The agony and resilience of Andy Murray

 

Andy Murray won yesterday in Doha after saving 5 match points. Insane! And this is the second match in this tournament he won after saving match points. And it is the 16th time he won a match after saving match points. It is beyond absurd. He was down 0-40 against the young Czech phenom J. Lehecka. He looked truly down and out. Lehecka had 3 match points on his own serve. Yet Andy pulled it off somehow scratching, grinding, and putting one more ball in the court.

Andy on the court is not cheerful. He is in constant agony. He berates himself, and his coaching staff, as he seeks his next level to beat the opponent. It is never easy. It is a constant battle with himself. He goads himself to do better. Maybe that is what works for him. Maybe he wants to come from behind always, given up by all only somehow miraculously saving match points and turning the match around and winning it. Watching him do it time after time is nothing short of magical.

Andy was once one of the big 4, along with Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic. He won 3 grand slams including Wimbledon becoming the first Brit to win 76 years after Fred Perry. He reached gland slam finals 11 times, losing only to the big three 3, in the 8 finals that he didn’t win. As even the big three carried on winning 64 grand slams amongst themselves, Andy dropped off the race somewhere along the line. Then he had hip surgeries keeping him away for most of the last few years. He is now 35 years old, the same as Novak. Novak is in the prime of his form. Rafael wants to go on, maybe a couple of years more. Does Andy have it in him to go to the top and fight with the best?

He seems like a man on a mission. He is trying his best in every match, grinding it out. Watching him, you see a player tormenting himself trying to do better, to get the extra ounce of excellence from himself. He defines the phrase fight back and inspires us not to give up. It’s not over until it is truly over!!

Book Review: The illicit happiness of other people by Manu Joseph

It's a has been a few weeks since I read this book so I don't remember some cute sentences that I liked when I read. And perhaps I also lost some of the emotions I felt. But  here are my reflections on the overall theme of the book.

First I totally relate to the book. It's a book on a boy growing up in Madras in the 80s. Not just this boy but any boy growing up in Madras for that matter any metropolis in South India would go through similar experiences.

In the end it is a simple story, a satirical story of boys growing up in the 80s in India. This story was set in Madras so you have local nuances but I don't think you would lose the essence of it if it was based in Delhi.

The job boom led by the IT industry was yet to take off. Unless you were born into the rich, the only escape to a comfortable life was to work your way through competitive exams, crack at least one of them, secure a place in one of the premium institutions and use it as a launch pad to secure a job / go to the US, you get the point.

It's a story of this time, told mostly through from the boy's point of view. It was not easy being a boy during those days.  All that mattered was the entrance exam. Can you clear it or not? It separated boys into neat categories. The one who was going to become an engineer and go on to better things in life or the loafer who would go to the arts college and hang around the tea shops with friends and be reminded of his useless existence everyday by the father.

The entrance came first. Girls? they were a distraction. sports? Haven't you read about people selling their medals? Every thing revolved around how you could you gain an advantage through coaching, practice et al.

Manu explores the complicated relationship between fathers and sons well. The father with limited income, under pressure to provide for the family, with weakness for the bottle and women and the son who suffers through this all making up his mind not to become like his father. 

Manu complicates the plot with the sub-plot of science fiction with the super natural powers of the boy and the novel becomes a mystery for a while but you always have a feeling that there is a simple solution that explains it all. 

on the whole, I found it an enjoyable read with enough complications to keep you interested. 

Book Review: Joseph Anton

I finished Rushdie’s latest tome- Joseph Anton. Joseph Anton was the name Mr. Rushdie assumed during his days of hiding from the public caused by the fatwa issued by Iranian Mullahs.

 It was riveting for the most part. I thought it was an honest account by an accomplished writer. Rushdie’s was accused of being megalomaniac and self-aggrandizing but I view him as a strong character with some flaws.

I think what is important is the principle of artistic freedom. He produced a serious book in which he examined the early phases of Islam religion. I believe religion should not be above scrutiny of artists. There are important principles to be defended beyond Rushdie here. Should we as individuals have no right to read about religion from different perspectives? Why should be religious fundamentalists be molly cuddled? While Rushdie’s book may seem as the trigger for violent acts, my view is that there are bigger forces at play and Rushdie’s book happens to be a tool in a greater scheme of things in which such events are bound to happen.

