Proloy Bagchi
Whither sports and sportsmen spirit? The FIFA World Cup is over but it underscored a mean and vicious side of sports today: undue aggressiveness to win it all. This violent ugly was underscored during the Brazil-Colombia football match which turned into a slugfest with Colombian Zuniga’s downing Brazilian football’s superstar Neymar, thereby breaking the latter’s vertebra and taking away a bit of the sheen from the “Beautiful Game”.
Undeniably, hostility of this kind does not quite mix with sports, be it football or any other sport.  Shockingly, the Brazil-Colombia game was particularly rough with as many as 54 fouls whistled down, of these 31 were committed by the Brazilians. Indeed, if this is considered as beautiful, one wouldn’t want to fathom what beautiful is!
Certainly, fouls are committed unintentionally but, as one noticed; players were either being pulled away or deliberately downed to prevent them from carrying on with the game. And this happened not once or twice but umpteen numbers of times in various games I watched.
Clearly, to me, this did not appear like sport. After all, one plays a game for not only pleasure but also to extend pleasure to spectators. It is neither a matter of life and death nor is it a matter of national prestige. Then why go and do something like breaking somebody’s back — literally?
True, football, hockey, rugby, ice hockey et al which are known as “contact sports”, whereby, players of two teams need to have physical contact with each other. In rugby and ice hockey sportsmen even wear protective gear to ward off injuries given that retrieving the ball from the opposition and scoring goals is the primary objective. In the process players have to tackle the opposing side wherein in doing so they could hurt each other. True, that would be incidental to the game.
However, what we saw in the World Cup matches was deliberate contacts with an opposition player only to deprive him possession of the ball or keep him away from it. In this byplay everything seemed to be fair including bringing his opponent down, stepping on him with nailed boots or, for that matter, kneeing him on the back.
Questionably, in my opinion, if one thinks of preventing the opposition from playing ball, why play the game at all? But then, even sports have become highly competitive with a lot of money thrown in and of course, prestige. Bringing things to such a pass that it is virtually a soft kind of war, highly hyped up.
I suppose, that is why some of the ‘no-contact sports’ like cricket and tennis have been described as “Gentlemen’s Game”. Cricket used to be and continues to be gentlemanly.
One sees these traits especially in test matches. When a batsman or bowler attains a milestone he is congratulated by players of the opposing side, or if a bowler takes more than five wickets in an innings play he, instead of the captain, is made to lead the team back to the pavilion. Moreover, there are hardly ever any protests against an umpire’s decision.
Besides, there are many such healthy, gentlemanly conventions which are observed even today highlighting the spirit of sportsmanship. Sadly, however, aberrations are creeping in and healthy traditions are gradually yielding place to aggression. Especially in the limited-overs matches.
Expressions of extreme exuberance verging on being aggressive and intimidating after capturing a wicket have been noticed in numerous limited-overs international games. An example: Showing the way of the pavilion haughtily to a batsman after taking his wicket, a show of brazen immodesty, is surely not gentlemanly.
Pertinently, during the Indian Premier League (IPL) limited over cricket matches, I noticed on any number of occasions bowlers aiming the ball in “death” overs close to the line which indicates a “wide” on the Leg Side far away from the batsman. But on the Off Side such a ball would not be a called a “wide”. There must be some reason behind this wacky rule but that is how it is.
Obviously, the bowlers’ intention is to keep the ball as far away from the batsman as possible so that it is beyond the latter’s reach. This practice is adopted more in matches that progress towards a close finish. If the bowler’s intention is not to allow the batsman to even touch the ball, leave alone score runs off it, then I ask the same question again: Why play the game at all? True, the bowlers could claim to be bowling within the rules but not the spirit of the game.
Alas, aggression is on occasions seen even in tennis which too is deemed as a gentlemen’s game. One can often witness assertive exuberance in players after winning a crucial game or a set. This wasn’t so earlier. Although, with the onset of “boom-boom” serve and volley game, tennis seems to have lost that softness of yore. But, then today the game is played with intense passion after years of preparation of the mind, body and huge investments given there is a lot of money appended to professional tennis.
The game has produced numerous millionaires. And, yet I find seven-time Wimbledon Champion Roger Federer not quite gelling with the crowd. He is different. A legendary tennis player, having been conferred with numerous awards, even off the tennis courts, for qualities of head and heart. Add to this, his equanimity after a win is admirable.
The tennis maestro’s exuberance after hitting a winning volley and scoring a point is always subdued, never jarring or strident. Even post a victory his elation and exultations are mostly to acknowledge spectators cheers and appreciation. Perhaps, Federer internalises his wins allowing it to seep within. Clearly, this is how a sportsman should conduct himself. But, that would be idealistic in today’s day and age wherein all kinds assemble in a sporting arena contributing to the rough and tumble of competitive sports. And that possibly makes things more interesting in the present world! INFA

S. Sethuraman
The launching of a one-hundred billion dollar New Development Bank at the Sixth BRICS Summit in Brazil on July 15, 2014 is a historic financing initiative among emerging economies, virtually throwing a challenge at the legitimacy of the post-war Bretton Woods Institutions with all their failings of the past.
