyed batsmen who had just been duped in grand larcenous style.

	Edgbaston 2005: Strauss gets sucker-punched © Getty Images

Two examples should suffice for now. Michael Vaughan at Trent Bridge, minutes after he had walked out to join Andrew Strauss in England's run-chase. Using his impeccable footwork, leaning towards the pitch of a ball outside leg to play it quietly towards midwicket. And then… picture this aftermath. A visibly mystified Vaughan scrambling back and searching for the ball at a non-existent short fine leg, looking quizzically towards Adam Gilchrist, then staring at a hooting Ricky Ponting at silly point, oblivious to the fact that the ball rested in Matthew Hayden's paws at first slip.

And Andrew Strauss in the second innings at Edgbaston. If there ever was a "ball of the century", one that would have startled Daryll Cullinan off his couch in amazement, here it was. The poster depicts Strauss standing upright, left foot in line with off stump, right foot all the way across to the edge of the pitch, head turned around in a voyage of discovery, in utter bewilderment that while he had been trying to pad up to a delivery apparently heading towards first slip, he had somehow managed to lose his leg stump. He had been conned and schemed into an absolutely improbable stance and dismissal (the set-up commenced, tellingly, when Warne castled him in the first innings). Michael Slater needed to be administered oxygen in the commentary box to recover from his bout of hysterical chortling.

Jim Laker, the great England spinner, once opined that his idea of paradise was being at Lord's, bathed in glorious sunshine, with Ray Lindwall bowling at one end and Bedi at the other. My idea of cricketing paradise may feature other dramatis personae, and the lunch break on the fourth day of the Oval Test of the 2009 Ashes provided a reminder of one. Out in the middle alongside Nasser Hussain was Shane Warne, executing a masterclass on legspin bowling with two teenaged tyros from the counties. Substantially more portly than two years ago, but sporting a warm and cheerful smile and demeanour, Warne went through the intricacies of his legendary repertoire with them. And then, as the wide-eyed aspirants watched, he twirled the ball in his hands, gamely walked over to the top of his run-up, turned… and for a brief, very brief, moment it turned magical again.

The casual walk from his mark, the handful of strides to the crease and that simple, glorious and uncomplicated action burst into view once again. The ball looped out perfectly, drifted innocuously away and then back, dipped and landed on a perfect length. It gripped on that practice wicket and spat furiously off it at a disconcerting height towards second slip. There was no batsman to be spooked by it, and the makeshift keeper jumped to collect it over his shoulder. Surely millions of English eyes watching this widened in terror for an instant, faces turning pale at the thought of Warne running rampant on the baklava-top yards away that the Test match was being played on. Warney, looking like a chubby frat-boy, drawled "Not too bad!" turned and walked back to his gawking students. He ended his class with an exhortation to them to work hard at their craft and to just enjoy bowling legspin because it was "a lot of fun". "And we get to make batsmen look foolish," he added with a huge grin.

I find myself constantly looking for the image of the batsman completely flummoxed, gobsmacked, hoodwinked and strung-on to a memorable demise. I blame Bedi and Warney for this quest more than any others. And the uncle who started it all.

---

New! Receive and respond to mail from other email accounts from within Hotmail Find out how.

Yoga: New 'Om' of good sex life!

 

NONA WALIA 10 September 2009, 12:00am IST

To beat fatigue in the bedroom, yoga is the new Om of sexual well-being.

Sex it up with yoga! (Getty Images)

In yoga studios of suburban Delhi, there's a new asana for sexuality, which is bringing a revolution in the lives of men and women. Delhi-based yoga expert Mini Shastri advises Surya Namaskar every morning for a scared sexual connection.

" Surya Namaskar is a combination of 12 different poses, back bends, forward bends. While doing the namaskar you contract and expand your nerves to the pelvic girdle, which is your sexual core. This stimulates your sexual hormones and helps you achieve a new sexual equilibrium. While kundalini yoga is also beneficial for a better sex life. For instance, vrkasana or the scorpio pose helps your reproductive organs.''

