Letters

It’s all about attitude guys! (“Why Do We Pamper These Losers in Blue?” by Shekhar Hattangadi, April 2007).

I happened to watch the South Africa v. Australia match and it was a totally different experience. Chasing a mammoth target of 377 against Australia, the South Africans fought back admirably. They didn’t just throw away wickets, but played logically. Every player contributed. Though they lost, they did so in style. This is world class cricket. Consistency is preferred over popularity and statistics don’t matter. They do not create brand names out of players. It’s all about professionalism and attitude. People are blaming players, coach or selectors for India’s early exit from the World Cup. But the bottom line is that unless professionalism and proper attitudes are imbibed by our players, it’ll take ages for Indian cricket to come of age.
Padmanabh Subramanian
Mumbai, India

This is called entertainment, Shekhar Hattangadi. You laugh, you cry, you pamper your emotions with the swing of Indian cricket. You feel good and feel bad, without actually being affected too much in anything that really matters to you or your life. Whatever they do, even if you are hurt (temporarily), it just lasts a little longer than a Shah Rukh Khan movie and adds spice to discussions with your buddy at the office, in your drawing room or elsewhere. So don’t pretend to be too serious. I would still buy a Dell and not a Chirag computer, not because Ganguly endorses it, but because Dell is a better product. Don’t take it to heart, buddy. Live your life and let the cricketers live theirs.
Subhajit
Via eMail

Reading the provocative article “Hillary Eye on Indira Gandhi” by Shekhar Deshpande (April 2007) reminded me of the cliché, “the more things change the more they remain the same.”

In earlier days, women were labeled unfeminine or aggressive for standing out. It is the same today. Be it the East or the West. Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton defy the general image of women we all have. It is interesting that notwithstanding their different origins, cultures and the time periods, they share the same negative opinions associated with women leaders.
No doubt a double-standard for women and men has always existed, but this is now more apparent globally with the media focusing on women in leadership roles.

In this day and age, it is appalling that powerful women are scrutinized down to their toenails. Yet the same is not done of men. A male leader is not ridiculed for carrying a baby, or being emotional in public; in fact he is applauded, considered sensitive. Yet if a woman leader is perceived as being distant toward her family, she is considered unemotional and not nurturing. If a woman leader by chance were to display her emotions in public, she would be criticized for being under the influence of her hormones or not being capable of doing the job. On the other hand if she were tough, she is called mean names.

Hillary should learn her lessons from her predecessors like Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher, but we need to take a closer look at why we label, categorize, try to subjugate, and penalize women for wanting to be both women and leaders. Is it because they are a rarity and thus an oddity? Could it be that we have forced women leaders to behave in a particular way, because change is scary?
Laju K.
Via email

It’s about time (“U.S. Bullish on Real Estate in India,” April 2007). Every time I call tech support at Microsoft I’m talking to an Indian. With all the money from our country going to India it is about time that their country profited from this. Good for India and for the investors to have common sense to spend their money there!
Seth Winkleman
Via email