Drinking: Where does it stand in the books of religion?

Satbir Singh posted on his wall on facebook today:
Peene Ki Aadat Thi Mujhe,
Usne Apni Kasam De Kar Chhuda Di,
Baitha tha Mehfil Main Yaroon ki,
Aur Yaaron Ne Uski Kasam Dekar Pila Di 

I commentedTabhi to Ghalib ne kaha tha 'Ghalib chhuti sharab to lekin kabhi kabhie'. 

More comments are pouring in but the couplet set the ball rolling and made me ponder, “Where does drinking stand in the books of religion and spiritualism”? As we see it most of.. rather almost all the religious books have something to say against drinking. All those religious books say that one should not drink.. that it is 'sin' to drink.. it is paap. Whereas most intellectuals have a different take on it. Ghalib's shayari, Bachchanji's 'Madhushala' are just a few of many examples.

But is there really something against drinking in the original scriptures? Here I consider these religious books different from the scriptures. Scriptures are the real and authentic compilations of very basics of a particular religion and these 'religious books' are the guidelines, do's & don'ts based on the understanding of those scriptures. So basically, or scripturally, is any religion really against drinking?

I find drinking or non-drinking is not really an issue with any religion. No religion actually prohibits or promotes drinking or use of other drugs or intoxicants like tobacco or even 'afeem', 'bhang' etc. In fact why it should? An intoxicant for one could be a medicine for other. Even for same person different quantities of same drug or syrup could mean different things under different conditions. One spoonful of an expectorant is medicine, two is an overdose and more could even be fatal. It is said that even wheat has intoxicant effects... one might remember Sany Kabir's couplet:
'Kanak Kanak te sou guni maadakta adhikaye,

ek khay bauraat jan, ek paaye bauraay'

So how would any religion differentiate and quantify something as a life saving medicine or as a mere drink or as a narcotic drug and intoxicant. And also why would any religion get involved in such nitty gritty. Even simple food can make one feel sleepy at a particular time during the day. To quantify the dose universally is not an easy task and, as stated earlier, not the real issue with any religion. Bhagwan Mahesh or Shiva is known to use all these different Som Rasa's and regularly consume all sort of intoxicants like Bhang etc. So why would he stop his followers from using the same?

We can very easily see that no religious scripture actually prohibits consumption of intoxicants. What any religion really warns against is 'getting drunk'. And actually that's the real matter of concern. Drinking is not considered bad, only getting drunk is. Loosing one's senses is bad. And though almost everything has its quantity of intoxicants in it, the degree varies from one item to another. From water to milk to tea to beer to rum etc the degree of getting drunk differs, quantity of drink remaining the same. Many a medicinal syrups have alcohol. Using all these drugs and many other such things can not be bad as long as it improves one's health and well being or atleast does not adversly affect one's health, finances or senses. If one loses all one's senses even after a glass of milk then even that glass of milk is not good and will fall under the prohibited category.

But yes intoxicating effects of certain items like alcohol, narcotics etc spread much faster and can even be fatal if not controlled. It requires a very high degree of discipline and control to stay within the limits. Such items are included in religious books and guidelines under prohibited category. It is not simply drinking which is feared... mere drinking is no vice.. but the real fear is that uncontrolled it may make one lose one's senses, lose his powers of discretion, 'vivek'. And in that condition one might not be in a position, albeit temporarily, to distinguish between a good act and a bad and may actually committ an act by body or by mind which might be sinful and, in which one would not have got involved under one's full senses.

Drinking alcohol in itself is not a sin- nor even a dangerous thing but only as long as it is within limits. But only a small quantity of it comes within the category of limit. It is very easy to cross limits with an alcoholic drink. And when the limit is crossed then the faculty that is affected the most is our power of discretion- our 'vivek'. And when 'vivek' is gone one may actually committ a sinful act which one might not have committed otherwise.

So cheers all ye tipplers. No problems with drinking... just be careful of getting drunk...

Republic Day: Is it "An Unnecessary Ritual"?

