The greatest players in the world have come together to battle with the unrivaled team in the world. Imagine seeing the best bowlers spinning or seaming the ball and the most outstanding batsmen dotting the ground with their classic photo-framing shots! Nothing can ‘match’ this sight, right?..... Wrong!
If anything at all, the Super Series so far, stands proof to the fact that there is so much more to the game than players. It is not about the best pacer and the best pinch-hitter and the best wicket-keeper coming together. Frankly and quite obviously, it’s about a team. Now, I am not saying that Australia would have won the matches anyway. No. What I am saying is that even the most average players up against the paramount Australians could defeat them!(unbelievable as it may sound).
It happened in the 1999 World Cup, where Bangladesh, a team little known (till then at least) beat the mighty (at that time) Pakistanis. Kenya did it when they reached the semi-finals of the World Cup in 2003.
The fact is that players have become bigger than a team. In the early days, Don Bradman was a genius with an average of 99.94. HE was a true genius. Today, superlative terms are used so loosely, that even a Dhoni (of one-match brilliance) becomes a ‘master blaster’. Truth is, even 11 of the finest players cannot beat Australia (or any other team), if they cannot work together as a team.
But I really cannot cast aspersions on a team that has just assembled and are (most) probably groping about even now because team work does not seem to be on the top of the list in any team for that matter.
A few days ago, I had an argument with my friends regarding this very lack of spirit. From what I have seen and read so far, I have come to believe that the colonial impact of individualism and individual glory has not entirely been effaced. Not surprisingly, traces of the Raj linger even today, on the cricket fields.
Picture this – the Indian team has lost 3 or 4 wickets and Tendulkar comes out to bat (he is batting at number 5 for some weird reason). There is a set batsman in Dravid, at the score of 70, at the other end. Tendulkar does not seem to be getting his shots as he has already faced two overs with his score still at 0. A run-out situation occurs and Tendulkar is faced with a choice. If he runs back to his end, he is saved. But a set batsman goes back to the pavilion. If he runs to the other end he will very obviously get out.
Hmm… so what do you think he should do? The answer will arguably determine what is bigger….. The player or the game itself.
20 Oct 2005
18 Oct 2005
Mangal Pandey... An Accidental Hero?
Was Mangal Pandey an accidental hero? This question has been much debated after the release of the Ketan Mehta movie. With the release, what ‘Mangal Pandey: The Rising’ did was open various arguments delineating the role of this martyr. Was he the hero that ‘The Rising’ showed him to be? Did his lone act of brashness actually result in the mutiny that followed?
On 29 March 1857, Pandey came out and challenged the British, even as he called out to his comrades and fellow sepoys. He attacked and injured his superior and wounded an adjutant with a sword. As the British, reacting to this sudden outburst closed in on him, Pandey tried to shoot himself but failed and was hanged for his act of ‘rebellion’.
After Aamir Khan’s portrayal of Pandey, a lot of discussion has risen as to whether Pandey was the hero that the Khan portrayed? Wasn't he intoxicated and in a frenzy when he decided to attack the British?
Rudrangshu Mukherjee has debated Mangal Pandey’s role as the instigator of the revolt in his book ‘Mangal Pandey: Brave Martyr or Accidental Hero’. He puts forth a series of arguments supporting his statement of Pandey being an accidental hero. He vehemently says, “Nationalism creates its own myths – Mangal Pandey is part of that imagination of histories.”
The point that supports this claim is that not much has been written on Pandey. He probably figured in a few lines in the pages of Indian history and the struggle for independence. But then again, it must be noted that this argument relies heavily on the British records of the 1857 rebellion. The British underplayed the event as just a sepoy mutiny and did not attach any importance to Mangal Pandey.
Mukherjee goes on to say that history had recorded nothing about him that could be used to reconstruct an individual and locate his springs of action. It is true that there have been no documents to show Pandey’s thought process or his reactions to the introduction of the cartridge greased with animal fat. To reiterate - Mukherjee’s argument cannot be acknowledged precisely for the same reason – that there has been nothing written about him.
The main argument that Mukherjee makes is that Pandey was intoxicated with bhang when he decided to revolt. There was no record of his life except his one act of doubtful valour under the influence of bhang. But drinking was not something that was uncommon in the army. Every sepoy drank and not everyone ran out to nearly get killed after drinking.
