Desicritics Author: Truman

Questions For Raj Thackeray

Truman — Fri, 7 Mar 2008 01:17:29 EST

1. Are you specifically against UP-wallahs and Biharis because, as you allege, they spread "filth"?

2. Or do North-Indians in general spread filth?

3. If any of the above is true, can we assume that you have no problems with South-Indians? Does it mean that you are okay with South Indians coming to Mumbai?

4. When you say that outsiders are a menace to Mumbai, what exactly do you mean? If a Maharashtrian living in Nashik comes to Mumbai to earn a living, would he qualify to be called an "outsider" and, in effect, spread "filth"?

5. Or could it be that a Maharashtrian living elsewhere in Maharashtra is a lesser "outsider" than a person who has crossed several states to come to Mumbai? Doesn't it then look like a matter of convenience?

6. And what about a Maharashtrian who has lived all his life in Patna and decides to come to Mumbai for a living? Is he an outsider too? Would he be a problem?

7. Lastly, what about me, Sir? I have lived almost 10 years in Maharashtra. I love eating pooran poli and I understand Marathi. I am not that good when it comes to speaking Marathi but compared to Punjabi, which happens to be my mother tongue, I find Marathi more comfortable. Oh and yes, I was born in New Delhi in a Punjabi family. Can I come back to Mumbai? Or will you throw me out since I do not have a Maharashtrian surname?

Sydney Test -- Dignity In Loss

Truman — Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:35:21 EST

Back in 2001, when Steve Waugh's men toured India, they were in a similar position as Ponting's men now. The team was on a roll and had created a record of sorts with their consecutive test wins. It took an epic test match and a monumental innings to put an end to something which had been nothing less of a supreme, majestic run.

Ponting's men have showed, time and again, an insatiable appetite for winning but what differentiates them from Steve Waugh's team is that these bunch of players don't seem to have a taste for dignity and fair play. It is an ominous sign, when a sportsman starts to think of himself greater than the game. Its worse when eleven of them do that, while the captain leads them from the front.

Bad umpiring is one thing and playing with integrity is another. He may not like it, but it does raise a question on Ponting's integrity. It does not matter if, in the past, he has walked off without looking at the umpire after he knew he was gone or if he admitted of an unclean catch. It usually seems a matter of his convenience. Its evident that the Australian captain has started to think of himself as larger than the Game.

Bad umpiring did sink India but what has come as a rude shock is the attitude of the opponents, who, almost ironically, pride themselves for the spirit they carry for the game. They look like a teenager with a gun.

If Steve Waugh were at the helm of affairs, would things be the same? Perhaps not. Not only do The Australians lack a batsman of his class, they will always be deprived of the golden legacy that Waugh left behind. Michael Clarke, the guy often pitted to be next in line for captaincy is no Mr.Clean, his babyface looks notwithstanding.

I have always maintained that ICC could well be the weakest sports body in the world. There is laid back attitude that has always been a trademark of the council. This is not the first time that umpires, single-handedly, have been instrumental in changing the course of a game of cricket at the highest level. But the test match could well be important for the simple reason that it is indeed the first time when so many wrong decisions have collectively defeated a team that was well placed on 3 out of the 5 days of a test match and at one stage sniffed a real chance of victory. Why then, do we persist with umpires that are responsible for undoing of this magnitude? Why, do we not hear cricket umpires being warned, let alone be penalized. Why, at the end of each season, can't the ICC show videos of their crimes to these umpires and seek an explanation? Would that be technology put to use or would the cricket traditionalists call it yet another tech-abuse?

Either way, we'll only know the answers if the supreme body of Cricket may seek them.

While it was on, it was a horror show. Now that its over, The Sydney test was nothing less than a crying shame. It was a mockery, an abuse of the Game.

For now, it certainly sounds better to loose with dignity intact than to win with soiled, dirty hands in the mire. I have no doubt, a certain Anil Kumble will agree.

T20 - Hit and Run Cricket is Here!

Truman — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:07:29 EDT

It seems it would sure take sometime for me before I adopt to this "new age" of cricket that the T20 has brought in. I don't, perhaps understandably, like the idea of "who-hits-more-wins", because essentially thats what T20 is all about. It is an extension of the most thrilling moments of a 50 over match -- the slog overs; but then again don't we all believe that too much of a good thing is eventually not "very good"?

