I have heard people say that they are like an open book. Wait, I myself have said this few times. Though we all know that it's just a figure of speech, we shall put it to test purely for the sake of testing.
Inside each one of us there are few things that are good which we don't mind letting others know as they are self serving. As a matter of fact we either consciously or subconsciously try to make it known to the world followed by the famous tag line "I am like an open book". But once those things,change their shades from plain white to gray and further into dark, our so called open books get closed and at one point of time becomes air tight, a scenario that can no more be claimed to be an open book. :-)
It's like a series of circles around a centre which we have drawn in our minds. We let everybody into our outermost circle without any inhibitions. But as we proceed towards the centre, the people we allow into our inner circles becomes lesser and lesser. I guess, lot of variables such as our previous experiences, our comfort level, our likes and dislikes etc play a part in letting us decide who stays inside which circle.As a matter of fact after a particular point we ourselves are afraid to get into the innermost circle as it constitutes our darker side full of fears, colossal blunders, failures and what not. That chapter in our book is left untouched for most of our lives.
I think any problem that arises in any relationship is simply due to the mismatch of perceptions between the perceiver and the perceived. Let's take X & Y.
X puts Y in an outer circle where he thinks his obligations to Y are very limited, whereas Y may assume that he is in an inner circle of Y in which case he thinks he is at liberty with X. Result is an inadvertent friction and we all know where friction leads to!
I think in the end this mismatch in perception can only be wiped out by opening ones book wide open to ones near and dear ones atleast. The first step towards that goal is to assess ourselves and ask ourselves one simple question. "Is my life really an open book?"
Friday, May 21, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Unwind!!!
It's been a while since i went for any sight seeing or took any vacation. However recently I had the opportunity to visit Kodaikkanal and Ooty at one go. It was a nice trip and both places offer so much in terms of natural beauty, that mere 7 days aren't enough to explore them fully. But one thing I learned in this trip is that you never go for any tourist spot during peak season. You will be bored to death commuting, due to the traffice caused by the serpentine queues formed by all the tour vehicles. By the time one reachs the spot he or she would literally be drained of all the energy. So no matter what, one must always go for any trip during off season only.
Somewhere I read that "A good traveller has no fixed plans and is not intent on arriving". Well, my trip fails miserably on both the counts. I had fixed plans and right from the start of the trip, I had been planning for the return. I could say that I had visited few places, but can never say that the trip went on as I had actually intended it to be. But one learns through one's experiences and I have certainly learnt a few lessons. Next time I plan for a trip, my objective will be to explore and not just to visit the place and I think that's the best way to unwind and recharge one's mental and emotional batteries.
Somewhere I read that "A good traveller has no fixed plans and is not intent on arriving". Well, my trip fails miserably on both the counts. I had fixed plans and right from the start of the trip, I had been planning for the return. I could say that I had visited few places, but can never say that the trip went on as I had actually intended it to be. But one learns through one's experiences and I have certainly learnt a few lessons. Next time I plan for a trip, my objective will be to explore and not just to visit the place and I think that's the best way to unwind and recharge one's mental and emotional batteries.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Another best friend's betrothal!
Today, I attended one of my friends' betrothal function and I needn't tell you explicitly, that I am really happy for the couple in focus. The function went smoothly, with lots of fun and activity as one can expect in such functions. Though I would love to draw a line in the middle of a paper and state at-least six differences between this one and the other betrothal function I had previously attended, on second thought, I would disallow myself such indulgence so as not to create any rift between those two friends. :-) Jokes apart, I shower my best wishes to both the bride and the groom on their engagement. (A damn good lunch is certainly a considerable contributor involved in this wish :-) )
There is a song that begins with the words "It's raining men" and it's going to be raining betrothals and marriages in the next 3 to 4 months. Added to this one of my friends has become the proud father of a pretty baby girl. (I realised why people call a baby as "bundle of joy" just by looking at my friend).
Now as people are getting ready to either to tie the knot or to say "I do" in one of the most important events of their lives called marriage, following are some of the rules of a happy marriage; but I would like to call them as "ten commandments of a happy married life" as recommended by elders and psychiatrists. As I have nothing else to give to my friends I list these golden rules which certainly made some sense when I read.
