Sports
This is not cricket at all…
The altercation between Andrew Symonds and Harbhajan Singh and the subsequent three-match ban handed out to Harbhajan by the ICC has left a bad taste. What’s worse? That the Australian cricket team, as alleged by many bloggers, journalists and cricket enthusiasts, played with not 11 but 13 players, including the two umpires. Let’s get this straight. Andrew Symonds is not the only black player in the world. In fact, the entire West Indian team, most of the Kenyan team and some members of the South African team are dark-skinned. Why is it that nobody has ever lodged complaints against any player for racial abuse ever before? This could imply one of two things: 1) Symonds is so ashamed of his skin colour that he makes it a point to talk about it at every available opportunity, or 2) that he is hyper-sensitive and any remark made to him or about him is taken as a racist remark. Either way, what has been done to Harbhajan is grossly unjust. If Harbhajan must be pulled up for un-gentlemanly behaviour on the field, so must Symonds, and the rest of the Australian team. After all, dishing out bad language and name-calling is a standard practice with them. So, how is it fair that while Harbhajan faces a three-match ban, Symonds gets away scot-free inspite of insulting, not just Harbhajan but also his mother and sister?
Practically every newspaper has published what Harbhajan said to Symonds (allegedly called him a monkey), while no paper has published what Symonds said to provoke this kind of (certainly unacceptable) behaviour by Harbhajan. Apparently, Symonds remarks to Harbhajan were unprintable and entirely objectionable. Coming to the racism part, while calling someone a monkey is definitely not acceptable on a cricket field, it does not amount to racism. Are the Australian cricketers descendants of dinosaurs, unlike the rest of humanity? What of Ponting and Symonds, and the rest of the Australian team whose full-time occupation is to mount psychological pressure on the opponents by taunting and name-calling? Is that acceptable behaviour on a cricket ground? If what Bhajji did was wrong, what Symonds and Ponting did was wrong too. On the field, the umpires practically took Ponting at his word while judging Ganguly and Dravid out. Clarke clearly grounded the ball but Ganguly was given out anyway. Dravid’s bat was behind his body and well out of the way, but he was adjudged caught behind anyway. Is this cricket? To me, it most certainly is not. What is happening in Australia, both on the field and off it, is just plain dirty. There are no two ways of putting it.
As if all this is not enough, the Sydney Morning Herald published a column on 5th January, claiming that the Indian Cricket Team is a personal fiefdom of Brahmins and that other castes are deliberately kept out because they are not “upper-caste.” I have just one question to ask of Andrew Stevenson. Who the f*** are you to be judgemental of India and its society? Thankfully, Salil Tripathi is around to set the record right, giving information and arguments I would never have been capable of giving. I shall, however, try my best. Stevenson calls India a caste-conscious and heirarchy-ridden society. He claims that within the Indian cricket team, players form groups based on what caste they come from. Tell me something. Does anyone bother to ask for the caste of the person who works with us. Does anyone know to what caste our drivers, maids, vegetable vendors, colleagues, or even neighbours and friends belong? Left to ourselves, we would forget caste and just do our work. As I have said before, the only domain in which caste still plays a major role is marriage. So, as long as Sachin Tendulkar is not planning to marry off his daughter to his teammate’s son, how does caste matter?
What irks me most is that Stevenson occupies the moral high ground while analysing the impact of caste on Indian cricket. Judging from the way the Aussies behaved, both on field and off it, over the paste 3 days, they have no business being judgemental about India and its society. We, as Indians, have not forgotten how Dr. Mohammed Haneef was thrown into jail on a mere suspicion and kept inside for ages. When he finally managed to get bail, the then Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, revoked his visa, labelled him an illegal immigrant and sent him back to prison. Only a change of government has permitted Dr. Haneef to get his visa reinstated. Should we slam Australia for being racist then? During my many conversations with Nita, I have heard horror stories of racial and ethnic discrimination in Australia. Should I then write an article in an Indian newspaper saying that Australia is the most racist country in the world after apartheid-era South Africa? So, Mr. Stevenson, listen to this. Get off your moral high ground and set your own house in order before criticising us. And judge our cricket team by its results and not by its caste composition. And while you are at it, let the team play cricket. Your gamesmanship and slander have no place in what was once a gentleman’s game.
Randomness… and the Ram debate too!
