The post is in response to this comment (click):
Simply J,
I will respond to other issues you have pointed out, but you have not addressed the original issue - what makes Pakistan a "great" neighbor? Isn't it the most objectionable part of his speech? What standards were used to adjudged the country as great? That way, all the countries would be great neighbors! Palestine should consider Israel a great neighbor, and vice versa! Peace-loving nature and international cooperation (of India, for instance) would no longer remain virtues. Even if a government encroaches upon other country's territory, they are "great". Even if they shield the most wanted criminal of their neighboring country, they are "great". So by that standard, Indian private enterprises by not taking Pakistani players in their team are also "great". Why are we complaining, then? Why did he feel "ashamed"? Why set different standards for Pakistan and India to be termed as "great"? When he has called both India and Pakistan as good/great in the same breath, he has actually insulted the restraint India has demonstrated over the years. He has equated the international behaviors of India and Pakistan. By his standards, then if Indian government tomorrow decides to nuke any country still India would remain great, right? Then, why feel humiliated by something as trivial as Pak cricketers not getting picked up in IPL.
Again, you have not responded to the issue of Pak players' income being used to fund terrorism in India.
I couldn't find anything in the video clip that has not been quoted already. But thanks for sharing all the same! I had anyway watched the video yesterday.
"4. KKR makes most of its money cuz of its fancy ad campaigns, so makes sense to spend more there and buy the players cheap."
1. Exactly, that's what I pointed out. Pakistani players were going the cheapest, and that they were "champions" only added further value to them. So, strategy-wise, according to SRK bidding for them was the best thing to do ('cuz his team would win despite spending less), which he did not do, and later felt ashamed for not doing so! Why? And if SRK is entitled to have business concerns, why not other teams? Other teams also had business concerns! Reliance and Wadias both are from Mumbai. Most definitely, their shareholders would be disappointed with them at least somewhat.
2. What prevented him from 'buying' Razzaq was by SRK's own confession Razzaq's injured wrist. So, if according to SRK, Razzaq was the only person worthy of bidding, and not even someone like Shahid Afridi, or Sohail Tanvir (who had taken so many wickets in the first edition), then why did he raise such a storm by calling Pakistani team the best, and pointing out there world champion status?
3. "That's what he said about Aussies as well."
Then, what explains the fact that people bid for Aussies and actually bought them? In fact, SRK himself has two Aussie players in his team - Brad Hodge and David Hussey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata_Knight_Riders#Current_Squad
4. "suppose you buy a good player for a hefty amount, say Rs. X. Now, you have just Total money-X left to buy other players. So, you have to compromise with some average players in the remaining amount. Now, if the good player is not allowed to play ... that's what he said..."
But firstly, Pakistani players were coming the cheapest. And if his decision to not take any Pak player was so coldly strategic (to not waste money), what was the need for him to feel ashamed? I've never heard that to plan one's budget should invite shame! Remember, no one had asked him - "are you feeling ashamed for not taking a single Pak player?" He said that on his own! So, again there is a paradox in how he conducted himself and what he later said.
2. "I find it rather ludicrous to actually comment on. He could have named anyone, Afridi, Tanvir or even Moin Khan….how does that matter? Razzaq was not allowed to play in earlier versions of IPL cuz of his links with ICL. But after being granted amnesty, he did wonders for Pakistan in T20 WC. Makes sense to buy him."
You possibly missed the point. What I was trying to tell you is that there was no restriction on bidding only for Razaq. He could have still chosen from 6 other new Pak players that were available for auction. Why should he have chosen? Simply because they were the best in his words, and were also available for the lowest price. If he was willing to take Razzaq as the news had been floating around, why not some other Pak player? If on one hand he says, Pak players were the best, and despite that he does not take them, then isn't that kind of odd?
5. "It’s humiliating for him cuz it was done in a very crude manner."??
Why should he feel humiliated if it was done by others? See, this is where double standards become apparent. One should avoid doing things that make one feel humiliated. For instance, if I feel robbing will bring me shame, then I should not steal. I cannot go around giving "strategic" reasons as to why I decided to steal. The fact that I do something after a lot of thought is proof enough that I did not consider doing so humiliating enough in the first place. So, if he knew that not taking any Pakistani player, he would feel humiliated, then he should have taken at least one player! Had he taken at least one player, then he would not have felt humiliated. Simple! If you point out that there were uncertainties surrounding Pak players, then similar uncertainties were also there surrounding Australian players, and as I pointed out he has two Aussies in his squad. Plus, not to forget Australian team coach and physiotherapist.
6. "If you watch the clip, all he says is that we can’t just keep fussing over non-selection of Pakistan players."
The fuss was about to settle, but was given a shot in the arm by SRK himself by propounding the "great-nation-theory".