    




As we celebrated our Republic Day this year and as I went through those numerous greetings in person, on phone, through SMSs, facebook and twitter etc, I was reminded of an article in the Times Of India some time back written by Commodore C. Udaya Bhaskar titled “An Unnecessary Ritual”. In this lead article Cdr Bhaskar had argued that we need to review the relevance of Republic Day Parade. Cdr Bhaskar is of the opinion that this parade has outlived its utility and that ‘clinging to a tradition where the symbolism becomes an inflexible ritual, and the spectacle masks the glaring inadequacies of the state ought to be dispassionately reviewed’. To support his argument Cdr Bhaskar has cited many reasons including –Delhi’s babudom coming to a halt for almost a month, -the frustration of commuters and irate motorists due to traffic diversion, -the considerable resources expended annually, -acute anxiety about terrorist attacks and VIP security.. etc, etc.

On Republic Day this year I thought about it. Do we really need to stop celebrating the Republic Day as we do it today? Has it actually lost its relevance? Is it really wastage of resources –men and material? Is the frustration of motorists or the fears of terrorist attacks reasons enough to bid good bye to these festivities? I beg to differ. Yes it is a predominantly military symbolism but then have we reached a stage where we can do away with our military? I think more than ever we need a strong military now. Not so much during the days of colonialism, not so during the early days of the consolidation stage as we need a strong military today. So first and foremost we shall see whether we need military, - a strong military at that- or no. If we don’t need any military then well we won’t bid for a military parade too. But if there is smallest justification for having our own strong military then well I see no reason as to why we should stop that traditional way of celebrating the Republic Day with that ‘predominantly military symbolism’. And as Cdr Bhaskar has mentioned himself, -the composition of the parade has already changed to reflect both the military and the developmental profile of the Indian State.

So where do we stand on the question of the need of a strong military? Events in Iraq and Afghanistan, -threats to Iran and North Korea, -military intervention in many Afrikan states, -withering away of USSR, -developments in Pakistan etc, etc are that many reasons for us NOT TO DO AWAY with our military power in haste. These are perhaps sufficient reasons to have a strong military profile. And yes if we have a military then let’s give it a day to showcase its teeth and skills… or the symbolic power if not exactly the teeth and skills. So Cdr Bhaskars’s argument about the military or military symbolism having outlived its utility does not hold ground here.

And now, in front of this requirement, all the other reasons put forward by Cdr Uday Bhaskar, a retired officer from the Indian Navy, a renowned defence analyst, surprise me having been published under his signatures in a newspaper of national repute ‘The Times Of India’. Shall we stop celebrating our National Day just because we have not been able to manage our affairs elsewhere? Just because the babudom at Delhi comes to a halt for almost a month shall we adopt the escapist route of withholding the parade itself rather than motivating the babudom not to ‘come to a halt’? Shall we stop the parade or mend our ways and retrospect why babudom comes to a standstill? Why does the commuter suffer if there is a parade once in a year on our National Day? Is there anything else that can be done without stopping the parade? Can we otherwise improve the traffic conditions so that a diversion to celebrate our National Day does not ‘frustrate’ the commuters and ‘irate’ motorists? Is it really a wastage of considerable human and material resources? Shall we then stop all celebrations in life? Does it have no positives? Does no body –no civilian –no Indian at heart, wants to watch it?

I feel it is not the kind of situation as Cdr Bhaskar has painted. Yes there is ample scope for improvement and maybe we can add more non-military developmental aspects but it has to have that military symbolism for it to be a different and special type of a celebration. More than the nation, I feel, Commodore C. Uday Bhaskar needs to review his views about the Republic Day Parade. Lets celebrate ‘our’ Day with more enthusiasm and interest than ever.

Jai Hind .. 

Gurjars: Their Origin and History

There are almost as many theories about the origin of Gurjars as there are writers who have done any research in this matter. Just about any research, deep or superficial. Every original writer differs from every other on one count or the other. Here I would like to recollect all that I have gathered about the origin of Gurjars. My source of this view is partially what has been written in some of the books and a part is arrived at by filling the missing links showing what would have happened in the past.

Gurjar history dates back to more than three thousand years. How much more than this can not be said with certainty. The reason is not that we don't have any historical records of their origin or early period but that their evolution was so gradual that one couldn't feel the transition immediately. So it is almost impossible to fix a particular date for their origin. It is a principle, a way of living, a culture which makes one a Gurjar. It is not a religion and nor does religion bind it. There are Gurjars who are Hindus and there are Gurjars who are Muslims, Sikhs or Jains etc etc.