Yay!! India are the new Twenty20 World Champions! It’s unbelievable… I was crossing my fingers and hoping they don’t go and mess this up. It seems my wishes do come true sometimes. 🙂 Anyway, what I really wanted to write about is rather more serious than India becoming World Champions. The ruckus at the BJP’s Tamil Nadu office yesterday is condemnable. I said, in a post a few days ago, that mixing up faith, fact, myth, economics and politics is just plain dirty. While I still stick to that statement, I feel that politicians would do well to refrain from commenting on things they don’t understand. Yes, I am talking about our esteemed Chief Minister’s comments that Ram is as imaginary a character as those in his novels, and that he was a drunkard. While myth and legend can certainly not be proved or disproved by historians and archaeologists, we would do well to remember that people do not simply cease to believe in the myth one day.
A politician’s claim that a revered Hindu God is both imaginary and a drunkard is condemnable. I believe in Ram. Not in his existence as an individual, but in the sway he holds over millions of devout Hindus across the world. If I choose to believe that Ram existed in the Treta Yuga and that he was of divine descent, so be it. Who is a State Chief Minister, who owes both his position and his authority to the millions of believers like me who elected him to call me an idiot? I agree that the right to free speech is fundamental in any democracy. But, my freedom of expression only goes as far as my neighbour’s ear. If my statement hurts another in any way, or strikes at the root of his religious belief, I automatically lose the right to free speech. If this holds true for a normal citizen like me, it should rightfully hold true for the Chief Minister too. After all, in a democracy, all are equal.
The question now, is one of economics, not religion or politics. Will the Sethusamudram Project benefit India in the long run? If so, there is no question that it must continue. The existence of Ram or our belief in it is not the Chief Minister’s business. That said, I also came across a news item (I can’t find the link now…), where a senior DMK leader has exhorted his party men to behead anyone who dares to talk about Ram or his existence. Now, I will say exactly what I please. Why the hell should anyone kill me for expressing my religious beliefs? Are we really living in a democracy. Yesterday’s television images of DMK party men vandalising the BJP office and declaring to kill anyone who believes in Ram on camera was shocking. These scenes remind me of Poet Subramanya Bharati’s statement, “Pey aatchi seythaal pinam thinnum saathirangal.” A bad translation of the line would be “When demons rule, the law eats corpses.” That seems to be an apt description of what is going on with the Ram debate in Tamil Nadu. Why must I fear for my life if I am a believing Hindu? Isn’t India supposed to be a secular state? Or is secularism just symbolic? I don’t know. I have many questions…and no answers…
Mobile phones, cricket and much more…
Before you start wondering what the connection is between mobile phones and cricket, let me clarify…NOTHING. I simply have two unrelated things to say and did not want to publish twice on the same day. Ok…mobile phones first. I have been obsessed with mobile phones lately. The introduction of the new MotoRazr2 (V9) did nothing to diminish it. I don’t pretend to be an expert in mobile phone technology, but the MotoRazr sure has a special place in my heart. Maybe because it was the first mobile phone I actually had a choice in buying. I remember going with my dad to buy my very first mobile phone in December 2003. I had just started working at the Alliance Francaise and Dad had agreed to buy me a phone on the condition that I would pay the bill. As he was not very happy with having to buy me a phone, he settled for the cheapest available model, a Sony Ericsson T105. It was a rather boring phone that one could use for nothing other than making calls and sending text messages. Just my luck that it stayed with me for nearly 21 months, until August 2005.
Then came the Nokia 3120. I did not want that phone. I wanted to go out and choose a decent one myself so that I did not have to embarrass myself with the T105 in France. In fact, I was not even sure it would work there. My aunt chose to surprise me with a new phone and went out and purchased the said Nokia. It lasted exactly a year. It conked out the minute its warranty expired. I have no idea why. After using a borrowed phone for a couple of months I decided enough was enough. I wanted a proper phone, one that I would be proud to own. And it turned out to be a MotoRazr. It’s been 9 months since I bought it, and I have not had a single complaint so far. That is why I was so excited when I learnt that Motorola was launching an upgraded version in the MotoRazr2 (V9). I don’t care what more it can do and how different it is from the V3i that I own. I am totally in love with the way it looks and am wishing someone would offer to buy it for me as a birthday gift. 😛
That said, I come to cricket. The semi-finals of the T20 World Cup is currently under way. I am praying, like millions of other Indians, that India beat Australia in this match. But you never know. The Indian team has the habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in crucial matches. While I am a supporter of the Indian team, my desire to see India win goes beyond patriotism. To be truthful, I am sick and tired of Australia winning all the time. A good game needs to see some decent competition. I wish India would fell the giant and get to the finals. It would be sensational to see India play Pakistan in the finals of the T20 World Cup. Personally, I prefer the longer 50-over version of cricket. Watching a match of T20 feels like watching a match of football disguised as cricket. The feeling was reinforced when I heard that there is something similar to a penalty shoot-out if a match is tied. Anyway, to each one his own. T20 is here to stay and it generates interest. Let’s see what happens to Team India in the T20 World Cup…
Chak de…India!!