7. "He just expressed his feelings that the youth should show the way ahead to the two nations whose destinies are so entwined. What’s wrong in that?"
I find many things wrong in what he said. I will try to point out, though it may make me unpopular, I would try to answer these with all honest I could summon, and pragmatically.
7.a. I do not find my destiny entwined with Pakistan or Pakistani youth any more than say youth from Brazil, Somalia or Singapore. Could you please elaborate on how Indian youth's destiny is entwined? Pre-independence historical connection is too old a thing. My life does not depend on Pakistani youth in any way, except for if one of them decides to blow up one of the trains/buses in which I or one of my relatives/friends, etc., might traveling. I do not find my destiny entwined with Pakistani youth because my employment is not going to be in Pakistan, financially, I will not be dependent on Pakistan, for entertainment, I watch bollwyood and hollywood movies, which are not made in Pakistan, none of the food items I consume grow exclusively in Pakistan, and if I would (say, sugar), I pay (through government) the price they ask for in accordance with free market principles. So, I do not find my destiny entwined with Pak's youth in anyway. And I believe same to be the case with vast majority of Indians. And using the same standards, our destiny could get entwined with any nation's. Possibly, our lives get affected by what happens in the US much more than what happens in Pakistan, except for of course, all the violence Pakistan perpetuates against Indians.
And if someone suggests that by Pak's players playing in IPL, the probability that number of terrorist attacks in India will reduce, I again don't agree with the argument. Because, all major wars and terrorist attacks had taken place in India when both the countries were anyway playing cricket with each other!
7.b. Let's get a step ahead. Alright, possibly loving Pakistan's youth could be a good thing. So, hasn't India shown enough love by never carrying out any kind of military attack in the past?
Isn't it high time Pakistani youth simply reciprocated that love by not carrying out terrorist attacks in India and letting us live in peace for at least half a decade?
How much unrequited love can we show? And, why? I have one simple concept - that which is freely available is of very little value. Love, for instance. Love is for values represented by a person/nation. I do not find the values Pakistan stands for worthy of my love, at least. And hence, I disagree with SRK. I cannot go on loving people/nations simply because they exist. Loving every nation simply for existing would be like giving full marks to every candidate for simply appearing for in the exam! Even SRK in his movies falls in love with only one or two heroines. Why? Why does he not love just about any character in the movies?
8. "And as for his appeal, well, why single out him?
Wasn't he the only person who felt humiliated of all the team owners? In fact, Shilpa Shetty so clearly indicated their team's choice was their prerogative, and they were not answerable. SRK was singled out because he only started anwering questions that nobody asked him!
9. "At some time or the other, many of our national leaders, and leave them, we ourselves have expressed such a feeling."
In my knowledge everyone who has expressed such feelings after Kargil, Kandahar, Parliament attack and 26/11 has been criticized. SRK is one of the most prominent personalities in India, and he knows that despite the fact that he calls himself "an ordinary citizen". Given Pakistan's track record (for instance, only today itself Pakistan's EAM, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, has declared that Kashmir as an issue is non-negotiable, which in simpler words means, either India accedes Kashmir or violence in India will continue), I consider it either naive or hypocritical to give Pakistan any benefit of doubt. And, undeserved love seems even more naive/hypocritical. I also used to wishfully believe in SRK's purported love before Kargil happened. And after that too, too, too many things have happened to be able to love Pakistan. Now, P. Chidambaram has been criticized simply for saying that his government would have provided complete security to Pakistani players, and not even that we should love Pakistan. Whichever leader has called Jinnah secular has also been criticized. The 'aman ki asha' drill of ToI has also been criticized.
If you might be wondering why such a stubborn attitude towards Pakistan, then, it is simply because, we can and ought to stop doing them favors till they stop hating and hurting India. I do not get the logic behind limitless love in face of unremitting violence emanating from Pakistan.
And very lastly, if someone wants to suggest that the "common" people of Pakistan are good and love India, then, firstly I am skeptical of the claim, and secondly, just like how in a cricket team, if only one bowler bowls badly and gives away too many extras and the entire team "losesS", or if just one player hits a century (and rest all play badly) the entire team wins, similarly entire nation is great/not great.
Simply J,
I will respond to other issues you have pointed out, but you have not addressed the original issue - what makes Pakistan a "great" neighbor? Isn't it the most objectionable part of his speech? What standards were used to adjudged the country as great? That way, all the countries would be great neighbors! Palestine should consider Israel a great neighbor, and vice versa! Peace-loving nature and international cooperation (of India, for instance) would no longer remain virtues. Even if a government encroaches upon other country's territory, they are "great". Even if they shield the most wanted criminal of their neighboring country, they are "great". So by that standard, Indian private enterprises by not taking Pakistani players in their team are also "great". Why are we complaining, then? Why did he feel "ashamed"? Why set different standards for Pakistan and India to be termed as "great"? When he has called both India and Pakistan as good/great in the same breath, he has actually insulted the restraint India has demonstrated over the years. He has equated the international behaviors of India and Pakistan. By his standards, then if Indian government tomorrow decides to nuke any country still India would remain great, right? Then, why feel humiliated by something as trivial as Pak cricketers not getting picked up in IPL.
