Anil Ambani on Tuesday used an annual shareholders’ meeting to lay into his older brother and the government for good measure, over the issue of gas pricing which is at the heart of the most recent spat between the fighting Ambani brothers.

Anil charged Reliance Industries, India’s top private-sector conglomerate run by estranged brother Mukesh, had used every trick in the book, and some outside the book, to feed its “greed”, and was firing from the shoulder of the oil ministry that he claimed was being “partisan”.

The 90-minute diatribe livened up what threatened to be an otherwise staid shareholders’ meeting, with accusations, pleas, emotions, tears and the inevitable invocations of the father, founder Dhirubhai Ambani, whose death helped bring the feud between the two brothers out in the open. All peppered with energetic cries of support from shareholders.

The dispute next comes up for hearing at the Supreme Court on Sept. 1.

Leaving aside the legal issues, was it right for Anil to have used a shareholders’ meeting to wash the family’s dirty linens and take potshots at the government? Certainly, there are implications for the company’s earnings and therefore shareholder value. But does that make it OK to discuss a matter that is sub-judice?

The two brothers have fought before in the full glare of the media spotlight, and are quite likely to do so again. Anil has already given interviews to all major newspapers stating his stand, signalling that the gloves are off in this stage of the Ambani battle.

Is this the start of a new season for shareholders’ meetings? We’ve often bemoaned the lack of shareholder activism in India, but clearly a big family business like the Ambani’s thinks nothing of using a shareholder meeting to air grievances against a sibling.

Or is this just another example of India’s new-found affinity for voicing one’s thoughts in public? The parliament has debated whether this phenomenon - as seen in the TV show Sach ka Saamna - is against our culture, but is Anil’s outburst a sign that in corporate India at least, talking about your feelings, in front of shareholders and on TV, is acceptable?

In the end, few would have missed the irony. England, their feeble limited overs credentials torn apart after their opening defeat against Netherlands, knocking out holders India from the World Twenty20 with a brilliant execution of strategy.

India were pipped by three runs as England handed them their second defeat in the Super Eights on Sunday, eliminating them from the race for a semi-final berth.

West Indies, another team usually on the receiving end for their inconsistency, had caught the top order batsmen napping with short-pitched bowling to defeat India in their opening Super Eights fixture.

England proved they were quick learners with a near-perfect execution of a similar drill, leaving India struggling as they began chasing what appeared an achievable target of 154.

The hugely popular Indian team have turned villains overnight among fans and media back home. The Indian media has attacked skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who led the team to an unexpected win in 2007, for shuffling the team for the crunch game, for his leadership and his subdued batting.

There had been worries the players would be fatigued after the month-long Indian Premier League Twenty20 tournament. Explosive opener Virender Sehwag was then ruled out due to a shoulder injury and finally England bowlers perfectly executed their plans.

England are aiming for the unthinkable now, a semi-final spot if they can defeat West Indies on Monday.

Do India deserve heavy criticism or should we put their failure down to the unpredictable nature of cricket's shortest format?

Picture of India's Yusuf Pathan by Philip Brown

Now that India's explosive batsman Virender Sehwag has been ruled out of the World Twenty20 with a shoulder injury, at least the media have one less thing to obsess about.

The journalists travelling with the team in England had been trying to find out why Sehwag did not play, and more importantly did not open the batting, in the warm-up games or the first group fixture against Bangladesh.

Some pundits reckoned Sehwag, the vice-captain who had expressed his preference to bat in the middle-order despite his huge success as an opener, had clashed with skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni.

The captain, expected to talk up India's chances on the eve of the first game on Friday, instead paraded the entire team before the media, read out a prepared statement criticising speculation of a rift and trooped out.

The board then stayed silent until news of his injury trickled out on Tuesday.

Did the Indian board, hoping that Sehwag recovered quickly for an injury sustained in the IPL, want to keep it under wraps?

If India had openly taken an injured player, it would have complicated things if Sehwag didn't recover and the defending champions had approached the ICC to permit a replacement.

Wicketkeeper Dinesh Karthik is taking his place in the squad but how badly will Sehwag's absence affect the team?

His explosive batting would have provided the early momentum while his off-spin would have been useful as captains have turned to slow bowlers to deny batsmen the pace needed to slog boundaries.

The Delhi Daredevils IPL team captain has a cool head on his shoulders which would have been handy for Dhoni if games in the later stages had built up to frenzied finishes.

For now, talented youngster Rohit Sharma appears to be easing into Sehwag's shoes as the opening partner for Gautam Gambhir.

In the end, should Sehwag -- with two test triple hundreds as an opener -- have spoken at all about his desire to bat down the order so close to the tournament?

And should the Indian team management have come out in the open about Sehwag's injury to avoid speculation?

PHOTO: Virender Sehwag of the Delhi Daredevils hits the winning runS against Kings XI Punjab in their 2009 Indian Premier League (IPL) T20 cricket tournament match in Cape Town, April 19, 2009. Behind is Kings XI Punjab's Kumar Sangakkara. REUTERS/Mike Hutchings