top of page

By:

Waleed Hussain

4 March 2025 at 8:04:30 pm

Masters of the Three-Hour Party

Congratulations, West Indies. You’ve done it again. You’ve reminded the world that when the music is loud, the boundaries are short, and nobody has to bat longer than it takes to finish a Red Stripe, you remain an absolute force of nature. Chasing 250 against India in Ranchi with Shai Hope smashing an unbeaten 102 off 45 balls and Sherfane Rutherford going berserk for 84 off 37? Pure Caribbean swagger. Second-highest successful chase in T20 history. Cue the fireworks, the Instagram reels, and...

Masters of the Three-Hour Party

Congratulations, West Indies. You’ve done it again. You’ve reminded the world that when the music is loud, the boundaries are short, and nobody has to bat longer than it takes to finish a Red Stripe, you remain an absolute force of nature. Chasing 250 against India in Ranchi with Shai Hope smashing an unbeaten 102 off 45 balls and Sherfane Rutherford going berserk for 84 off 37? Pure Caribbean swagger. Second-highest successful chase in T20 history. Cue the fireworks, the Instagram reels, and the inevitable “West Indies are back!” headlines from people who only watch cricket when it fits between dinner and bedtime. It’s almost touching how reliably the Windies can summon this brand of chaos. Give them 20 overs, a flat pitch, and the promise of franchise contracts, and they turn into a travelling carnival of six-hitting. Rutherford swings like he’s still in a Caribbean Premier League final. For three hours, they are irresistible, making you believe the old magic never left. And then the sun comes up, the pitch starts offering a bit of bounce or turn, and the same team suddenly looks like it has collectively forgotten how to hold a bat for more than 40 minutes. Test cricket continues to treat the West Indies like a particularly cruel practical joke. Bowled out for 27 by Australia in Jamaica. Regular sub-200 totals that barely last until the drinks break. A collective batting average since 2020 that makes you wonder if some of these players have ever seen a red ball outside of a museum. The once-feared pace attack is now a polite suggestion. The batting line-up, once stocked with men who could dominate for sessions, now collapses with the consistency of a poorly built sandcastle at high tide. In T20, they are the cool kids at the party - loud, flashy, impossible to ignore. In Tests, they are the ones who showed up without doing the homework and are now staring at the floor while the teacher asks questions. None of this is entirely the players’ fault. The system that produced the greatest teams in cricket history has spent the last two decades slowly dismantling itself with the efficiency of a controlled demolition. Domestic structures that produce short-form specialists rather than long-form craftsmen. Pitches that encourage hitting rather than grafting. A calendar so dominated by franchise leagues that a five-day match feels like an unpaid internship. Why spend six hours a day in the middle grinding out a fifty when you can smash three sixes in an over, collect a cheque, and be home in time for dinner? The board’s financial struggles only accelerate the exodus. Yet the sarcasm writes itself when people still talk about a “resurgence.” A resurgence in T20 is like being the best dancer at a wedding after three drinks—impressive in the moment, completely irrelevant the next morning. The West Indies have been “resurging” in white-ball cricket for years now. They win a T20 World Cup, look dangerous for a series or two, then quietly disappear when the format requires anyone to stay at the crease past the powerplay. Meanwhile, Test cricket, the format that once defined Caribbean identity, that produced Holding, Roberts, Ambrose, Lara, and Richards - continues its dignified funeral. The occasional win against Sri Lanka or a competitive draw is treated like a renaissance. Every time Hope or Rutherford clears the ropes, someone inevitably starts waxing lyrical about the “Caribbean way,” as if the Caribbean way was invented in 2008 when T20 became profitable. The old West Indies didn’t just entertain for three hours. They dominated for five days. They made opposing batsmen question their life choices. They produced sessions of sustained hostility that felt like weather systems. That version of the team is not “adapting to the modern game.” It is being actively replaced by a product better suited to highlight reels and franchise auctions. So yes, celebrate the record chase. Enjoy the sixes. Applaud Hope for looking like a proper leader under lights. Just don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by calling this a balanced resurgence. The West Indies are currently world-class at the version of cricket that requires the least amount of sustained concentration and the most amount of Instagram potential. In the version that still separates the serious from the spectacular, they remain a cautionary tale wrapped in maroon. (The writer is a senior journalist based in Mumbai. Views personal)

Sacred Attire

Jan 29, 2025
2 min read

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments


bottom of page