Keeper of the Stars


It was no accident me finding you
Someone had a hand in it
Long before we ever knew
Now I just can't believe you're in my life
Heaven's smilin' down on me
As I look at you tonight

Soft moonlight on your face oh how you shine
It takes my breath away
Just to look into your eyes
I know I don't deserve a treasure like you
There really are no words
To show my gratitude

I tip my hat to the keeper of the stars
He sure knew what he was doin'
When he joined these two hearts
I hold everything
When I hold you in my arms
I've got all I'll ever need
Thanks to the keeper of the stars

Indian Society Of Natural Volunteers (ISONAVA) is a volunteery organization which helps foreign tourists in India and also fight to save nature. The Organization was formed in 1984 with 8 members, now this organization has over 4000 members across India. ISONAVA has published more than 70 magazines and has sold more than 1 miilion copies. ISONAVA also distributes free travel guides to foreign tourists in India.

In the beginning of 80's Co founder of organization S.N. Gupta used to write articles on his experiences of Garhwal region of Uttaranchal State of India. He used to wrote articles for the newspaper Navbharat Times Sunday's Edition. He used to live with the co founder of organization JP Narayan. They were very good friends and had travelled across India togather. In their trips across India they met hundreds of foreign tourists while travelling and get to know problemes they faces while travelling India. Inspired by this both decided to make a organization to protect Nature and boost Indian Tourism by helping foreign tourists in India.
Both of them used to work for Council Of Scientific and Industrial Reseach (CSIR) office Central Electronics Engineering Institute (CEERI) Delhi's branch office. When their collegues heard this idea six of them decided to join the organization. This way ISONAVA started in the year 1984.
In the early days they used to go every house and ask them to protect Nature. Impressed by their Idea and organization by the start of 1985 ISONAVA members increased from 8 to 50. In the upcoming years members increased from 50 to 300.
In 1987 they decided to give foreign tourists in Delhi a free guide to travel Delhi, which included good places to eat, places to stay Bus No to reach various places etc. First they used to write guides on ordinary papers. They used to write guides in 4 languages English, Spanish, French and Italian. They used to write guides till late in the night. All meetings of ISONAVA used to be held either at CEERI or one of the member Rajendra Singh Minhas who was an sports teacher in a School used to arrange classroom for weekends for meetings.
In 1988 ISONAVA took a step further by publishing their very first magazing ISONAVA. Organization had very hard time to arrange funds for magazine, they sold some of their slides to Natural Meuseum of Delhi to arrange funds to print magazine. They published 5000 copies of their first magazine. The very first print was framed and still hanging on the wall of their office.
By the start of 90's ISONAVA were helping foreign tourists in getting a place to stay, good food to eat, some members used to provide foreign tourists of low budget place to stay at their own house. In 1996 efforts of ISONAVA was appricited by Tourism Department of India by Honouring them with Tourism award. By the year 2000 ISONAVA had over 2000 members.

The Idea of making a travel guide website of India was first proposed on 15 Annievarsary of ISONAVA in year 1999. At that time most of the members were not interest in this idea. It took 3 years to convince members and finally ISONAVA's travel website EasyDestination.net was launched ni January 2003. But it was only after 2005 Easydestination got regular visitors. Website slowly but started to become popular but webiste was criticised for lack of quality element and only the reputation of ISONAVA was carried the website. EasyDestination was recognised by Tourism Department Of India in 2005 which was highly criticised by other travel websites. It was in the year 2006 when lots of problems in website were fixed and later that year it was also recognised by World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). In 2007 Easy Destination came in full control of Gupta family and by the end of year it achieved 1 million visitors per month according to web traffic rankings.

Some play for records some for fame some for money but there is a man who plays cricket for entertaining, Yes the greatest batsman today Adam Gilchrist.

Gradually, the greatest team of cricketers to have played the game is breaking up. Warne, McGrath, Langer and Martyn are gone and to their list is now added Adam Gilchrist, the man who redefined the idea that a wicketkeeper should only need to be a skilled glovesman, yet who batted for almost all his Test career at No 7, when any other side would have placed a batsman of his calibre in the top five.

Heroes are inevitably soon replaced by new heroes, who ease the pain of their parting. Australia will find another match-winning spinner before long; in Stuart Clark they have another Glenn McGrath; they have no shortage of excellent batsmen. Yet for all the promise of Gilchrist's likely successors, Brad Hadden, Luke Ronchi or whoever, it is hard to see there being another wicketkeeper out there who can average over 50, as Gilchrist did.

