CHALLENGE NATURE OR NOT?

A couple of days ago, I had a small discussion with some close friends. Whilst it was not a fight, it definitely ended up as a very interesting and useful debate.

What started the whole thing was a heart-wrenching picture of a little boy in Africa, about to die of starvation (FAMOUS KEVIN CARTER PHOTO THAT MADE THE WORLD CRY). Stalking the infant is a vulture, patiently waiting for the child to pass away, so that it could have its food. Needless to say, it is almost impossible to look at the picture twice - the reason why I do not include it in this post (anyone who has the heart, can search it on internet).

However, after we looked at this picture, a little debate started with someone commenting that man tries to work against nature or tries to 'act God' - which is the source of most human problems. The first time I had heard this argument on various fora was in 1993-94, after Steven Spielberg's movie Jurassic Park made everyone shudder at the thought of monstrous dinosaurs being recreated. The conclusion in most drawing room discussions then was that man shouldn't work against nature - recreating dinosaurs will be an act against the will of 'mother nature'.

To my mind, however, this argument isn't logical or complete. Nothing irreligious, purely illogical.

To begin with, all human progress is based very much on working against nature. Be it cooking food, wearing clothes or living in houses. The nature does not command us do any of these.

Even more... Nature doesn't even ask us to read or write -- which is the biggest basis of human development and progress.

In fact, most of us think of 'not going against nature' only for those things where we cannot conquer the forces of nature. Where we can, or already have, we don't realise that we work against nature. So, innocuous acts like living in a house, reading, writing, cooking, etc., do not consciously appear as acts of 'going against nature'. No other animal does these - not naturally, at least. They make their habitats strictly by natural means (like nests), and they communicate strictly by bodily means (sounds, gestures, signals, etc).

Humans, on the other hand, keep finding ways of challenging nature, or obstacles of nature. That is the sole basis of progress. Otherwise, no one would be sailing across oceans, there would be no commerce, no surgeries, no spectacles, no time-keeping, no weapons, no predictions of upcoming disasters, and so on... and on!

The confusion occurs when we realize our limitations in predicting or countering events like earthquakes or tsunamis, or such forces. We conclude that we fail against nature - or that we shouldn't try to challenge nature. But we forget that though we can't completely counter these calamities today; a little while ago in human history, we were equally incapable of dealing with tuberculosis, malaria, or, had to live with polio.

It does tell us something: Mankind always finds ways to conquer nature - pushing it at all times. Not just materialistically, but also for psychic things -- forecasting behaviours, making mind maps, etc. 

It is not entirely impossible to predict the 'points' at which 'nature' can cause hindrance. It is important to remember that humans mostly work on the basis of circumnavigating these points. That is, till the time we learn ways of tackling them. Prevention to start with, and the cure, in due course.

---------      ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------

Now, to return to the painful Kevin Carter picture, where this discussion began:

Nature asks us to live in natural shelters, or in no shelters. Nature dictates that when a greater creature views us as its 'food', we either fight or escape or become the food. Those that are weaker in a preyed group (like kids) must therefore become food - either because they can't fight adequately, or can't run to evade the predator. That's how most animals hunt their food - by capturing the youngest or the oldest of the herd. Nature's Rule-1: Weakest must become the food.

Nature gives us the food that it produces (vegetation or meat), but not the one that is 'cultivated'. Cultivation, like making fire, is an act of artificialness -- an unnatural thing. Agricultural fields are not made by nature. Nature's Rule-2: When there is less food, the weakest must die.

So, if we keep the two things together, we realise that as per nature's rules, 

1. Kids must become the easiest food (despite parental protection), and

2. Starvation is a consequence of inability to beat nature to cultivate enough food (or, inability to have healthy commerce - another artificial activity - to buy food from others). 

HENCE, THAT POOR CHILD WAS DYING AND BECOMING FOOD, BECAUSE HIS SOCIETY WAS UNABLE TO BEAT NATURE. NOT THE OPPOSITE. HAD HIS SOCIETY BEEN ABLE TO WORK WELL AGAINST NATURE, THAT IS, PRODUCE SUFFICIENT FOOD AND PROVIDE SHELTER, THE CHILD WOULDN'T BE DYING AND BECOMING FOOD.

A final argument that came my way was "This is OK... But one shouldn't go too much against nature. Keep a balance, a non-confrontational and harmonious relationship with nature". This is wise, but is perplexing.

Can anyone define 'too much' while inventing? When man first produced fire, learnt cultivation, started manufacturing, made urban settlement, did construction, or any such thing, he had neither a grand welfare scheme nor an evil design. No invention or innovation has any visionary projection for everlasting future. 

