Olympics on Doordarshan

Thanks to the Olympics, after several years, I watched Doordarshan again.  Doordarshan had made arrangements to showcase all the events in which India was featured. Since India did not feature very often, the rest of the time was allocated to sporting events like fencing, yachting and other exotic games of which I had no clue about. There are some sporting activities that are watchable and others which are not so watchable. Unfortunately India excelled mostly in the latter category. I was of course thrilled to see Mary Kom win a boxing bronze.  It was a creditable achievement and it gladdened my heart. I am generally a peaceful sort of guy when it comes to sporting activity. I honestly do not enjoy watching people beat each other up to get a medal- particularly when they harbor no animosity against the other. But for Mary Kom and India, I watched- in fact I applauded!  

Wrestling, I must admit, is less violent. I watched it with some interest, mostly because India had some medal aspirations. I must admit, that like many people, I have no idea how the scoring goes. For much of the time the wrestlers hover around each other trying to prevent the opponent from touching them. Finally, when they do make contact, the two wrestlers end up in a convoluted heap of hands, legs and heads.  I knew that Sushil Kumar won (and later lost) by observing the corner of the TV which records the score. Unlike boxing, there is little malice in their fight. They are all a bunch of affable guys. In some positions they almost appear to be tangled in an affectionate embrace!

There are plenty of watchable games. Badminton was certainly worth watching and more so because Saina salvaged some pride for us. In fact Tennis and Badminton did afford some entertainment even if there wasn’t a shower of medals. Hockey is a watchable sport but watching India plummet to the bottom was like watching the Titanic go down- a terrible tragedy!

I do not like guns in general. I strongly believe they were invented to kill people or animals or both. Somehow it is one of the sporting events we excel in. Since Gagan and Vijayakumar were shooting at an inanimate target I sat down to watch. Despite our two medals, for which we are proud, I still cannot call it a riveting spectator sport. The shooter, dressed in regalia including ear muffs and some kind of single eye pad, appears to be the only person who can see where his shot has gone. The spectator has to be told about its success (or failure) by a commentator, who I presume is using some kind of optical gizmo. Not my kind of sport really! Archery, on the other hand is a little more dramatic but we got ‘knocked out’ quite early, thus ending all anxiety. In fact most of the news on the Olympics was about one or the other Indian sportsman getting ‘knocked out’ or ‘crashing out’. The news channels make our exits sound quite violent.

I must confess that I enjoy the 100 metres. Mostly because it is over in less than 10 seconds which is approximately my attention span. I do not expect an Indian to ever be in the mostly ‘all black’ lineup. I am convinced that some of these power sports, including the sprints, jumps and throws are in the genes or at least powered by what we eat. Despite the occasional Indian in the fray, I do not think that we have the genes or the diet to be involved in pure track and field or even aquatic events. It is just the way most of us are made. We do not have to be ashamed. There are other things we revel in. Since chess, or for that matter cricket, is not part of the Olympic sporting events (not yet!) we may need to wait. When it happens there is no doubt that some Bulgarian sports fan is likely to complain about cricket the same way I am complaining about Yachting. Thirteen guys on a playing field, most of them just waiting for the ball to come their way, may not exactly be a spectator sport to those unfamiliar with cricket. We must not forget that they saunter off from time to time for drinks and tea. Chess, well, it is not going to be a spectator sport for anybody, even in the rapid movement version of the game. We may still watch it on Doordarshan- if Viswanathan Anand is playing for a medal.

In the unlikely event of fasting getting to be a sport, I am sure we stand a good chance. It is an endurance sport like the marathon. We have a great tradition from the days of the Mahatma to the present day Baba Ramdev and co. We also have plenty of practice. At least a third of India’s population, after all, goes to bed hungry.

On being Clever and Wise

I was in Singapore to attend my daughter’s convocation for a master’s degree in Law from the NUS (National University of Singapore). I was gently reminded through a small pamphlet, that was handed out to all the parents and friends, that it was not called a‘convocation’ or in fact a ‘graduation’ anymore. Somewhere in the eighties they had begun to call the event a ‘commencement’, a very American usage. I have been to Singapore several times over the last three decades and have slowly seen the City State turn its back on its old British legacies. It is subtle, but it is happening. I am not complaining. I always thought that the word ‘commencement’ was typically an American misnomer. Why did the Americans have to drive on the right side of the road? Why did the Americans have to do the opposite to switch on a light? Why did they have to spell colour without an ‘u’? Even as I write I am dismayed to see my word processor inviting a red mark under my ‘colour’ -the spelling I have grown so used to. Here I was attending my daughter’s ‘commencement’, when in fact she was finished and going home. There was, of course,  an explanation. The pamphlet patiently explained that the word ‘convoke’ or ‘gather’ was no longer acceptable. The word ‘Commencement’ actually means the beginning of a new life as a professional. So it would have to be Commencement. A few people may call it a disingenuous argument but I think even the British may have to see some sense in the explanation. Singapore, in the meanwhile, still drives (rather carefully by Indian standards) on the left side of the road!

