I recently had an interesting conversation on Facebook over a status update I had put up. Thought this might be a better place to archive the arguments people came up with and my answers.
Status: Cricket or for a matter of fact any other sport, art etc. is just entertainment. No matter how divine you call it, IT IS JUST ENTERTAINMENT!. Why the **** are entertainers given a RS seat ? There are LOT many ppl who have done lot many things to their fellow human beings. Sachin is just plain BULL**** (outside Cricket).
And the debate that followed ...
The argument: Sachin is not just a cricketer but also a good ambassador of the country.. He is not just known for his records but for being the most honest and humble cricketer of the era.. Also everyone knows the presidential nominations to RS is nothing but BULL****.. Not the nominee (read Sachin)..
Me: Sachin getting nominated is another thing, he ACCEPTED it, that makes him BULL****. Let him be a honest and humble Cricketer, I don't dispute that and I don't care about that but I CERTAINLY don't want him to rule me. His cricketing skills are enough to govern the country? What has he done till now with all the money and fame expect for donating a bit here and there ?
The argument: Sachin could have been threatened by someone with $314 billion in swiss bank into accepting the seat.
Me: If he accepted it because he was threatened then its lot more worse! Sachin is not poor either! .. and he has lot more cult following. Tomorrow he will be asked to do something that will plunder the nation, he'll do that too because he is threatened ?
The argument: highly unlikely when u have the power u will be the one who is issuing threats to every one to keep them in line with ur decision
Me: He already has it.
The argument: RS is a meant to play ONLY an advisory role and not meant to rule the nation (we are a democratic country and we are supposed to ELECT rulers and not SELECT them). Though it is nowadays used as a backdoor entry, thats a different case altogether.. And as per the constitution, out of 250 RS members, 12 are chosen by the President of India for their expertise in specific fields of art, literature, science, and social services. Cricket is an art and there is none better than Sachin to represent the art..
Me: 1. I am only saying he has much more influence in how the nation is ruled now. And he got this influence for just being an ENTERTAINER.
2. Well, he has been SELECTED and not ELECTED :-). I know the president can choose (which itself is disputable) but the point is he shouldn't have accepted.
3. I have already included 'art' in my first line itself :-)
The argument: Artists are included to ensure that the DUMB politicians do not forget something called art exists and artists by virtue of the art are expected to be more knowledgeable than the politicians.. And if the sons and daughters of politicians can have an RS seat just by virtue of their parental lineage, there is nothing wrong in artists getting nominated. Even I am personally unhappy with this degradation of Sachin by pulling him into politics (if not only by the nomination but also by all the drama that went on around it).. But that can never be the premise for calling him BULL****..
Me: "artists by virtue of the art are expected to be more knowledgeable than the politicians" - really ? then probably SRK too deserves a RS seat. Just because politicians bring in their sons/daughters to RS doesn't mean Sachin has to do the same. And lastly, you're talking like Sachin isn't responsible for any of things thats happening, he could have easily put everything to rest by not accepting it.
The argument: the true purpose of nominating artists is to provide them a bigger platform to make the art reach the masses and not leave the art and get into politics.. In that way, we shud wait and watch what Sachin does.. And I really do not understand why he should deny a honour that is bestowed upon him when there is no past record which suggests that he would fail to deliver there..
Me: Yup, we can wait and watch what hes going to do. That part I do accept. But if he does something for Cricket alone as a RS member, that still makes him BULL****. Any person with brains will understand that Cricket doesn't need any more attention and hand-holding then what it is getting now. Lets wait and see ..
The argument: on the theory of calling cricket as just entertainment... when India won the world cup in 2011. Did u felt proud or just applauded... If u really felt proud then how u see cricket as an entertainment. I believe it's more than that
Me: Yes I was. I was proud of the achievement. It was like the same feeling I got when I saw Rahman win the Oscars, Rajinikant getting accolades from far and wide. I am proud of the achievements they have done against all odds in their field. I was proud of the talent, the hard work, dedication. But being great entertainers doesn't automatically make you good or bad. Becoming a member of the parliament is to serve the people and not to entertain them. Talent and character are two different things. I can still be proud of ones talent but not of the character.
The argument: it's really hard to digest saying them as just entertainers.....
Me: What else have they done other playing ? If I call actor Vadivelu as an entertainer would it too be hard to digest ? Vadivelu and Vivek are great comedians and excel really well in their field. Just because Cricket is popular but comedians aren't, why should he be treated any different ? On a side note, BCCI isn't a government body but rather a 'private club' and so is just like any other entertainment business.
The argument: sport , entertainment ,game what ever you wish to call it depends on the perception of the individual . we can't talk about some one especially sachin who is the ultimate record holder for all time achievement in cricket and a great person in social life. on a comparative note vadivelu is not a grt person he spoke too much about ADMK and got blasted for it .
Me: " great person in social life" - how do you know that ? Vadivelu too has the right to free speech :)
?" sport , entertainment ,game what ever you wish to call it depends on the perception" - there is no perception here, its just plain fact.
The argument: meant comparing sports person to comedian is not really a balanced one ....