I believe all religions go through phases of reformation and become progressively liberal. Christianity went through its own period of intolerance. Do long periods of prosperity calm down tempers of people and contribute to introspection and reformation? If so are there any signs of that happening in Saudi Arabia? Also I think a feeling of injustice, a feeling being put down upon by the west pervades Muslim societies and contributes to the anti-west thoughts and liberal ideas that these societies perceive as western ideas, though these liberal ideas may well be universal and existed in all societies in different points of time.  The introspection and reformation should begin within and that can begin only in an environment of tolerance. The recent Arab spring offered hope that it may happen in countries like Egypt but the recent elections proved that it will take longer and many steps forward and backward before this process can take root. Islamic people should feel respected, their grievances should be heard and real problems should be solved such as unemployment in Arabic countries and political problems such as state for Palestine.  Until these societies break free of their dictatorships, enjoy freedoms, enjoy long periods of stability and prosperity, the intolerance will continue and Rushdie and artists like him will face the brunt of that anger from time to time.

In this larger context, Rushdie’ life is but a small play within a play being played on the world stage. The book is made interesting with interesting anecdotes from the intriguing world of super star writers and the colorful life of Mr. Rushdie.  He has been honest, perhaps, the view is mostly from his point of view but yet it is a gripping story of a writer with desires and emotions like every one of us caught in the whirlwind caused by the fatwa.

I too have a bone to pick with Mr. Rushdie’s views. One is regarding his views on ‘bhashas” or Indian languages.  Mr. Rushdie offers the view that the most important writing in India happens in English.  English language writing is glamorous, funded by a vast pool of audience and receives universal recognition and adulation. At the same time, the vernacular writers capture the million mutinies happening in India every day and there are very good writers and writing happening across India.  As Indian states  grow prosperous, as the pool of audience for ‘bhashas’  grow, we will see greater number of writers and writings unearthed for international consumption. I know for sure that some of the writers I read in my own mother tongue Telugu are world class and deserve the same level of recognition, rewards as Mr. Rushdie and others.  It was churlish of Mr. Rushdie to hold this view without having read or researched on Indian languages. 

Lokpal Bill: It is about changing the status quo

We are passing through a historical moment. I was at the Anna Hazare protest in Ramlila maidan yesterday. There were people from all walks of life- young, old, rich, poor and even some foreigners. People have a sense of purpose. They want to do some thing to change the system. Scale and extent of corruption in scandals like commonwealth and 2G shocked people.

To be sure Lokpal bill is not every thing. We need a series of reforms to stem the rot. We need a root and branch examination of the current system.


We need police reforms so police can do their job without interference from their political masters. We need electoral reforms to take criminal elements out of politics. We need internal democracy in political parties. So we need whole lot of reforms to change the system.

I hear and read different arguments against this movement. One argument is that the people who follow Anna Hazare are naive, that they expect too much and that they don't understand what they want and that they don't know that they are going to fail. It is a convenient argument for doing nothing. It is very simple. Either you are happy with the current set up or you are not. If you are not, what you are doing to change it. Anna Hazare is doing some thing about it, here and now. To be sure Lokpal bill is not every thing and even Jan lokpal bill may not achieve much. But it is a step, first of perhaps many we have to take, just like the RTI Bill.

The second argument is that Anna and team can't impose the will on the nation. If it is only Anna and team, government wouldn't care. The fact is that millions of people support and want tougher legislation to fight corruption. In a democracy, citizens have every right to demand changes when things go wrong. Corruption has seeped into every root and branch of government machinery. It is about time we took steps to stem the rot. If politicians and bureaucrats are too comfortable to make changes to the cosy set up, then the citizens have no choice but to take to the streets to voice concerns and demand changes. And that exactly what is happening. To argue that, people should not demand changes and let the parliament do the job is to let the status quo continue. That's what people want to change.