Leaders of China, India, Russia, Brazil and South Africa signed the deeds to set up the NDB and for a Contingency Reserve Arrangement with 100 billion dollars to help developing countries overcome short-term liquidity pressures, which opens an alternative window to IMF.
The New Development Bank, a major objective of promoting economic cooperation among emerging nations, had been agreed on at the Fifth BRICS Summit held in 2013. Now, its structure with an initial capital of 50 billion dollars to be shared equally by the five countries – instead of the major share from China as originally thought of – is more equitable. This is what Mr Modi preferred.
It will mainly finance infrastructure projects of developing countries. While NDB will be headquartered in Shanghai (China), India will nominate the first President of the new Bank, Russia will hold the first Chair of Board of Governors and Brazil the first Chair of Board of Directors.  Thus, each country is made to feel comfortable in an economically powerful grouping, whatever be geo-political issues at bilateral levels, such as the India-China border problem.
Here again, Mr Modi’s talks with the Chinese President Xi Jinping may be said to have given a new momentum for an accelerated solution to the border problem, with the Chinese President making a fresh call for a “negotiated solution” during Mr Modi’s China visit scheduled for November.
Continuing its charm offensive in India, as in a few other countries, the Chinese leaders are working on a grand strategy to clip the wings of America in the Asia-Pacific region in the wake of the Obama Administration’s “Asia Pivot”. International tensions and conflicts in the Middle East, where America is no longer asserting its traditional dominance and prefers collective approaches as in regard to Iran, are ideally suited for Beijing to pursue its own strategic pursuits.
While a 100-billion dollar NDB would only be a fraction of global financing needs for infrastructure development, it is much more than a symbolic move. China hopes, as other nations, that this instrument would help to intensify economic cooperation among the five nations as well as become in course of time a dependable channel of assistance to other developing countries as well.
Both the development financing through NDB and the contingency financing mechanism seek to provide an alternative, however limited, to what the World Bank and IMF have been providing for emerging economies and other developing countries over decades. With their own Bank and CRA, the leaders expect intra-BRICS cooperation to be effectively promoted while these would also strengthen the existing global financing safety net and complement existing international arrangements, especially where large infrastructural and sustainable developmental projects are involved.
Mr Modi and other leaders have also committed themselves to further facilitating trade, enhancing financial cooperation and tackling tax-related challenges. BRICS would now become more effective, both within G-20 as well as in the wider international fora, in the evolution of global economic and financing policies, apart from raising economic cooperation among themselves to new levels.
The 2010 reforms to give greater legitimacy, credibility and relevance to IMF with greater voice in decision-making for leading emerging nations including China and India and other developing countries have been ratified by all nations except for the largest quota-holder, USA. The Congress never passed the Administration Budget in which the provision for IMF was embedded and Republicans have so far ignored the Administration requests for expeditious clearance of the reform proposal.
The reforms were to come into force in 2012. IMF managing Director Ms. Christine Laggard had hinted if USA approval, pre-requisite for the mandated 85 per cent votes in favour, was not forthcoming, the Fund would have to consider “other options”. BRICs leaders at their Summit, without directly blaming USA, noted that the continuing delay in IMF reforms coming into effect “negatively impacts IMF’s legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness”. They urged IMF to move ahead with developing options for reform, in case the 2010 package did not get enforced by the end of 2014.China is wary of American “intrusions” in the Asian-Pacific region, in the context of its string of disputes with neighbouring countries over its claim for sovereignty over the entire South China seas. China is militarily backing its hold and blocking countries like Viet Nam with claims to explore for oil/minerals.
There have been clashes between China and Viet Nam, and recently Beijing completed drilling in a part of the sea claimed by Viet Nam. The Philippines, with equal claims, has sought international arbitration on the dispute, as favoured by the United States which has urged all nations to respect and safeguard the international waterways and resolve disputes bilaterally or through United Nations.
In this first major visit abroad, Mr Modi held talks earlier with President Putin of Russia and the Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff along with his extended discussions with President Jinping on bilateral trade and economic issues but the major focus was on the border problem. China has been trying to court Mr Modi to take India-China cooperation to new levels and its leaders have always tended to emphasise generalities such as two great countries speaking with “one voice to make the world listen”.
But Mr Modi has reportedly left no doubt as to how seriously India looked upon an early settlement of the border conflict and Mr Jinping has given the impression of being more receptive to India’s stand. The Chinese President is due to come to India in September.
Our Prime Minister has a tight schedule of visits abroad for the rest of the year beginning with his visit to the United Nations General Assembly in September. He will go to Washington at the invitation of President Obama for a White House meeting then.
Since China hosts this year’s APEC Summit, President Xi Jinping has invited Mr Modi to attend the Summit, another diplomatic ploy, though India’s application for membership of APEC had been kept pending. Since the beginning India had not been regarded as a Pacific rim nation for APEC membership.  (IPA)