Rudrangshu Mukherjee also says that “a rebellion is a collective will to overthrow a rebellious order. Pandey acted alone. He was a rebel without a rebellion.” He went on to say that Mangal Pandey meant nothing to the sepoys who raised the revolt in 1857. To hold his argument, Mukherjee cites the practically-unheard-of mutiny in Barrackpore itself 33 years before Mangal Pandey's action. Over 200 soldiers were killed, yet the first full-scale study of the 1824 mutiny in Barrackpore (which managed to spread only as far as Rungpore in Assam the year after) appeared only in 2003.
So, in effect there is a view that Mangal Pandey was an ordinary sepoy who, in a state of intoxication, committed a foolhardy act for which he was hanged and his infantry dismissed. He was just that – an accidental hero, a man who got lucky. But if that is the argument then one cannot say that Mahatma Gandhi, for instance, was an accidental hero just because he was kicked out of the train! Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between...
On 29 March 1857, Pandey came out and challenged the British, even as he called out to his comrades and fellow sepoys. He attacked and injured his superior and wounded an adjutant with a sword. As the British, reacting to this sudden outburst closed in on him, Pandey tried to shoot himself but failed and was hanged for his act of ‘rebellion’.
After Aamir Khan’s portrayal of Pandey, a lot of discussion has risen as to whether Pandey was the hero that the Khan portrayed? Wasn't he intoxicated and in a frenzy when he decided to attack the British?
Rudrangshu Mukherjee has debated Mangal Pandey’s role as the instigator of the revolt in his book ‘Mangal Pandey: Brave Martyr or Accidental Hero’. He puts forth a series of arguments supporting his statement of Pandey being an accidental hero. He vehemently says, “Nationalism creates its own myths – Mangal Pandey is part of that imagination of histories.”
The point that supports this claim is that not much has been written on Pandey. He probably figured in a few lines in the pages of Indian history and the struggle for independence. But then again, it must be noted that this argument relies heavily on the British records of the 1857 rebellion. The British underplayed the event as just a sepoy mutiny and did not attach any importance to Mangal Pandey.
Mukherjee goes on to say that history had recorded nothing about him that could be used to reconstruct an individual and locate his springs of action. It is true that there have been no documents to show Pandey’s thought process or his reactions to the introduction of the cartridge greased with animal fat. To reiterate - Mukherjee’s argument cannot be acknowledged precisely for the same reason – that there has been nothing written about him.
The main argument that Mukherjee makes is that Pandey was intoxicated with bhang when he decided to revolt. There was no record of his life except his one act of doubtful valour under the influence of bhang. But drinking was not something that was uncommon in the army. Every sepoy drank and not everyone ran out to nearly get killed after drinking.
Rudrangshu Mukherjee also says that “a rebellion is a collective will to overthrow a rebellious order. Pandey acted alone. He was a rebel without a rebellion.” He went on to say that Mangal Pandey meant nothing to the sepoys who raised the revolt in 1857. To hold his argument, Mukherjee cites the practically-unheard-of mutiny in Barrackpore itself 33 years before Mangal Pandey's action. Over 200 soldiers were killed, yet the first full-scale study of the 1824 mutiny in Barrackpore (which managed to spread only as far as Rungpore in Assam the year after) appeared only in 2003.
So, in effect there is a view that Mangal Pandey was an ordinary sepoy who, in a state of intoxication, committed a foolhardy act for which he was hanged and his infantry dismissed. He was just that – an accidental hero, a man who got lucky. But if that is the argument then one cannot say that Mahatma Gandhi, for instance, was an accidental hero just because he was kicked out of the train! Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between...
HERE... ALMOST
So I finally did it... Created my own blog. My space. Do not completely know why. But there were just some things that inspired me to.
I have always wanted to voice my opinions, always wanted to be heard. I can just sit over a cup of hot chocolate or even munch through wafers (don't know the connection) and go on contemplating various issues.
So blogdom... you finally got me and I'm going to be here for long...
I have always wanted to voice my opinions, always wanted to be heard. I can just sit over a cup of hot chocolate or even munch through wafers (don't know the connection) and go on contemplating various issues.
So blogdom... you finally got me and I'm going to be here for long...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)