<p>One newspaper headlined the women&#39;s cricket World Cup title match thus, &#39;Nine runs short of history&#39;. Perhaps the headline missed the irony trapped in its own supposition - that these women were trying to write &#39;his-story&#39;. What it elided was something much much bigger &ndash; which is, &#39;her-story&#39;.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Yes, it was cricket that did it for the women in blue. After all, cricket is the reigning catalyst of this nation&#39;s imagination. Cricketing fervour makes a visceral connection with the country&#39;s deepest cultural resources, bringing out in the process its best, and its worst. But while what happened yesterday at Lord&rsquo;s was cricket, it was also way more than cricket.</p>

<p>Moments of exuberance stimulate the imagination. Accolades are being heaped on the Mitali Raj-led Indian women&rsquo;s cricket team. The Prime Minister tweeted in his congratulations. Diehard fans have exclaimed, &ldquo;Ufff, if only!&rdquo; To me, however, the most fetching comment was the one aired on TV much before the final match was played. It came from a Haryana farmer, when asked what he thought about the women&rsquo;s cricket team, &ldquo;I&rsquo;ll put my daughters through college or even support them if they wish to play cricket. My sons can take to the fields. They are good for that (only)!&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>I&rsquo;ll put my daughters through college or even support them if they wish to play cricket. My sons can take to the fields. They are good for that (only)!</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=I?ll put my daughters through college or even support them if they wish to play cricket. My sons can take to the fields. They are good for that (only)!" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>So here are two critical questions: &ldquo;Is this a moment of disruption for the choices women can make about themselves and their lives?&rdquo; And, &ldquo;Is this also a moment that recasts the way women are perceived by society (read patriarchy)?&rdquo;</p>

<p>Small disruptions have stirred the imagination in the past. In &lsquo;Chak de India&rsquo;, a woman hockey player has a hot shot national-level cricketer as a boyfriend, who her friends in the team swoon over. There is this moment where he disparages her game, patronising women&rsquo;s hockey as the &lsquo;not real&rsquo; thing. The woman player drops him then and there, just like that. &lsquo;Dangal&rsquo; has this moment where a young bride tells her friend Geeta (the lead protagonist of the movie, who&rsquo;s not at that point happy about being pushed into wrestling by her father) that she got it wrong about missing all this wedding finery, that at least her father has given her a purpose beyond the limited and narrow choices available to women. Captain Mitali Raj has added to this string of disruptions. When asked who her favourite male cricketer was, pat came her reply: &ldquo;Do you ask male cricketers about their favourite female cricketer?&rdquo; Another time in an interview she was asked about her favourite &lsquo;assessory&rsquo;. Guess what she said? &ldquo;Kindle!&rdquo;</p>

<p>These moments of disruption do not add up to a consensus on women&rsquo;s emancipation; they only show the way. Which is why I am almost glad we lost the final by nine runs. To have almost made it but not quite is a more apposite outcome. Otherwise, by now, we&rsquo;d have gone wild, waiting at the airport with garlands and cut-outs, naming these cricketers after our goddesses. We are almost there but not quite.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Otherwise, by now, we&rsquo;d have gone wild, waiting at the airport with garlands and cut-outs, naming these cricketers after our goddesses</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Otherwise, by now, we?d have gone wild, waiting at the airport with garlands and cut-outs, naming these cricketers after our goddesses" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>To deify women is not same as respecting them. True, we deify our male cricketers. But then most Indian men are deified in their homes too. That&rsquo;s exactly what Madhuri Dixit tries to debunk when she says to her screen husband while resisting his domineering belief system in the path breaking Prakash Jha movie, &lsquo;Mrityudana&rsquo; (Death Sentence), &ldquo;Pati hai, pati bane rahiye. Parmeshwar banne ki koshis mat kijiye.&rdquo; (You are my husband, stay that way. Don&rsquo;t try and play God). &nbsp;</p>

