Cricket: False Populism And Imposed Nationalism
By Kshirod Nag
26 November, 2013
Countercurrents.org
It certainly gives pleasure to see symbols as inspiring tools to motivate the generations to come. Contextually, we can take the initiative taken by the state in case of conferring 'Bharat Ratna' on Sachin Tendulkar. It was felt necessary to honour a person who, undoubtedly, captured the millions of minds, who became a 'Hero' for the 'nation', a true epitome of national imagination. This is the very 'Nationalism' which binds people together and brings pride, and this is why, we proudly feel to be Indians. Why not Bharat Ratna for Sachin Tendulkar, as he gets support across the society. He has attained this populism for serving the purpose of nationalism so well.
However, for a while, let’s think over all the above mentioned terms namely; nation, nationalism, inspiration, populism, service and so on. What do these terms all about? Whether these are represented through collective conscience/imagination or merely imposed, manufactured and socially-constructed metaphors by the shrewd minds ? To put it differently, did Sachin play for the 'nation' ? Even then, whether he is the only sport person to have glorified the nation?
BCCI (for whom Sachin played) has been claiming before Supreme Court that it is not at all official and completely a private body registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. It is not amenable to rules and regulations framed by the Government of India (Supreme Court's Direction- 2005). Therefore, the changes made by the BCCI in the rules of selection process, format of game, choosing of venues, collection of huge money through matches can never be questioned by general public in a court of Law. In 2005, in the Zee telefilms Judgements, the Supreme court noted the BCCI's stand " It is a private organization whose objects are to promote the game of cricket. Its functions are regulated and governed by its own rules and regulations independent of any statute and are only related to its members" (Cited in Times of India, 18th Nov, 2013). Why does BCCI have this firm stand? Is it only to escape the public scrutiny regarding its management process?
Surprisingly, people still associate cricket with nation instead of associating it with corporate (market economy) which is unashamedly backed by influential politicians. Apart from this, what about the other sport personalities (some names- Dhyan Chand, P.T. Usha and others) who represented the so called 'nation' in international scenario? It’s not only about whom to honour and whom to not but also about politics of recognition and mis-recognition of the greatness, which is cleverly framed by ruling-dominant ideas. These dominant ideas are characterised by different social realities namely caste, class, gender, region, religion and so on. Above mentioned sport persons were sidelined because of their inability to cope up with these very ideas and specifically, there is no element of market economy working for other mentioned sport persons to grasp the so-called national imagination. Therefore, they have failed to fulfil the criteria of 'populism'.
In the colonial and post-colonial India, there is a history of making false-nationhood by perpetuating the dominant ideology in the name of collective imagination. In the process, many nationalist leaders have come out with mythical symbols to impose the idea of nation; for example- Gandhi’s conception of Ram Rajya, which still has an impact on the people. As long as someone is conformed to this notion, s/he is considered as nationalist, otherwise s/he is treated as traitor or anti-national and therefore, Ambedkar had to suffer, when he raised the issue of untouchability and demanded separate electorate for the untouchables. Fortunately, Sachin Tendulkar needs not to suffer like Ambedkar as he is conforming to the idea of nation and nationalism.
Next in the line- Amitabh Bachhan, Sharukh Khan, Ranveer Kapoor, Salman Khan, and others. Because these celebrities have the largest fan following in the 'nation', despite of the fact that they all are torch-bearer of the ruling ideology. They all are fulfilling the criteria of populism/nationalism.
Kshirod Nag, Ph.D, Sociology, JNU, New Delhi
Comments are moderated