By his brilliance with the bat, married to an undoubted reliability with the gloves, Gilchrist created an idea of what a wicketkeeper should be that few have lived up to, especially in this country. Would Chris Read have played 60 Tests for England by now if it wasn't for Gilchrist? Would Alec Stewart be regarded as a brilliant wicketkeeper-batsman because he averaged almost 40 when he was keeper, rather than a nearly man?

There are so many memories of Gilchrist as a player that stand out - winning a World Cup final with a squash ball stuffed in his glove to improve his batting; his 152 at Edgbaston in 2001 that set up an innings win and got the Ashes off to a bad start for England; his double hundred - at a run a ball! - in Johannesburg as Australia beat South Africa by the astounding matter of an innings

Yet I want to share two memories of Gilchrist the man, because they reveal much about his character. He was not a typical Aussie cricketer. Competitive, yes, but he had a reputation too as a gentleman, an honourable man, one who always regarded playing for Australia as the most immense privilege. In a series when questions have been raised about the spirit of the game, Gilchrist always played in the right spirit.

He had a reputation as a walker and I remember when Australia arrived in England in 2005 for the Ashes, Gilchrist was cheekily asked at a press conference if that good attitude would stand in a close series. If it comes down to the Oval, he was asked, and England need one wicket to win the Ashes, and you get a thin edge behind, would you walk? He paused, smiled and then said: "Ahh mate, if those were the circumstances, there's no way I'd have edged it." He meant - and certainly it was taken this way by all the journalists - that far from feigning innocence to the umpire, he would simply not have played such a rash stroke.

The other memory comes from a week earlier on that tour. As they had in 2001, when Australia visited Gallipolli on the way to England, a team-bonding trip was planned, this time to the war graves and trenches of Normandy. I went along for The Times that day and wrote in this piece how I was moved by the occasion. It was a grim, grey day and the players walked sombrely between the rows of white tombstones. There was no larking about, just solemn reflection of how privileged they were to be representing the same country as these real heroes.

They stood by the war memorial at Villers-Bretonneaux, where Gilchrist was asked to read Lawrence Binyon's ode for the fallen. He was the ideal choice: a prime example of "mateship" yet also a dignified figurehead for modern Australia. He was the statesman of the team. And at the going down of the sun and in the morning, we cricket lovers everywhere shall remember him.

World will forget Sachin they have already forgotten Lara but world will never forget the great Adam Gilchrist - A true Cricketer because cricket is not about creating records but to entertain million people watching. He is everything good about this wonderful sport Cricket.

Good Bye Gilly. Thank You for wonderful memories thank you for honesty thank you for playing cricket for people like me who wants to be entertain. Records are broken and forgotten but people like Gilly Stays in our heart forever.

If you look closely at Muralidaran's test scalps, he has taken a truckload of wickets against some of the worst cricketing nations in the world - namely Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (over 150) and also against countries who are in 'rebuild mode' from former greatness such as the West Indies, Pakistan and India.  As well as that, Muralidaran plays a lot of cricket in the sub-continent where pitches are deliberately prepared for spin.

If you compare that against Shane Warne's record, the majority of his test wickets came against, shall we say, much harder teams such as England and South Africa.  He has taken hardly any wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (17 all up) - because Australia hardly play against them.  Warne was able to bowl well and take wickets on any pitch type - regardless as to how it had been prepared.  Warne was a game breaker, a specialist, a champion !

To top it off, Muralidaran is a fair dinkum chucker with the dodgiest action in the history of test cricket.  Seriously, I reckon I could take 10-for in a match against Bangladesh too if I was allowed to chuck !!

It would have at least been nice to see Warnie's record stand for a decade or so before being broken to give it the due respect it so well deserved.  And when it was eventually broken - to be broken by a player who was worthy.  I remember when Dennis Lillee broke Richie Benaud's record - that was well deserved by a champion bowler who truly earned it.  And when Richard Hadlee broke Denis Lillee's record.... again, well deserved.

I don't think Muralidaran's record comes anywhere near Warne's - regardless as to whether he has taken more wickets or not.

There has been much talk in the press after the just-concluded ODI series in India, about the Australian cricket team and their behaviour. Behaviour is a broad term - everything from comments made by individual players in the press to comments made (allegedly) by them on the field have been the subject of discussion. This is a peculiar relationship - for on the one hand we seem to find nothing good about the Australians, and yet, which is the one team which Indian fans would like India to be like? Australia. Every shortcoming - real or percieved is attributed first to the Indian "system". This is followed by offering the the Australian "system" as an example of how things should be. "They have an assembly line of players", "their system makes them a strong team" - "we should field like the Australians", "we should drop our batsmen and bowlers and replace them with players who can field like the Australians do".... and other refrains are one stop solutions to the "problems" that plague Indian Cricket.