T20 does not fail to thrill the masses and there is ample reasoning to conclude that it is here to stay. I believe that this format would eventually be good for the ODI format of the game. The best T20 players would automatically qualify for the next level, the ODIs -- Just like the best ODI players are given a chance to prove their worth in test cricket (however the converse may not be true -- Not every test player would be an automatic choice for the limited overs format). So, however may the skeptics choose to be wary of T20 and who knows, for all we know this could mean the beginning of the end for a breed of players called "bowlers", the underlying fact is that T20 would raise the level of competitive cricket.

The sad truth remains that bowlers would need to find a way out of the mess that they will find themselves in almost everytime they go out to bowl. Now, consider this -- in tonight's T20 World Cup's first match, S.Africa vs West Indies - over 400 runs have been scored in less than 40 overs. It's a graveyard out there for the bowlers. Considering that some of these batsmen who would hone their skills while they go on a rampage here would eventually be trying all this out in the 50 over format, I'd say that the game of cricket is all set to evolve to the next stage.

Meanwhile, I am one of those old fashioned kinds. I'd rather have 5 days of pure cricket than 40 or even 100 overs. Give me test cricket any day and I'll be a happy man. Thats where my loyalties lie.

Anil Kumble: The Full Circle

Truman — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:08:28 EDT

There are a couple reasons why Anil Kumble comes to my mind every time I walk around M.G.Road in Bangalore. First, there is this road intersection named after him right in the heart of the city. When I first came to know of it, I was amused to find something like it. Cricket administrations and associations have a habit of naming stands in the stadium on state cricketers who made it big but this is an altogether different way of showing gratitude.

Not very far away is Bangalore's Chinnaswamy Stadium. The sixteen runs Kumble made here, in company with Javagal Srinath's equally valiant thirty, that made India defeat Australia in the third league match of the Titan Cup back in 1996, cast a shadow on an innings that was perhaps one of the best, if not the best, of an illustrious career -- Mark Taylor's only century in One Day Cricket. I like to think that the unbeaten innings of 16 runs that Kumble made that very night was his greatest contribution with the bat to the shorter version of the game. In Delhi that night, how I wished I was at the Chinnaswamy Stadium. The four towering flood light towers of the stadium are something that I envy to this day for they have been witness to such glory.

In Delhi's Kotla, when Kumble got his 10 wickets in an innings against Pakistan, his first reaction had been that India had won. It took a moment or two for the feeling to sink in, that he had got all 10. It must have been a typically modest Kumble, dealing with yet another achievement. But the Oval test, in many ways, has shown us a side of the man that we have never come across.

This is probably why I have a feeling that for Kumble, his only century at this level must rank higher than his 10 on 10. Think like a bowler and you would probably discard a possibility of taking 10 wickets in an innings. A feat like that, if it ever came one's way, is served with a big slice of luck. Furthermore, one does not plan for miracles. But deep inside, you won't discard easily the feeling of hitting the cherry all over the ground like a top order batsman and contemplate hitting a ton. And if you happen to be one of those in the pavilion who shoots the defining moments on an SLR, while the Sachins and the Dravids raise their bat, the wide open arms towards the sky and say a silent prayer -- you probably have played the sequence in your head and tried to live the moment countless times.

Moments after Anil Kumble tucked the bat while coming down the track on the London Oval, it seemed like Kumble had not, for a change, come of age. Instead, the man had turned into a child, a 16 year old child who had somehow made it big finally. His helmet came off as if it were the biggest but the last obstacle to a celebration marking the realization of a personal dream that he had been secretly nurturing for years.

And that is why, after what was witnessed on 10th August 2007, "Anil Kumble Circle" -- that intersection at Bangalore's MG Road, will mean more than one thing to me. Not only will it indicate one of the busiest traffic intersections in Bangalore named after India's greatest matchwinner, but it will also mark a life that has finally come full circle, for a man who has played the role of an unsung hero for most of his career in Indian cricket.

India's World Cup: Wrong Decisions and an Uncertain Future

Truman — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:37:49 EDT

It has been a tough time for Indian Cricket. The last 24 hours or so have showed that how the mighty fall.

Defeat becomes less bitter when you try everything that you can to avoid it. Things would have been less worse for our team if they would have put up a fight. When Wright and Ganguly took up the ruins of the cricket team they faced an uphill task. There was a need for people who could play good cricket and did not carry the huge bundle of egos and world records with them. Ganguly, in particular, was adamant on backing virtually unknown players, picking them up from the domestic games. No bloated egos and a hunger to do well while giving a fight -- these seemed to be the prerequisites for being a part of the team. Wright went on to instill a work ethic that was unheard of in the past. For example, the new coach had to stop the serving of tea and biscuits while the players did the nets. The laid back attitude had to go.

