The last time I wrote about Sachin Tendulkar was before the World Cup 2011, asking questions why the Indian team, consisting of cricket gods like Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid, was not able to win the World Cup Championship. This time, with Tendulkar announcing his retirement, an article was published in the 'The Hindu' newspaper, last Sunday, under the Canvas section of Magazine supplementary, had made me write another post on the same topic.
Titled 'The Man Who Became God' by L. Suresh, the article highlighted that only if Tendulkar had fans instead of worshipers things would have ended differently. The author goes on to say Tendulkar faced problems beyond his age and his failures on the field because he was elevated to a position above mortals. Projecting him as god has ended up making him the target of critics. The same critics were quite when Lara didn't pull his team when they caved in or when Ponting lost two Ashes series but did not spare Tendulkar as he was put both on a pedestal as well as a microscope. Being elevated as god, it didn't matter when he took the team into the finals of World Cup 2003 but did matter when he didn't score a 100 in the finals. It didn't matter when he, as the only player, notched up 50s and 100s but did matter when he didn't get his team to win. The author ends the article by saying his retirement deserves better response since the question "Why?" cried out by half the population was drowned by a resounding "Why not?" from the other half.
As I read the article, I was wondering when was the first time Tendulkar was christened as the god of cricket. I believe it was during the Coca-Cola Cup of 1998, a tri-nation series between India, Australia and New Zealand, when he scored back-to-back centuries, popularly know as the Desert Storm, helping India to win the cup. It was the same time when Shane Warne claimed that he had "nightmares" at the thought of bowling to Tendulkar. Tendulkar was credited for winning the tournament highhandedly. Tendulkar's first century in that tournament helped India to get to the finals based on a better run rate and his second century helped to win the finals.
The next question pondered in my mind was why did we make him a god. I believe it is not only because of his batting skills and his behavior. I think it has been the culture of India. Immortalization of a person has been the summit of exaltation for us. Be it the field of music, cinema or cricket, we always had gods. True to our worship, we had gone to the extend of creating clashes among us when one's god was compared better to another's god. Even though it is humane that everyone has their own likes and dislikes, immortalization of their favorite heroes has always stirred commotions at a greater level. I am starting to believe that whenever a immortalization of a mortal happens, there are grave consequences as an equal and opposite reaction. Is it because the true Immortal does not have want any mortal to be portrayed as mortal that the consequences are violent, I do not know.
I agree with the author that if only Sachin's fans stayed as a fan instead of becoming a worshiper or let him remain a legend instead of making him god, I think maybe, he would have gone to bat without bearing the heavy expectation of the entire population to score a century every time on his shoulders. Maybe, houses of cricketers would not been destroyed after performing badly in a World Cup match. Maybe, there wouldn't be a protest against anyone who has made remarks against man-immortalized-god. Maybe, falling at the feet would happen only to the true Immortal and our parents and not any equally mortal man. If only we had enjoyed any event as it is rather than making someone god, lives could have been better.
Image credits: msn.com, blogspot.com, mid-day.com
No comments:
Post a Comment