Today, I watched a movie. Nothing special about that. But, the movie in itself was rather special. Those in India must have heard of Chak de…India, a movie with Shahrukh Khan in the lead. To cut a long story short, the movie was worth watching. More on that a little later. Before that, I would like to reply to a comment on my previous post on Biharis and politics. My esteemed reader tells me I should refrain from commenting on things I do not fully understand, with reference to my comment that Tamil and Hindi are as different from one another as English and Russian. I also said that the differences between Maithili and Hindi cannot be compared to those that exist between Tamil and Hindi. I said this, not with the intention of downplaying the importance of the regional languages, Maithili and Bhojpuri, but with the intention of highlighting the fact the Tamil has an origin and development entirely different from that of Hindi. Secondly, when the reader says I must refrain from talking about what I do not understand, I am amused rather than insulted. The reader does not know me. Nor does he/she make an effort to ask. I will only say I understand linguistics and language development better than most average people. The reasons behind that are many. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain each of them here. Those who know me will know why.
Ok. On to Chak de. The movie was, for want of a better word, refreshing. Amid the hype and drama of the ICL-BCCI tussle, it highlights an oft-neglected issue. That of the quagmire in which women’s hockey finds itself. It tackles such issues as the neglect of women’s sport in general, the national preference for cricket over hockey, the determination of the men (and sometimes women) in charge to make life as difficult for sportswomen as possible and the feeling of belonging to a state team rather the Indian national team. And it tackles these issues realistically. It shows the human side of both the coach and the players. It tells the tale of women who show the world that they can do more than just cook. It is not a feminist story. It is a very motivating one. I don’t remember the last time I came out a movie theatre so satisfied with a film. This one filled me with a sense of relief that Hindi Cinema is finally trying to break out of the song-and-dance routine. May the attempt be successful.
cricket….a game? or…?
This “Black Saturday” I am back, blogging about something I feel must be said, especially in the context of India’s loss against Sri Lanka in the last league match of the first round of the ICC Cricket World Cup 2007. First, I admit I am more than just disappointed at India’s dismal performance in the tournament. Second, I personally think that Bangladesh deserved the victory against India in the first match. After all, they played well. And after all, India were the underdogs when they won the Cup in 1983. Every cricketing team comes of age at some point in time. And this World Cup, it was Bangladesh’s turn.
This said, one would do well to remember that cricket is a sport. It must be treated as such. My happiness does not hinge on the fluctuating fortunes of the Indian cricket team. India’s loss, while certainly disheartening, is far from being the most serious thing to worry about in today’s world. The loss of the Indian team in a game, is just that, a loss in a game where the better team prevails. It is not the end of the world, nor is it a matter of life and death, except maybe for the betting mafia that makes money off it.
This is precisely why the behaviour of the average Indian cricket fan not only baffles, but also greatly saddens me. Why do we have to vandalise Dhoni’s property because he was out for a duck in one match of one tournament? Why do we either deify or demonise our players? There are no shades of grey in our approach to them. They are either omnipotent, all-conquering gods, or they are the ultimate representation of evil and must be done away with. Are they not human too? Do they not deserve to be treated as such?
Another issue that must be addressed is the magnitude of the loss and its repurcussions on the cricketing world. One Economic Times article suggested that the team must pack its bags and bow out of international cricket altogether. This suggestion is both unfair and premature. It is one tournament. Not the end of the world. The very same “analysts” suggested, with great enthusiasm that India were well on their way to winning the Cup for the first time in 24 years, after resounding victories in the warm-up matches. Has the world changed so drastically in a fortnight that the Men in Blue must pack up and hang their boots, and possibly look for alternative careers as lorry drivers and cooks, as one email forward suggested of the Pakistani team? Oh cmon guys!! Its a game. And let us treat it as such.