I am afraid, this same laid back attitude has crept back in somehow. There is complacency somewhere, no matter how much the skipper denies it.

We are emotional fans. We go to extremes. Our team, which faces our wrath now while we burn their effigies also enjoys unprecedented fan support anywhere they are. We love our cricketers, we worship them. This, I dare say, is a privilege unavailable to most teams in world cricket. And that is why, we'll be happy if our team fights it out in the middle. For them, putting up a fight should become obligatory. If everything else fails to inspire them, that is. Those billion people deserve it. If they do that, winning will become sweeter and loosing will be less bitter.

Chappell's remarks, during the post-match conference, were made out to be inflammatory even when he had said nothing that could be termed offensive/arrogant per-se. The coach was briefing the media minutes after the world cup defeat. At one point, at the edge of getting annoyed, he said, "You are putting words in my mouth". The media there, I think, was indeed doing so and in a bid to make him say something that would have indeed been inflammatory. That would have given them more masala for the day ahead. They have already dubbed the whole thing as Chappell and Dravid being unapologetic and it's on air already.

But they did go wrong, the coach-captain duo, didn't they? Some straight statistics now.

Harbhajan Singh has gone through a transformation. He looks a shadow of what he was in 2001. Figures suggest that when he came on to bowl against Sri Lanka in that critical world cup tie, he was (and still is) one of the most overrated bowlers in world cricket. Since the ICC Champions trophy held in 2004, the bowler has played in 61 matches and has taken 57 wickets -- less than 1 wicket per match. And after the captain chose to commit the blunder of overlooking a bowler of the class of Kumble, he went on to overlook Ramesh Powar as well, even though the Mumbai player took 24 wickets at an average of 27.62 in the 18 ODIs he played. Mind you, he always has played as the second spinner. Singh, meanwhile, hasn't been looking to take wickets. He has been way too defensive. In the game against Sri Lanka, I thought he should have come around the wicket to the left hander while it was evident that his bowling was not bothering the batsman. Instead, he chose to bowl the negative leg stump line. In contrast, while Sehwag was looking good in the crease, Muralitharan took the challenge on by coming around the wicket. Sehwag fell, almost immediately, giving a catch at first slip.

May 2006. The last time India toured West Indies, Kaif was a part of the ODI squad. He was the second highest scorer for India in the series, second only to Sehwag. Kaif scored 205 runs in 5 ODIs at an average of 51.25 while Sehwag went on to score 237 runs at an average of 47.40. In the next 15 matches that Sehwag played before the world cup, the opener scored 225 runs at an average of 15 runs per innings. Kaif stayed home while Dravid's support to Sehwag was made public.

You don't need to be an expert in Cricket to understand the significance of the number three batsman in the squad. Unfortunately, this fact was overlooked by Dravid. The team ended up without a regular number three. We had everyone from Dravid, Kaif, Dhoni, Raina and Pathan experiment with that slot. Eventually, when the world cup came, we saw Uthappa and Sehwag playing at the critical position. So much for the experiments. Personally, I think its always ideal to have a test-match mould player come into that position, but that's just an opinion.

They should stop putting all the blame on the coach. If batsmen having 10000 runs under their belt are not able to carry the weight of their responsibilities, it would be unfair to blame the coach for that. In fact, these guys could actually do without a coach. India's winning percentage in ODI's with Chappell as coach has been 51%. India's winning percentage since 2000: 52%

Where does Indian Cricket go from here? Too early to say. Introspection is required. Not only by the BCCI but an exercise of self-assessment has to be taken up by the senior players. This debacle should create an impact somewhere within those 15 men.

Bold decisions, not knee jerk reactions, from the BCCI are impending. We need decisions that would probably speak louder than our past glories. But keeping in mind the past record of BCCI, its asking for too much. BCCI is not an organization to be proud of, the past few years it has ended up doing less good to Indian Cricket, but that deserves another full length post. Like a friend suggested, I'd prefer to see the Daddys of this Daddy's army play only test cricket from now on. Let the young men come in. It is hard to replicate the magnitude of change that was brought in by Ganguly and Wright but I'm afraid someone might just have to do that again for India.

