TIME Person of the Year

TIME's introduction to Person of the Year says 'For capturing and highlighting a global sense of restless promise, for upending governments and conventional wisdom, for combining the oldest of techniques with the newest of technologies to shine a light on human dignity and, finally, for steering the planet on a more democratic though sometimes more dangerous path for the 21st century, the Protestor is TIME's 2011 Person of the Year.' 


And adds 'History often emerges only in retrospect. Events become significant only when looked back on.' About the protests, it says 'The protests marked the rise of a new generation. Technology mattered, but it was not a technological revolution. Social networks did not cause these movements, but they kept them alive and connected. This was not a wired revolution; it was a human one, of hearts and minds, the oldest technology of all.' 


Not all of TIME's choices in the past have been deserving, and many were outright wrong, and several of them biased toward America (a fact acknowledged by TIME in the past). TIME's definition of who should be Person of the Year is one who has made the maximum impact during the year. Julian Assange impacted more than Mark Zuckerberg last year. American Presidents who have won, at times twice, like George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, have been stupid choices, couldn't they find anyone else?; Osama bin Laden should've been, when Rudy Guiliani was. And why was Kate Middleton in the list this year? 


This year has been fair. Many had expected Steve Jobs to make the list, but he did not make any impact this year. TIME has chosen a common noun, as it has done in the past, like The Computer, The Middle Class, Young People, GI Joe etc. (YOU was a terrible choice). The Protestor has made the news this year, without doubt. And shall continue to have impact going forward. 

The cricket world is an elaborate farce!

I'm convinced, more than even before, that the world of cricket is completely stage-managed. This ICC World Cup of 2011 has been a revelation!

Did you see the match between India and England which ended in a tie despite each team scoring 330 odd runs? Both teams could manage so many runs but fell short by one! And the match between England and Ireland, which also had about the same number of runs, and Ireland chased despite England being the Ashes-winning team they are! 

Both these matches were characterised by sudden and surprising turns, with bursts of high scoring, followed by fall of wickets, all resulting in uncertainty, all the time. This helps in making the game more interesting, resulting in more viewership, more kicks for the same money for the sponsors!

The India-England match, I understand, had the highest ever viewership as per statistics. And I presume that the tie would be because some influential quarters demanded a tie! 

The recent expose of Pakistani players being involved in spot fixing, earlier scams involving Indian players, the Cronje episode were only specific instances that had to be revealed, probably since the evidence was so out in the open and could not be concealed. And some could claim that they've acted on cleaning the game up. And result in more inclusion! I'm saying there is a more elaborate stage management at work here.

Why did Ireland win against England now? And why did Bangladesh shock India in the last World Cup? That is because we have to have more inclusion in the game, more teams have to emerge, more audiences have to be tapped; we have to plan for the future!

I have a theory that the World Cup has to have India in the finals to make economic sense. Else, who will buy the tickets and who will watch the ads during the breaks? And Sachin has to help India win a World Cup before he retires! So it helps if we can facilitate all of this.

I'm not asking for the game to be shut down, and the guilty to be punished. Thats been the traditional approach! Why should we be worried that there is no game left in cricket. We're disturbed only if we view this as a degradation of the game, a loss of purity. But this is no longer a game, but an enterprise.

And if so many are benefitted because of this enterprise, generating employment and work, why shut it down? As long as someone, somewhere is earning something, it's good. We are a free nation!

The only worry is that the common people should not waste their time on this, and while away their lives, earning nothing but excitement. But this is true for so many other such things, like reality shows and entertainment programs. Audiences have to go through this farce and emerge more mature. They have to recognise what they are investing in terms of mind and time in such pursuits, and see if it's all worth it!  

Whose business is it anyway!

Phase out the senior journalists

The Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, interacted with senior journalists of the media a couple of days back. He handled the media well, considering the amount of pressure he was in. He could not convince his critics, but he stood his ground and managed unscathed, largely, and his performance was especially laudable, considering he is an accidental politician.

In this media interaction, it was interesting to watch the media, rather than the PM. Prannoy Roy, Rajdeep Sardesai, Arnab Goswami were at their stupid best. Prannoy Roy went on talking for 5 minutes, without coming to the point. He spoke about how the first year post elections is a honeymoon period, and how you generally could pass policy decisions without much difficulty, how for Singh this was difficult, and that he would face elections in 3 years, and he forgot his question. He ended with a tame question, that was would he be the candidate in the next elections. How incisive was that?

Singh replied saying it was too premature to comment. Another senior media journalist asked whether Singh would like to see India lift the cricket world cup. What did she expect Singh to say - no? OK, they were bad! But what's the point I'm making.

When journalists reach a certain saturation point, they must be phased out. Just as everything in the world goes through a life-cycle, so does the journalist. And considering that the journalist is a much-watched and followed personality, the saturation is reached even earlier and is much more stark. 

Because, once they reach a certain level of exposure, they stop being dispassionate about and distant from the issue, and they start taking a position. When they meet someone who doesn't agree with that position, they react in a belligerent manner. They hide this media blunder by saying that they provide us opinion and not just the news.

I can surely say that the Indian people are knowledgeable and intelligent enough to form their own opinion. They need only the news, experts' views and not the media analysis, most certainly not of these jaded journalists. So most senior journalists need to take vanvaas, and allow for some dispassionate and unbiased journalism.

How can we shake up this system? Or can't we?

Charity or Save the world; be politically correct!

After a short day at office yesterday I was leaving home soon since I had to go to the bank to foreclose my car loan. I was at Vikhroli station in a hurry, when I was stopped by a young girl, about 20, who represented Greenpeace. And she asked me politely whether I could listen to her for a few minutes. I agreed.

She briefly described what Greenpeace was and what they were working on. I told her I knew quite a lot about Greenpeace, but didn't tell her that one of the projects my company was working on was delayed because of activism by Greenpeace.

I asked her how I could help, the response to which she delayed, continuing her script to conclusion. I was getting impatient, wondering what was it that she wanted from me. I thought of asking 'Do you expect me to save the world here?' but I blurted out 'How can I help?'. She had to come to the point. Contributions begin at Rs 250 a month, conveniently chargeable to my credit card.

She almost concluded that I would save the world, sorry, contribute. I said I can't decide contribution standing here at the station at an odd hour. I asked for their website and details and said I'd update her whether I contribute or otherwise.

I wondered what was it that drove this young girl of 20, possibly, to stand in the afternoon sun and promote a cause which may or may not benefit her. And thats not enough, lest I sound like a irresponsible citizen of the world. I'm sure this girl doesn't understand the complete story, nor does she know whether she is on the right side of the world.

I concluded that she was doing it to earn brownie points. Maybe she was going away to America for further studies. Maybe she needed the experience on her application.

Is this is a good cause to be associated with for that? With all the controversy surrounding such activist organisations, it may not be a safe bet. I mean, someone opposed to this idea, with a reasonable understanding of the scenario (which this girl lacks) will be able to win an argument.

I had never had the need to be associated with any such cause for brownie points, so I can't comment on the appropriateness. But this led me to think whether one should choose a safer alternative, such as an old age home, women's issues, children in orphanages or the like, where you could only be right. After all, most in the world choose to play safe.

That would be so politically correct!