1. Never both be angry at the same time.
2. Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire.
3. If one of you has to win an argument, let it be your mate.
4. If you must criticise, do it lovingly.
5. Never bring up mistakes of the past.
6. Neglect the whole world rather than each other.
7. Never go to sleep with an argument unsettled.
8. At least once every day say a kind or complimentary word to your life partner.
9. When you have done something wrong, admit it and ask for forgiveness.
10.It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong usually is the one who does the most talking.
We can refer "Social Psychology" by Robert baron & Donn Byrne or any other related books for further details as to how to make a marriage or for that matter, any relationship work.
DISCLAIMER: All the incidents and persons I mentioned above are imaginary and any resemblance to any persons or incidents in real life is purely coincidental. :-)
There is a song that begins with the words "It's raining men" and it's going to be raining betrothals and marriages in the next 3 to 4 months. Added to this one of my friends has become the proud father of a pretty baby girl. (I realised why people call a baby as "bundle of joy" just by looking at my friend).
Now as people are getting ready to either to tie the knot or to say "I do" in one of the most important events of their lives called marriage, following are some of the rules of a happy marriage; but I would like to call them as "ten commandments of a happy married life" as recommended by elders and psychiatrists. As I have nothing else to give to my friends I list these golden rules which certainly made some sense when I read.
1. Never both be angry at the same time.
2. Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire.
3. If one of you has to win an argument, let it be your mate.
4. If you must criticise, do it lovingly.
5. Never bring up mistakes of the past.
6. Neglect the whole world rather than each other.
7. Never go to sleep with an argument unsettled.
8. At least once every day say a kind or complimentary word to your life partner.
9. When you have done something wrong, admit it and ask for forgiveness.
10.It takes two to make a quarrel, and the one in the wrong usually is the one who does the most talking.
We can refer "Social Psychology" by Robert baron & Donn Byrne or any other related books for further details as to how to make a marriage or for that matter, any relationship work.
DISCLAIMER: All the incidents and persons I mentioned above are imaginary and any resemblance to any persons or incidents in real life is purely coincidental. :-)
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Particle science * x = Vedanta !
Amidst the cacophony of IPL contoversiy and celebrity gossip one significant scientific breakthrough has been overlooked and didn't get registered on our grey cells. It was the successful testing of the LARGE HAEDRON COLLIDER in the CERN facility somewhere underground below the European continent. When something as significant as the GSLV launch by India doesn't find much coverage in the media it is understandable why an event, no matter how significant it may be, that happened underground and that too in Europe didn't cross the view of our media persons.
It's said that the scientists have achieved a successful collision of sub atomic particles at energy levels about 3 eTera volts.(I don't know its exact significance, but if the unit shows "Tera" then I guess it must be insanely high :-)). And this is just the half of the total energy levels for which the LHC has been designed for. Now drifting to a more relevant area, scientists say that this experiment tries to recreate the situation that existed right after the big bang some 13 billion years ago. (Now I understand why scientists are so nut cases!). There are lot of theories that pronunciate the creation of this universe. Most of them say that this universe was created as a result of a very big explosion called big bang and that the entire universe was about the size of an atom just prior to the explosion. As a result of those incomprehensible, unimaginable forces a big explosion happened and as a result a lot of subatomic particles were created and they in turn collided to form newer materials and this process went on and on till more and more tangible and stable particles were created which eventually led to the creation of this universe as we know now.
Now first of all I have to admit that I don't know the entire big bang theory, but still I have few questions at my disposal which needs to be clarified. If this theory says that the universe was created out of a big bang then does it mean that there was no universe prior to it? because creation means the coming into existence of something which was non-existent earlier. This leads to another question; So this universe was created out of nothing by the big bang? It can not be, because the scientists themselves say that all the energy existed in a very concentrated form known as singularity. Well, well, well, if big bang happened because of the already existing energy then how can it called as the CREATION? because the name itself supposes that something non-existent should come to existence. In other words that something came out of nothing which is inconceivable because in my school days I distinctly remember the fundamental scientific concept that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed".