Meanwhile, one suggestion. There is plenty of cricket left in this World Cup. Because it is just a game, and because you are such an avid lover of the game, I'd suggest you not to miss it. South Africa and Australia are playing some exciting cricket and whats more, those annoying commercials are almost gone.

May the best team win.

All statistics and records mentioned here, courtesy the incredible cricinfo.com

Cricket is Just a Game. Right?

Truman — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 01:02:09 EDT

As I write this, India stares down the barrel. An exit from the world's premier cricket tournament appears impending. It is strange -- all the talk in the past three to four years about preparing a world cup winning team and now this. Wake up guys, we are not even in the top eight of world cricket.

The coming morning would not be just another day. The channels have already starting beaming of what would be the news material for days to come. There would be an uproar in the media -- the same media that started it all in the first place, would come out again, and will be more harsh, simply because this exit would hurt those channels in more ways than one.

Yes, they started it all. India as prospective winners. At least prospective finalists. World cup this, world cup that. The chief selector then said that this team has the ability to go all the way. Those three legends in our team -- their last go at the world title. For all we know, it could be their world cup and no one else's. And we, people like you and me, live in a make-believe world. We accept what comes our way. We swallow what we are dished out in the name of cricket.

We accept everything.

So when you have your morning tea on Saturday, you will have the media brainwash you about theories explaining the loss at the world cup. Harsh words, flack attack and what not. If you really are into the game, you'd probably have an off mood for a day or two. But then again, you will come back to the game. It would be the media again, largely, responsible for it. Before you realize, you fall in that vicious circle.

But it would be wrong to blame the media. It is just a catalyst.

The problem lies with you and me. We make the game bigger than what it is. We make it a nightmare when its a bad dream.

No, that will not stop this fresh disappointment now, will it? How contrasting is the reality from what it is made out to be! And it's further irritating to hear "Hooo Haaa India" and "Cheer for India", less than five minutes after India has lost its place to, of all teams, Bangladesh, in the World Cup.

Well, just a game.

Movie Review: Eklavya

Truman — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:37:35 EST

Note: There are no spoilers in this review.

The gap between parallel and commercial cinema, lately, has been reducing. At one stage the trend seemed to be going towards the urban, brand-loving society of the cities while lately we've had movies like Maqbool, Omakara, Iqbal, which have taken the camera back to the villages and small town India. In that regard, Eklavya joins this elite group of movies.

For quite some time, I had a desire to see a Vidhu Vinod Chopra directed movie, made in our times. Before Eklavya came, we saw Chopra direct a movie in 2000, with Mission Kashmir. Bollywood has come a long way since then and it would have been interesting to watch how much Chopra has stayed with the times.

Let me put the point up front. Chopra falls short of what could have been a majestic take. Well, Just falls short. In this two hour movie, while the camera work and background score are gripping, the story telling falls apart for brief but critical periods where eventually lies the difference between a 4/5 and a 5/5.

Amitabh Bachchan shows why he is hailed the best man of Indian Cinema, even today. As the main character of the movie, the story looks out for being carried on his shoulders and The Big B pulls it off, yet again. The other good thing and perhaps the factor missing in most star studded flicks is the individual performances of the actors. Saif Ali Khan does justice to his script though I still insist that his best was in Omkara. Sanjay Dutt, whom I expected to play a much bigger role, gives 150% to whenever he is on screen. In that respect, his performance stands apart. Jackie Shroff is his usual self. The actor he is, one wonders why he comes up with those once-in-a-while forgettable movies. Jimmy Shergill plays the arrogant guy, for a change and delivers. Boman Irani and Vidya Balan sleep walk through their roles.

It is those post-interval, critical periods which could have been better. Either the running is smooth or when it's not, it's very intense and suddenly too much seems to be happening. Besides, there is a little forced humor that the movie could have done without. The subject is serious, probably the most serious Chopra has taken up after Parinda. It gave me an impression that the director has tried a bit too hard at times, tried to do too many things with lots of stuff happening.

There, the director misses it by a whisker. Such a beautifully crafted first half and he let it go in the end. Add to it he had the luxury of having the best actors in business. So, I just wonder and ask Mr.Chopra -- Why?

If you've seen Omkara, you will know what I am talking about. Vishal, the director of Omkara and Maqbool, is a fearless director. He did well to strike a balance in both these movies. If you're making a serious movie, you're making a serious movie. In Omkara and Maqbool, there is not a single scene that the script could have done without. In Eklavya, Chopra, it seems, is tempted to add some romance, some humor, a pinch of melodrama -- albeit in negligible quantities.