<p>For society to change its attitude towards women and to view them as free subjects, we need to step back from the exuberance of the moment and reassess our attitude towards women. We need to find the courage to see a Harmanpreet in our daughters, and not merely as a cutout. We need to recognise that while the Jadejas of the world grew up in rough neighbourhoods just like perhaps the Harmanpreets, there is a difference. When Jadeja was playing gully cricket, his parents believed it was the things boys do. The Harmanpreets, on the other hand, were told to play &lsquo;stapu&rsquo; (hopscotch), not allowed to wield the cricket bat. The Jadejas of the world would have kept the Harmanpreets at bay. No fault of the Jadejas, but that is the way patriarchy works. It hardwires the edifice of injustice into the minds of people, young and old, men and women, pracharak and pastor.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Maybe it will get our girls out of their homes and onto the gully. And from the gully to the ground. And from the ground to their own.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Maybe it will get our girls out of their homes and onto the gully. And from the gully to the ground. And from the ground to their own." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The Mirzas, Nehwals and Sidhus have carved out careers that reflect their individual brilliance. But to see women succeed in a team game is something else. To see the cricket team strive before the world stage and play with such pluck and skill is to recognise their individual struggles of courage. As a society, we need to engage with these stories and read them into the script we evolve for our girls and our women. This narrative won&rsquo;t be forged into shape with one World Cup. It has to be coded into our DNA. And it&rsquo;s about much more than a game. It is about identity. Women must be recognised for what they do and not who they are. This requires a paradigm shift in our thinking as a society.</p>

<p>It&rsquo;s good therefore that we lost the final. The next four years will be about doing better in 2021 World Cup. The Jhulans and Rajs of the world had to fight hard to be recognised as players (Diana Edulgee anybody?), but the younger lot have had their moment in the sun. I would not be surprised with an IPL (W) taking shape. The game of cricket does strange things to India. Maybe it will get our girls out of their homes and onto the gully. And from the gully to the ground. And from the ground to their own. We may have lost the final. But what finally emerges from this World Cup experience might transform into a greater victory. &nbsp;&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;</p>


Yes. Otherwise, by now, we?d have gone wild, waiting at the airport with garlands and cut-outs, naming these cricketers after our goddesses.

One newspaper headlined the women's cricket World Cup title match thus, 'Nine runs short of history'. Perhaps the headline missed the irony trapped in its own supposition - that these women were trying to write 'his-story'. What it elided was something much much bigger – which is, 'her-story'. Yes, it was cricket that did it for the women in blue. After all, cricket is the reigning catalyst of this nation's imagination. Cricketing fervour makes a visceral connection with the country's deepest cultural resources, bringing out in the process its best, and its worst. But while what happened yesterday at Lord’s was cricket, it was also way more than cricket. Moments of exuberance stimulate the imagination. Accolades are being heaped on the Mitali Raj-led Indian women’s cricket team. The Prime Minister tweeted in his congratulations. Diehard fans have exclaimed, “Ufff, if only!” To me, however, the most fetching comment was the one aired on TV much before the final match was played. It came from a Haryana farmer, when asked what he thought about the women’s cricket team, “I’ll put my daughters through college or even support them if they wish to play cricket. My sons can take to the fields. They are good for that (only)!” I’ll put my daughters through college or even support them if they wish to play cricket. My sons can take to the fields. They are good for that (only)! × So here are two critical questions: “Is this a moment of disruption for the choices women can make about themselves and their lives?” And, “Is this also a moment that recasts the way women are perceived by society (read patriarchy)?” Small disruptions have stirred the imagination in the past. In ‘Chak de India’, a woman hockey player has a hot shot national-level cricketer as a boyfriend, who her friends in the team swoon over. There is this moment where he disparages her game, patronising women’s hockey as the ‘not real’ thing. The woman player drops him then and there, just like that. ‘Dangal’ has this moment where a young bride tells her friend Geeta (the lead protagonist of the movie, who’s not at that point happy about being pushed into wrestling by her father) that she got it wrong about missing all this wedding finery, that at least her father has given her a purpose beyond the limited and narrow choices available to women. Captain Mitali Raj has added to this string of disruptions. When asked who her favourite male cricketer was, pat came her reply: “Do you ask male cricketers about their favourite female cricketer?” Another time in an interview she was asked about her favourite ‘assessory’. Guess what she said? “Kindle!” These moments of disruption do not add up to a consensus on women’s emancipation; they only show the way. Which is why I am almost glad we lost the final by nine runs. To have almost made it but not quite is a more apposite outcome. Otherwise, by now, we’d have gone wild, waiting at the airport with garlands and cut-outs, naming these cricketers after our goddesses. We are almost there but not quite. Otherwise, by now, we’d have gone wild, waiting at the airport with garlands and cut-outs, naming these cricketers after our goddesses × To deify women is not same as respecting them. True, we deify our male cricketers. But then most Indian men are deified in their homes too. That’s exactly what Madhuri Dixit tries to debunk when she says to her screen husband while resisting his domineering belief system in the path breaking Prakash Jha movie, ‘Mrityudana’ (Death Sentence), “Pati hai, pati bane rahiye. Parmeshwar banne ki koshis mat kijiye.” (You are my husband, stay that way. Don’t try and play God). For society to change its attitude towards women and to view them as free subjects, we need to step back from the exuberance of the moment and reassess our attitude towards women. We need to find the courage to see a Harmanpreet in our daughters, and not merely as a cutout. We need to recognise that while the Jadejas of the world grew up in rough neighbourhoods just like perhaps the Harmanpreets, there is a difference. When Jadeja was playing gully cricket, his parents believed it was the things boys do. The Harmanpreets, on the other hand, were told to play ‘stapu’ (hopscotch), not allowed to wield the cricket bat. The Jadejas of the world would have kept the Harmanpreets at bay. No fault of the Jadejas, but that is the way patriarchy works. It hardwires the edifice of injustice into the minds of people, young and old, men and women, pracharak and pastor. Maybe it will get our girls out of their homes and onto the gully. And from the gully to the ground. And from the ground to their own. × The Mirzas, Nehwals and Sidhus have carved out careers that reflect their individual brilliance. But to see women succeed in a team game is something else. To see the cricket team strive before the world stage and play with such pluck and skill is to recognise their individual struggles of courage. As a society, we need to engage with these stories and read them into the script we evolve for our girls and our women. This narrative won’t be forged into shape with one World Cup. It has to be coded into our DNA. And it’s about much more than a game. It is about identity. Women must be recognised for what they do and not who they are. This requires a paradigm shift in our thinking as a society. It’s good therefore that we lost the final. The next four years will be about doing better in 2021 World Cup. The Jhulans and Rajs of the world had to fight hard to be recognised as players (Diana Edulgee anybody?), but the younger lot have had their moment in the sun. I would not be surprised with an IPL (W) taking shape. The game of cricket does strange things to India. Maybe it will get our girls out of their homes and onto the gully. And from the gully to the ground. And from the ground to their own. We may have lost the final. But what finally emerges from this World Cup experience might transform into a greater victory.