There is no solid base behind the theory that the Gurjars migrated from China, Central Asia or some other far off place into India. There might have been people in India who were Gurjars but their forefathers came into India from other parts of the world including China and Central Asia, but it is not true that Gurjars originated in Central Asia or some other part of the world and from there they came to India. Rather the vice versa is very much possible that though they originated in India, later many of them moved to other parts of the world and took Gurjar culture elsewhere. Huns and other such tribes entered India as migrant tribes having different physical attributes and some of these migrant clans became Hinduised and adopted Gurjar culture and thus came to be known as Gurjars thereafter. In this way we can see that though Hun and Kushana tribes adopted Gurjar culture, not all Huns and Kushans might have become Gurjars. At least they might not have been Gurjars from initial stage in their history wherever they might have been, be it in China, Central Asia or elsewhere. It was just like samrat Ashok getting influenced and then adopting Buddhist way of life

Gurjars as a distinct culture originated in the north-western part of Indian Sub-continent, along the plains of Indus, Satluj and now extinct Saraswati Rivers covering parts of present day Rajasthan and Punjab, on both sides of border ie India and Pakistan. It did not start as a different religious or other ethnic group but as a culture and as followers of certain principles set-out mutually in the larger interests of the individuals, the society and the country they belonged to. These were the principles laid down to be followed by everyone who wanted to be a part of that culture. The language they used was derived from Sanskrit and is known as Gurjari, Gujjari or Gojri language. It is considered to be mother of many a North Indian languages.

There was no religious bondage. In fact at that time outlook towards religion was philosophical and not fundamentalist. All those people who adopted that system gradually became an identity distinct from rest of the people and started commanding respect from others. As the culture was a refined system, it influenced more and more people and they took this system to even far off places by migrating to those places from the land of their origin.

Some of the kings, especially the ones who entered India and established their kingdoms here, and followed this exclusive way of life, ruled states small or big and at the same time many other rulers adopted it when they came in contact with this culture. Later on the off-springs of those families who ruled a state at one time or the other started calling themselves Rajputs irrespective of whether they further got to rule or not.

It was during the Moghul and the British period that the followers of this culture could no longer hold on to the glorious past and during this period degradation took place as their followers, true to their principles and ethics, opposed the foreign powers but lost in their war and thus lost all the favours of the government as well. They were always an irritant to invaders who came from outside of India. They very strongly and openly opposed the English power but by that time, being out of power for almost 700 years and being in constant war with their mighty opponents, they had lost most of their power so though they continued to oppose the British power, they did not meet with great success. And in the bargain got worst of both, the political and economical progress.

Gurjars very actively took part in first war of independence in 1857 and had risen up in rebellion against British power. As the British Imperialist power succeeded in suppressing the uprising, they started witch hunt and targeted the Gurjar community, amongst others, being most active against the Raj. Subsequently Britishers acted very vindictively and displaced many Gurjars and uprooted many Gurjar villages, my village Chandrawal being one such village, confiscated many movable and immovable properties, hounded and killed many young and old male members of the community and banned all recruitment of Gurjars in government services. This was enough to deprive Gurjars of their rightful due. They were not in a position to fully put to use their talent and energy and thus this lack of avenues, aided by frustration on being neglected by the government led them to other acts like robbery and dacoity against the British government as well as those people within or outside their groups who supported government and its oppressive policies.

This transformation from 'noble-people' to rebellious ones did not come out instantly. It took hundreds of years. Thankfully it is over now and community is now on its way to restore its past glory and with fast all-round development, aided by a sincere and conscious effort, it will surely not take that long but a far far short time for the community to regain and relive its past glory.

"The Difficulty of Being Good": Is it really that bad?

My Dear Gurcharan Das,

            Sometime back I laid my hands on your book ‘The Difficulty of Being Good’. It was with great interest that I was looking forward to read this book. From pre-release previews and from your own campaign over TV Channels I understood this was a book with your views on the relevance of the great epic ‘Mahabharat’. I bought it at first opportunity and then read it too.

            How do I feel now? It is a mixed feeling. Least I can say is I wanted to read it and have read it, might not read it a second time and will not recommend it to anyone. Yeah, good or bad but this is my feeling today. And yes I will try my best to explain to you as to why I will not recommend this book to others.

            I have felt that somewhere you are apologetic about this great book ‘Mahabharat’. Call it book, call it epic or history –whatever, but you somehow leave an impression that you do not agree with the ideals and concepts espoused in ‘Mahabharat’. At every stage, I feel, you have tried to dissociate yourself from the epic and its central values. I feel you could not comment on it as a critique rather you have only tried to criticize it. There is a difference between critical analysis and criticism and I feel you have got drifted towards the latter.