Again, you have not responded to the issue of Pak players' income being used to fund terrorism in India.
I couldn't find anything in the video clip that has not been quoted already. But thanks for sharing all the same! I had anyway watched the video yesterday.
"4. KKR makes most of its money cuz of its fancy ad campaigns, so makes sense to spend more there and buy the players cheap."
1. Exactly, that's what I pointed out. Pakistani players were going the cheapest, and that they were "champions" only added further value to them. So, strategy-wise, according to SRK bidding for them was the best thing to do ('cuz his team would win despite spending less), which he did not do, and later felt ashamed for not doing so! Why? And if SRK is entitled to have business concerns, why not other teams? Other teams also had business concerns! Reliance and Wadias both are from Mumbai. Most definitely, their shareholders would be disappointed with them at least somewhat.
2. What prevented him from 'buying' Razzaq was by SRK's own confession Razzaq's injured wrist. So, if according to SRK, Razzaq was the only person worthy of bidding, and not even someone like Shahid Afridi, or Sohail Tanvir (who had taken so many wickets in the first edition), then why did he raise such a storm by calling Pakistani team the best, and pointing out there world champion status?
3. "That's what he said about Aussies as well."
Then, what explains the fact that people bid for Aussies and actually bought them? In fact, SRK himself has two Aussie players in his team - Brad Hodge and David Hussey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata_Knight_Riders#Current_Squad
4. "suppose you buy a good player for a hefty amount, say Rs. X. Now, you have just Total money-X left to buy other players. So, you have to compromise with some average players in the remaining amount. Now, if the good player is not allowed to play ... that's what he said..."
But firstly, Pakistani players were coming the cheapest. And if his decision to not take any Pak player was so coldly strategic (to not waste money), what was the need for him to feel ashamed? I've never heard that to plan one's budget should invite shame! Remember, no one had asked him - "are you feeling ashamed for not taking a single Pak player?" He said that on his own! So, again there is a paradox in how he conducted himself and what he later said.
2. "I find it rather ludicrous to actually comment on. He could have named anyone, Afridi, Tanvir or even Moin Khan….how does that matter? Razzaq was not allowed to play in earlier versions of IPL cuz of his links with ICL. But after being granted amnesty, he did wonders for Pakistan in T20 WC. Makes sense to buy him."
You possibly missed the point. What I was trying to tell you is that there was no restriction on bidding only for Razaq. He could have still chosen from 6 other new Pak players that were available for auction. Why should he have chosen? Simply because they were the best in his words, and were also available for the lowest price. If he was willing to take Razzaq as the news had been floating around, why not some other Pak player? If on one hand he says, Pak players were the best, and despite that he does not take them, then isn't that kind of odd?
5. "It’s humiliating for him cuz it was done in a very crude manner."??
Why should he feel humiliated if it was done by others? See, this is where double standards become apparent. One should avoid doing things that make one feel humiliated. For instance, if I feel robbing will bring me shame, then I should not steal. I cannot go around giving "strategic" reasons as to why I decided to steal. The fact that I do something after a lot of thought is proof enough that I did not consider doing so humiliating enough in the first place. So, if he knew that not taking any Pakistani player, he would feel humiliated, then he should have taken at least one player! Had he taken at least one player, then he would not have felt humiliated. Simple! If you point out that there were uncertainties surrounding Pak players, then similar uncertainties were also there surrounding Australian players, and as I pointed out he has two Aussies in his squad. Plus, not to forget Australian team coach and physiotherapist.
6. "If you watch the clip, all he says is that we can’t just keep fussing over non-selection of Pakistan players."
The fuss was about to settle, but was given a shot in the arm by SRK himself by propounding the "great-nation-theory".
7. "He just expressed his feelings that the youth should show the way ahead to the two nations whose destinies are so entwined. What’s wrong in that?"
I find many things wrong in what he said. I will try to point out, though it may make me unpopular, I would try to answer these with all honest I could summon, and pragmatically.