 In addition to hearing an explanation for the use of the word ‘commencement’, I heard a very inspirational speech by Dr Chesterman, the Dean of the Law Faculty. I would like to share the essence of the Dean’s Commencement message which was so ‘profoundly simple’- to use an oxymoron.  His commencement address was on the difference between being wise and clever. We all know that education makes us clever because of the things we learn at University. He explained why all clever people are not necessarily wise. This was the message which he lucidly explained through a story which I am going to repeat in my own words. There was this wise old woman who was blind. Her wisdom, despite her disability, was legendary.  One day a few college graduates (who were naturally clever), decided to test the old woman’s intelligence. They came over to her with a bird cupped within the palms of both hands. They explained to her that there was a bird inside the enclosed palms and wanted the woman to predict if it was alive or dead. She did not answer. They asked her again and she was silent. The clever students then taunted her and wanted an answer, if indeed she was so wise. The old woman knew that if she said the bird was dead they would let it fly with a flutter and prove her wrong. If she said the bird was alive, they would crush it between their palms and lay the dead bird in her lap. She said  “I do not know if it is dead or alive, but I can certainly say it is in your hands”. That was a profound answer. It is so true of our young and learned people. They know so much. The world and the future are in their hands. But it may require the wisdom of a teacher or mentor  to actually tell them that they hold such powers by virtue of their education. The future of the ‘wise’ are indeed in their own hands. They need wisdom to make things happen. The inference to the story is mine and I am not sure if that is what Dr Chesterman had in mind. But it was a good story. I hope my daughter learnt from it just as I did!

George Paul, July 2012

Mirror! Mirror! On the Wall, Who is the 'best' of us all!!

An open letter to the Vice Chancellor of Dr MGR Medical University.
Respected Sir,
This letter is with respect to the numerous awards that were distributed on the occasion of Dentist’s day. I must thank you for recognizing the specialty of dentistry and deeming it fit to reward numerous persons who have contributed to the profession. While appreciating the fact that some senior dentists were given ‘life time’ awards based on their long standing contribution, I was a little taken aback by the awards for ‘best teacher’ and ‘best dentist’. Surprisingly there were several bests, which is an anachronism by itself. As a qualified ethicist I tried to analyze the logic and rationale of naming several persons as a ‘best’ doctor or ‘best’ dentist. ‘Best’ is a superlative word which means that the quality is unparalleled. It does not merely mean ‘having good qualities’. It in fact means ‘most good’ (the word of course does not exist). So who defines best amongst practitioners? To every patient, his/ her dentist is the best dentist. That is the reason why the patient has chosen somebody as his/her dentist. By that logic, the dentist who sees the most number of patients is possibly the best dentist. Of course, I do not agree with that criterion alone because ‘best’ may also have to do with the quality of work which a patient may not be able to technically evaluate. The ‘best’ can also be someone who has good ‘people skills’. One can also define ‘best’ clinician as the person who is most compassionate or charitable. It can also be the person who offers ‘best’ treatment on a ‘value for money’ scale. As you can see the concept of best is a complex one. More importantly, it is arbitrary. The University has chosen to raise a hornet’s nest by selecting a ‘few bests’ from amongst approximately 10,000 registered dentists in the country. I can only think that the criterion was arbitrary and is likely to earn the displeasure of several others who may themselves feel that they deserved it. Thousands may be disappointed, but failure to express sentiments should not be construed as acceptance or approbation. I have written openly because I do not practice general dentistry and am clearly not in the contention. Most importantly, I can give it in writing that I certainly would not the best by any stretch of imagination, even if I did practice dentistry.
I am must reiterate that I am writing this letter after much deliberation, as I do not wish to hurt the feelings of the several persons who have received ‘best’ awards in various aspects of dentistry on the occasion of the Dentist Day celebration. I have no doubt that the University has decided to honour several dentists with the best of intentions. I am also certain that several of the awardees are also worthy dentists and teachers and truly deserved recognition. My only objection to the awards is on the use of the term ‘best’ when recognizing some of these individuals.
With regard to ‘Best Teachers’, I am not sure if your office relied on student feedbacks or data submitted by the staff themselves. If it was based on student feedbacks, let me humbly submit that the best teachers for them are the most lenient ones. All of us have been students at some point of time or the other. Students are also fond of teachers who award liberal marks and mingle with them socially. There is general agreement that teachers should be evaluated (if at all) on the basis of pedagogy rather than popularity. This would be impossible given the time and resources available to us. As for inviting self application, I think the notion is basically self defeating. A truly good teacher may not actually offer himself/ herself for such a competition. Pedagogy is a personal attribute that should not lend itself to comparison with other similar professionals. Again, I must assure you that I am not a teacher and am clearly not in contention.
My reason for writing this letter is largely based on several letters and verbal comments, I have received in confidence pointing out the arbitrary nature of the award system. I have also unconfirmed reports that some of the ‘best teachers’ were in fact part time teachers who are shown as full time teachers. If this is true, this has the potential to cause much embarrassment to the University. I hope there will be no faux pas.
I wish to assure you that this letter is not meant to criticize the award, awarder or the awardees. It is only an opinion based on fairly sound principles of ethics and conflict of interests. I hope the University stops the practice of awarding ‘best’ titles in the future. On the other hand recognizing merit and contribution based on material evidence and judged by their peers or an impartial panel is certainly welcome.
Regards

George Paul