Yet, in terms of behaviour, the "ugly" Australians are not good role models. This seems to become the accepted point of view every time they hammer us (and defeat some of our weaker players in the mind). Our crowds try to impose from the stands what our players cannot with bat and ball. In doing so we end up revealing ourselves in the worst possible light. We end up losing not just the game of cricket, but our self-respect along with it. Andrew Symonds came to India, batted like a God, toyed with the Indian attack and won the series for his team. The best we could offer was a racist taunt in what is supposedly the cricket capital of India. Clearly, the ugliness lies on our side of the boundary rope.

It is my contention that nearly all of the general reactions to the Australians are without basis. The Australians are no better or worse than any other team in terms of on-field behaviour. Their success has little to do with their "system", just as our defeats have little to do with ours. The aspiration to be like the Australians is in my view unrealistic as well, especially if it means looking, behaving and playing like them. The first suggestion is in my view self evident if you accept that winners usually have more to say than losers. Since the Australians win more, they eventually have a better record to defend and therefore have more to say. So when Ponting says that Australia "want to win every game, and will aim to do in India as well" - he's merely stating what is a fairly realistic goal for this Australian side. When his players make pointed observations about the opposition, they put their records on the line, and nearly always back up their words with bat and ball. So they win more, and they say more...... and everybody hates their guts. It doesn't mean they are "ugly" - it means that they are successful.

My second contention probably goes against the grain much more fundamentally. The Australians are a "great" team. Their success is down to this greatness rather than to any method. They are blessed with once in a generation players in atleast 5 different positions - making them a hard team to beat on the best of days. Gilchrist, Ponting, Hayden, McGrath and Warne are all very special players and Australia have been lucky to see them emerge at the same time. The lasting impact of this kind of quality is that other players aspire to be like them. They create models of extraordinary success - breaking new ground and setting new, higher standards. It has happened in India as well. Tendulkar emerged and changed the whole outlook of batting in India - from Gavaskarean orthodoxy (Sandeep Patil and other aggressive batsmen were viewed with less than total favor, even though their talent was beyond question) to a more aggressive model of batsmanship. He pioneered modern one day batting in India and in the last few years, aggressive opening batsmen are dime a dozen.

Do "great" teams emerge from great systems? There is no evidence to suggest this. The great West Indian teams of the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's emerged inspite of the fact that no "West Indian" system existed. Players emerged from their local clubs - raw, ridiculously gifted, hungry for success, and honed their skills in English county and league cricket. Was English county cricket as a system producing great English teams, while it was shaping great West Indian teams and tremendous Pakistani talent? No. The West Indian greatness was down to the extraordinary gifts of a handful of cricketers. They were lucky enough to see these players emerge with regularity for nearly 25 years. When that talent dried up, especially in the fast bowling department - West Indian decline set in. If systems were all that were required to produce "great" cricket teams, then the current English team, with their supremely well honed system should have been atleast as good as the Australians. But they are not - not by a long way. If systems were all that were required to produce quality, then England had no business losing to India (no system whatsoever) this summer, even without Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison. Was Bradman's team of 1948 the product of a "system"? Bradman himself was nearly 40 years old at the time - no "system" would have allowed a 40 year old to captain a cricket team on an important tour.

"Systems" keep teams competitive at best. "Great" teams are the product of great, extraordinary talent. This is what we can learn from the Australians. Australia's lesson to the world is not about "winning" - it is about the wonderful value of talent. India cannot be Australia or Bradman's invincibles or Lloyd's West Indies - those are fake targets. The results India achieve are commensurate with the ability that they possess in their ranks.

Getting riled up about insufferable Australian behaviour is pointless. We can take heart from the fact that it is almost certain that every Australian fast bowler will not be McGrath, that every Australian batsman will not be Ponting and that every Australian wicketkeeper will not be Gilchrist. At the same time we must remember that every Indian batsman will not be Tendulkar. This is what sustains sport and keeps it interesting, especially for those who follow it for its own sake, and not out of any patriotic angst.

Australia will inevitably climb down from their current lofty perch. Will we then claim to want to be like the crack "system" of the post-Australian era? Or will we sit back and enjoy the amazing talent showcased in international cricket, without obsessing about India winning?

Are we missing the whole point of sport by insisting that India should win every time? When this drives us round the bend to the point where we collectively abuse opposition cricketers, does the "passion" show signs of going sour?

