Madness over cricket!
Sinna Mani
over South Asia even though in the West Indies, this madness seems to be
diminishing among the younger generations in preference for other more
lucrative sports, which make big bucks in the neighbouring USA.
I often wondered how could seemingly sane people go so wonky over a game
invented by our former colonial masters from which they kept our ancestors
away for a very long time.
The Marxist dictum that 'religion is the opium of the people' can be better
formulated for South Asia (except for Nepal and the Maldives, thank God) as
'cricket is the opium of the people.' Cricket makes us forget all the messes
we have collectively made in all possible areas of social and political
interaction, and in that state of amnesia, we strive to improve the status
of cricket and nothing else.
In this state of amnesia we also forget that cricket in many ways has
changed considerably from the times it was concocted by British imperial
elite with little imagination and plenty of time to waste. That was the
birth of what later became known as test cricket.
Today, we are shocked that cricketers fix matches and engage in gambling.
Why not? All this is because it is still called a gentleman's sport. Well it
never was. By definition, a gentleman in cricketing context in our part of
the world was a person who came to the colonies from England because they
thought the so called natives had to be civilized, or simply because they
could not be meaningfully employed in their part of the world.
More importantly, they were also people who (because they were gentlemen)
did not allow the natives to play cricket as that would have defiled the
purity of the colonial sporting arena. Native cricket was possible only when
the minds of the natives were properly colonized.
Reality
So in reality, the pioneers of cricket were ethnic or racial exclusivists as
well as slave traders or maritime criminals among others. Those who play the
game today are also gentlemen in the same fashion except that their
gentlemanly activities have changed from slave trade and land grabbing (for
tea and coffee plantations) to match fixing, gambling and other such routine
and normal enterprises.
If we take our own society, it would be quite naive for us to assume that
cricket must be as pure as we were led to believe it once was. That is not
possible. The cricket we play and the cricket that other countries play are
very firmly located in the cultural, political, and economic spheres of
these countries.
So in our case, where corruption at all levels is as important a national
sport as cricket, match fixing and the other nefarious activities attributed
to cricket would be only a natural and logical manifestation of our overall
realities. In a country where political violence is accepted and tolerated,
in a country where political interference is routinely overlooked, in a
country where the wrong role models are often held in high esteem, why
should we expect cricket to be aloof and free from all this?
It is because this is not possible that we see today all the dirty politics
in cricket as well as in its governing bodies. That is why we see political
interference in the game when it is much nicer if it is left alone, and that
is also why we see cricketers who are generally school dropouts with very
little intellectual achievements held in high esteem by kids from eight to
eighty. That is also why we see unrestricted commercial sponsorship of
cricket when we find it very difficult to find sponsors for educational
activities as well as for the arts.
Mind you, this is not a diatribe against cricket. If people have the
patience and lack of imagination to watch two groups of grown ups trying to
thrash an imported leather ball with a piece of imported stick for five
days, that is not my problem. If less patient patriots watch similar grown
ups doing the same thing in one day encounters, that may be better
entertainment than watching perfectly beautiful Hindi screen idols running
around flowery bushes chasing each other and singing nasal songs.
We can also sit through religious ceremonies where Buddhist priests tie
charmed thread (or shall we say ropes) around the wrists of cricketers and
pay homage to all known deities in the local pantheons before the national
team sets off on a foreign tour.
At least, our gamblers can embark on a process of enlightened spiritual
gambling betting on whether it would be our gods and charmed ropes who would
win the next one day match or Indian gods and their charmed oil. But all
this becomes my business when in this state of social amnesia due to over
exposure to the opium of cricket, we as a confused nation get our priorities
wrong.
Over enthusiasm
Lets face it. This over-enthusiasm on cricket brings very few things to the
country as a whole. It brings it non violent fame and glory at a time of war
and political and economic instability. It brings some business to merchants
selling cricket memorabilia or providing services to cricketers and
audiences such as hotels and beverage manufacturers.
Of course it brings enormous revenue to international media moguls and their
local agents for live telecast rights. It also makes generally
under-educated individual cricketers very rich through sponsorship deals and
payments from the cricket board as well as from the companies where many
cricketers work as proxy officers.
We can live with all this. But it does not make sense to offer such
privileged individuals houses, land, large chunks of money for centuries
scored, wickets taken or matches won. Why should public funds be wasted on
such efforts?
On the other hand, why don't we have such generosity of recognition with
regard to others who perform well for the betterment of our country. Of
course I do not mean politicians, but school teachers, writers, artistes
(hopefully before they die) and other such persons. Why are we not equally
generous towards them? One clear reason is that despite the great services
these individuals may perform, their services do not have the same sexy
image appeal as cricket.