Is it good that India's women cricket team lost the final?

<p>I teach at Ramjas College, University of Delhi, the epicentre of an extremely visible clash of ideologies. This clash of ideas has been seen on television, as has been the physical fights that took place around the University last week. It is difficult to speak about the possibility of a centrist, liberal, democratic and rational voice, at a time when the shrill notes of the Left and the Right ideologues--television anchors included-- are overwhelming any attempt to articulate alternative positions. But precisely because it is difficult, it must be attempted. This moment of crisis can become a moment of rupture, leading to the emergence of fresh key words to help us imagine an India of the future.</p>

<p>I have to begin with a technical caveat, and the assumption behind this caveat cannot be viewed as frivolous, since its basis draws from nothing less than the preamble to the Constitution of India. And here is the caveat: &lsquo;Every political party in India is socialist.&rsquo; How? All political parties in India must swear by the Constitution. And what does the preamble, the &lsquo;key&rsquo; to the Constitution, say? That we are--a &lsquo;Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic&rsquo;.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Ergo, all parties are socialists.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The centre was just a vacant space, perpetually suggested as a spatial anchor for Left and Right, but perpetually absent in practice</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The centre was just a vacant space, perpetually suggested as a spatial anchor for Left and Right, but perpetually absent in practice" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>But the important caveat to the caveat is this: the words secular and socialist were added during the national Emergency, in what is known as the (in)famous 42nd Amendment(s) to the Constitution in 1976. Lots of things changed in the Constitution. Fundamental Duties were introduced. You had to preserve not just the unity, but also the integrity of India. So here it is, straight down the line.</p>

