CHAGRIN

It is the impuissance;
and not the wounds that pain,
in going back in time,

to set things right again.

Mistaken were the assumptions
and things were not to hide.
An attitude that got contorted,
and drifted towards the wrong side.

Swept by extreme callousness,
Inadvertent that it was.
Love was desecrated,
And hurt it did cause.

Surreptitious deeds,
cost the diaphanous trust.
For wants, not needs,
and succumbing to sinful lust.

And when you rue,
sincerely you do remorse.
Ghosts of past shall haunt you,
making your plight worse.

Ah, the cries of broken hearts
and this vicissitude.
Long it will take to join again these broken parts
and sins to be completely spewed.

Ignoring the M in 'X-M'

Global trade is at an all time low and there are predictions of further dips. Despite so many nations increasingly liberalizing their economies since the past few decades, it is surprising why we are witnessing a very low increase in global trade. Some probable reasons could be:

1. Impact of global financial crisis and Great Recession
    The Great Recession hit global demand thus grievously   hurting exporting economies, especially the Euro Zone           which is facing high unemployment. 

2. The slowdown in China, can be said to be the primary reason for the slowdown. Due to this slowdown, there has     been a drastic fall in demand for iron, oil, etc. 

3. Hike in interest rates in the US and predictions of even higher ones have caused investment to flow out of   developing markets to 'dollar-based' assets.

4. Political turmoil in Brazil and Middle East, migrant crisis in   Europe, Brexit, etc is leading to uncertainty and                       apprehensions hence low investments.

Global trade has recently become less responsive to changes in global income because of slow expansions of global supply chains, reluctance of firms to work in complex global chains ( where raw material goes to one country, manufacturing takes place in another, assembling in another, marketing in another, and so on) and a shift in demand from trade-intensive investment to less trade intensive public and private investment. This has further led to a weak import demand, which has led to almost one percentage point reduction in growth of global trade.

Emerging economies,especially during a financial crisis or when under heavy debt, tend to focus only on exports and avoid taking imports. Imports often have negative connotations in public mind and trade barriers are often justified as a means of reducing import competition and protecting domestic markets. 

But imports can in fact, improve productivity and competitiveness and policies that restrict access to foreign sources of goods, especially intermediate goods and services, are more likely to produce firm closures and job losses- the very outcomes they were structured to prevent.

So the key to how imports actually improve trade productivity is trade in intermediate goods and services. Offshoring of parts of production can take place through either Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) or offshore-outsourcing (where intermediate material is produced by an independent foreign supplier). A firm can source an input from a foreign supplier where it seeks to lower costs and improve its competitiveness. Trade in these intermediates is hence not a loss of production to foreign players but is an explicit decision by domestic firms to maintain or improve its productivity. Failure to do so would result in job losses-not job savings.

More open markets therefore offer widespread benefits while protectionist trade policies impose high costs. Import barriers deny access to goods and services we need to compete internationally. Rather than protecting domestic jobs, these policies can produce plant closures and job losses.

Trade comprises both imports and exports; both are equally important for global economic performance. 

ANAADI AND KHILAADI

Shobhaa De does have a reputation of a riling commentator. No wonder her inconsiderate and irresponsible comments on our team at Rio drew mass criticism. Our players toil relentlessly despite lack of due encouragement from both government and society. They are mostly totally self- driven and the least we as citizens can do is, support our own team morally!

Well Shobhaa De per say isn't to blame here. She is perhaps one of the victims of an almost putrescent parochial vision. For a significant part of the population, brilliance and credibility is restricted to academia. They are highly apprehensive of accepting extra-curricular and unconventional activities as primary professions.  Even a healthy drift is looked down upon. Sports, especially are highly undermined. Mind it, excluding cricket. Cricket is a legacy of our colonial masters, how can we not carry it on? Sports are looked upon as mere games for recreation. And owing to loss of due recognition to the field, we're unable to harness the potential of our population. So many people do not even realize they could be good at a sport because they were never given an opportunity to explore their talent. Worse, those who do recognize their talent are unable to pursue it because of lack of support, encouragement and infrastructure.

The problems come at various levels. The worst of them being, absence of awareness. Now considering there are some aware and willing people, there's no infrastructure. Where there is some kind of infrastructure, there are, most of the times, no willing and capable coaches. Now if it's one of the rare places where there are coaches too, there is no maintenance. Stadiums are used for annual functions and concerts more than they are used for matches! Almost always, equipment is in ram-shackles. Broken rackets, rusty machines, torn nets and unclean areas of practice are common.  The very famous prodigy in athletics, Budhia from Orissa, almost ran away from the govt. hostel for sportspeople because the rooms were suffocating to live in. Potential players, you are on your own here on.

