The recent row (as the British are wont to say) over a cricket match in the UK, involving the Pakistani team and an Australian umpire gave me opportunity for mindless speculation.
First perhaps a few preparatory words on the row: In a cricket match between England and the visiting Pakistani team, Australian umpire Hair ruled that Pakistan had tampered with the ball and awarded 5 runs to the English. Not entirely pleased with this judgement, the Pakistani team refused to return to the field, after -- yes they do have those -- tea break. Hair, not to be transplanted, er I mean outdone, declared that in effect the brownies had conceded the game. The captain of the Pakistani team was then subjected to intense scrutiny by the international powers.
And there things stood for a short period of time, even as the more curious learnt of Hair's previous controversies such as accusing a Sri Lankan bowler of chucking the ball. In keeping with its new-found status as a neo-liberal powerhouse, India opined (in terms that would have made the best of triangulators proud) that it was in resonance with official opinion and spent few sleepless night on the matter of Mr. Hair.
Things took a turn for the worse, a bit hairy (if I may), for the portly umpire with the leak of a letter from the man to the official body, expressing a willingness to accept a half a million pounds in order to make the matter go away (as New Jerseyans are wont to say). A further inquiry led to more bad news as the Pakistanis were found not guilty in the affair.
In light of such developments, India triangulates harder, as speculation abounds following the removal of the disgraced referee from a series of the soporific sport in India:
"We had only expressed concern about the controversy surrounding him which could distract attention from the tournament - nothing more than that. "We have nothing against the man, but did not want any trouble during the tournament."
Pondering over all of this, and ongoing discussion on-list about the Chavez affair and the relevance of his impact on the North/West, I felt the urge to draw a connection. Clearly the baton for change has been passed from Europe and USA to other parts of the world; who can avoid drawing a contrast between a few organised thugs (to be confused with James Baker) in Florida in 2000 to hundreds of thousands in Zocalo?
What can we say about the future, the world that will be shaped by these forces? What are the choices in this evolutionary struggle?
Will the world of 2100 reflect the nuanced (in every manner) development of India or the raw expression of Venezuela?
It is a good thing I will not be around to know, for I suspect the answer will not please me.
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/