<p>The emergency legitimised two polarised discourses, embracing Left and Right. One side got &lsquo;secular&rsquo; and &lsquo;socialist&rsquo;, the other &lsquo;integrity with unity&rsquo;, and &lsquo;fundamental duties&rsquo;. The logical extention&nbsp;of this argument does not prove the obvious: that Mrs Gandhi was the Centre that held these two positions together. She could assume either side&rsquo;s position to fit specific political goals. The centre was just a vacant space, perpetually suggested as a spatial anchor for Left and Right, but perpetually absent in practice.</p>

<p>There was no Centre. There still is not!</p>

<p>The absence of a centre in India presents a challenge. Whenever the Congress or the BJP is referred to as being centrist, it never is in a nice way. When the Congress fails to be Left enough, the Left accused it of being centrist. The same happens when the extreme Right finds the BJP testing liberal positions, especially with regard to the economy.</p>

<p>The genesis of the problem lies in our universities. We have for too long been entrapped by doctrinaire ideologies.</p>

<p>When socialism was raging through our campuses, even Bollywood was socialist. Raj Kapoor&rsquo;s classics, and Guru Dutt&rsquo;s Pyasa immediately spring to mind. When Nehru gifted JNU to the Left, it was a compact &ndash; we&rsquo;ll run the state, you run the universities. This is not to argue that Left has not produced stalwart scholars. But no good thing lasts forever.</p>

<p>Eventually the enforcement of a singularly predominant way of thinking begins to stultify questioning. Contrary positions are shut out, history misrepresented, and unproblematised self-perpetuating discourses are relentlessly propagated. The tragedy is that the Right has taken their exclusion to heart. And decided it must shut the Left out of our universities once it has assumed power. And now, it has. Unfortunately for the Right, it lacks the intellectual might to take on the Left. Ergo, the use of muscle, or what might be called the instruments of the hard state &ndash; courts, sedition charges, and so on.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Unfortunately for the Right, it lacks the intellectual might to take on the Left. Ergo, the use of muscle, or what might be called the instruments of the hard state</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Unfortunately for the Right, it lacks the intellectual might to take on the Left. Ergo, the use of muscle, or what might be called the instruments of the hard state" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>In all of this the centrist, liberal and perhaps critical questions--often about one side, and at times about the other, and sometimes even about itself--get subsumed by either the Left or the Right. By liberal, I am attempting to identify those who do not wished to labelled either Left or Right, but often take positions that can touch and be inflected by one side of the political spectrum or the other.&nbsp;</p>

<p>I recall a wonderful book by Parth J Shah and Naveen Mandava called Law, Liberty and Livelihood - Making A Living On The Street. This was the work of a libertarian think tank. The basis question posed was this: &ldquo;After the 1991 liberalisation, the poor do not seem to have gained as much as the rich. How can you carry out liberalisation only for the rich and expect the poor to benefit? The truth is there has been hardly any liberalisation for the working poor.&rdquo;</p>

<p>The question posed above&nbsp;is significant. It clearly supports economic liberalisation, but wants more of it for the poor. Now this is the sort of position you will rarely find in universities, let alone in Indian public discourse. You will find either supporters of liberalisation, or its detractors. Few will ask the critical questions that can prise open the important spaces that lie in between.</p>

<p>Old ideologies often fail to define new positions. Bright young people with active and political imaginations are rethinking the way they wish to engage with the world. They pick and choose a bit of this and a bit of that. There is no defined slot you can push them into. The old way fears the emergence of a dystopian post-ideological world where politics is blunted and praxis is replaced by T shirt slogans.&nbsp;</p>

<p>But people who ask interesting new questions often find interesting new answers. Such questioning and such answers might not appear to be inflected with the type of ideological purity demanded by the Left and the Right, but they cannot be wished away. The older ideological positions continue to remain dominant, but their edges are frayed and crumbling.</p>

<p>The centre is crying out to be occupied. Wonder who&rsquo;ll get there first.&nbsp;</p>


Our universities are suffering because they have been entrapped by doctrinaire ideologies for far too long