It was at this juncture when I was at the crossroads of scientific turmoil :-), I stumbled upon a book which clarified all my doubts. It's one of the 12 works of Swami Vivekananda; 2nd volume to be precise. Among the host of all the answers to almost all the questions, following are a few.
All the massive celestial bodies with unimaginable sizes are all constituted of unimaginably smaller particles called atoms. If we go further we hit subatomic particles and this is the stage our current scientific knowledge has arrived at. Vedanta says that more finer and still finer particles exist beyond the subatomic particles. It says that what we see as a finite object is as a matter of fact infinite. For example if we take a tree, it's a finite entity. But if we keep on dissecting it there is no end to the amount of sub entities that are present and the same applies to all the things in this universe. Vivekananda beautifully states that we all are "infinitely finite" or rather infinite beings in an otherwise finite body.
Next statement is also an arresting one. As per the current scientific evolution, we believe that the universe is evolving, that universe evolved out of big bang, whereas vedanta says that universe not only evolves but also involves. Every evolution is succeeded and preceded by an involution and every involution is preceded and succeeded by an evolution. Evolution is a process in which the energy becomes grosser and grosser whereas involution is a process in which the energy becomes finer and finer. Hence Vedanta clearly states that there wasn't anything that can be remotely be called as creation for creation means something out of nothing which is impossible. This thought was beautifully taught to us in the Bhagawadgita which in turn is the abridged version of the Vedanta and it says "Never did I not exist, nor you, nor will any of us ever hereafter cease to be".
EPILOGUE: Vedanta says if you realise that one thing, by which you know everything that's the ultimate goal. In an interview the genius scientist Stephen hawking said that if we know that one thing (Unity) there isn't much left for physicists to know any further. Vedanta says you have to realise whereas science says you have to know. So I am inclined to say that Vedanta is the epitome of true scientific achievement and the pinnacle which the present science is trying to reach. That's why I say that Particle science or for that matter, science multiplied a X number of upgradations equals Vedanta!!!!
It's said that the scientists have achieved a successful collision of sub atomic particles at energy levels about 3 eTera volts.(I don't know its exact significance, but if the unit shows "Tera" then I guess it must be insanely high :-)). And this is just the half of the total energy levels for which the LHC has been designed for. Now drifting to a more relevant area, scientists say that this experiment tries to recreate the situation that existed right after the big bang some 13 billion years ago. (Now I understand why scientists are so nut cases!). There are lot of theories that pronunciate the creation of this universe. Most of them say that this universe was created as a result of a very big explosion called big bang and that the entire universe was about the size of an atom just prior to the explosion. As a result of those incomprehensible, unimaginable forces a big explosion happened and as a result a lot of subatomic particles were created and they in turn collided to form newer materials and this process went on and on till more and more tangible and stable particles were created which eventually led to the creation of this universe as we know now.
Now first of all I have to admit that I don't know the entire big bang theory, but still I have few questions at my disposal which needs to be clarified. If this theory says that the universe was created out of a big bang then does it mean that there was no universe prior to it? because creation means the coming into existence of something which was non-existent earlier. This leads to another question; So this universe was created out of nothing by the big bang? It can not be, because the scientists themselves say that all the energy existed in a very concentrated form known as singularity. Well, well, well, if big bang happened because of the already existing energy then how can it called as the CREATION? because the name itself supposes that something non-existent should come to existence. In other words that something came out of nothing which is inconceivable because in my school days I distinctly remember the fundamental scientific concept that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed".
It was at this juncture when I was at the crossroads of scientific turmoil :-), I stumbled upon a book which clarified all my doubts. It's one of the 12 works of Swami Vivekananda; 2nd volume to be precise. Among the host of all the answers to almost all the questions, following are a few.
