All it takes is cricket in India to prove nationalism
The defeat of India by West Indies in the T20 World Cup triggered a controversy at National Institute of Technology (NIT) at Srinagar between Kashmiri and non-Kashmiri students. Some Kashmiri students have been alleged to have raised anti-India slogans and burst firecrackers upon India's defeat. The Kashmiri students allege that the violence was started by non-Kashmiri students the next day when a group waving tricolour and chanting "Bharat Mata ki jai" attacked a group of Kashmiri students returning from Friday prayers.
The police used lathicharge to control students in which some non-Kashmiri students were hurt and subsequently Central Reserve Police Force, actually a paramilitary, has replaced the Jammu & Kashmir police on campus. NIT has been shut down and students asked to vacate the hostels.
Since the BJP-RSS has come to power academic atmosphere of one more campus has been disturbed. It is really a pity that people associate their nationalistic ideals with cricket teams and are ready to clash over victory or loss in their matches. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) itself claims to be a private body inspite of its pompous name. How could a team constituted by it be considered a national team? The Supreme Court has recently reprimanded the BCCI for its arbitrary functioning and refusing to implement the Lodha committee recommendations.
That BCCI refuses to have a representative of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) on its governing council shows that it doesn't want to be held accountable to the people at large, who are contributors to its funds. There are states like Gujarat and Goa which received preferential treatment by BCCI in the form of disproportionate funds, while on the other hand, states like Bihar don't receive any funds. It is not surprising that Bihar doesn't have a single player in the BCCI constituted Indian team.
How could then BCCI claim to represent the country? Imagine if more such private bodies came into existence and fielded their separate teams. Then which team would be considered to represent India?
Students from both sides whether they raised pro- or anti-India slogans have demonstrated immaturity in asserting their nationalistic preference based on the outcome of a game of cricket. It is even astonishing that pro or anti-Pakistan slogans were raised at NIT, Srinagar when Pakistan was not even one of the sides in the particular match in question. It shows how people can easily get carried away when jingoistic slogans are raised. There are much more serious anti-national activities going on within the country, for example, corruption, about which we need to be worried.
Similarly, there is lot of good work going to within the country about which we can feel proud.
It is a pity that rather than concerning ourselves with real issues on ground we let our emotions fire based on the results of game of cricket and get carried away in sloganeering to the point where it can turn into violence. Probably, the intention of the government is precisely to divert people's attention from real issues, like price rise, to emotional issues like nationalism.
The Indian Premier League has, to some extent, done the job of dissociating the feeling of nationalism from cricket teams by making players from different nationalities play as part of a team. IPL has also highlighted that these are professional players who can be bought and sold, which implies that they play for money. In IPL, they can switch teams depending on who pays them more.
Similarly, even when they play in national teams the prime motivating factor for the players is money. It is unthinkable that any player would play for his national team merely out of a feeling of patriotism without any payment in exchange. In fact, if players had any nationalistic feelings they would not indulge in match-fixing, sometimes deliberately causing their teams to lose the match.
When the game of cricket and its management is so highly commercialised does it make any sense to associate nationalistic feelings with these teams? In fact, the commercial interests exploit our nationalistic feelings. If we agree that sports is to be played with sportsman or sportswoman spirit, then we should appreciate whoever plays better game irrespective of their nationality.
When writer and activist Arundhati Roy was once asked to convey her best wishes to the Indian team before an international event she said her favourite team was Sri Lanka. Why should every Indian be expected to endorse the Indian team in a sporting event and worse why should this determine out commitment to nationalism?
Now Bombay High Court has also reprimanded the cricket associations for using huge volumes of water to maintain their pitches while the state of Maharashtra is suffering from drought. People and cattle are dying because of water shortage. In the context of recent debate on nationalism, it may be interesting to ask what is more nationalistic - to play cricket or to save people and cattle?
BJP leader and BCCI secretary Anurag Thakur has said, Maharashtra will lose Rs 100 crore if IPL were to be moved out of Maharashtra. He suggested that this money could be used for tackling the drought situation and for relief for affected people. It has also been emphasised by the cricket associations and the government that potable water is not used for maintenance of pitches, which is estimated to require 60 lakh litres of water this season.
What people like Thakur don't realise is money cannot be a substitute for water or food. If you have money, but there is no potable water left, how would you quench your thirst? The situation is gradually becoming worse and we cannot adopt a complacent attitude.
We need to save even the non-potable water which can be used for other necessary activities like irrigation, in toilets, washing of clothes, et al.