I teach at Ramjas College, University of Delhi, the epicentre of an extremely visible clash of ideologies. This clash of ideas has been seen on television, as has been the physical fights that took place around the University last week. It is difficult to speak about the possibility of a centrist, liberal, democratic and rational voice, at a time when the shrill notes of the Left and the Right ideologues--television anchors included-- are overwhelming any attempt to articulate alternative positions. But precisely because it is difficult, it must be attempted. This moment of crisis can become a moment of rupture, leading to the emergence of fresh key words to help us imagine an India of the future. I have to begin with a technical caveat, and the assumption behind this caveat cannot be viewed as frivolous, since its basis draws from nothing less than the preamble to the Constitution of India. And here is the caveat: ‘Every political party in India is socialist.’ How? All political parties in India must swear by the Constitution. And what does the preamble, the ‘key’ to the Constitution, say? That we are--a ‘Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic’. Ergo, all parties are socialists. The centre was just a vacant space, perpetually suggested as a spatial anchor for Left and Right, but perpetually absent in practice × But the important caveat to the caveat is this: the words secular and socialist were added during the national Emergency, in what is known as the (in)famous 42nd Amendment(s) to the Constitution in 1976. Lots of things changed in the Constitution. Fundamental Duties were introduced. You had to preserve not just the unity, but also the integrity of India. So here it is, straight down the line. The emergency legitimised two polarised discourses, embracing Left and Right. One side got ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’, the other ‘integrity with unity’, and ‘fundamental duties’. The logical extention of this argument does not prove the obvious: that Mrs Gandhi was the Centre that held these two positions together. She could assume either side’s position to fit specific political goals. The centre was just a vacant space, perpetually suggested as a spatial anchor for Left and Right, but perpetually absent in practice. There was no Centre. There still is not! The absence of a centre in India presents a challenge. Whenever the Congress or the BJP is referred to as being centrist, it never is in a nice way. When the Congress fails to be Left enough, the Left accused it of being centrist. The same happens when the extreme Right finds the BJP testing liberal positions, especially with regard to the economy. The genesis of the problem lies in our universities. We have for too long been entrapped by doctrinaire ideologies. When socialism was raging through our campuses, even Bollywood was socialist. Raj Kapoor’s classics, and Guru Dutt’s Pyasa immediately spring to mind. When Nehru gifted JNU to the Left, it was a compact – we’ll run the state, you run the universities. This is not to argue that Left has not produced stalwart scholars. But no good thing lasts forever. Eventually the enforcement of a singularly predominant way of thinking begins to stultify questioning. Contrary positions are shut out, history misrepresented, and unproblematised self-perpetuating discourses are relentlessly propagated. The tragedy is that the Right has taken their exclusion to heart. And decided it must shut the Left out of our universities once it has assumed power. And now, it has. Unfortunately for the Right, it lacks the intellectual might to take on the Left. Ergo, the use of muscle, or what might be called the instruments of the hard state – courts, sedition charges, and so on. Unfortunately for the Right, it lacks the intellectual might to take on the Left. Ergo, the use of muscle, or what might be called the instruments of the hard state × In all of this the centrist, liberal and perhaps critical questions--often about one side, and at times about the other, and sometimes even about itself--get subsumed by either the Left or the Right. By liberal, I am attempting to identify those who do not wished to labelled either Left or Right, but often take positions that can touch and be inflected by one side of the political spectrum or the other. I recall a wonderful book by Parth J Shah and Naveen Mandava called Law, Liberty and Livelihood - Making A Living On The Street. This was the work of a libertarian think tank. The basis question posed was this: “After the 1991 liberalisation, the poor do not seem to have gained as much as the rich. How can you carry out liberalisation only for the rich and expect the poor to benefit? The truth is there has been hardly any liberalisation for the working poor.” The question posed above is significant. It clearly supports economic liberalisation, but wants more of it for the poor. Now this is the sort of position you will rarely find in universities, let alone in Indian public discourse. You will find either supporters of liberalisation, or its detractors. Few will ask the critical questions that can prise open the important spaces that lie in between. Old ideologies often fail to define new positions. Bright young people with active and political imaginations are rethinking the way they wish to engage with the world. They pick and choose a bit of this and a bit of that. There is no defined slot you can push them into. The old way fears the emergence of a dystopian post-ideological world where politics is blunted and praxis is replaced by T shirt slogans. But people who ask interesting new questions often find interesting new answers. Such questioning and such answers might not appear to be inflected with the type of ideological purity demanded by the Left and the Right, but they cannot be wished away. The older ideological positions continue to remain dominant, but their edges are frayed and crumbling. The centre is crying out to be occupied. Wonder who’ll get there first.

Ramjas College: Indefinite struggle of the Left, Right and the 'Centre'

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Debraj Mookerjee

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.