Outlook Grim As India Prepares to Face England

Amit Dave/ReutersIndian batsmen Sachin Tendulkar, right, and Virender Sehwag, during a practice session in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, on Tuesday. The first test match between India and England starts Thursday in Ahmedabad.

As India prepares to take on England in what promises to be an exciting series of four tests at home starting Thursday, its frontline batsmen's brittle batting and lackluster form is a cause for concern, particularly after the retirement of Rahul Dravid and V.V.S. Laxman in quick succession this year.

The triumvirate of Sachin Tendulkar, Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir, who are the mainstay of India's batting, have not done anything extraordinary, individually as well as collectively, for well over a year now, not even against the lowly New Zealand team in the recent two tests at Hyderabad and Bangalore.

For all his genius and experience, Tendulkar's inability to hold the innings together after Sehwag and Gambhir repeatedly failed to give good starts in all the four tests in England last year, and during another four on the subsequent tour of Australia in the 2011-12 season, was one of the main reasons why the Indian batting repeatedly failed. Consequently India suffered one humiliating defeat after another in all eight tests.

The truth is that Tendulkar, who has been playing international cricket since 1989, is more of a liability than an asset to the Indian team in the twilight of his otherwise phenomenal career. It was pathe tic, torturous even, to see this iconic batsman struggle for survival at the wicket, leave alone scoring runs, against the Kiwis. All he managed to score was 19, 17 and 27 runs in three outings. Worse still, he was clean-bowled on all the three occasions.

Gambhir recently boasted in an interview to the Press Trust of India that he and Sehwag are still the “world's best” opening pair. That may be, but their individual and combined contributions for well over a year now leave a lot to be desired.

An impressive start by openers usually has a positive bearing on the other batsmen who follow, but Sehwag and Gambhir have not had a good opening in recent times, and it has had a negative effect on India's middle-order, especially when Tendulkar is also no longer prolific.

“I don't expect any miracle from Tendulkar against England,” Kiran More, the former India wicketkeeper, said in an interview with India Ink. “He is a great batsman and he doesn't need to prove anything to anybody. It was just that he had one poor series against New Zealand. But you can't write him off. Not yet. He was pretty consistent in England and Australia. He may not have scored prodigiously by his own high standard, but he was always there with useful contributions when the chips were down.”

Is it time the Indian selectors replaced either Sehwag or Gambhir, or both? More does not think so. “This is a very crucial series, and India needs the experience of Sehwag and Gambhir,” he said. “No doubt they aren't in good form and are unable to give good starts to the Indian team for a bit too long now. But this isn't time to experiment.”

But if Sehwag and Gambhir fail against England, he said, the selectors should start looking for younger replacements. “You need to look at the future and build the Indian team accordingly,” he said. “And there are plenty of good young opening batsmen in domestic cricket. Some of them can be tried. Shikhar Dhawan may be given a chance. Murali Vijay, who is in good nick lately, can be given another opportunity to prove his worth again.”

The one experienced man who has been noticeably consistent with the bat is India's mercurial cricketer and captain, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who made handsome contributions against New Zealand batting down the order, scoring 73, 62 and 48 not out. But then Dhoni is not a specialist batsman. He is principally a wicketkeeper, who has a definite role to play with the bat.

At a time when the experienced batsmen have individually and collectively let India down more often than not, it is the youngsters like Virat Kohli and Cheteshwar Pujara who have batted like seasoned campaigners. When the big guns failed to fire in Australia, it was Kohli who often tried his best to stem the rot, scoring India's only test hundred on the difficult tour â€" 116 in the first innings at Adelaide.

But he had probably saved his best for the tria ngular CB Series, between Australia, India and Sri Lanka.

In the all-important match against Sri Lanka at Bellerive Oval in Hobart, when India appeared to be inviting yet another humiliation chasing an improbable target of 321, Kohli had an astonishing innings of 133 (86 balls, 16 fours, 2 sixes) not out. Not only did India romp home but achieved the target with a good 13.2 overs to spare.

