December 1992, the aftermath of Black Sunday, the destruction of the Babri Masjid. Suresh Kalmadi and I, in our regulation white Congress kurta-pyjamas, find ourselves next to each other, jiving with our respective partners under the balmy night sky at what was then Goa’s favourite night spot, The Haystack. An irate local storms up to demand what we are doing dancing when such a terrible calamity has overtaken the nation. Continuing to jive, Kalmadi responds, “We’ve lost the Muslim vote; and we’ve lost the Hindu vote: so, we’re here canvassing the Christian vote!”
Given his wacky sense of humour, Kalmadi is doubtless chuckling over the latest joke doing the rounds of Delhi’s cocktail circuit: A teacher decides to put her fresh class of 12-year-olds at their ease by asking them to tell the class in turns what their father does. The first girl says, “Doctor”; the second, “Lawyer”; the third, “Journalist”. When it comes to the fourth girl, she hesitates and then, with a little prompting from the teacher, blurts out, “He’s a male stripper in a gay club”. The class gasps. But the teacher bravely struggles on. In the break, the girl’s best friend comes up to her and asks, “Why did you say that?” And the girl replies, “Did you expect me to tell the whole class that he actually works with Kalmadi in the CWG?”
I doubt though that Kalmadi’s sense of humour will extend to Majumdar and Mehta’s blazing expose of what a humongous mess these Commonwealth Games have been. Boria Majumdar, a Rhodes scholar and senior research fellow at both a British and an Australian university, and Nalin Mehta, an honorary fellow at the University of Singapore, both sports buffs with solid backgrounds in their chosen area of specialisation—international sporting events—have produced a thorough, well-researched, sober and absorbingly well-written indictment of Everything You wanted to Know about CWG but were Afraid to Ask, the sub-title I myself would have chosen for this gem of an insight into all the pretensions, hypocrisies, distortions and vulgarisation of national values that have gone into the making of this circus.
If the aim of the Games was to project the true India of the 21st century on the global stage, Kalmadi’s Organising Committee have certainly fulfilled the objective: for if the world had any doubts, now it knows for certain that we remain the India of jugaad, “that wonderful yet utterly untranslatable word that roughly means a propensity to improvise”.
The Minister of Sports has, of course, made this Punjabi expression a national byword but nothing can hide the ugly truth of Table 1.1, which reveals the horrific costs of jugaad: Operating Expenses escalating from Rs 399 crore in December 2002 to Rs 1,628 crore finally; Commonwealth Youth Games in Kalmadi’s Pune constituency (he won; I didn’t!) catapulting from Rs 300 crore to Rs 678 crore; infrastructure in Delhi zooming from Rs 218.5 crore in December 2002 to Rs 67,185 crore now; security expenses doubling from Rs 155 crore to Rs 277 crore, and still counting; training expenditure on athletes pole-vaulting from Rs 300 crore to Rs 678 crore; and total expenditure soaring like a Sriharikota missile from an initial estimate of Rs 617 crore in December 2002 to an actual outlay of not less than Rs 70,608 crore! “Money is aplenty and everybody wants to be in on the party.”
Yet, with money aplenty—and I suspect because money is aplenty—the delays have been staggering. Table 2.4 sets out the delays (as of May 2009, more than a year ago, and based on cag findings) ranging from eight months for test event strategy to 39 months for the OC’s General Organisation Plan to 54 months for the key, critical OC Master Plan, eventually submitted seven months after I was booted out of Shastri Bhavan. And, yet, Kalmadi thinks I am to blame. O tempora, o mores!
With actual expenditure running at “114 times the original calculation made in 2002”, contrasting with Melbourne’s total spending on the last Commonwealth Games, 2006, having run “just 0.6 per cent above its estimate”, these Games are certainly going to be the most expensive ever, if not the “best ever” as Kalmadi, with amazing chutzpah, continues to claim.
“The Government of India signed a blank cheque based on shoddy budget estimates made by amateurs who did not seem to know what they were doing.” No, that’s not me as sports minister pleading for good sense in the CWG GoM (although that is exactly what I was doing); it’s Majumdar and Mehta, p 16.
Brick Lanes Since the book on the CWG, Sellotape Legacy, was touted as a brick-by-brick expose of scams and misdemeanours, I expected more data and more sense (Books, Oct 4). I am disappointed—a lot of hot air, only a faint whiff of solidity. I must agree with someone who said that by allowing lackeys like Kalmadi and Aiyar to voice their opinions in public, the Dynasty can then choose to pick the right person to side with. Sriram N., Bangalore
One question seems to have slipped through the cracks: why should there be a Commonwealth Games at all? Why should India be part of the Commonwealth? Why should ex-colonies choose to tie themselves to a rapacious colonial overlord who stripped their resources bare and consigned so many of their peoples to lifelong poverty? B. Purkayastha, Shillong
Wasn’t there chaos and inertia when Mani Shankar Aiyar was the sports minister? Just because he was against the whole thing doesn’t absolve him of some of the faults he’s accusing others of. Sumera, Melbourne
Far from accepting responsibility for the fiasco he almost brought about, Kalmadi will now preen. Before that, he should be presented with the ‘order of the boot’. David Albuquerque, Brisbane
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT