The bane of mammon

Curse me if you like. Or call me naive. I stick to my guns that money (material wealth) is the bane of existence. At least an indulgence or excessive importance given to the accumulation of money most definitely is. I have, for years now, noticed how Indian society in particular seems to judge people only by the amount of wealth he/she possesses and care very little for any other personality traits. First question when some random person meets you or your family member at some gathering: What's your son doing? where does he work? Depending on the answer, the next question follows. If the answer is A, B or C (software firms) as is most likely the case considering how stereotypical we Indians are on an average (no offense again), then the reply will be highly 'encouraging'. "Excellent madam, he will get an excellent pay and promotion soon. Will be an ideal candidate once it comes to the bride search blah blah blah". In the highly unlikely event of the parent mentioning a non IT job, the happiness vanishes and is followed by statements that question the choice of job or worse still, sneers in other groups about what a grave mistake the boy has made in not doing what pays well, or as i prefer to see it as (what everybody does anyway).

Nowhere is the love of money, the material wealth and greed for more of the same manifested than in Indian marriages. What is purely meant to be a logical extension of mutual love and admiration of a couple is far from that. The entire process of marriage is now a money-laundering business, and while deploring it is not my intention anyway, I would hardly be getting my point across if I do not expose the scum that lies beneath the well-refined exterior.

There may have been Sanskrit sayings that spoke in glowing terms about knowledge as being the purest of all pursuits ("swadeshe poojyate raja, vidhwan sarvatra poojyate or "vidya dadati vinayam" etc). While I still concur and will continue to do so, the relevance of all this seems to be lost in a society which is increasingly filled with hypocrites. For them though, wealth suddenly becomes important when it comes to marriage scenarios. In other times, they try to don the garb of individuals who denounced wealth and speak eloquently about how important morals are and how trivial money is. Where did the very same morals go when it is time for the marriage of their sons and daughters? This hypocrisy breeds contempt and jealousy but very little love. Why can't a person meet a prospective partner, spend time, get to know his/her nature, appreciate the finer aspects of the character that are products of both the genes and nurture? Instead, salaries and jobs are used as filters in a society that claims to be at the forefront in advances and rational thinking. If this is not the definition of hypocrisy, nothing else is. While I would be the last person to attack astrology or the other empirical sciences that play an important role in the entire matrimony process, I can't help but believe that the horoscope is being used as an alibi to mask the real underlying reason for rejection. People and society in general would be much better off if the prospective partners are allowed to spend time and make their own decision on whether they want to proceed further. This eliminates any ambiguity and leaves very little room for assumptions.

Money is important and much more than I can ever envisage. But like most materials, an over-indulgence is undoubtedly malevolent. We as a well-informed and educated generation would do better if we focus on what brings more lasting happiness than on something that is ephemeral. If money indeed was what mattered to my best friends, I would not have survived the last few years. Their help and encouragement during trying times has not just changed my approach towards material wealth, but has also created an awareness in me that I should enjoy and appreciate the innate qualities that make people wonderful human beings and not the facade that material wealth creates.

Epic crossword

Hey guys.. time for another crossword and this time on a favourite topic. I am not sure about you guys, but Indian mythology especially the Mahabharata has been a fascinating read each and every time i pick it up. The seemingly endless stories and interesting array of characters make it an exceptional epic. I have put together this crossword on Vyasa's great epic. Whether it happened or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that it will perhaps be the greatest work ever.

** Since most answers involve names, slight variants in spellings are ok. I shall provide the number of letters though.

Across

3. King whom Krishna reinistated after killing Kamsa (8)----- UGRASENA
5. Father of Drona (10)----- BHARADWAJA
11. Gifted with divine vision to narrate the war to Dhritarashtra (7)---- SANJAYA
13. Main narrator of the Vishnu Sahasranamam (7)---- BHISHMA
15. Nakul and Sahadeva's uncle. Killed by Yudhishtira (6)---- SHALYA
17. Arjuna's name when in disguise in Virata's kingdom (10)----- BRIHANNALA
19. Vishnu's guards who chose to be reborn in three births as Hiranyaksha- Hiranyakashpu, Ravana-Kumbhakarna and Shishupala-Dantavakra (4,6)---- JAYA VIJAYA
20. One of the four wives of Arjuna (Draupadi, Chitrangada and Subhadra the others)(6)--- ULOOPI
22. Designed the house of lac to eliminate the Pandavas (9)-- PUROCHANA
23. Only Kaurava who opposed the ill-treatment of Draupadi (7)--- VIKARNA
24. Charioteer who raises Karna (8)-- ADIRATHA
25. Yadava warrior who fought on the Pandava side (7)------ SATYAKI