All the massive celestial bodies with unimaginable sizes are all constituted of unimaginably smaller particles called atoms. If we go further we hit subatomic particles and this is the stage our current scientific knowledge has arrived at. Vedanta says that more finer and still finer particles exist beyond the subatomic particles. It says that what we see as a finite object is as a matter of fact infinite. For example if we take a tree, it's a finite entity. But if we keep on dissecting it there is no end to the amount of sub entities that are present and the same applies to all the things in this universe. Vivekananda beautifully states that we all are "infinitely finite" or rather infinite beings in an otherwise finite body.
Next statement is also an arresting one. As per the current scientific evolution, we believe that the universe is evolving, that universe evolved out of big bang, whereas vedanta says that universe not only evolves but also involves. Every evolution is succeeded and preceded by an involution and every involution is preceded and succeeded by an evolution. Evolution is a process in which the energy becomes grosser and grosser whereas involution is a process in which the energy becomes finer and finer. Hence Vedanta clearly states that there wasn't anything that can be remotely be called as creation for creation means something out of nothing which is impossible. This thought was beautifully taught to us in the Bhagawadgita which in turn is the abridged version of the Vedanta and it says "Never did I not exist, nor you, nor will any of us ever hereafter cease to be".
EPILOGUE: Vedanta says if you realise that one thing, by which you know everything that's the ultimate goal. In an interview the genius scientist Stephen hawking said that if we know that one thing (Unity) there isn't much left for physicists to know any further. Vedanta says you have to realise whereas science says you have to know. So I am inclined to say that Vedanta is the epitome of true scientific achievement and the pinnacle which the present science is trying to reach. That's why I say that Particle science or for that matter, science multiplied a X number of upgradations equals Vedanta!!!!
Sunday, April 11, 2010
My best friend's betrothal :-)
Last Sunday I attended one of my friend's betrothal.It was a simple and yet a striking function. I couldn't help remembering a classic movie sequence from the film "Mayabazaar" in which the great actor S.V.Ranagarao stares at the feast in front of him and starts to sing impromptu. Well in this case the occasion may not be that of a marriage but the intensity was no less than that of any marriage. There were sweets, there were dresses, and an insane amount of jewellery :-).
But more importantly there were his family members, the girl's family members and of course their colleagues and friends. Both dressed impeccably and looked at their best. My only concern is that why is that it's always the girl who dresses traditionally whereas the guy dresses like he has just dropped from London? But one look at them and these thoughts become evanescent. I can assure that all the shutter bugs would have had a field day, had they been present on the occassion! All of us had a good time but I can not say the same about the couple in focus :-).
EPILOGUE: There's another friend's engagement which is very soon and normally he should be under tremendous pressure to maintain the standard that has been set, if not to exceed it. But having known him for some time, I am sure one can expect wonderful surprises.
But more importantly there were his family members, the girl's family members and of course their colleagues and friends. Both dressed impeccably and looked at their best. My only concern is that why is that it's always the girl who dresses traditionally whereas the guy dresses like he has just dropped from London? But one look at them and these thoughts become evanescent. I can assure that all the shutter bugs would have had a field day, had they been present on the occassion! All of us had a good time but I can not say the same about the couple in focus :-).
EPILOGUE: There's another friend's engagement which is very soon and normally he should be under tremendous pressure to maintain the standard that has been set, if not to exceed it. But having known him for some time, I am sure one can expect wonderful surprises.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Shop street
Yesterday I watched this tamil movie "Angaadi theru" which approximately gets translated into "Shop steet" in english. :-). I didn't like the movie right from the beginning. I thought it was turning out to be another movie which Kollywood is churning off late with the the theme currently in vogue and that is, a few village blokes coming to the city to earn money and the difficulties they face and the misery they end up in. All the characters barring a few were like caricatures deliberately exaggerated in their performances, way over the top. The movie was very loud and I wonder how my ear drums endured that loudness. Though it's a small budget movie, considerable share of it has certainly gone into the purchase of glycerine, it seems. Because almost all the characters cry all the time. Even Poseidon couldn't have produced so many tears within the short span of about two and half hours, I guess.
As my thoughts were leading in this direction, somewhere it started to change its course and to my surprise I ended up loving the movie. What made me say this? Here we go...