Kohli continued his good run with the bat against New Zealand and scored 58, 103 and 51 not out in the two tests. Pujara, who missed the tours of England and Australia because of injury, celebrated his return to test cricket with scores of 159, 9 and 48.

Though their performances were especially noteworthy because Tendulkar, Sehwag and Gambhir failed to make major contributions, Kohli and Pujara will be truly tested against England who, unlike New Zealand, is no pushover.

England is one of the world's toughest and top-ranked test teams, with some of the world's fine st fast bowlers in James Anderson, Stuart Broad and Tim Brensan, and a champion off-spinner in Graeme Swann. The Indian team won't be able to rely too much on the home-field advantage.

 

Leaked Report on Sri Lanka Critical of U.N.

“Sri Lanka's Killing Fields,” a documentary broadcast by Britain's Channel 4 News in 2011.

An internal review of how the United Nations handled the bloody final months of Sri Lanka's civil war in 2009, when as many as 40,000 civilians were killed, has concluded that the response was “a grave failure of the U.N.,” according to a leaked draft of the report.

The investigative panel, led by Charles Petrie, a former United Nations official, criticized what it called “a sustained and institutionalized reluctance” by staff members in Sri Lanka at the time “to stand up for the rights of the people they were mandated to assist.” In blunt language, the report's executive summary states that “many senior U.N. staff simply did not perceive the prevention of killing of civilians as their responsibility.”

The report, copies of which were given to the BBC and The New York Times, also found fault with the way the crisis was dealt with by senior United Nations officials in New York. “Decision-making across the U.N. was dominated by a culture of trade-offs â€" from the ground to U.N. headquarters,” the draft report states. Officials chose “not to speak up” about “broken commitments and violations of international law” by both the Sri Lankan government and Tamil Tiger rebels because that “was seen as the only way to increase U.N. humanitarian access” to victims of the conflict.

The report does note that “the last phase of the conflict in Sri Lanka presented a major challenge” to the international body.

The U.N. struggled to exert influence on the Government which, with the effective acquiescence of a post-9/11 world order, was determined to defeat militarily an or ganization designated as terrorist. Some have argued that many deaths could have been averted had the Security Council and the Secretariat, backed by the U.N. country team, spoken out loudly early on, notably by publicizing the casualty numbers. Others say that the question is less whether the U.N. should assume responsibility for the tragedy, but more whether it did everything it could to assist the victims.

The internal review panel was established by Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general. A spokesman for Mr. Ban refused to comment on the leaked draft on Tuesday, but told reporters that the secretary general planned to meet Mr. Petrie on Wednesday morning and that the final version of the report would be made public soon.

Lyse Doucet, the chief international correspondent for BBC News who obtained the leaked draft, reported on Tuesday that United Nations sources said that the “brief executive summary, which sets out the panel's conclu sions in stark terms, has been removed,” from the final report.

With China and India Ravenous for Energy, Coal's Future Seems Assured

Gilles Sabrie for The New York Times

Coal piles behind a yurt in Gobi, Mongolia. Coal remains a critical component of the world's energy supply, despite its bad image.

RICHMOND, Va. - Last summer, nearly half of India's sweltering population suddenly found the electricity shut off. Air-conditioners whirred to a stop. Refrigerators ceased cooling. The culprits were outmoded power generation stations and a creaky electricity transmission grid.

But another problem stood out. India relies on coal for 55 percent of its electric power and struggles to keep enough on hand.

Coal remains a critical component of the world's energy supply despite its bad image. In China, demand for coal in 2010 resulted in a traffic jam 75 miles long caused by more than 10,000 trucks carrying supplies from Inner Mongolia. India is increasing coal imports.

So is Europe, as it takes advantage of lower coal prices in the United States. Higher-priced natural gas on the Continent is creating demand for more coal imports from the United States, where coal is taking a drubbing from less expensive natural gas.