Down

1. Responsible for luring Arjuna away from the Chakravyuha. This ultimately leads to Abhimanyu's death inside. (8)---- SUSHARMA
2. The only person other than Arjuna, Krishna and Abhimanyu who knew to enter the Chakravyuha (did not fight the war) (9)--- PRADYUMNA (KRISHNA'S SON)
4. Krishna's conch (11)---- PANCHAJANYA
6. Jarasandha's Kingdom (7)---- MAGADHA
7. Karna's guru who cursed him for lying that he is a Brahmin (11)---- PARASHURAMA
8. Village that was being terrorized by the demon Bakasura whom Bheema slew (9)--EKACHAKRA
9. 'Neigh of a horse' (11)-- ASHWATTHAMA
10. Jayadratha's wife and Duryodhana's sister (8)--- DUSSHALA
12. Arjuna's name (conqueror of the night (sleep))(9)-- GUDAKESHA
14. Arjuna-Abhimanyu-Parikshit-? (10)--- JANAMEJAYA
16. Joined the Pandava army from the Kaurava camp just before the war (7)-- YUYUTSU
18. Reborn as Shikhandi in order to kill Bhishma (4)-- AMBA
21. The origin of the name Partha (6)-- PRITHA (KUNTI'S ORIGINAL NAME)


And a bonus weirdo question to finish.. Name the Sri Lankan fast bowler whose name figures in the last part of the second line of the first verse of the Vishnu Sahasranamam. He dismissed Brian Lara caught and bowled for 8 in the Singer Cup final in 1995 which Sri Lanka won by 50 runs-------- Eric Upashantha (Shuklambharadharam Vishnum..... Sarva Vigna upashanthaye)
Till next time..cheers!

Contextually speaking..

Graham Gooch's 154: the greatest Test innings ever according to many

Nearly every sporting achievement is measured based on the context. What is the context after all and why is it so paramount? What does it involve and who decides the parameters? Greatness, after all separates the extraordinary from the ordinary, and can be bestowed only to the deserving. What makes a performance special and what makes the circumstances demanding? Majority of these context-related questions are typically raised in a conversation over a drink or two. While the discussions rarely end with a unanimous choice, they do provide a keen insight into the sports fan's mind.

Sample this discussion in a pub between two cricket buffs A and B. One may ask why cricket? Well...after all it is Test cricket and discussions on the topic hardly require a particular time or place..

A: Well, it's been a long time. How have you been? Am fairly sure you have been following all the action lately.

B: Yeah, it has been a while. Of course, I have been following all the matches. Who would miss the cricket after all?

After a couple of usual questions inquiring about trivial stuff such as career and the job, the topic inevitably shifts to the much more serious analysis of Test cricket..

A: Well, After taking a look at the stupid XI that the ICC put up, I wonder if the people who voted ever watched or read about cricket

B: You're not alone. It's a bloody disgrace not to have Sobers and Richards in a team. Sobers for me goes into any XI even ahead of Bradman..

A: I have to agree but it would be even more interesting to see a top 10 innings list. I would imagine it being populated by Tendulkar and Sehwag efforts considering what people exposed to. However, what would be your picks?

B: Read about many and watched quite a few too. But Laxman's 281 for me stands out. An outstanding bowling attack led by two of the greatest ever in Mcgrath and Warne. 274 runs behind and following on. Can it really get better? Add to it the impact he made on the match and series itself. Simply the best..

A: Interesting choice. But I would perhaps rate Gooch's 154 at Headingley slightly higher. Ok, England had a 25-run lead going into the second innings but no other player even crossed 20 while Gooch batted throughout the innings against Marshall, Ambrose, Patterson and Walsh. That beats the Autralian attack for me which at least had a couple of weaker bowlers in Kasprowicz and Mark Waugh.

B: Dude, you must be kidding me. Laxman started when India were 222 adrift and took them to a score of 608 i.e. 334 ahead and effectively sealed the Test. Look at the context and impact.

A: Righto. But he had Ganguly for support first. Ganguly made a crucial 48 which is easily forgotten and then Dravid, who made a brilliant 180 which is overshadowed by Laxman's effort. What did Gooch have anyway? He made 154 out of 252 and carried his bat through the innings. Add to it the fact that the pitch was fairly tough and that he was up against the finest pace attack going around. And yeah, helped England win a Test at home against West Indies after 22 goddamn years...

B: If you are looking at the quality of the attack, then Kim Hughes' effort in Melbourne is probably an even better one. He came in at 8 for 3 and soon 26 for 4 and faced Roberts, Holding, Croft and Garner. Simply superb 100 out of 198.