If we can begin to address these questions, instead of splitting hair about the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the Mumbai crowds behaviour, or racism and other such loaded concepts, we might just have learnt the most valuable lesson that the Aussies have to offer.

A superficial analysis of the numbers might suggest that Murali has the edge. But then you need to remember that Murali's figures are padded by the fruits of no fewer than 25 tests against hapless Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (Warne has a total of three tests against such feeble competition). Secondly, Wanre's record away from home is just as good as his record at home; Murali is less effective away from the comforts of Sri Lankan wickets. Thirdly, their records when they confront the world's best players of spin in India are broadly similar. You can make an eminently defensible case for either man.

But the question of whether Warne is a better bowler than Murali or vice-versa is the wrong one. Of course, it's the only one you can really ask if you want to have a debate since if you were to wonder which of them is the greater bowler there is only once credible, sensible answer: Shane Keith Warne.

Numbers play a part in establishing greatness of course, but they can't tell the full story. There are players whose statistical records struggle to bear witness to the full extent of their greatness (Keith Miller is one obvious example that comes to mind, even though his figures are pretty damn impressive in themselves). Numbers aren't enough.

Warne is without doubt the greatest and most important cricketer of my lifetime. Though the art of leg-spin had been kept alive by Abdul Quadir and Mushtaq Ahmed in Pakistan and by a number of journeyman Australians, it took Shane Warne's genius to show that leg-spin - the greatest and most romantic form of spin there is - was no mere frippery or luxury but that it could be a deadly match-winning weapon even in less than perfect conditions.

Warne made spin possible again, demonstrating the absurdity of the attitude - especially prevalent when England were skippered by dullards such as Bob Willis and Grahame Gooch - that spin bowling was too risky, too unpredictable, too idiosyncratic to be relied upon. A fast bowler could be smashed for a couple of boundaries and it was nothing to be worried about; a spinner suffering such a fate would immediately b hauled out of the attack. That thinking led to the drudgery of picking four identical fast medium bowlers all the time. 

Warne's freakish command and control raised him above all those who would emulate him of course, but his efforts dismantled this dreary, anti-spin mentality. (Granted, some of it still lingers, at least in England, where until Monty Panesar's emergence spin bowlers were expected to justify their selection by means of their usefulness as a batman; a criteria never ever imposed upon quick bowlers, no matter their own shortcomings with ball in hand). Warne changed the way we thought about the game and changed it for the better. In his own way, then, he was a revolutionary.

And, of course, there is the other matter that no-one really wants to talk about: the unfortunate fact that Murali, through no fault of his own (thanks to that defective arm) is a chucker. It's a sad business, made worse by the ICC's refusal to do anything about it, but I don't quite see how you can talk about these two bowlers' respective merits without mentioning that it requires a charitable interpretation of the laws to call one of them a bowler at all. What Murali does with the ball is remarkable but, IMHO, it merits a mental asterisk.

Mind you, I might have to revise this opinion in the unlikely event that Murali can take the Aussies down a peg or two this month...

UPDATE: Commenter Matt chides me for not pointing out that though Warne has fewer matches against NZ and Bangladesh, he has played more tests than Murali. True, which is why I think it is possible to build a statistical case supporting Murali. But that's rather the point isn't it? The numbers are a useful but insufficient pointer to greatness.

As for wickets-per-test figures, how do you factor in the fact that Sri Lanka have generally speaking relied upon Murali whereas Warne had to compete for wickets against Glenn McGrath et al? Alternatively you might say that batsmen rarely had a breather against Australia, ensuring that they always felt pressure - and were hence liable to crack at any time - whereas Murali had to carry the Sri Lankans all the time (no disrespect to Chaminda Vass, mind you). I suspect that's a wash.

He used to take a couple of months off at the end of each season, so another few months won’t make a big difference. Two or three years might have done. It’s a win-win situation: Ferrari gains from his expertise and he enjoys it. And you can never rule out a comeback… Alan Jones.

Is he missing racing? The answer is probably yes. Doing competitive lap times probably satisfies his feeling and he’s happy he is still competitive. Mika Hakkinen.

Many drivers have taken time out of Formula One, only to return a year or two later and claim another crown. It must be very satisfying to know that even after a break, you can still mix it with the new faces and defeat them on the tarmac. Niki Lauda famously took time out in 1980 and ‘81, and when he returned in ‘83 in a McLaren, he proved he could still win races. In 1984, the Austrian took his third and final championship title.