Coal may seem an odd contender in a world where promising renewable energy sources like solar, wind and hydroelectric power are attracting attention. Anathema to environmentalists because it creates so much pollution, coal still has the undeniable advantages of being widely available and easy to ship and burn.

The biggest attraction, however, is low cost. By many estimates, including that of Li Junfeng, longtime director general of the National Development and Reform Commission of China, burning coal still costs about one-third as much as using renewable energy like wind or solar.

Coal is not subject to the vagaries of windless or sunless days, and can easily meet base-load demands of electricity consumers without interruption. So can nuclear power, but the nuclear industry is still reeling from the March 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan. Countries like Germany have turned away from nuclear reactors.

Global demand for coal is expected to grow to 8.9 billion tons by 2016 from 7.9 billion tons this year, with the bulk of new demand - about 700 million tons - coming from China, according to a Peabody Energy study. China is expected to add 240 gigawatts, the equivalent of adding about 160 new coal-fired plants to the 620 operating now, within four years. During that period, India will add an additional 70 gigawatts through more than 46 plants.

“If you poke your head outside of the U.S., coal-fired plants are being built left and right,” said William L. Burns, an energy analyst with Johnson Rice in New Orleans. “Coal is still the cheapest fuel source.”

Besides strong demand for thermal coal, which is burned in power plants, use of metallurgical coal or coking coal, used in blast furnaces, is also expected to more than double in China, to about 1.7 billion metric tons by 2016, as the country's steel mills churn out more steel for automobiles, skyscrapers and export goods, the Peabody study says.

Coking coal will be increasingly in demand in other steel centers like Brazil and India, pushing coal companies to scrounge for new reserves in places like Botswana, Mongolia and Mozambique.

In all, coal use is expected to increase 50 percent by 2035, said Milton Catelin, chief executive of the World Coal Association in London.

“Last year, coal represented 30 percent of world energy, and that's the highest share it has had since 1969,” he said.

Within a year or two, coal will surpass oil as the planet's primary fuel, Mr. Catelin predicted.

For now, coal seems to be sidestepping a serious potential impediment to its use: international accords restricting greenhouse gas emissions. So far, such agreements to prevent climate change have been ineffective.

China plans to put carbon emission reducing equipment on new plants. But China and other big coal producers still have a long way to go in matters like mine safety. On average, about 2,500 Chinese coal miners die in accidents every year.

On Aug. 29, for instance, a blast at the Xiaojiawan mine in Sichuan Province killed more than 40 miners. Officials blamed lax safety and overcrowding in the shafts.

Industry officials insist that safety will improve as large Chinese coal companies like the Shenhua Group buy out smaller mines, and new technologies develop that can detect dangerous methane gas and automatically shut down mines.

Nowhere are the controversies surrounding coal more pronounced than in the United States. Coal became an important issue in the presidential campaign, with the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, accusing President Barack Obama of being anti-coal.

The American coal industry says Mr. Obama is waging a “war on coal” in response to his proposed regulation of air pollution and surface mining in mountain areas.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 12, 2012

An earlier version of this article included an incorrect middle initial for the author. The initial (which he does not use in his byline) is A, not G.

A version of this special report appeared in print on November 13, 2012, on page B6 of the New York edition with the headline: With China and India Ravenous for Energy, Coal's Future Seems Assured.

Leaked Report on Sri Lanka Critical of U.N.

“Sri Lanka's Killing Fields,” a documentary broadcast by Britain's Channel 4 News in 2011.

An internal review of how the United Nations handled the bloody final months of Sri Lanka's civil war in 2009, when as many as 40,000 civilians were killed, has concluded that the response was “a grave failure of the U.N.,” according to a leaked draft of the report.