A Cabinet Minister would love to hold the hands of a cricketer and give him
few thousand rupees out of state funds for getting the wicket of some
Australian batsman and to get his picture pasted all over the front pages of
the newspapers just as much as a car merchant would love to see his image on
TV presenting a Sri Lankan batsman the latest available four wheel drive
vehicle for scoring a double century in three long days. But a teacher from
a 'border' village in the north central province working hard to send
students to universities against all odds would certainly not have the same
media, commercial or political appeal?
Similarly, an artist painting the violence in our midst will also not get
such recognition despite international awards she may have won for her work
for the same reasons.
Besides, she would be tarnishing the image of the country, wouldn't she?
Wouldn't it make more sense to get properly trained foreign scholars to
teach in our universities where there is a need for such persons than
spending millions on former Australian test players to coach local
cricketers? Or in the very least, can't the same logic be applied to other
spheres of important activities such as higher education, the arts and other
kinds of sports? But none of this would be possible because these activities
do not have the media, political and socio-cultural clout that cricket has
been vested with.
In the end, we as a collective of people really have to decide where our
priorities are? Does it make more sense to invest in a quality education for
our younger generations so that they can compete in an expanding and highly
demanding global market, or invest in improving the quality of cricket and
the individual income of a handful of individuals linked to the game?
At least, we have to be realistic about the proportions of our responses and
enthusiasm. What is more important? A well educated and professionally
oriented younger generation to take over the responsibilities of the future
or a group of master cricketers?
My wish as naive as it may be, is that the captains of our industry and the
leaders of our political elite pay the same care and attention they
presently pay towards national cricketers to other individuals who perform
their duties well, as well as to other important spheres of activity. But
then, this is perhaps too much to expect in a country where even the Gods
are 'bribed' to win matches.
Will Sutton
"Sinna Mani" <sin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3acf...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> <snipped>
Well I did manage to read the 1st paragraph before falling asleep :-)
Robert
Most of this is pointless as very few sports actually make sense.
Tennis - two people smacking a piece of hairy rubber.
Golf - a ball with dimples being hit around with a metal rod.
Soccer - 22 men running around after a ball trying to get it into a net.
NFL - Grown men hitting each other as hard as possible, in order to get some
pigskin over a try line.
Sport is a great enigma, people love it and always will despite its seeming
lack of meaning.
phil wise
maybe, even if I don't necessarily agree with much of it.
It worries me when intelligent people in democratic nations tune out from
politics: that's how maniacs like G.W. Bush can end up weeding their way
into power.
Phil
"Will Sutton" <muta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13Oz6.9808$Xi1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
phil wise
> over South Asia even though in the West Indies, this madness seems to be
> diminishing among the younger generations in preference for other more
> lucrative sports, which make big bucks in the neighbouring USA.
>
> I often wondered how could seemingly sane people go so wonky over a game
> invented by our former colonial masters from which they kept our ancestors
> away for a very long time.
>
Seemingly sane people have a right to pleasure, and play is an ancient human
activity. Artistic endeavour is another way people express this, but it is
not necessary to demand all play be of this sort, nor is it desirable. Nor
is relatively limited, useless pleasure a thing to feel guilty over.
True, cricket was invented by the British, and I have no reason to doubt
that you are right about the people of South Asia being excluded from it.
But (as you may imply below somewhere) that does not preclude the activity
itself from taking on new meanings over time, including a way of expressing
an independence from colonialism.
> The Marxist dictum that 'religion is the opium of the people' can be
better
> formulated for South Asia (except for Nepal and the Maldives, thank God)
as
> 'cricket is the opium of the people.' Cricket makes us forget all the
messes
> we have collectively made in all possible areas of social and political
> interaction, and in that state of amnesia, we strive to improve the status
> of cricket and nothing else.
>
There may be something to this IF you can demonstrate that the effect of
cricket in South Asia is to prevent the people from attaining revolutionary
consciousness - a big ask. I believe religion's still pretty big in South
Asia. It is just possible that cricket is a respite from the basic job of
living day to day, which could go either way politically. But the cruelest
implication of revolutionary Marxism as it is often put into practice is the
idea that the people should be made to suffer enormously untill they are
forced to do something about their conditions of existence.
> In this state of amnesia we also forget that cricket in many ways has
> changed considerably from the times it was concocted by British imperial
> elite with little imagination and plenty of time to waste. That was the
> birth of what later became known as test cricket.