But that doesn't take away the anything from him, Chopra - The Director, someone who has his name on the credits of some of the best movies that Indian Cinema has had to offer. Eklavya, overall, is worth a dekko though it would not appeal to the 'song-and-dance' movie loving audience.

My verdict -- 4 out of 5.

What is Breaking News? Ash and Abhishek Getting Engaged?

Truman — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:37:02 EST

Most news channels beamed "Breaking News" the other night. What could it be, I wondered. Another bomb blast? Some Natural calamity?

Turned out, Aishwarya Rai had agreed to marry Abhishek Bachchan. And what breaking news it turned out to be. Heart-Breaking News rather, for all those Aish fans.

Breaking news usually affect our lives. My life has changed since then. It will never be the same again. After all, the giggle goddess has finally zeroed in on one man and it has turned out to be a matter of national importance. What a drastic turn of events. Aby's baby has finally found his baby. Oh, I am so sorry dear Salman and Vivek..oops, Viveik..err.. Viviek.

Day two and more drama: One reporter while interviewing the Big B asked for Mithai. Some are trying to get Aish's ex-lovers' reactions. One channel is speculating that the Bachchans' newly constructed villa could actually be the residence for the soon-to-be couple. Another channel is inviting viewers' opinions on this whole issue, via SMS. Send in your opinions on this oh-so-important matter. Thank God it was a weekend, I would have missed so much if I were at work.

Live feed of the marriage could be hitting your TV screens soon. Tell you what, can't wait for that one either.

Book Review: Ubuntu Linux For Non-Geeks

Truman — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 14:41:59 EST

Linux, any flavor of it, has always been a tough nut to crack for home users. Though, originally a "console" based operating system, Linux evolved into a GUI (Graphical User Interface) based system. This eased off things a bit, but in the end, the home user base has always been wary of it.

That was until Ubuntu came.

Ubuntu unleashed a new wave, nothing less. Right from the installation, Ubuntu kept its promise of simplicity, throughout all its versions. The smooth installation, ease of use and simplicity have been just some of the traits of this beautiful, "Free", Operating System.

Now, an OS like Ubuntu, needs a guidebook like Ubuntu. "Ubuntu Linux For Non-Geeks" by Rickford Grant, is just what the doctor ordered. A Pain-Free, Project-Based, Get-Things-Done Guidebook.

It starts off with the "Ifs & Buts", and goes on to the "Whats & Whens". It's aimed at relieving the first time user's initial nervousness. Often people like to pick up a book before they pick up the software. The first chapter gets you ready for what lies ahead. It starts from the very basics that exist before you are ready to install a new OS. Why should you use Linux? Why Ubuntu? Are you ready for it? Turns out, more often than not, you will be!

After the installation is done with, the author introduces you to the Desktop of the brand new OS. One of the things about Linux is that it always has been highly customisable. Ubuntu carries forward this legacy and the book tells you how to customise your desktop -- by adding, manipulating menus, running applications etc.

Connecting to the Internet comes next, as that is what concerns most of the home users. Setting up the network hardware, configuring the network, connecting to the internet, configuring your POP3 email, in that order. In fact, I think, this book is very true to its title. The author has gone into the mind of the home user and has been successful at that. This is not a book for the geeks and the programmers. A typical home user will not have to skip chapters here, and for the author, that's an achievement. You get what you want, as if, the author has known it all along. Now, when was the last time you read a PC book like that?

The chapters ahead take you through navigating the file system with Nautilus, the GNOMEs file manager. The book also lays importance on customizing the look and feel of the system. Any version of Linux has always scored heavily on this aspect over the other operating systems. This is little known, but users tend to spend a lot of time tweaking the looks of their desktop environment. This book devotes a full chapter to it. What's more, it even takes you through a project where you end up with your systems GUI looking similar to the Mac OS!

The Linux Terminal, the most powerful Linux tool ever, finds its place very late in the book. In my opinion, there could be no better evidence of the "non-Geekiness" of this book. Truth is, home users despise it. Basic commands are explained and the author takes a "fun" approach with this topic, just like the rest of the book.

The book then takes you through the rich world of multimedia, explaining how you could play songs, watch DVDs, update your iPod and edit photographs with Ubuntu. It doesn't compromise on this aspect too. It explains, teaches with patience, getting into the details as required.