The problem is about how these are used at different times.

One can use fire to cook or burn down houses, one can do cultivation to create food supplies or spread diseases, we can do manufacturing to produce goods or deplete ozone layer, we can do urbanization to settle people or kill vegetation, etc. Is it ever possible to know all the consequences for all times in advance? So it is worthless blaming inventions or discoveries for any imbalance. It is akin to saying "Since some aeroplanes meet accidents, flying is bad - against nature. After all, humans are not supposed to fly!".

All innovation and invention is a result of changing the established or natural order -- challenging nature, therefore, is not bad. 

What actually becomes problematic is not knowing how or when to assess the fallout. The perceived imbalance, disharmony, enmity towards nature, etc., emerge from not assessing the extent of impact at all times. Course correction is as much a need, as is invention or progress.

For that, to claim that challenging nature or inventing progressive things is sin, or is acting God, is categorically retrograde. Then we shouldn't be living our lives of today.

Olympics: Insights for Fans & Viewers

As some of the celebrated players from India crashed out of London Olympics, many people shook their heads in disgust and moved on with the usual refrain: This is the same old story. Some players too expressed disappointment at their performances, and the leaf was turned over.

I have overwhelming sympathy for Deepika - world's top ranked archer - the poor girl from the backward state of Jharkhand, and I very deeply recognized the pain that her statement after losing the qualifiers reveals. Her statement can be translated as "By the time I came to figure what was happening, the match was over". Abhinav Bindra, a gold medalist from the previous Olympics, also lost - again, in the qualifiers. It was certainly not his day - as he said later. We had an almost instantaneous empathy with these dear flag-bearers of our country, though it was alloyed with a bit of despair.

I suddently asked myself: Do the cricketers in this country also have the luxury of dismissing their defeats as 'just a bad day'- even when playing a bilateral series, not at a stage as big as World Cup? The rebounding thought was "There is too much money that the cricketers earn, so there is less sympathy for them", or, "There is too much money that is spent on cricket, while the other poor athletes get little - and hence, they can be forgiven." I bounced this off close friends and aquaintances, and their reponses were nearly the same.

But, somehow, at a deeper level, I find this argument difficult to reconcile to. Following is what I figured:

I don’t think having more money or commercialization is why cricketers should have less of similar empathy. At the same time, some other sportspersons can’t take shelter in having less money, after losing their events or matches. It is just that the latter know that not much is lost in most people’s psyche, if they lost. No pressure – that is to say.

Even cricketers in India were poor and helpless about 35 years ago. How did all the money start coming? Not because it was ordained by some divine authority. They developed a knack of winning regularly. It is winning consistently that makes people wake up and take notice. Which is then followed by money, and subsequently, commercialization. If someone is a loser most of the time, there won’t be any lasting public interest in his/her sport. There may be a chance brilliance, but if not followed up, it will wither away.

Remember, India won a hat-trick of tournaments in cricket –Prudential World Cup (1983), Asia Cup (1984) and Benson & Hedges World Series (1985) - which led to a revolution in cricket-viewership and commercial-frenzy. Moreover, this was the result of some genius players who came one after another (as I once wrote in this blog). Please recall, after the World Cup in 1983, there was no money in the system to reward those players. Reportedly, a legendary singer from the Hindi film industry was roped in to do a show, which helped collect some money that was distributed to those players.

So, it is not money that leads to winning. In fact it is the other way round – you win consistently and the money follows. In short, it is all destined when you sustain... Consistency is what makes it, not poverty or wealth (else, athletes from some of the poorer countries would not be winning).

Let me say one more thing: Imagine Saina Nehwal wins a big medal, and she is then followed up another equally brilliant star badminton player in a few years; who then passes on the mantle to an even big-winning star in a few years... Will there be a revolution in the way badminton is positioned today? Badminton may even become a passion in the country. Same for boxing or any other sport. That is what happened in cricket.

Thirty years ago, most budding cricketers learnt their trade at local clubs and gymkhanas. Now there is money which funds several institutions and academies. It all started because in the days of penury, some magical guys produced wins regularly, which turned the tables.

New Age

All dates as per the Gregorian calendar used internationally today:

Circa, Closing years of the third decade of the 16th century: The rulers and builders must reconcile to the fact that our fortresses are totally brittle and fragile, when up against the modern-day cannon-power of these new-age rulers, namely, Babur's Mughals. Gunpowder was fine, but these revolutionary cannons mean that Mughals are literally invincible.

Circa, Second quarter of the 19th century: Modern times have unmistakably arrived. Monstrous machines now transport people and goods over unthinkable distances. And they do it at an amazing speed too! Who could have ever imagined that, someday, water and coal would combine to generate so much power? The power of steam has, of course, been known for thousands of years. But such surreptitious, almost limitless, potential was unknown. The industrial revolution, which started about two centuries ago, is now at its zenith.

