Angry Young Society

Back in the 70s, when I was a kid, Amitabh Bachchan typified the Angry Young Man. 40 years later, for a generation which has seen many such avatars on screen, the society of an Angry Young Society is played out.
Just about everybody is angry. Starting from Anna Hazare to the kid next door, there is a scowl on our faces and anger in our collective conscience. We are angry with everything and everybody - our neighbours, rulers, doctors, terrorists, milkman, bus conductors... ad infinitum. Most of the time, it is impotent rage - a realisation that we are unable to 'do' anything about the state of affairs. Sometime, it is at ourselves, most of the time, it is at others.
The favorite punching bag is the politician. We are angry with 'them' because they have destroyed the country. Aided and abetted by Anna's team, our justified rage has an easy outlet - hundreds of breathless TV anchors, who purportedly represent the face of India, young twentysomethings who thrust a microphone under the nose of an ordinary citizen and ask him profound questions - 'so what do you think is responsible for the corruption in our country today?'. Then we have the ponderous Arnab Sen asking very seriously a panel of reasonably experienced administrators and politicians 'the nation demands an answer!' followed by thunderous clapping from the audience.
Ina ll this, we stubbornly refuse to face the fact that WE are the problem and that 'they' are nothing but faces of 'WE'. They gave come from our society, our apathy, our indifference and our callous disregard to the concept of a social goal. They are not people from some heavenly body. They are the result of our behavior. Today, thanks to some irrational din, they will go and will be replaced by another set of 'they' who will also degenerate into exactly the same set of blokes that we deride so much.
They are unapologetic because WE are unapologetic. They know that we are essentially pandering to the flavor of the day, and all will be forgiven, and forgotten (except, of course, Arnab's hairstyle). They know that since we dont want to take responsibility for our actions of the past, we dont really have the courage of our convictions.
I was watching one of the team members of Anna Hazare proudly saying 'we will not fight elections' and we will remain outside the system and raise these issues. What he was actually saying was "we will take up issues which fancy us and whip your passions, because you dont know what you want". I am not sure how many of us WANT the changes we are asking for. I think most of us believe that as long as our leaders are free of corruption, things will be hunky dory.
THEY WILL NOT BE.
There is rot at the bottom. There is petty corruption at all levels of our society. From the scam in platform tickets at the station to the largest telecom deal in the world. If we want to stem the rot, attack the root and not the top. The branches and leaves will grow again, and again and again.
The Anger will remain.

Nasser Hussain ko Gussa kyon aata hai?

They are after all human. For decades they have been laughed at, soundly beaten in all forms of the game and suddenly they find themsleves having beaten the highest ranked test team and becoming No 1 in Test cricket. Nver in the last 25 years has England achieved this kind of a status in cricket. Coming as it does after an embarassingly long time and after the ICC HQ was shifted out of thier country, the English are ecstatic, and some of them want to get even.
That explains why people like Nasser Hussain et al have been making some rather damaging statements attacking players personally. Remember, this is the same Nasser Hussain who captained the team which lost the memorable Natwest 2002 to Yuvraj and Kaif; this is the same Vaughan who was soundly thrashed in 2007 and again in 2008, when the English team visited India. Consequently, these two gents are so angry that they call players names, simply because they have the mike in their hands.
Remember, Hussain was no Bradman. His ODI average is 30, way lower than most people he comments about. His Test match average is 37, far lower than most Test batsmen who we call good these days. Vaughan's ODI stats are even worse, with an average of 27.
Hussain and Vaughan are examples of many a frustrated cricketer who believes that he never got his due. So when they get an opportunity to have a microphone in front of them, they tend to go berserk.
Interestingly, the day when Hussain made this comment, I was watching the replay of the 2002 Natwest finals when Ganguly made a fierce cut which raced to a four after hitting Hussain's wrist. Not only did  the donkey did not stop the ball, he allowed it to go for a boundary, imagine!
So why is Hussain now calling others names? Simply because, sans that, nobody would recognise him. People like him and Vaughan, are simply screaming for attention. The intemperate language, choice of words, stubborn refusal to even temper down, smacks of a need to be recognised, much after the 'sell-by' date has expired.
True he is articulate, and that is why is ESPN retains him. They dont need great players (In any case, you would be scrapping the bottom of the barrel in England looking for great players), just donkeys who can speak well, and get them good TRPs, even after a match has been washed away. To that extent, the broadcaster loves Hussain. And the latter, like a good lapdog, will bark and bite, to keep his paymasters happy. After all, he does not influence the outcome now.. not that he did when he was playing.