A: Yeah, the Hughes effort was exceptional. But we have to consider the fact that Lillee's burst at the end of the day which left West Indies at 10/4 was the turning point and what's more, he nailed Viv Richards.

B: Don't drag the bowlers in now. In that case, all Tests are won by bowlers. Harbhajan Singh had to win it for India and so did the England bowlers after Gooch's effort. Why, even Bob Willis' 8 for 43 is more responsible than Ian Botham's 149.

A: Nonsense. Botham gave England a chance in a game where they had no hope. Dilley and Old played a minor role, but Botham transformed the mood of the series.

B: Lara's 213 and 153? Surely, they figure right up there. Imagine the plight the West Indians were in. 51 all out in Trinidad and 34/4 in Jamaica chasing 256. He responds with the 213 and in Barbados, he steers them to a target of 308 from 78/3. Mcgrath, Gillespie, Warne and Macgill. These are two of the best knocks man.

A: Warne was not as potent man and was coming back from the surgery. That was the case in 1998 in Chennai too when Tendulkar took to him. And yeah, the attack had no Mcgrath and featured Gavin Robertson. How pathetic is that? What about Tendulkar's special in Chennai in 1999? Akram and Saqlain were brilliant and Tendulkar nearly took them home from a hopeless 82/5.

B: Mark the words nearly. He didn't help them cross the line that's all. You are remembered not for aiming at the target but for hitting it. Did not win it simple. Can't quite be up there because of that.

A: That's stupidity. So all top efforts in losses can't be on top you mean? Gavaskar's stunning 96 on a bloody hard Bangalore track where Tauseef and Qasim bowled nearly 90% of the overs. Tendulkar's 169 in Cape Town after India fell to 58/5. Lara's efforts in Sri Lanka. Come on, you must rethink.

B: No man. There is no need to rethink. The best knocks in history are always ones that result in wins. Greenidge's 214 made a mockery of England's target at Lord's, Gavaskar's 221 is an exception because it came so close to a win.

A: It was a draw. Don't contradict yourself. What about Bradman's 270 on a spiteful MCG pitch. 2-0 down in the series and turning it around completely.

B: Hold your horses man. Australia had made 200 and kept England down to 72. Bradman astutely sent the tail enders first and when the pitch got better, Fingleton joined him at 98 for 5 in a 346-run stand. It's not the score but the quality of support you have to look at here.

A: All said and done, the 270 turned the series around and he followed it up with 169 and 212 to win the series 3-2. Amazing really!

B: I'll make one exception though. Stan McCabe's 187 against Larwood and Voce is top class even though its a loss. Doing it against Bodyline. Stuff of legend man.

A: Contradicting yourself. Bradman was back in the next Test and made a duck and hundred leading Australia to a win. So perhaps, that is the better effort. Although Bradman himself says Stan was better.

B: Ponting's fourth innings classic at Old Trafford. He did it all alone for Australia.

A: If Mcgrath and Lee had not held out for four overs, Ponting's effort would have been in vain. What a thin line? Dravid's 233?

B: Agreed that India were up against it trailing by 556. But an Aussie attack without Mcgrath and Warne. Instead Brad Williams. It's a good knock not a great one. Dravid averaged just 15.5 in 1999 when both the greats were there. So you see, there is a difference. I think Steve Waugh's 200 was better.

A: He had Mark Waugh for support. I personally think the West Indian attack in that series was not as good as 1993 when Ambrose blew Australia away.

B: Gavaskar's 236 maybe?

A: Dead rubber. 3-0 down and although it was 0/2, I would rather think his 94-ball century in Delhi was better. Sobers' 254 man. Sadly not considered an official Test. Not often would Bradman call a knock the finest in Australia.

B: Yeah. Would have to agree. Lillee at his searing best and on a pair, the knock is right up there man. Fredericks 169 for its ferocity i suppose. And how about Miandad's century in Jamaica. Stunner!

A: Definitely one of his best knocks. The closest any team came to beating West Indies in the Caribbean. Richard's 109 in Delhi also great. Four down chasing nearly 280. Good effort although not a great attack.

B: So can we come to a conclusion man. Seems like we have evaluated the context and impact for many knocks now.

A: Laxman, Gooch, Hughes, Lara, Botham the top five in order for me i guess.

B: I'd put Gooch, Lara, Hughes, Laxman and perhaps Bradman..

A: Hmmm.. not quite the list according to me.

B: Nor is yours. Needs a relook..

A: Perhaps, next time, we can discuss in detail.

B: Wasn't this good enough.. Guess we rope in few more guys next time..Great fun it was though. Adios..

A: Yup. I just recalled. Forgot Gilly's 149 in Hobart. But not quite top tenner maybe.