Circa, Middle-years of the fourth decade of the 20th century: This is modern-day competitive psychology. Sportsmanship means nothing to people who play the gentleman's game today. Physically injuring opponents, with something as lethal as a cricket ball, in order to win test-matches, is an unfortunate reality now. What was the likelihood of a batsman not returning alive from a cricket-pitch, or being seriously crippled for the rest of his life - even a decade ago? Bodyline bowling could never have been a thought even if they lost by world record margins. We don't seem to have the good old respect for worthy opponents anymore.

Circa, First decade of the 21st century: Though there have been very few spectacular inventions and discoveries in the field of Physics in the last 30-odd years, it is biology that is now at the centre-stage and has taken a quantum-leap. Biotech is the frontier-technology of the modern world. Could there be a bigger chance for human-life than stem-cells' commercial preservation and reuse?

----- Take a moment's break -----

None of the above is specifically known to have been said, but it is my imagination that these, probably, would have been the expressions around these times. I do not intend to ridicule the proclaimed advent of modern-age, nor do I want to belittle the lament at passing-by of the good-old days. These have always been integral parts of human thought process. They convey the same thing: a New Age is here.

Modern times are never gone - they are never in short supply. All generations live in modern times. 'New Age' has just kept arriving, unabated, throughout the human existence, and one can promise, it will continue to do so in future. It is perhaps the most significant aspect of our psychologies, which keeps providing behavioural-coordinates and a sense of righteousness. And not in the least, it keeps energizing our souls.

How, for instance, would we feel if convinced that these are most ancient of times: We still manually type on bulky machines called computers: There is no 'personalized electron-charge' to read our thought and spread it on a virtual screen? We still need mobile-phones... how prehistoric!

Deja Vu? Just look back: A pigeon carrying a message tied to its legs... Feel good about the new-age cellphone!

Hi-Speed Communication & Organizations

If I were to ask you (or myself!) what common image conjures up when we speak of Ashoka (the Mauryan monarch), Alexander, Akbar (the Moghul emperor), Yuan dynasty of China, ancient Roman Empire, and the British imperial government of the 19th and 20th centuries, the answer would most likely be the military might of these. Each one held sway over vast territories, whose geographical expanse appears to be too good to believe. Looking back, these empires give an impression of time-bombs that could have exploded any moment. Anyone - either a governor, a local prince or a powerful warlord - could have risen in revolt and declared independence. But the fact is, across the world, even 2000 years ago, there existed vast empires.

What is even more interesting, and intriguing, is the fact that with no means of real-time communication, these empires were held together for a near-impossible length of time. It appears incredible that people living thousands of miles away owed allegiance to a government that existed in another time-zone and, metaphorically, in another universe. The rulers or the parliaments, seated in remote locations, had zero 'on-the-ground' information for days or weeks or even months; but, nevertheless, were able to exercise authority, and often, did command respect. This, to me, is no less a feat than some path-breaking scientific inventions and discoveries accomplished by humankind.

Certainly, it would have not been possible only through subjugation, or by forcing people into submission. Unless there is some willingness or loyalty on part of the governed, mere exercise of cavalier authority is impossible. Even a headmaster, for instance, would find it extremely difficult to control a bunch of students who have made up their minds on disobeying his orders. There is always that dark and secure corner in the school, where pranks can be played without the fear of being caught.

Instant communication, therefore, is not the most critical aspect for cultivating a sense of belonging or for holding together a human-group: the subjects in a kingdom, a set of employees in a commercial organization, a civilization as a whole, and so on. To elucidate, let me attempt this example: It is known that people are held together by something called 'heritage' or 'descent'. People of same descent believe they are a community. They identify with their long departed forefathers - much in the same manner as they do with their contemporary cousins. To add a further nuance, they reckon the same persons (or set of people - dead or alive) to be their foes - as their ancestors did. People are bound to someone or something even when they have no real-time communication. What does matter, is not communication speed, but the sentiment contained within.

And yes, when the sentiment wanes away, when the feeling of subjugation grows, the invincible empires do not last... they disintegrate or shrink.

So where is the speed of communication needed? Well, in exactly the thing that we thought was the single-common aspect of large empires: military-action like situation?

