Indian coach Gary Kirsten is “deeply disturbed” over what he calls “false allegations” – the report that he and Paddy Upton, the mental conditioning coach, had co-authored the now-derided vision document that aimed to raise performance on the field.
He says he had no hand in this fine composition, that it was entirely the work of Upton. Kirsten also insists that he didn’t know that the document existed. This defies credulity: Upton is a close associate of Kirsten, a man Kirsten brought along with him from South Africa on his Indian mission. Why would Upton keep the coach in the dark about this rather radically-worded document? Why didn’t Kirsten know about its existence even after it had been distributed to the players? Why did he read it first “only two days ago”, along with amused readers of newspapers?
If, however, what Kirsten claims is true, he might want to ask Upton to consult him when preparing vision documents of this nature, for two heads would work better than one.
This vision document, a praiseworthy effort no doubt, could still be vastly improved; the original contains a few points open to contention or interpretation, and reveals more about what Upton thinks of Indians than what they should do to become world-beaters.
The South African think-tank – or as Kirsten insists, Upton going solo – declares: “India has never been an aggressor at war, they have never been the first to strike... In the 1971 war with Pakistan, it took the Pakistan Air Force to strike a number of Indian airfields in North India before India was officially at war with the enemy.”
Pakistan might contend the accuracy of this statement, and if he were to join the Pakistan team in the future, Upton would perhaps not try to benefit his wards with this particular war simile. Or would he tell them that Pakistan did well by attacking India?
More seriously, having made this statement, Upton infers that the lack of martial aggression has translated into a lack of cricketing aggression, declaring that India’s bad cricketing record overseas is due to their being “unfamiliar with doing battle outside the borders of their mother country”.
He might have a point, but it’s a matter open to debate. There were legitimate cricketing reasons behind the abysmal record, which has improved in the last six years – we’ve never had a bunch of outstanding fast bowlers, for instance, before the 2000s.
One can also wonder if attacking one’s neighbours is really such a wondrous thing, desirable for sporting success. Two, India does have a rich, though regrettable, martial history of wars, between different states and kingdoms before it was unified into one entity.
And while it might look like a case of nit-picking, Upton doesn’t seem to be aware that the navies of the Cholas did attack the regions that are now in Indonesia and Malaysia – way back in the past, though — fundamentally altering those places forever.
During the two World Wars, the pre-Partition India contributed millions of soldiers to the eventual victors; Indian soldiers earned 30 Victoria Crosses during World War II.
Now if Kirsten had been taken into confidence, he might have told Upton that martial success isn’t necessarily a great precursor of a sporting one. Kirsten could, for instance, have pointed out to Upton the lack of martial heroics of the people who’ve produced the most dominating cricket teams of the last 70 years – the West Indians and the Australians.
Also, England ruled the world once, being the biggest of the European colonists, didn’t it? How is its cricket team regarded now?
Kirsten might also have told Upton that the advise to the players to crank up their testosterone levels with sex may not be scientifically tenable, or prudent to a team with several married players – or, at least, not one to put down on paper and circulated.
There’s much else that could prove useful in the vision document, but nothing really original. There is, for instance, advice on self-improvement and eating habits. However, what went into page 1 headlines in the newspapers was sex, not self-improvement. Which is understandable, for advise on becoming a better person is a bit akin to “dog biting man”. It’s no news.
What is news is that the two South Africans in charge of the team need to work more closely than they seem to be working. Unless Kirsten, fearing another BCCI reprimand, is being economical with the truth -- which seems to be the case, especially since Micky Arthur, the South African coach, says the document is eight months old.
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