This book doesn't betray the reader. It is a step-by-step guide and there could be no better approach to the Ubuntu Operating System. The fairly well explained points are coupled with plenty of screenshots from the system (Almost every page has a picture!).

The only reason this book fails to get full points is because it assumes that things always go right for the user. There is no "Troubleshooting" per se. If the reader is stuck somewhere, it's unlikely that this book could come to the rescue.

As the title suggests, this book is not intended for technical people. Right from page one, it aims the typical home user who loves to browse the internet, listen to music, send emails and doesn't know what GCC is.

Overall, The Ubtuntu community needed a book like this. If you already have joined the Ubuntu movement, this book still has something for you. If you are one of those who is thinking about joining this incredible community, this book, with the Ubuntu CD that ships with it, will be all that you will ever need.

My verdict? I love this book. But a troubleshooting section might have come in handy. I give it 4 out of 5.

Sino-Indian War October 10, 1962: If the IAF Were Not Muzzled

Truman — Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:41:21 EDT

An article at CNN-IBN has dug up old wounds by claiming that the absence of IAF in the 1962 war against China proved to be the deciding factor of the conflict.
I write this almost exactly 44 years after the Sino-India war. I feel there is still much to be learnt.
It was 10th of October 1962 when the Chinese attacked India. Of all the weapons used, the one weapon which India had no answer to was surprise. The Indian military was caught off-guard; this could be taken as one of the earliest instances of a string of failures that have followed Indian Intelligence till date.
Air Vice Marshal A K Tewary says, that the war could have turned out a 'debacle' for China, if the Indian think tank had allowed the IAF to prove their air-superiority.
This has been a well known, well advocated theory. Anyone who has followed the chronicles of the Indian Military has at one point of time or the other come across the events that unfolded in the 1962 war. Why exactly was the Indian Air Force Fleet not allowed to be the aggressor, when it was common knowledge that the IAF held an edge over the opponent from the east?
There are various reasons. The Indian administration expected the Chinese to retaliate heavily and to the highest possible degree if the IAF bombed the China mainland. The IAF was superior technologically, for it had the best of the British Fighters that included The Hunter while the Chinese held the edge if one considered the number of aircrafts. But the latter claim could be safely assumed to be of less significance as the PLAAF had only six air-strips in Tibet, the place from which the attacks on Indian were carried out. The argument was that The IAF could not afford to lose planes, which it was expecting to, if the Chinese expanded their military action to attack Indian cities as a part of the retaliation.
Some argue that this assumption was flawed because with only six air strips in Tibet, it was hard for China to even think of penetrating deep into Indian targets. In the days to come, the notion that the Indians held, that the Chinese would 'retaliate', turned out to be nothing but faulty intelligence.
The other reason for not using the IAF as an offensive force was the fear of Pakistan attacking from the west. This was indeed a real possibility which had to be taken into account.
But overall, it turned out to be a disaster, not using the IAF as an offensive force (I am forced to think that the Indian think tank, at all levels, fears crossing the International borders, even in the case when attacked upon. If you notice, a very similar situation developed in the Kargil conflict too). It should have been kept in mind that the Chinese onslaught could not have continued for long, as they were having a rough time themselves getting reinforcements for the advance. It was impossible for the Chinese army to continue operations at full-throttle with inadequate airfields along Tibet, which had been the base camp for the operations (and I like to think that this was one of the reasons that has prompted the Chinese to build a rail link to Lhasa, but that's another story).
Nehru, the then PM, turned to the US for help. The demand was for fighter (and bomber) squadrons, manned by USAF pilots only to patrol Indian mainland cities (not for action outside the borders). The US declined to provide India with combat planes. If the IAF was not using their own pilots for combat, the US was not to fight India's war, it was argued (and rightly so). What the US agreed to was to give 12 USAF transport aircrafts and an aircraft carrier in the Bay of Bengal.
Jawaharlal Nehru was not much of a military man and he failed to recognise India's military needs as early as in 1947, when he was quoted as saying, "We foresee no military threats. You can scrap the army. The police are good enough to meet our security needs."
There was much learnt after the Sino-Indian war, after which Nehru admitted the mistake and said that we have been living in an unreal world, created of our own.
And, he continued on to say that in today's world, there is no place for a weak nation.

References:1. The 1962 India-China War and Kargil 1999: Restrictions on the Use of Air Powerby R. Sukumaran 2. "You can scrap the Army" by Wing Commander (retd) R V Parasnis3. India is loosing by Dr Michael E Marti4. The Cuban Missile Crisis