The renowned social psychologist says only three areas of our life—cricket, cinema (Bollywood) and crime—recognise capability wholeheartedly and unconditionally.
|
cricket special new team india
The newest cup in world cricket is ours. How does this change the game?
G. Rajaraman
|
|
|
cricket special frenzy
Shades of nationalism and suppressed anger against Pakistan dominated celebrations
Alam Srinivas
|
|
interview
If young guys have the talent and can perform, they should be able to make their way into the international side. That is the criterion, says the brand new Indian captain
G. Rajaraman
|
|
|
cricket special player profiles
When victorious, individual exploits coalesce into one solid achievement. We take a player-by-player look.
G. Rajaraman
|
|
|
cricket special the t20 future
No one-off this. For, T20 is a mini essay on basics—with a flourish.
G. Rajaraman
|
|
|
cricket special the big 3
Where does the faster format leave Sachin, Sourav or Rahul?
Alam Srinivas
|
|
|
cricket special pak in defeat
A Sharjah repeat it wasn't to be. Also, Pakistanis and their media have mostly laid off the blame game.
Amir Mir
|
|
interview
The irrepressible former Pakistan player and coach reflects on the defeat and Misbah-ul-Haq's disastrous shot, comparing it to his own astonishing effort, the last ball six in Sharjah which led to a historic win.
Amir Mir
|
|
|
|
Renowned social psychologist and author of The Tao of Cricket, Ashis Nandy, speaks to Debarshi Dasgupta on India's victory in the Twenty20 Cricket World Cup
Will this victory change the subcontinent's hold on the game?No. Intelligent people know that 20:20 is more of a gambler's game than other versions of cricket. They will not take the victory that seriously. Second, South Asia's hold is built on money and the size of the audience it supplies; they are unlikely to be affected by the victory.
How will 20:20 change the nature of the game?Imran Khan has given the best answer: 20:20 reveals a player's talent and, I would add, luck. It tells you much less about the player's technique and temperament. In the long run, 20:20 will be another nail in the coffin of Test cricket, probably the only game known to humankind that is a living criticism of the urban-industrial vision and modernity.
Will the loss of Test cricket be lamented in India?We have lost the language of lament in modern India. That is why Indian creativity in social knowledge has been so cramped. Modernity can become creative only when you have thinkers like Nietzsche or Dostoevsky, who recognise what we have lost in being modern. That sense of loss humanises society. We Indians are only supposed to celebrate the gains of progress, not the losses. I doubt if many will miss Test cricket.
Are religion and cricket insulated from each other in India?Not entirely. It's obvious in some aspects of the mob frenzy and the way we have responded to this victory. Irfan Pathan's father has said he would thank Allah. Robin Uthappa's mother has remembered the Lord, and others have offered pujas. It's stupid to expect that ordinary people will not bring their religious beliefs into cricket when they are bringing it to all other spheres of life.
| | | | "Some aspects of the mob frenzy prove that in India, religion and cricket are not insulated." | | | | |
|
The Gujarat government has announced an award for the Pathan brothers...It has been shamed into giving this award to the Pathan brothers.
Why don't Indo-Pak matches generate the vitriolic opposition they once did?People are not fools. After a point they know that cricket is a game. The so-called vitriolic opposition was produced artificially by the media, the cricket establishment and advertisers trying to stoke and exploit nationalism.
Can this victory redeem Indian cricket?It will only help hide for a while the slew of scandals, controversies and shortsightedness associated with Indian cricket and legitimise its ruling establishment.
Cricket is sidelining other sports like hockey...Why only hockey? Every other sport has a right to complain of the blatantly partisan manner in which cricket is handled by the government and the media. Cricket became popular only accidentally because of its heavy presence on television that was once starved of content. Once privatisation came, some channels and the print media took full advantage of this artificially created popularity. Other sports stood no chance and are still standing outside the door with begging bowls.
What explains cricket's hold on India?Cricket is more compatible with the rhythm of South Asian ways of life. The open-endedness of Test cricket, where one may play for five days and yet end up with a draw, can be very disorienting in modern societies. The game is actually pre-modern and most Indians still live in a pre-industrial world, at least psychologically. Secondly, in cricket, you not only play against an opposition but also against your own fate. The game is frightfully dependent on chance and on things like weather and ground conditions because it does not equalise the odds for the two teams. South Asians find all this very attractive. Finally, in a cricket match, the winner never takes it all; there is always something that redeems your self-esteem. You may lose a Test match by an innings but one of your batsmen may score a magnificent century and a bowler a hat-trick.
Cricket in India is being democratised...Cricket reflects our democracy. Players have now begun to come from the margins of society. Psychologically and culturally cricket may have been Indian, but it is becoming demographically so only now.
Why do Bollywood and cricket unite India?They do so because only three areas of our life—cricket, cinema (Bollywood) and crime—recognise capability wholeheartedly and unconditionally. Unlike other channels of social mobility, these have no caste or religious prejudices and are least bothered about social background and polish. That's why all three areas have become so important for so many Indians and have acquired a pan-Indian presence. They are the three most popular professions today.