Foreign critics can never get over the fact that Indians do not mind India losing a match as long as Sachin Tendulkar scores a century. This a true trait of any cricket loving Indian. So it is quite ironical that when Sachin gets his hundredth century, India loses the match. Also his entire approach towards his century which was scored against Bangladesh actually epitomizes his entire cricket career which has been typified by brilliance in art and greed for personal gain. That he is brilliant cannot be denied for scoring so many runs at this age is quite incomparable. But, his attitude has always been to play for himself and his own fame. Notice how he has always batted when he wanted to. In one day matches he would open, or else these records would never be achieved. In test cricket he would not open and would let Sehwag or Gambhir take the shine off. He would come when he wanted. He gave up captaincy when it was convenient. So it was but natural that he struggled for his own record for a whole well for a whole year. The institution that is Tendulkar is so strong and can never be challneged. He is one cricketer who can never be thrown out, because the entire nation will flare up if it is done. This is Indian nationalism.
In a lighter manner it was said that Sachin should play Bangladesh to get the magical hundred, and that is how it happened. Curiously, India was out of the tournament by virtue of losing the match against Bangladesh where he dug in to score his ton, while others showed that the wicket was not difficult to bat on if one did not think of their own record. Honestly, the Board should ask Sachin to go. No other cricketing board will tolerate such selfish play especially so since India was knocked out of the tournament on this score.
Or Sachin should at least apologize to the nation. He has been very selfish all these years or else for any person with self respect one would find it hard to mingle with theother ten players knowing that everyone silently agrees that Sachin lost the Asia Cup for the country. But to say anything about Sachin is heresy. With the sponsors locking in a huge amount in his brand, not having him play would spell doomsday for the entire set of advertisers and the BCCI.
Someone should start asking the questions.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Are we mis-using our rights?
The right to protest is a 'fundamental right' in a free society which is part of 'right to speech'. This is the core of a democracy in which we as Indians supposedly live. This is something all of us agree with. But, what happens when we violate these rules?
The recent fracas over the killing of some people belonging to the peasant community near Pune by the police is just one such incident that raises this broader debate on the use and mis-use of freedom of expression. In fact, this problem is not germane to just India as the London riots are also similar in nature. Let us not get into the the matter of how the people were shot dead by the police as the media reports, which is the only source of information, will provide a view which is largely sympathetic to the farmers.
We are always made to believe that when the police kills some people, it is unnecessary and that they should do nothing while they are stoned or when vehicles are other property are damaged in the name of giving vent to anger. Is this right? It has become a bad habit these days to have ourselves heard by violating the space of the public in terms of causing inconvenience or damaging property. This holds for bandhs too where the rioters can burn cars and shops and the cops are not supposed to do anything except try and arrest some of them who will anyway come out on bail to repeat such offences. What happens to the people who are affected by such inconvenience? Nothing really because no one cares.
The right to demonstrate is something which should be allowed but it should not go beyond a limit where it encroaches on other people's rights to live. If the Mumbai-Pune highway is being held up on account of such a demonstration, which causes pain to all those using the road, then surely, action is sought from the police. Who pays for the damage to the vehicles during such a protest? Certainly not the protesters. If the cops do not take stringent action, then it looks like that they are supporting the protesters. We would then say that they are inefficient or ineffective. But, if they do resort ot firing, then it looks inhuman (though no one asks whether the protesters were being human to the other affected people on the road). Therefore, how does one draw the line? This has been a raging problem in England too where the cops are not quite sure as to what should be done to quell the protest.
Quite clearly we need to draw a line somewhere. Demonstrating in public spaces is permissible provided it does not intrude on others' spaces. There are spots for holding such rallies. However, the moment it gets disruptive, we need laws that are merciless as the job of the police is to protect the people from an assault of their spaces. This is the only way that we can stop such incidents from happening. Today people who make a nuisance of themselves know very well that while burning public property as an individual means judicial action, the same done along with a group of people actually attracts public sympathy. Today it could be farmers protesting, tomorrow it would be some other group that feels aggrieved. But the final result is coming in the way of the larger public which should not be permitted.
We need to seriously debate this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)