            Reading through first three chapters I had started getting a feel of the things to come. And then I went back to the prelude and read first couple of para’s again. In the second para you had made an innocuous confession that you had never read this classic of your country earlier. You read this classic for the first time, a little-late in the day and then wrote a book on that a little too early, after just one reading. During the short period between your first reading and your script for this book you really did not have much time to actually ‘study’ these scriptures. And this thing became very clear in the Chapter 4 when you mentioned to Srimad Bhagwadgeeta as ‘700 fratricidal verses’. I am not asking for any forced respect for Srimad Bhagwadgeeta from you but at least I expected some restraint in dismissing it as mere ‘fratricidal verses’. I accept these are not your words and you have picked these words from the book of Sh. D.D.Kosambi, but your selection of these adjectives for Srimad Bhagwadgeeta has betrayed your own depth of understanding of the ‘Song Celestial’, as described by another author Gerald Larson, or the ‘Perennial Philosophy’ (as described by Aldous Huxley) or the ‘Song of God’ as called by Christopher Isherwood.

            I do not put the entire blame for that on you. This only shows the vast knowledge contained in those 700 verses which needs time and a good effort to be fully understood. A single reading is just not enough. Those who have neither read it properly nor believe in it like Sh D. D. Kosambi call it ‘700 fratricidal verses’. His total reading is perhaps limited to counting the verses and his understanding is limited to the fact that it was rendered by Shri Krishna to ‘persuade Arjuna to fight’. I would call it sheer unfortunate that due to your own lack of understanding of these ‘700 verses’, you have chosen those words of Sh Kosambi to describe Shrimad Bhagwadgeeta. It has done your book no good.

            Sir, my next reason for not recommending this book is your analysis of the events of Mahabharat. You have written a full chapter on ‘Krishna’s Guile’, as you have liked to name the chapter. The chapter starts with Duryodhana’s address to Shri Krishna, “Aren’t you ashamed… of striking me down so unfairly?”. You have further gone on to say that Krishna, instead of safeguarding dharma, instructs the Pandavas to do precisely the opposite in the name of ‘strategy’. Again, you seem to be apologetic and critical of the way Duryodhana, Bhishma, Drona, Karna etc were eliminated one by one by Pandavs and Shri Krishna. You have tried to imply that they, all those Kaurav Warriors, were fighting ‘fairly and valiantly’ and that they were killed by ‘crooked means’. Well, first thing first, it is not my intention, nor my capability, to justify or criticize actions of Shri Krishna, the Pandav’s or the Kaurav’s. I have only tried to give my reasons for my disillusionment from your book. You have made it amply clear that you have not fully understood the concept of ‘dharma’ otherwise you would not have commented that Shri Krishna instructs the Pandavs to go against dharma. I sure would have appreciated if you had considered the UNFAIR advantages of those FAIR and VALIANT Kaurav’s before commenting on this issue. I have tried to list out some of the ‘advantages’ of those FAIR and VALIANT Kaurav’s over your adharmik Pandavs and their forces:

            -Bhishma Pitamah could chose the manner and time of his death, he was ‘invincible’ till he ‘laid down his bow and weapons’. With this UNFAIR advantage he was causing devastation on Pandav armies without himself getting killed. You have two options: to keep fighting him with his advantages and lose your entire army to him or neutralize his advantage of being invincible and being able to choose the time of his death. How do you do that?
            -Duaryodhana has chosen to fight Bhim in a Mace-fight with an UNFAIR advantage of having a body of ‘Vajra’, not affected by blows of Maces. How do you neutralize that?
            -Drona is their guru and most accomplished and powerful master of the martial art. How do you neutralize his advantages?
            -Karna’s death in the hands of Arjuna is one of the most misinterpreted episodes of Mahabharat. Not only you, a number of people feel apologetic about that. But did Karna not die fighting in the battlefield? Did he surrender or put-up his arms? Was he seriously injured and lying on the ground when Arjuna shot at him? Did he ask for a time-out in the midst of the battle when his Chariot got stuck in the mud? These are a few questions about that episode. And it would be right to comment on the manner of his death only after we consider all these aspects.