AWAKE YOUR SENSUAL BEING
Ellen Barrett's book Sexy Yoga, is designed to open up seven chakras (energy centers) that involve sexuality: root, sacral and heart. "Yoga means union or yoke in Sanskrit, and it focuses on bringing the body into harmony with the mind and spirit. The awareness of sexuality through yoga is deeper and more intimate. Yoga is about discovering the joys of elegant sexuality,'' says Barrett.

Why are more people rediscovering the yogic position on sexuality? "Yoga helps you in creating a balance. Kundalini yoga helps you create bio-energy, It activates your sex hormones. There's a spiritual connection between yoga, sex and celibacy on the other. Yoga helps you achieve your needs, you can be celibate or satisfied sexually through yoga, it helps you supress or express sexual desire. Kundalini yoga is a bio-science of sexuality and psychology. It can rejuvenate through breathing exercises, which enhance consciousness, with bio-magnetic awareness, you can use your charms sexually. We have higher forms of prayananam ,'' says Kundalini yoga expert, Meena Nanda, who teaches dynamic life management for well-being.

DO WE REALLY NEED NUDE YOGA?
Perhaps, some people are taking yoga for sensuality a bit too far. Like New York-based ashtanga yoga teacher Aaron Star is the founder of Hot Nude Yoga, which combines ashtanga and vinyasa yoga session. "The students discover breathing techniques that will help you to relax and bliss out. The practice involves the classic stretching postures and breathing exercises, coordinated with chanting and meditation to stimulate the release of so-called kundalini energy. It uses the energy of sex to raise the kundalini energy to the higher chakras. It is a good idea to be a regular practitioner of ordinary yoga before you embark on yoga for sex,'' says Star.

MUDRAS FOR SEXUAL HEALING
Sexologist Dr Prakash Kothari believes, yoga is the perfect for emotional, sexual and spiritual well-being. "There are certain asanas that enhance physical intimacy -- bhramari prayanam , chanting of Om with eyes and ears closed reduces anxiety, helps in contracting and expanding sexual nerves. While vajrasana helps in erectile dysfunctions, vajroli and ashwini mudra can help pregnant women pursue a healthy sex life after delivery. These mudras help the pelvic muscles. I also advise surya namaskar to those who have endrocrine imbalance. If you follow these excercises, yoga can really improve your sex life.''

---

Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email accounts. Find out how.

The right to form a trade union - the Jet Airways Strike

  

The right to form a trade union - the Jet Airways Strike

 

 By Girish Menon
 

One of the main issues that has got sidetracked in the Jet Airways versus its own pilots controversy is whether pilots of Jet Airways have a right to form a trade union.
 
In the Hindustan Times of date, Mr. Naresh Goyal the Jet Airways chief likened his pilots' actions to terrorists "who are holding the country, the passengers and the airline hostage". Surely Mr. Goyal, forming a trade union and insisting on collective bargaining are not akin to the acts of a terrorist!
 
This Jet Airways confrontation will be a litmus test for corporate India's campaign to water down the labour laws of the land and to ensure that workers have no collective bargaining rights in a 'globalised' world. Jet Airways have been surreptitiously shedding staff in many other departments during 2009, despite Mr. Goyal's tears of retribution during Diwali 2008, after his airline with one fell swoop made hundreds of cabin crew redundant.
 
Airline pilots in India are probably the only group of individuals who have the might to confront the unbridled corporate and governmental reach of the Jet airways management. These pilots, scions of political bigwigs, have the economic wherewithal to sitout a lock out as well as the political network to counter the political machinations of Naresh Goyal.
 
The result of this battle will define the future of industrial relations in 'modern and globalised' India. If Naresh Goyal wins, then it will be difficult for any economically weaker section of employees to obtain the right to form a trade union and if necessary to go on strike. If the pilots win, then it will only be a minor reprieve for this well off section of workers. What will follow will be a furore in the Indian media, led by the pink newspapers, to improve the Indian labour markets so that Indian companies can get a 'global edge' (read weakening of labour laws).
 
You have been warned. Workers of India, you have nothing to gain except more working hours and less rights to industrial action.
-------
 
 

---

Add other email accounts to Hotmail in 3 easy steps. Find out how.

---

Add other email accounts to Hotmail in 3 easy steps. Find out how.