Is a deer's life dearer than a human's?

Many Indians want to go hunting someday, like the erstwhile Maharajahs & the English rulers of Hindustan. Killing big game, after all, has long been deemed as one of the most macho things to do. So, Salman was not being very different when he gallantly went out to the jungle. And the villagers who caught him in the act, I am quite certain, would have many boastful “shikaar” stories to tell about their ancestors and themselves; and probably a trophy or two hidden away, if not displayed in a pride of position place in their homes. So, was Salman wrong, or was he simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?

My take on this is simple. One, he had no business hunting & killing a protected wild animal. Two, he was foolish enough to actually be caught in the act. And three, he was naiive & arrogant enough to assume that this issue will die a natural death, without bothering him. The wildlife lobby is fairly strong the world over, and no human (unless you are Veerappan or a heavy-weight politician) can get away once caught. So, Salman is paying for his sin of arrogance, more than anything else.

That also brings up two points in the issue. Point no. 1: Why do snake-charmers, bear handlers, etc. go scot-free after giving so much pain to these protected animals and eventually killing every single animal they handle with absolute cruelty? What is the SPCA or the WWF or the Judiciary doing to them? Have you ever heard of an arrest (forget conviction) in such a case? Point no. 2: Once the crime is proven, is the punishment being meted out justifiable? I mean when a snake kills a human, do we find & kill the snake? Of even when a stray dog bites a kid on the street (who contacts rabies & eventually dies), is the dog brought to justice? So the questions facing us are, is human crime greater than animal crime? And is animal life more precious than human life? Maneka Gandhi, I am sure, would have us believe so. But for some reason, I fail to see the logic every single time.

Also, in a country when a person murders a human being in full view of a hundred renowned, well respected people (Jessica Lal case), he goes without punishment. And when a man kills a deer which is seen (or is it assumed to be seen) by less than a dozen illiterate, unknown villagers, he is given 5 years!!!

I have no love for Salman – I’m not his fan. But I have love for all my human brethren, and can’t see such gross injustice being done in the name of law. Salman is being punished because the courts are assuming that he is a proclaimed offender (beating co-stars, running over people sleeping on pavements in his vehicle, et al don’t go down too well with the judges). And if any of you remembers the “17 oranges” story that we read in class 10th, an example has to be made to the masses that this will not be tolerated. And who better than a celebrity to be sacrificed at the alter – giving out a clear message that nobody is above the law. Sadly, the same is not true when it comes to Manu Sharma, who is given the benefit of doubt, because eye witnesses have back-tracked due to threats to their lives, which the court is well aware of. Perhaps, Salman should not have been arrogant in assuming that because he is a star nobody would touch him; he should have demonstrated his star power & money-muscle to the villagers to ensure that they claim that no deer was ever killed in the first place, forget Salman killing one.

May the deer’s soul rest in peace. I am sure Jessica’s won’t after this kind of injustice.

Aussies feel Bangla heat

Bangladesh, yes Bangladesh, have taken a 158-run lead against Australia in the ensuing test match. And had Gilchrist not played the innings of his lifetime to score 144 runs in a team total of 269 in reply to Bangladesh’s 427, Australia would have been forced to follow-on (though if I were Bangladesh captain, I would play my second inning without enforcing follow-on, and make Australia play the fourth inning on a deteriorating pitch).

And to top that, Bangladesh scored 355 runs on the first day itself in 88 overs at an average of over 4, against a bowling attacking comprising Lee, Gillespie and none other than Shane Warne! And then Australia really struggled to come close to that total at a batting average of under 3. Five batsmen failed to reach double figures against a pretty-mediocre bowling attack. Not a pretty situation for Australia after having recently lost an ODI to the minnows. Where is the world’s greatest cricket team going? And where is the world’s worst cricket team going???

That also brings me to Shane Warne, the world’s most successful bowler ever, and still going strong. Time & again one has been reading articles from various Australians and Shane himself of how most of Murali’s wickets have come against weak teams including many of them against Bangladesh, and how Shane’s tally is not increasing at the same rate because of Australia not playing against such teams. Shane bowled 20 overs going wicketless against the same Bangladeshi’s in the first inning. Not to say that the wicket had nothing for the spinners. His other spinner team-mate Stuart MacGill took 8 of the 10 to fall in the first. Even in the second inning, thus far, Shane has not been able to scalp a single stump, from the 5 fallen so far, and he has again bowled 20% of the overs (8 out of 40 bowled so far) like the first inning. I don’t know whether it is Shane’s bad luck or MacGill’s good luck!!! The only non-suprising element here has been that Warne has never been successful against the Asian cricketers, and Bangladesh seem to be no different from India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka for him. Now at least, somebody should tell him to shut up about Murali. Not that I am a big supporter of the Sri Lankan, but then I’m not a great supporter of Shane either.

At stumps today, Bangladesh lead with 288 runs with 5 wickets to spare. Unless they score another 100-odd to reach close to 400, I don’t think Australia should find it really, really difficult to beat them. But considering the first inning, even 288 should give the Bangladeshi’s an easy win. But where the match seems headed, one will come to know only tomorrow – on the way Bangladesh bat and on the way Australia bat thereafter.

Should be an interesting match to witness. More from the academic perspective than from the cricketing perspective. And more interesting would be seeing how Australia salvage their image hereafter.