            Sir, these are the main reasons why I feel that I will not recommend your book to anyone. There are a few more reasons which further strengthen my resolve. On more than a couple of occasions you have said that the ‘Character of Yudhisthir’ is influenced by Ashoka and the Mouryan Empire. Then at the end of Chapter 4 you have commented, and I quote: “Had the Buddha been Arjun’s Charioteer rather than Krishna, the Mahabharat would have gone in a different direction”. Again, though you have quoted it from Romila Thapar’s work, you have not mentioned the context in which she had made this statement. It seems to be true yet hypothetical to comment like that. Why only Buddha, the outcome would sure have been different had there been anyone else in place of Shri Krishna. Mahatma Gandhi would have reacted differently and so would have Sardar Patel, Pandit Nehru or George Bush of America, for that matter. The outcome would have been different in each case. But if you are trying to imply that Mahatma Buddha would have handled the issue in a better manner than how Shri Krishna handled it, then the least I can say is that you know of Shri Krishna nothing.

            It is generally said that Lord Rama was an ideal king and Lord Krishna is more pragmatic and that to know Krishna fully you need to know Rama first. And Sir, you have not yet given any proof of your having known Lord Rama. I wish you read, study and understand the Character of Lord Rama first and then re-read Mahabharat and study the Character of Sri Krishna again. And then if you write a sequel to this book, I am sure, that will be a better book and even you would see the difference.

            And then maybe I would consider recommending that book to others.

Sincerely,

Raj

God did not create the universe: Says Stephen Hawking

Dear Mr. Stephen Hawking,

Recently I came across this news report on the net where they have referred to your latest book and quoted you having said that God did not create the universe.

By Michael Holden – Thu Sep 2, 9:08 am ET

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

Sir years ago I read your book  "A Brief History of Time," and then followed your articles and statements on black holes, big bang, gravity etc etc.

Though at times I did not fully understand your statements yet I always accepted those statements as authority having come from you. The underlying presumption was that you ARE an ‘authority’ on the subjects you write and you are making the statement after due research.

However Sir, I must confess, as I read this report on your latest book I have had a change of opinion and now for the first time I have felt a need to cross check your statements and search for corroborations from other writers or physicists. For the first time today I have felt that No… I don’t have to accept everything only because you have said it, I must evaluate it myself and then only should I decide whether to accept it or not. Your this statement has really affected your credibility. And that too adversely.

Your statement has given rise to a number of queries in my mind. Leaving apart the fact whether god did or did not create the universe, or even the basic question whether god exists or does NOT exist, the question on top of my mind is whether you believe in god or not ….? In your book if you had said that you do not believe in god it would have been a different thing altogether. God is a matter of faith and spiritual research more than it is a matter of ‘scientific’ research as we understand it today. You are well within your rights when you say you don’t believe in god. But when you say God did not do this… you create a doubt whether you are questioning the existence of God or that though you believe in god you are only questioning HIS capabilities. These are two different situations. One is about his being or not being and second is a position where you accept his presence but have doubts about his powers and capabilities.

For this query lets first see what if you really do not believe in existence of God. In that case I don’t think there is much to discuss. You have written so much about Big Bang. Its all fine. But what if I say I don’t believe in Big Bang, that it is all BIG BUNKUM and that nothing like Big Bang ever happened… what do you do? Nothing. The matter ends. So in case you don’t believe in god there’s nothing one can do. But in that case my only request would be that considering your position it would be better for all of us, and you as well, if you concentrate on your field of physics and refrain from making such abstract remarks on other fields. No one expects and will appreciate a lecture from you on matters of faith or spiritualism as you have not so far established yourself in those fields. Thus if you don’t have faith and understanding about god your this particular statement in your book becomes irrelevant and might even be considered a publicity gimmick by you like many other authors have done in the past.

On the contrary if we consider that though you believe in god but all you want to convey is that god has his limitations and has not  done all the things generally attributed to him, then it is entirely different situation. Then it becomes a matter of one’s personal understanding and interpretation of the things spiritual. You have stated that, and I quote, “the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics”. Very fine. Who can deny it. It is as much true as the fact that all evolution is an inevitable consequence of the laws of biology. All births and deaths and health and disease and happiness and sadness et al follow one law or the other. Either it is physics, biology, chemistry or anything else. It is not a matter of debate at all. But sir, frankly speaking the idea I get from your statement is that by reiterating the importance of the law of physics in Big Bang, you are deliberately trying to deny someone else his due. Unless you had a motive behind it, you would not have made such a statement about something so obvious.