Let us look at the other end of the spectrum: A large part of technological revolution is focussed on improving the speed of information delivery. It is imperative that as we evolve further, information flow would become even quicker. It has forever been evolving: from postal systems to telegraph, from telephone to internet. Emails have already brought revolutionary changes to the way organizations function today. The CEO reaches out to the lowest placed functionary in a matter of nanoseconds when the former needs to announce a change in corporate-structure. Clients and customers download tons of files and send comments and payments almost instantaneously. The Disaster Management Team in a global organization issues real-time flood alerts to all its employees. Municipal Corporations send instant advice to citizens on special situations in the city. Does some of this sound like tense and terse military action?

In the context of our discussion, high-speed communication can help integrate - especially while multi-tasking or handling crises. But, integration is merely the first step in the long cycle of creating a lasting bond.

The real victory is in mutual enrichment, which alone leads to a lasting, fulfilling and reciprocative relationship. Unless the sense of belonging is cultivated, no institution, organization, social setup, etc., will ever work. In due course, the impact of the initial communication gets dimmed, the message is lost and what is left is ruins... pasted on notice boards, displayed in picture frames and buried in rotting shelves of libraries.

The viceroys of the British Empire sent detailed telegrams to the government back home - highlighting critical developments in the colonies and seeking advice. The quickest possible information exchange of those times. It gave the official system a serious advantage. But the empire was not held by or because of something as small or tactical as telegrams. It was held in place by some very potent legislation, policy making and well-oiled administrative machinery. And when the same things became discordant, the empire dwindled.

But, that is something for the learned historians to explain - I lay no claim to being one.

Don't Blame Me: My Name is Cricket

For a very long time, the Indian cricket fan has endured, often grudgingly, the acerbic remark that cricket does not deserve the attention it gets. There are millions who swear that it is all due to the hype created by media - as if media could just draw a lottery for a sport or an event, and then make it the most popular thing!

People, even those who have lived in the pre-1983 era, often conveniently forget that cricket in India was not what it is today. Hockey used to be a very popular sport. India was not a sporting nation by any decent standards in that era and hockey alone brought moments of pride and joy in that glory-famished landscape of Indian sport. We did have Vijay Amritraj, Ramesh Krishnan, Prakash Padukone, Milkha Singh, P.T. Usha, Geet Sethi, et al bringing glory and raising hopes over a long period of time, but, just another addition to this list might well have been the name of Sunil Gavaskar, had he not been followed by a series of geniuses and world-beaters: Kapil Dev, Ravi Shastri, Mohd. Azharuddin, Sachin Tendulkar, Anil Kumble, Harbhajan Singh.

The reader may note that each of these sportsmen or sportswomen created a big bang and survived a long period - long enough for the world to take notice; and for the media to remember them even after they were long gone (barring the ones that are still active). This ability to produce legends, and then, to breed the next generation of legends, is the essential lifeblood for any sport to remain popular over a long period of time. The list of these cricketers spans a vast time-horizon of over four decades. They have consistently brought glory to India - more than any other sport has done on a consistent basis, in last 4 decades. So, it is obvious that there has been a sustained baton-passing in Indian cricket. This is something that has made cricket the media darling that it is today.

Sports fans, no doubt, rejoice in the news of V. Anand, Abhinav Bindra, Vijender Singh, Saina Nehwal, Sania Mirza, and not to forget, Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi, scaling peaks and putting India's name up there with the best. The same was true with hockey till the late-1980s. Remember, India won the Olympic gold in Moscow (though the western bloc teams did not participate in the cold war era), which was truly a celebrated event. Then, when India came back from behind to level a match against West Germany at Azlan Shah - by striking four times in the last eight minutes - everyone was over the moon with anticipation of return to the glorious days. But sadly, most of these moments remained islands of hope; and the hopes kept rising and falling like ocean waves. The emotional roller coaster has continued with most sports.

Unless a sport provides an emotional high for a long, sustained period, that is, to at least one or two successive generations of people, it will not be as popular. There is little use blaming another sport for loss of popularity.

And lastly, some people also feel that it is shameful that we rejoice in being a cricketing nation. Reason: It is supposedly a relic of the imperial past. But the same people (or sometimes, not the same, but a large section of people) believe that playing football is much more 'glorious'. Because, it is a sport that is liked by the whole planet! This line of argument is even more naive.

The fact is that football, today, is more European a sport than other popular sports in India. Even the 2010 World Cup finals figured European teams in the last phase, with a sprinkling of Latin American and a few dots from Africa. Cricket, in that sense, is very much Indian, or rather Asian. Most current records in batting and bowling belong to Asians. No doubt, football is a beautiful sport, but not the one that Asians are very good at.

It is time we looked beyond blaming cricket for the miserable condition of other Indian sports, and started building these sports. Who does not like to see an Anand being a World Champion or wish that Saina Nehwal becomes World No. 1? As much as they like to know that their cricket team is a top ranked one.