>
That makes sense. But now that cricket is an industry, those who play over
such time periods do so for totally different reasons.
> Today, we are shocked that cricketers fix matches and engage in gambling.
> Why not? All this is because it is still called a gentleman's sport. Well
it
> never was. By definition, a gentleman in cricketing context in our part of
> the world was a person who came to the colonies from England because they
> thought the so called natives had to be civilized, or simply because they
> could not be meaningfully employed in their part of the world.
>
Yes, there are all sorts of meanings to be unpacked from the notion of
"gentleman". You are right to imply this. But I'm not sure how it
connects with corruption in the modern game.
> More importantly, they were also people who (because they were gentlemen)
> did not allow the natives to play cricket as that would have defiled the
> purity of the colonial sporting arena. Native cricket was possible only
when
> the minds of the natives were properly colonized.
>
As a signification of Englishness... although some serious historical proof
would be required for this (you may well be relying on this for all I know).
Nonetheless it makes sense...
> Reality
>
> So in reality, the pioneers of cricket were ethnic or racial exclusivists
as
> well as slave traders or maritime criminals among others. Those who play
the
> game today are also gentlemen in the same fashion except that their
> gentlemanly activities have changed from slave trade and land grabbing
(for
> tea and coffee plantations) to match fixing, gambling and other such
routine
> and normal enterprises.
>
I still fail to see the connection. Yes, the colonial gentlemen were
criminals, and bribary is a crime. But in what way is bribary colonial?
> If we take our own society, it would be quite naive for us to assume that
> cricket must be as pure as we were led to believe it once was. That is not
> possible. The cricket we play and the cricket that other countries play
are
> very firmly located in the cultural, political, and economic spheres of
> these countries.
>
> So in our case, where corruption at all levels is as important a national
> sport as cricket, match fixing and the other nefarious activities
attributed
> to cricket would be only a natural and logical manifestation of our
overall
> realities. In a country where political violence is accepted and
tolerated,
> in a country where political interference is routinely overlooked, in a
> country where the wrong role models are often held in high esteem, why
> should we expect cricket to be aloof and free from all this?
Fair enough. But are you saying that the corruption endemic to South Asian
culture is a result of the colonial impulse, or history, or capitalism?
Economic desparation? Indeed there is no reason to expect it to be free
from all this because it is somehow magically more pure due to its English
origins. But this has more to do with lingering colonial assumptions within
the culture about Englishness than with cricket, per se.
>
> It is because this is not possible that we see today all the dirty
politics
> in cricket as well as in its governing bodies. That is why we see
political
> interference in the game when it is much nicer if it is left alone, and
that
> is also why we see cricketers who are generally school dropouts with very
> little intellectual achievements held in high esteem by kids from eight to
> eighty. That is also why we see unrestricted commercial sponsorship of
> cricket when we find it very difficult to find sponsors for educational
> activities as well as for the arts.
It is good that people have different routes to success; and I disagree with
your assumption that intellect is necessarily superior to physical
attributes. The fault is with post-industrial capitalism, which requires
visibility and image, neither of which education provides very easily, and
which has no particular incentive to invest in education beyound what it
needs to consume (no sense of public good, in other words).
>
> Mind you, this is not a diatribe against cricket. If people have the
> patience and lack of imagination to watch two groups of grown ups trying
to
> thrash an imported leather ball with a piece of imported stick for five
> days, that is not my problem. If less patient patriots watch similar grown
> ups doing the same thing in one day encounters, that may be better
> entertainment than watching perfectly beautiful Hindi screen idols running
> around flowery bushes chasing each other and singing nasal songs.
Each to their own. There are so many possible scenarios in test cricket, I
find it stimulates the imagination. Also, isn't shortness of the attention
span one of the bad by-products of the sort of phenom you described above?
If so, wouldn't a love of test cricket be some sort of counter to that?
> We can also sit through religious ceremonies where Buddhist priests tie
> charmed thread (or shall we say ropes) around the wrists of cricketers and
> pay homage to all known deities in the local pantheons before the national
> team sets off on a foreign tour.
>
> At least, our gamblers can embark on a process of enlightened spiritual
> gambling betting on whether it would be our gods and charmed ropes who
would
> win the next one day match or Indian gods and their charmed oil. But all
> this becomes my business when in this state of social amnesia due to over
> exposure to the opium of cricket, we as a confused nation get our
priorities
> wrong.
I think you are blaming the wrong thing. It is industrialisation you are
talking about, a phenomenon of capitalism.
Correct.