Though the movie's theme may be redundant its picturisation was very natural.
Though the treatment was cliched and loud, the intention was pristine.
Though the faces were new and raw, they were natural and can be easily related to.
Though the movie sashayed with a negative vibe it ended up as a tragedy with a damn good positive vibe.
This is more than just a story projected on a celluloid. It's the depiction of an altogether different lifestyle which we either ignore or are unaware. This reminds me of some of the novels written by Arthur Hailey like 'Airport", "Hotel","Wheels", "Final diagnosis" in which he elaborates all the nitty,gritty and minute details of respective professions or fields. He beautifully brings the other side of all these professions into our full view. The characters in his novels serve mainly as a means and they don't move the plot by themselves. This is what I exactly felt when I was watching this movie. The characters by themselves don't move the plot of the movie but they are just part of the bigger picture and it felt like a breath of fresh air.
One uncomfortable reservation I have with this movie is its music. Though it could be because of the pathetic audio system in the hall, there are some moments in the movie which could have been memorable except for the mistimed music score. I guess our directors have to know the best way to use music and that is by not adding any music at all. They should apply it subtly and should give importance to silence. In one scene the camera pans out from the hero's face to show us the situation of the room in front of him. Though I can not tell how better the music could have been scored for that situation, it still could have made an excellent impact with no music at all.
I didn't like the movie because it wanted me to sympathise with the characters, but only in the end it succeeded in making me empathise with the characters and for that I like the movie.
Verdict: I'll never watch this movie again, except for the climax for which I can watch this movie any number of times.
As my thoughts were leading in this direction, somewhere it started to change its course and to my surprise I ended up loving the movie. What made me say this? Here we go...
Though the movie's theme may be redundant its picturisation was very natural.
Though the treatment was cliched and loud, the intention was pristine.
Though the faces were new and raw, they were natural and can be easily related to.
Though the movie sashayed with a negative vibe it ended up as a tragedy with a damn good positive vibe.
This is more than just a story projected on a celluloid. It's the depiction of an altogether different lifestyle which we either ignore or are unaware. This reminds me of some of the novels written by Arthur Hailey like 'Airport", "Hotel","Wheels", "Final diagnosis" in which he elaborates all the nitty,gritty and minute details of respective professions or fields. He beautifully brings the other side of all these professions into our full view. The characters in his novels serve mainly as a means and they don't move the plot by themselves. This is what I exactly felt when I was watching this movie. The characters by themselves don't move the plot of the movie but they are just part of the bigger picture and it felt like a breath of fresh air.
One uncomfortable reservation I have with this movie is its music. Though it could be because of the pathetic audio system in the hall, there are some moments in the movie which could have been memorable except for the mistimed music score. I guess our directors have to know the best way to use music and that is by not adding any music at all. They should apply it subtly and should give importance to silence. In one scene the camera pans out from the hero's face to show us the situation of the room in front of him. Though I can not tell how better the music could have been scored for that situation, it still could have made an excellent impact with no music at all.
I didn't like the movie because it wanted me to sympathise with the characters, but only in the end it succeeded in making me empathise with the characters and for that I like the movie.
Verdict: I'll never watch this movie again, except for the climax for which I can watch this movie any number of times.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
IPL - Indian Pathetic League
Indian Premier League is currently underway and every evening we are told that it's a feast for the eyes, what with atleast two nail baiting high quality matches. Set max has taken this responsibility of broadcasting these matches upon itself and beaming them right into our homes, into our drawing rooms. For those who are stuck up in offices "Youtube" has come to their rescue what with live match video feeds in it. It's been said and observed that viewership is at an all time high, TRPs are ruling the roost, it's providing excellent entertainment with fashion shows, with music videos, with fire works, with cheer leaders, with new advertisements, with parading of glamorous models along with cricketers, countless number of analysis, pre-match discussion, post-match discussion and what not? Amidst all this cacophony one has overlooked one simple yet central entity, "CRICKET".