Both Nigel Mansell and Alain Prost took sabbaticals as well, Mansell in 1993 and Prost in 1992. Mansell left the sport after winning his only title in a Williams. He went to America and raced in the CART IndyCar series, taking the title and becoming the only driver to hold both crowns simultaneously. However, after the tragic events at San Marino in 1994, Williams convinced the Briton to return to fill the gap left by Ayrton Senna. Mansell famously won the final meeting of the year, despite initially struggling to keep up with his younger rivals. In 1995 and feeling confident, Mansell decided to join McLaren, but not being able to fit in the car, he couldn’t race until the third round. After just two events, Mansell retired again, complaining of the McLaren’s woeful handling characteristics.

Alain Prost’s comeback from a year out proved to be much more successful than his British rival’s. Prost took 1992 off, freeing up Mansell to take the title for himself. However, Williams convinced Prost to return in 1993 and the French driver took the championship after a dominating campaign of seven wins, three seconds and two thirds. However, Senna regularly challenged Prost in an inferior car and The Professor knew his time was up. Leaving Formula One contributed to the return of Mansell, the two careers intertwined not too dissimilarly as Prosts and Sennas.

So clearly, a return to the cockpit could prove successful for Michael Schumacher. He looks as though he hasn’t lost any of his spirit and I imagine testing the F2007 will have brought a satisfying smile to his face. Particularly the ability for Michael to still set quality times. But would a Schumacher return be good for the sport? Bernie Ecclestone seems to think so, stating various times this year that he would like to see Schumacher on the grid again. Perhaps Bernie is just thinking of audience numbers, but it would undoubtedly boost Formula One’s appeal across the world. However, should Schumacher return, the already crowded arena will be made worse. Currently we have just eleven teams lining up for Australia in 2008, but we have way more than 22 drivers vying for seats. And if Ferrari were allow their golden child back into the monocoque, which one gets the boot?

From the rest of the field’s perspective, I imagine they would like to see Schumacher return. Either they’ll get to trounce all over the weary old dog, or enjoy another chance to do battle with the old master. Either way, they would be in a win-win situation. Unless of course, Schumacher completely dominates the season again, 2002-stylee.

Personally, I’m not so sure I would like to see Schumacher back in racing trim again. The German driver perhaps left at the wrong time, but now he has gone, Formula One has moved on. It is like the sport has progressed into a new era, and waiting in the wings are new race winners and title contenders. I would like to see BMW start to win races, Honda and Renault to make a return to the front, Lewis Hamilton’s team mate to be given a chance to win (assuming he will be a non-winner to start with) and I would like to see Felipe Massa and Kimi Raikkonen battle each other over race wins on a more regular basis. I feel, perhaps unwarranted, that if Schumacher returned, we may not see this because of the dominance he could bring to Ferrari again.

But I’m not necessarily asking myself the question. I’m going to ask you. Would you want to see Michael Schumacher return to competitive Formula One racing? Let me know in the comments below.

Shopping online can be very relieving, cheaper and time-saving as long as it is done safely but it can just as well become quite risky.There are, however, a few tips that the Federal Trade Commission, according to North Jersey magazine, has offered to those engaging online shopping.

Be acquainted with the producer/seller. Get a confirmation of the online seller's physical address and phone number should you have questions or difficulties. Acknowledge that genuine companies never ask for personal data in an e-mail or pop-up message. Such messages should be ignored.

Be acquainted with the product. Do not rush into buying something you know too little about, look careful for a detailed description of it. Some terms used in such descriptions should be subjected to circumspection and close examination, for example, "too-good-to-be-true" prices which may very well indicate forged.

Be acquainted with the price. Do not buy without looking into price comparison on Web sites. To be given the best consumer protections, pay not with cash but with a credit card.

Be interested in the terms of the deal, such as refund policies and delivery dates. Know very well the seller's return and refund policies. Sellers are obliged by the FTC to deliver products as promised or within 30 days after the order date if no such precise date is specified.

Keep trace and records of any online transactions you make, such as description and price of the product, the online receipt and copies of correspondence with the seller. Pay great attention to your credit card statements when you are requested for such.

One thing you cannot be overcareful with is your personal information. You must never use e-mail as a method for sending financial information like your credit card number, checking account or Social Security number. If you wish to make any payment via an organization's Web site, try to find indicators that the site is protected such as a lock icon on the browser's status bar or a URL that starts "https." The s means secure.

Always search for the privacy policy. Normally, you should be told what personal information is collected from you, with what purpose and how that information will be used. If such privacy policy is not to be found or is hardly comprehensible – you may want to redirect your search to another site.