>
> A Cabinet Minister would love to hold the hands of a cricketer and give
him
> few thousand rupees out of state funds for getting the wicket of some
> Australian batsman and to get his picture pasted all over the front pages
of
> the newspapers just as much as a car merchant would love to see his image
on
> TV presenting a Sri Lankan batsman the latest available four wheel drive
> vehicle for scoring a double century in three long days. But a teacher
from
> a 'border' village in the north central province working hard to send
> students to universities against all odds would certainly not have the
same
> media, commercial or political appeal?
Similarly correct. But you're target is destressingly superstructural: an
easy scapegoat that lets the real culprit off the hook.
Obviously you want a well-rounded society which does not reject apparently
meaningless things while having its head screwed on right.
>
> My wish as naive as it may be, is that the captains of our industry and
the
> leaders of our political elite pay the same care and attention they
> presently pay towards national cricketers to other individuals who perform
> their duties well, as well as to other important spheres of activity. But
> then, this is perhaps too much to expect in a country where even the Gods
> are 'bribed' to win matches.
>
>
>
Phil
Will Sutton
"phil wise" <phil...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:9aomku$opa$1...@raewyn.paradise.net.nz...
> Actually, I thought it was a well-thought out post, a little long-winded,
> maybe, even if I don't necessarily agree with much of it.
>
> It worries me when intelligent people in democratic nations tune out from
> politics: that's how maniacs like G.W. Bush can end up weeding their way
> into power.
>
As most in this group know I have no intelligence
phil wise
You might well say that. I couldn't possibly comment :-)
>
>
Larry de Silva
And long live cricket. It is better than any other game, including the
biggest (and most boring, useless game of all), politics.
Larrikin
"Sinna Mani" <sin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3acf...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Larry de Silva
What's intelligence? :-)
Larrikin
Will Sutton
"Larry de Silva" <larryd...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:_eXz6.1239$pO2....@ozemail.com.au...
Something that Australians dont have :-)
Larry de Silva
Huh?............you mean like good
umpires?..................................;-)
Larrikin
phil wise
> You have obviously plagiarised this article. Please name the proper
source.
>
> And long live cricket. It is better than any other game, including the
> biggest (and most boring, useless game of all), politics.
>
> Larrikin
Actually Larry I'd say summarised rather than plaigarised. See my point by
point analysis of the post, if you can be bothered (I defend cricket while
acknowledging that the history can be a bit tricky), but I still think
people should take more interest in politics: if yr bored by people who can
affect your life, and tune out, they might bite you one day.
Phil
Larry de Silva
>
> "Larry de Silva" <larryd...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:jeXz6.1237$pO2....@ozemail.com.au...
> > You have obviously plagiarised this article. Please name the proper
> source.
> >
> > And long live cricket. It is better than any other game, including the
> > biggest (and most boring, useless game of all), politics.
> >
> > Larrikin
>
> Actually Larry I'd say summarised rather than plaigarised.
Nah. The original article posted by Sinna Mani in this thread was indeed
plagarised from an article in the SL Sunday Observer on 8 April 2001. I
reproduce a little bit below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Madness over cricket!
by CHANDRA ATHUKORALA
The madness over cricket which some people call enthusiasm has spread all
over South Asia even though in the West Indies, this madness seems to be
diminishing among the younger generations in preference for other more
lucrative sports, which make big bucks in the neighbouring
USA.......................................(rest of this article snipped)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
My reply was having a go at Sinns Mani. I hate when accurate sources of
articles are not acknowledged by the poster.
> See my point by
> point analysis of the post, if you can be bothered (I defend cricket while
> acknowledging that the history can be a bit tricky), but I still think
> people should take more interest in politics: if yr bored by people who
can
> affect your life, and tune out, they might bite you one day.
Yeah, fair enough. I said it very badly but what I meant to say (& shall say
very strongly) that politics in cricket administrations (esp. in SL, where
politics & cricket always go hand in hand) is boring and can be extremely
corrupt when influencing issues like team selections, ground improvements,
where funding ends up for what projects etc.
I did not mean that I'm THAT bored with politics of the societal variety,
although it does not rule my life like it does with some other people. I
tend to live according to my own life rules generally :-)
Larrikin
phil wise
Fair enough indeed. I couldn't agree more.
> > See my point by
> > point analysis of the post, if you can be bothered (I defend cricket
while
> > acknowledging that the history can be a bit tricky), but I still think
> > people should take more interest in politics: if yr bored by people who
> can
> > affect your life, and tune out, they might bite you one day.