Off late it has become a fashion to say that cricket is no more just a game that it has to be repackaged and to be presented as entertainment. Otherwise current generation will not accept the game. Well let me say this to whosoever conceived these conceptions that there is one major flaw in it despite being partially right. I agree with the view that everything undergoes change and it is imperative to adapt to the changing environment and times. But it's no excuse to indulge in dousing the spirit of the game itself. Let me elucidate further on this topic.
When we observe major leagues all over the world, they have all evolved as an attempt to tap the business opportunity using the existing format of the game. Nowhere can you see the game being modified to suit business requirements. On the contrary all the businesses are fit into the game's scheme of things. But here we are modifying the game itself for the sake of business. Cricket by its nature is a game which is every corporates' or ad agency's dream come true because it provides so much visibility which is quintessential for anybody who wants to advertise their products or services. Now this has gone to such an extent that the game is being used just as a means for advertisement and nothing else. To substantiate this statement is very easy. Just watch any IPL match this evening and you can find that 30% to 40% of the screen is occupied with advertisements some text based and some graphic based. If there is some small delay in the bowler's run up, you can see an ad squeezed within that time. If not they will show you the ads being played in the giant screens present in the ground. If a decision is pending there's an ad, if a player is injured there's an ad, if the captain is setting the field there's an ad. Some ads showcase an individual player's endorsement of a particular product, and some others show a team's endorsement of a particular product in which a particular individual player is also part. To which product his allegiance lies? No one knows! All this reminds me of the story of a goose which used to lay one golden egg each day. Trying to utilise cricket just for advertising is like killing that goose to have all the golden eggs which is sheer stupidity.
All the owners and corporates' may beat their chests and cry that they are doing this for the love of the game, for country and other stale reasons, but the fact is undeniable. If they want to really improve the game then they should be encouraging players in ranji trophy. That will strengthen the game at the grassroots level which is good for the game and eventually good for the business too. Hence this argument is invalid.
Eventhough I can be convinced albeit reluctantly by agreeing to the reality that it's all business! (and I know nothing about business) there is one more fact which I find it hard to ignore.
Every game has an intrinsic quality which makes it unique. Cricket's is "Unpredictability". All the factors such as size of the ground, type of ball being used, pitch, dew, visibility, day or night etc, play a factor in the outcome of this game. More the number of variables more possible outcomes, less the predictability, more suspense and more enjoyment. This is the soul of this game and this is what makes a game transcend generations and generations. But when this soul is taken away the game will die a natural death. This is what is being assiduously attempted at this grand farce called IPL. In no other league, the game is modified favouring a particular segment of the game like in cricket. For example, pitches are made to be batsman friendly, boundaries are shortened, field restrictions have been modified, introduction of free ball; all to help batsmen and to kill the spirit of bowlers. If you want to modify the game by eliminating all the variables favouring only the batsmen, then it's much better to get a throwing machine instead of a bowler.
Cricket unlike any other game represents the life very closely. Like in life, it has highs like the first 15 overs, lows like quick fall of wickets, a period when nothing significant happens like in middle overs and something very exhilarating like the slog overs. And the last but not the least, the unpredictability factor in which an underdog can sometimes overcome even the invincibles to win a match is what makes cricket what it is. If this soul is taken away it's no better than a video game. One may feel like having fun can never experience the essence of the game.
EPILOGUE: Moreover game is never meant to be entertainment. If a player or a team work their hearts out and sweat it out on a field it's not to entertain the audience but to achieve excellence in what they do. Roger federer doesn't want to win one grand slam after another to entertain the audience or to just be famous but for the sake of the game. Sachin doesn't bat the way he bats to entertain the audience but only for the sake of the game. Any game or for that matter any work needs to be played for its sake only. If audience want entertainment they can very well hit a theatre and watch a movie. Games and sports are not meant for entertainment but for something else and that something else is "inspiration". Once the legendary tennis player "Evan lendle' was criticised for being sober and not that entertaining for which he responded something like "I am a player and I like playing and giving my best. If you want entertainment, you better choose something else" Well this statement surmises what I had been trying to tell the whole time.