7.a. I do not find my destiny entwined with Pakistan or Pakistani youth any more than say youth from Brazil, Somalia or Singapore. Could you please elaborate on how Indian youth's destiny is entwined? Pre-independence historical connection is too old a thing. My life does not depend on Pakistani youth in any way, except for if one of them decides to blow up one of the trains/buses in which I or one of my relatives/friends, etc., might traveling. I do not find my destiny entwined with Pakistani youth because my employment is not going to be in Pakistan, financially, I will not be dependent on Pakistan, for entertainment, I watch bollwyood and hollywood movies, which are not made in Pakistan, none of the food items I consume grow exclusively in Pakistan, and if I would (say, sugar), I pay (through government) the price they ask for in accordance with free market principles. So, I do not find my destiny entwined with Pak's youth in anyway. And I believe same to be the case with vast majority of Indians. And using the same standards, our destiny could get entwined with any nation's. Possibly, our lives get affected by what happens in the US much more than what happens in Pakistan, except for of course, all the violence Pakistan perpetuates against Indians.
And if someone suggests that by Pak's players playing in IPL, the probability that number of terrorist attacks in India will reduce, I again don't agree with the argument. Because, all major wars and terrorist attacks had taken place in India when both the countries were anyway playing cricket with each other!
7.b. Let's get a step ahead. Alright, possibly loving Pakistan's youth could be a good thing. So, hasn't India shown enough love by never carrying out any kind of military attack in the past?
Isn't it high time Pakistani youth simply reciprocated that love by not carrying out terrorist attacks in India and letting us live in peace for at least half a decade?
How much unrequited love can we show? And, why? I have one simple concept - that which is freely available is of very little value. Love, for instance. Love is for values represented by a person/nation. I do not find the values Pakistan stands for worthy of my love, at least. And hence, I disagree with SRK. I cannot go on loving people/nations simply because they exist. Loving every nation simply for existing would be like giving full marks to every candidate for simply appearing for in the exam! Even SRK in his movies falls in love with only one or two heroines. Why? Why does he not love just about any character in the movies?
8. "And as for his appeal, well, why single out him?
Wasn't he the only person who felt humiliated of all the team owners? In fact, Shilpa Shetty so clearly indicated their team's choice was their prerogative, and they were not answerable. SRK was singled out because he only started anwering questions that nobody asked him!
9. "At some time or the other, many of our national leaders, and leave them, we ourselves have expressed such a feeling."
In my knowledge everyone who has expressed such feelings after Kargil, Kandahar, Parliament attack and 26/11 has been criticized. SRK is one of the most prominent personalities in India, and he knows that despite the fact that he calls himself "an ordinary citizen". Given Pakistan's track record (for instance, only today itself Pakistan's EAM, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, has declared that Kashmir as an issue is non-negotiable, which in simpler words means, either India accedes Kashmir or violence in India will continue), I consider it either naive or hypocritical to give Pakistan any benefit of doubt. And, undeserved love seems even more naive/hypocritical. I also used to wishfully believe in SRK's purported love before Kargil happened. And after that too, too, too many things have happened to be able to love Pakistan. Now, P. Chidambaram has been criticized simply for saying that his government would have provided complete security to Pakistani players, and not even that we should love Pakistan. Whichever leader has called Jinnah secular has also been criticized. The 'aman ki asha' drill of ToI has also been criticized.
-----
If you might be wondering why such a stubborn attitude towards Pakistan, then, it is simply because, we can and ought to stop doing them favors till they stop hating and hurting India. I do not get the logic behind limitless love in face of unremitting violence emanating from Pakistan.
And very lastly, if someone wants to suggest that the "common" people of Pakistan are good and love India, then, firstly I am skeptical of the claim, and secondly, just like how in a cricket team, if only one bowler bowls badly and gives away too many extras and the entire team "losesS", or if just one player hits a century (and rest all play badly) the entire team wins, similarly entire nation is great/not great.
So, the bottom line is that you think any Indian national who calls Pakistan a great nation is wrong/hypocritical and she/he should be taken to task.
ReplyDeleteJ,
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the blog!
Not just an Indian, but anyone who has some knowledge of current affairs, if they term Pakistan "a great neighbor to have", then they are either being hypocritical or using some meaning of the word "great" that I could not find in a dictionary.
If asking for justification of this innovative usage of word "great" is construed as "taking to task", then your interpretation of the post is correct. Because he was not merely airing his personal opinion, he was also urging great number of people to change their opinion. To do so, without providing logical reason to me is unacceptable. I find it degrading of my intelligence that I should be told who to love, and who not to - that too without providing a reason. Also, implicit in his statement was the idea that Pakistan and India are equally great, given the two countries' widely disparate approaches to mutual disputes. Beyond this whatever I state would be mere repetition of what I have already stated. That his behavior was not consistent with his talk further increases the probability, the way I see it, that he was being insincere (and hence, hypocritical).
Also, if you read my response to Viv on Roop's blog, you'll find one more logical and ideological inconsistency in his conduct.
I'm surprised by response you gave my post by not touching upon so many other things I pointed out! :) But in fact, I've not even talked of taking him to task in my post. If he does not justify his counterintuitive statement with logic, he loses out my respect, and I have a right to criticize his act in my comments and blog post.
Thanks for dropping by! Take care.