Sports other than cricket in India

Some days ago Dola Banerjee won gold at an archery world event. The newspapers celebrated her victory cheerfully and she was received by the homeland with much joy and excitement. But peculiarly enough, it was the first time most of us even heard of her. Something similar happened with Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, who won us the sole medal at the 2004 Olympics. These, more or less summarize the plight of sports other than cricket in India.

The above examples contradict the popular contention that these sports are neglected because the players don't perform well at the international level. Of course there are many reasons specific to different sports; but ultimately, it's the lack of investment in these sports that's responsible mostly for their decline. Money remains to be the driving force in anything in today's world; and that's where these sports suffer. Cricket, because of it's huge popularity gets a great media coverage in India. BCCI and the regional cricket boards get richer and richer. They bring forth the infrastructure that's so deficient in other sports. Also, because of the lucrative prospects involved, and the publicity cricketers get, children are encouraged to play cricket. Clubs and coaching centres sprout all around because of an increasing demand. Young cricketers come forth and cricket maintains its popularity despite occasional poor performances by the national squad.

More or less the reverse happens in most other sports and they take a backseat. Lack of money leads to lack of infrastructure and training facility for players. Media either doesn't cover them at all or cover in a lukewarm manner. As a result, they become less popular and still less people try them. It's a vicious circle.

The involvement of politics naturally has had a negative effect. Constant bickering among factions often take an ugly look and make these sports suffer terribly. The ill-will between Dalmia and Pawar isn't sufficient to destroy cricket because of the latter's overwhelming popularity. But in athletics, boxing or table tennis, the administrators' politics make bodily blows to the sports and players. Without any significant media coverage, bad blood flows unchecked and severely dampens development.

Censorship: justified?

"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."

Less than a week ago, images of a terrified lady in a blue sari under attack by a group of middle-aged men were doing rounds in the Indian news channels. The men who were seen trying to hurl chairs and laptops to their victim, were identified as distinguished members of the legislative assembly of Andhra Pradesh, and they were infuriated by a book that censured the Quran; and the woman was Taslima Nasreen, the Bangladeshi poet turned fugitive, and the author of the book in question. Though shattered mentally, fortunately Taslima managed to come out of it unscathed. The incident however, raised an age old question that society has asked but never found a direct answer to, that of freedom of speech and of expression. The question of censorship and that of its justification.

It's known that a society with strict rules of censorship never leads to the formation of new ideas; and always obliterates any sign of opposition against the establishment. Even the smallest hint of criticism of the government is erased from everything that is to be considered fit for public viewing in such systems. Classic examples of such extreme censorships include Nazi Germany of the 1930's; and the Soviet Union under the Communist regime. In both these societies, all that the citizens got to see in movies and read in books were government propaganda. The Cultural Revolution in Maoist China sort of epitomizes the ugliness of censorship when people hatefully denounced their own history and ruthlessly destroyed ancient artifacts, texts and paintings.

In most ‘modern’ countries like ours, however, a milder form of censorship exists. Though one is free to criticize the government or social mores, a limit is set as to how far one can go while criticizing something. And, there are certain sensitive issues, unrelated to politics, where censorship rules are not clearly defined. Sex and violence are two such areas where it is very difficult to determine what is suitable for public viewing and what is not.

Pornography, for instance, is banned in certain countries while it is legal in many. Whether explicit display of sex should be expurgated from books and movies is an issue where intellectuals vary in opinion. One might say that such materials are detrimental for the healthy development of an adolescent brain; while the other may argue that these things have been popular since ancient times; and denying them is nothing but hypocrisy. The bitter truth is that porn cannot be obliterated through censorship, and the best thing the government can do is to enforce certain regulations to ensure that exploitation is minimized. As far as violence is concerned, just because some depressed psycho like Cho was inspired apparently by certain movies, and that some looney teenager broke his neck while attempting a Superman stunt, there is no reason in banning anything.

Finally, back to where we began: ethnic groups and ideological issues. As a thumb rule, any social or moral idea that might seem justifiable by the rest of the society may infuriate a particular group who would argue that such an idea is derogatory for their community. Or when an individual speaks against established ideas, his or her views are seldom met with cheerful acceptance. In such matters, the censor boards tend to be ultra-careful so as to remain politically correct. It is then that they ponder over whether Da Vinci Code should be screened at all in India or whether Hussain should be allowed to carry on his exhibitions and speak equivocally of Nasreen or Rushdi.

Censorship essentially suffers from two major fallacies: the lack of confidence on the prudence of the citizens, and, more importantly, the right of freedom of expression.Of course, if someone has anything to say against a work of art or literature is free to criticise it, harangue it if they feel like, but they have no right to ban it. People should ultimately be prudent enough to decide what's good for them, any way; without any help from a cultural guardian. Under no circumstance can official forbiddance on any creative work or idea can be supported; until and unless the latter is known to be harmful in a direct manner. Merely 'negative influence on society' can never be a pretext to prohibit anything. Or a pretext to hurl chairs at a woman, for that matter.