An evil influence of politics within sports federations is also responsible for searing sports. It is only unfair to put vested interests before merit. What's more dismaying is, even the talented and successful ones are ruthlessly ignored . It isn't rare to hear of Gold medalists and National Champions who have to resort to odd jobs for survival.

However, in the past decade, there has been an encouraging change in the approach towards the discipline. Many schools have started taking it seriously, Sports Authority of India is in the process of resuscitation of the field, more funds are pouring in from the government and we have newer generations who highly support sports.

A large part of this change should be credited to movies that brought the condition of sports in India to light. Starting from Chak de India, that perhaps set the trend, there have been many such films.
Iqbal, Bhaag Milkha Bhaag, Patiala House, Ferrari ki Sawaari, Mary Kom, Hawa Hawaii, Sultan and upcoming Dangal are some of the wonderful mainstream flicks.

Clearly, many times, movies do the job that essentially a curriculum is supposed to do, that is, changing perspective.

Who hasn't written those essays in school on 'why sports are necessary' and how sports help build up not only physical fitness but also mental health, confidence, team-spirit, discipline, positivity, leadership and what not. Seems that was only to fetch an 'A' in the unit test and not for applying in real lives.

What's saddening is, people are dual-faced on this subject. They won't let their child go to a sports club but will be highly critical of skilled players who still somehow make it to Championships. Pretentious sports enthusiasts are the ones who find faults with players who, despite a wonderful performance, are unable to carve a place on the victory stand. Well, passion and talent can take one to a certain extent only. Beyond that, one needs moral boosting and more importantly, due attention and training.

But Team India, we are proud of you. In the given conditions, you have fought your way to the place where you are now. May you get all that you deserve! 

A NEW HOME RULE

100 years ago today, miss Besant wouldn't have realised that the foundation of what she was going to lay, would transform a whole movement.

Besant's philosophy came at a time when moderates and extremists were beginning to reconcile, people were agitated with their miseries in the World War and the INC and Muslim League decided to unite. Because of Besant's contacts with the Theosophical Society, the Home Rule League attained an all India appeal very quickly. It went on to influence many young men who then became popular leaders of the struggle, including Jitendralal Bannerjee, Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohd. Ali Jinnah, Khaliquzzaman, among many others.

Tilak, highly influenced by the idea, set up his own Home Rule League and gave the very famous slogan, 'Swaraj is my birth right'. The movement set the stage for Gandhi's active participation in the Struggle. This period also marks the transition from the moderate phase of Indian politics to the agitational phase.

The movement reached its peak in 1917. The Russian Revolution too played a major role in attracting people to the idea of Home Rule. Ultimately, the British were forced to come up with the Mont-Ford Reforms in 1918, which introduced dyarchy. Franchise was extended, bicameral provincial legislative councils were established, certain subjects like Public Health, Education, Local-self government were transferred, more powers were given to central and provincial legislatures and 3 out of 8 people in Viceroy's executive council were to be Indians.

Although these provisions didn't satisfy Indians and drew a lot of criticism, it was an essential moment in history of administrative structure in India.

Today, we need another Home Rule Movement. As the term suggests, we need to start a movement of reforms from our 'homes'. To start incorporating positive changes in us. Before protesting for change, we ought to change ourselves. We ought to rule ourselves with principles that we wish others to follow. We often underestimate the power of individual action. How does it matter if I alone throw a small wrapper on the street, or ignore an injured person on a highway, or get away with breaking headlights? Not all of them are doing it so does my action really make any difference? Well, if the multiplied result of such actions can be catastrophic then multiplied result of individual virtuous action can be utopic too. Imagine how things would be if every person obeyed the law, spoke the truth, planted a tree and minded his own affairs with sincerity. But one has to start the cycle of good, regardless of what happens around.

It is easy to come out on streets, blame entities and call for change. But that cannot happen unless we ourselves follow it.

This isn't a novel idea. In fact, this is the most elementary lesson we are taught. But ironically, sometimes the simplest things seem to be the most difficult to do. We are so caught in a complex web of vice that being simple and good seems almost divine.

And this is just a matter of beginning.