>
> Yeah, fair enough. I said it very badly but what I meant to say (& shall
say
> very strongly) that politics in cricket administrations (esp. in SL, where
> politics & cricket always go hand in hand) is boring and can be extremely
> corrupt when influencing issues like team selections, ground improvements,
> where funding ends up for what projects etc.
>
> I did not mean that I'm THAT bored with politics of the societal variety,
> although it does not rule my life like it does with some other people. I
> tend to live according to my own life rules generally :-)
>
> Larrikin
>
>
And more power to you. Hey, when do SL and NZ square up at Sharjah? I have
no idea what the schedule is...
Phil
>
>
Larry de Silva
> And more power to you. Hey, when do SL and NZ square up at Sharjah? I
have
> no idea what the schedule is...
Here is the schedule
Dates Between Venue
Apr 8 Pakistan v Sri Lanka Sharjah
Apr 9 Rest Day
Apr 10 New Zealand v Sri Lanka Sharjah
Apr 11 Rest Day
Apr 12 New Zealand v Pakistan Sharjah
Apr 13 New Zealand v Sri Lanka Sharjah
Apr 14 Rest Day
Apr 15 New Zealand v Pakistan Sharjah
Apr 16 Rest Day
Apr 17 Pakistan v Sri Lanka Sharjah
Apr 18-19 Rest Days
Apr 20 Final Sharjah
All power to the young Kiwi's. What an incredible effort it will be if they
make the final. One never knows with one day cricket.
Larrikin
Michael Creevey
>The madness over cricket which some people call enthusiasm has spread all
>over South Asia even though in the West Indies, this madness seems to be
>diminishing among the younger generations in preference for other more
>
>I often wondered how could seemingly sane people go so wonky over a game
>invented by our former colonial masters from which they kept our ancestors
>away for a very long time.
Cricket is a great game. Despite what's happened recently, cricket does
embody
certain values. No major sport attempts to cling onto values of
sportsmanship
and makes
more of an outward show at least of decorum, except perhaps Golf. Still I'd
place Golf in a
lesser category in this regard, (simewhat subjectively perhaps).
The history of the British Empire need have nothing to do with South Asian
appropriation
of the game of cricket. Surely it is reverse cultural imperialism if South
Asians one day
dominate cricket?
>
>The Marxist dictum that 'religion is the opium of the people' can be better
>formulated for South Asia (except for Nepal and the Maldives, thank God) as
>'cricket is the opium of the people.'
Yes, I can see this is quite possible. But opium is best enjoyed by those
with
nothing else.
If one is a member of the poorer classes of Indian society, then I'm sure
that
the existence
of cricket could be something to focus on instead of reality. Why do Indian
films feature
so much fantasy, unreality? Because people want this. They want to
experience
something
better, even if temporarily. Why deny them that pleasure? On the other hand,
there is no
excuse for greedy politicians(or cricketers) lining their own pockets at the
expense of
more worthy causes. But whether cricket has anything to do with the endemic
corruption
and political mismanagement which has blighted India since partition, it
would
be hard to say.
One would guess not.
Cricket makes us forget all the messes
>we have collectively made in all possible areas of social and political
>interaction, and in that state of amnesia, we strive to improve the status
>of cricket and nothing else.
These things can have flow on effects. The more India succeeds at cricket,
the
more will be
expected of other parts of Indian society. If India's cricketers can be
world
class, why can't
its politicians?(Mind you the 'class' or might one say the 'aukat' of
politicians worldwide
is hardly that great, or greatly esteemed).
Perhaps you're looking for a scapegoat; perhaps like others you can't stand
to
see so many
spend so many hours watching what many consider literally nothing at all.
Cricket, however,
when truly appreciated, is good for the soul. It can even have artistic
quality. It is not
accidental that the best sporting prose has been written about cricket.
Sure, it makes much more sense to employ teachers from abroad than cricket
coaches, if
necessary, but cricket could bring other benefits to India. I've often had
the
sense of Indian
and Pakistani cricket teams being individuals more than team players, and
throughout the
long history of India one gets the sense of many competing interests, with
little collective
will or national interest. Hell one even gets that sense rather strongly in
RSC, with camps and
claques developing on all kinds of issues, notably believe it or not
regarding
food (although
admittedly this is primarily a regional issue). If all of India could adopt
the mentality of
collective interest first rather than self-interest, as is needed in team
sports, then this I feel
would be tremendous gain for the whole Indian nation
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Through all the tones that vibrate
About earth's mingled dream
One whispered note is sounding
For ears attent to hear
-Schlegel