Off late it has become a fashion to say that cricket is no more just a game that it has to be repackaged and to be presented as entertainment. Otherwise current generation will not accept the game. Well let me say this to whosoever conceived these conceptions that there is one major flaw in it despite being partially right. I agree with the view that everything undergoes change and it is imperative to adapt to the changing environment and times. But it's no excuse to indulge in dousing the spirit of the game itself. Let me elucidate further on this topic.
When we observe major leagues all over the world, they have all evolved as an attempt to tap the business opportunity using the existing format of the game. Nowhere can you see the game being modified to suit business requirements. On the contrary all the businesses are fit into the game's scheme of things. But here we are modifying the game itself for the sake of business. Cricket by its nature is a game which is every corporates' or ad agency's dream come true because it provides so much visibility which is quintessential for anybody who wants to advertise their products or services. Now this has gone to such an extent that the game is being used just as a means for advertisement and nothing else. To substantiate this statement is very easy. Just watch any IPL match this evening and you can find that 30% to 40% of the screen is occupied with advertisements some text based and some graphic based. If there is some small delay in the bowler's run up, you can see an ad squeezed within that time. If not they will show you the ads being played in the giant screens present in the ground. If a decision is pending there's an ad, if a player is injured there's an ad, if the captain is setting the field there's an ad. Some ads showcase an individual player's endorsement of a particular product, and some others show a team's endorsement of a particular product in which a particular individual player is also part. To which product his allegiance lies? No one knows! All this reminds me of the story of a goose which used to lay one golden egg each day. Trying to utilise cricket just for advertising is like killing that goose to have all the golden eggs which is sheer stupidity.
All the owners and corporates' may beat their chests and cry that they are doing this for the love of the game, for country and other stale reasons, but the fact is undeniable. If they want to really improve the game then they should be encouraging players in ranji trophy. That will strengthen the game at the grassroots level which is good for the game and eventually good for the business too. Hence this argument is invalid.
Eventhough I can be convinced albeit reluctantly by agreeing to the reality that it's all business! (and I know nothing about business) there is one more fact which I find it hard to ignore.
Every game has an intrinsic quality which makes it unique. Cricket's is "Unpredictability". All the factors such as size of the ground, type of ball being used, pitch, dew, visibility, day or night etc, play a factor in the outcome of this game. More the number of variables more possible outcomes, less the predictability, more suspense and more enjoyment. This is the soul of this game and this is what makes a game transcend generations and generations. But when this soul is taken away the game will die a natural death. This is what is being assiduously attempted at this grand farce called IPL. In no other league, the game is modified favouring a particular segment of the game like in cricket. For example, pitches are made to be batsman friendly, boundaries are shortened, field restrictions have been modified, introduction of free ball; all to help batsmen and to kill the spirit of bowlers. If you want to modify the game by eliminating all the variables favouring only the batsmen, then it's much better to get a throwing machine instead of a bowler.
Cricket unlike any other game represents the life very closely. Like in life, it has highs like the first 15 overs, lows like quick fall of wickets, a period when nothing significant happens like in middle overs and something very exhilarating like the slog overs. And the last but not the least, the unpredictability factor in which an underdog can sometimes overcome even the invincibles to win a match is what makes cricket what it is. If this soul is taken away it's no better than a video game. One may feel like having fun can never experience the essence of the game.
EPILOGUE: Moreover game is never meant to be entertainment. If a player or a team work their hearts out and sweat it out on a field it's not to entertain the audience but to achieve excellence in what they do. Roger federer doesn't want to win one grand slam after another to entertain the audience or to just be famous but for the sake of the game. Sachin doesn't bat the way he bats to entertain the audience but only for the sake of the game. Any game or for that matter any work needs to be played for its sake only. If audience want entertainment they can very well hit a theatre and watch a movie. Games and sports are not meant for entertainment but for something else and that something else is "inspiration". Once the legendary tennis player "Evan lendle' was criticised for being sober and not that entertaining for which he responded something like "I am a player and I like playing and giving my best. If you want entertainment, you better choose something else" Well this statement surmises what I had been trying to tell the whole time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)