The investigative panel, led by Charles Petrie, a former United Nations official, criticized what it called “a sustained and institutionalized reluctance” by staff members in Sri Lanka at the time “to stand up for the rights of the people they were mandated to assist.” In blunt language, the report's executive summary states that “many senior U.N. staff simply did not perceive the prevention of killing of civilians as their responsibility.”

The report, copies of which were given to the BBC and The New York Times, also found fault with the way the crisis was dealt with by senior United Nations officials in New York. “Decision-making across the U.N. was dominated by a culture of trade-offs â€" from the ground to U.N. headquarters,” the draft report states. Officials chose “not to speak up” about “broken commitments and violations of international law” by both the Sri Lankan government and Tamil Tiger rebels because that “was seen as the only way to increase U.N. humanitarian access” to victims of the conflict.

The report does note that “the last phase of the conflict in Sri Lanka presented a major challenge” to the international body.

The U.N. struggled to exert influence on the Government which, with the effective acquiescence of a post-9/11 world order, was determined to defeat militarily an or ganization designated as terrorist. Some have argued that many deaths could have been averted had the Security Council and the Secretariat, backed by the U.N. country team, spoken out loudly early on, notably by publicizing the casualty numbers. Others say that the question is less whether the U.N. should assume responsibility for the tragedy, but more whether it did everything it could to assist the victims.

The internal review panel was established by Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general. A spokesman for Mr. Ban refused to comment on the leaked draft on Tuesday, but told reporters that the secretary general planned to meet Mr. Petrie on Wednesday morning and that the final version of the report would be made public soon.

Lyse Doucet, the chief international correspondent for BBC News who obtained the leaked draft, reported on Tuesday that United Nations sources said that the “brief executive summary, which sets out the panel's conclu sions in stark terms, has been removed,” from the final report.

Brazil\'s Banknotes Still Praise God, For Now

A close view of the Portuguese words for “God Be Praised” on Brazil's currency.

A federal prosecutor in Brazil is seeking a court order to force the country's central bank to replace the nation's entire supply of paper currency with bills that do not display the phrase “God Be Praised,” the newspaper Folha de São Paulo reported on Monday.

The prosecutor, Jefferson Aparecido Dias, whose office defends the rights of citizens in the city of São Paulo, said that he had received a complaint last year about the use of the phrase. He argued in a 17-page motion filed on Monday that the words “Deus Seja Louvado,” which have ap peared on notes of the Brazilian real since 1986, violate the rights of non-Christians and non-believers.

Although he acknowledged that most Brazilians are Christian, the prosecutor wrote, “the Brazilian state is secular and, as such, should be completely detached from any religious manifestation.” To make his case that the phrase was inappropriate, he asked the court to consider the reaction of Christians if the nation's currency included calls to worship figures revered by Muslims, Buddhists, observers of Candomblé or Hindus - or a statement endorsing atheism. “Let's imagine if the real note had any of these phrases on it: ‘Praise Allah,' ‘Praise Buddha,' ‘Hail Oxossi,' ‘Hail Lord Ganesh,' or ‘God does not exist.'”

Writing on Twitter, the Archbishop of São Paulo, Cardinal Odilo Scherer, wondered if anyone even noticed the phrase, which is rendered in tiny letters on the notes.

Você já percebeu que as notas Real tem uma rederência a Deus? Há alguém querendo tirar. Que v. Acha?

- Dom Odilo Scherer (@DomOdiloScherer) 12 Nov 12

The cardinal also said in a statement, “The phrase should make no difference to those who do not believe in God. But it is meaningful for all those who do believe in God. And those who believe in God also pay taxes and are most of the population.”

Brazil's central bank had previously replied to the complaint by arguing that the religious reference was valid because the preamble to the Brazilian constitution explicitly states that the democracy was formed “under the protection of God.” The bank's response to the prosecutor added that the state, “not being atheist, anti-clerical or anti-religious, can legitimately make a reference to the existence of a higher being, a divinity, as long as, in doing so, it does not make an allusion to a specific religious doctrine.”