Reading your statement as a whole, ‘God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics’, I get an idea as if you are saying , “Mom did not cook the meal and the dinner on my table was an inevitable consequence of the effect of heat on raw food…..”. How true. How true Mr. Hawking, yet how incomplete and how immature, and how insensitive. Purely from the periscope of your so called science yes, it is physics, chemistry or biology at work. Mom’s preparation of food and to put it in oven was an inevitable consequence of the laws of chemistry working in her brain releasing those chemicals at the right time to make her prepare the meal mechanically for her biological offspring. It is as simple in your view.

However, sir I assure you there is a lot more to it than mere chemistry and physics. We would be well advised not to speak of that unless we understand that fully. If we ignore this basic thing I don’t think we can do our mom or the god any harm but we sure stand to lose our own reputation and credibility.

Please think about it.

Sincerely,

A believer beyond physics, chemistry and biology.

First Impression: The Last Impression?

            It is said that the first impression is the last impression. Is it true? Is it true for all times? I have my doubts. Yes, first impression has a great bearing on how the things will progress subsequently but can it really be the last impression? Can there be no change. I feel that would make all inter-personal relationships, all interactions meaningless. At first instance whatever inputs were available an impression was formed… but with flow of more inputs that impression will get modified. Well.. if there are no more inputs thereafter then yes, may be that first impression would never change. But that would be because of the lack of any inputs thereafter and not because that was a ‘permanent’ impression ab-initio. Impressions do change. Perceptions do change. And it is all because of further interactions and exposures. But at the same time it is also true that impressions do not change with every new interaction or input. Registering a new impression or input on a blank slate is pretty easy but to edit that and replace one input with another takes a lot of efforts. And well most of the time we falter here. Newer inputs in general are not allowed to change or modify the existing inputs without any compelling reasons or extra efforts. Probably that is the reason why one concluded that the first impression is the last impression.

            Unless there is a reason and effort that first impression might not change at all. So, even as it is true that one’s perceptions keep on changing based on the inputs and one’s own understanding of those inputs, there is slight practical truth also in the saying the first impression is the last impression. In a majority of cases indeed there might not be reason and an effort enough to register a change. Without an effort, from either end, the first impression might as well turn out to be last one. But then it would be more by default then by design. When we come across someone for the first time a lot of mental processing starts and we register first impressions about a number of things related to his personality. And next time when we meet, that ‘page’ in the memory opens and we see those impressions already there so there is no more processing of the type there was on earlier occasion. We might, at the most, notice a few missing links but will always assess them in relation to the previously noted impressions. Anything not in conformity with the already registered impressions might not get registered here unless there is a conscious and deliberate attempt or the new input is strong and powerful in itself that it gets registered automatically deleting the old files. Thus though the first impression is NOT the last impression, it might end up to be the last impression unless that conscious effort for change is there.

Akram's comments about our bowlers

“Some of the young Indian players (bowlers) are softies and spoilt…..” said Wasim Akram. And true to his position as Captain of the Indian team, Dhoni defended the youngsters. Fine. But then some of the press walas, including Pronnoy Roy of NDTV also questioned Akrams logic and came to the defence of the “Indian players”. Did we need that type of reaction from NDTV or any other channel for that matter. Roy even asked Akram whether he would prefer speed over inaccuracy. Well I think it is what we should be concerned about. Can't we have both? Speed as well as accuracy? Can or should NDTV question Wasim Akrams credentials the way Roy 'tried' to grill him over the issue? I feel NDTV would do a great disservice to Indian cricket if it tries to play down Akrams comments just because they have come from a foreigner. Of all the foreigners I think Akram is the last cricketer whose sincerity to cricket or integrity can be doubted. He is one Pakistani player, unlike Waqar and many others, who commands respect of his opponents be they from India, England or any other country.

His observation about fast bowlers is very valid. He was referring to fast bowlers and they really lack ENDURANCE if not enthusiasm. Physically most of them are not able to sustain it over two or three series. They are prone to fatigue, fractures and sprains. There is nothing wrong if Akram has commented on this issue. We should take it sportingly in its true spirit.

But at the same time Akram should also not exceed his brief. He should refrain from making suggestions like ‘Dravid should be recalled for ODI’s’. Let it be left to the selectors. And if at all Pronnoy Roy should have grilled him on this issue.