Me: I am comparing one entertainer to another :) .. of course their methods of entertaining are different :)
Status: Cricket or for a matter of fact any other sport, art etc. is just entertainment. No matter how divine you call it, IT IS JUST ENTERTAINMENT!. Why the **** are entertainers given a RS seat ? There are LOT many ppl who have done lot many things to their fellow human beings. Sachin is just plain BULL**** (outside Cricket).
And the debate that followed ...
The argument: Sachin is not just a cricketer but also a good ambassador of the country.. He is not just known for his records but for being the most honest and humble cricketer of the era.. Also everyone knows the presidential nominations to RS is nothing but BULL****.. Not the nominee (read Sachin)..
Me: Sachin getting nominated is another thing, he ACCEPTED it, that makes him BULL****. Let him be a honest and humble Cricketer, I don't dispute that and I don't care about that but I CERTAINLY don't want him to rule me. His cricketing skills are enough to govern the country? What has he done till now with all the money and fame expect for donating a bit here and there ?
The argument: Sachin could have been threatened by someone with $314 billion in swiss bank into accepting the seat.
Me: If he accepted it because he was threatened then its lot more worse! Sachin is not poor either! .. and he has lot more cult following. Tomorrow he will be asked to do something that will plunder the nation, he'll do that too because he is threatened ?
The argument: highly unlikely when u have the power u will be the one who is issuing threats to every one to keep them in line with ur decision
Me: He already has it.
The argument: RS is a meant to play ONLY an advisory role and not meant to rule the nation (we are a democratic country and we are supposed to ELECT rulers and not SELECT them). Though it is nowadays used as a backdoor entry, thats a different case altogether.. And as per the constitution, out of 250 RS members, 12 are chosen by the President of India for their expertise in specific fields of art, literature, science, and social services. Cricket is an art and there is none better than Sachin to represent the art..
Me: 1. I am only saying he has much more influence in how the nation is ruled now. And he got this influence for just being an ENTERTAINER.
2. Well, he has been SELECTED and not ELECTED :-). I know the president can choose (which itself is disputable) but the point is he shouldn't have accepted.
3. I have already included 'art' in my first line itself :-)
The argument: Artists are included to ensure that the DUMB politicians do not forget something called art exists and artists by virtue of the art are expected to be more knowledgeable than the politicians.. And if the sons and daughters of politicians can have an RS seat just by virtue of their parental lineage, there is nothing wrong in artists getting nominated. Even I am personally unhappy with this degradation of Sachin by pulling him into politics (if not only by the nomination but also by all the drama that went on around it).. But that can never be the premise for calling him BULL****..
Me: "artists by virtue of the art are expected to be more knowledgeable than the politicians" - really ? then probably SRK too deserves a RS seat. Just because politicians bring in their sons/daughters to RS doesn't mean Sachin has to do the same. And lastly, you're talking like Sachin isn't responsible for any of things thats happening, he could have easily put everything to rest by not accepting it.
The argument: the true purpose of nominating artists is to provide them a bigger platform to make the art reach the masses and not leave the art and get into politics.. In that way, we shud wait and watch what Sachin does.. And I really do not understand why he should deny a honour that is bestowed upon him when there is no past record which suggests that he would fail to deliver there..
Me: Yup, we can wait and watch what hes going to do. That part I do accept. But if he does something for Cricket alone as a RS member, that still makes him BULL****. Any person with brains will understand that Cricket doesn't need any more attention and hand-holding then what it is getting now. Lets wait and see ..
The argument: on the theory of calling cricket as just entertainment... when India won the world cup in 2011. Did u felt proud or just applauded... If u really felt proud then how u see cricket as an entertainment. I believe it's more than that
Me: Yes I was. I was proud of the achievement. It was like the same feeling I got when I saw Rahman win the Oscars, Rajinikant getting accolades from far and wide. I am proud of the achievements they have done against all odds in their field. I was proud of the talent, the hard work, dedication. But being great entertainers doesn't automatically make you good or bad. Becoming a member of the parliament is to serve the people and not to entertain them. Talent and character are two different things. I can still be proud of ones talent but not of the character.
The argument: it's really hard to digest saying them as just entertainers.....
Me: What else have they done other playing ? If I call actor Vadivelu as an entertainer would it too be hard to digest ? Vadivelu and Vivek are great comedians and excel really well in their field. Just because Cricket is popular but comedians aren't, why should he be treated any different ? On a side note, BCCI isn't a government body but rather a 'private club' and so is just like any other entertainment business.
The argument: sport , entertainment ,game what ever you wish to call it depends on the perception of the individual . we can't talk about some one especially sachin who is the ultimate record holder for all time achievement in cricket and a great person in social life. on a comparative note vadivelu is not a grt person he spoke too much about ADMK and got blasted for it .
Me: " great person in social life" - how do you know that ? Vadivelu too has the right to free speech :)
?" sport , entertainment ,game what ever you wish to call it depends on the perception" - there is no perception here, its just plain fact.
The argument: meant comparing sports person to comedian is not really a balanced one ....
Me: I am comparing one entertainer to another :) .. of course their methods of entertaining are different :)
2 comments:
haha..neat post--well argued case, lawyer!!! It is hard to think on both sides of the party right? Hats off!
Thanks! :)
Post a Comment