What's new

Establishment Man: The moral timidity of Sachin Tendulkar

Drizzt

FULL MEMBER
Nov 29, 2020
288
0
404
Country
India
Location
India
Sachin Tendulkar greets Indian President Pranab Mukherjee (unseen) before receiving the Bharat Ratna award from him at the Rashtrapati Bhavan in Delhi, on 4 February 2014. Tendulkar’s personal decency has always been accompanied by a deeply ingrained timidity towards authority, a primal fear of upsetting any establishment, whether cricketing or otherwise.
PRAKASH SINGH/REUTERS


In early January of 2020, Ajinkya Rahane, the vice-captain of the Indian Test cricket team, tweeted a picture of himself consuming vada pav, the famous Maharashtrian snack. Along with the picture, he posted an anodyne question for his followers. “How do you like your vada pav? 1. Vada pav with chai, 2. Vada pav with chutney, 3. Just Vada pav,” Rahane wrote. Sachin Tendulkar, his Marathi compatriot, responded promptly. “I like my Vada Pav with red chutney, very little green chutney & some imli chutney to make the combination even better,” he tweeted in reply.

At the time of this exchange, protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act had been roiling the country for more than a month. Throughout this period, Tendulkar had been conspicuous by his silence. The silence had been predictable and, in a sense, his interaction with Rahane was emblematic of Tendulkar’s personality. While the country’s secular future felt at stake, compelling even many otherwise reticent luminaries to speak out, Tendulkar was occupied with the mundane and the banal.
In his book How to Be a Dictator: The Cult of Personality in the Twentieth Century, the historian Frank Dikotter underlined the concept of common subordination. “There were many strategies for a dictator to claw his way to power and get rid of his rivals,” Dikotter wrote. “There were bloody purges, there was manipulation, there was divide and rule to name only a few. But in the long run the cult of personality was the most efficient.” Dikotter noted that “the cult debased allies and rivals alike, forcing them to collaborate through common subordination. Most of all, by compelling them to acclaim him before the others, a dictator turned everyone into a liar.”

Dikotter’s concept aptly describes the spectacle that followed a tweet by Rihanna, calling attention to the farmers’ protests, which sent the Indian establishment into a tizzy. In response, an orchestrated chorus of imitative tweets by celebrities across the country, most prominently actors and sports stars, emerged the next day, affirming notions of Indian sovereignty. This spectacle has become a periodic farce of the Modi era, when celebrities—out of inclination, inducement or compulsion—front up as handmaidens for the regime. On the evening of 3 February, as social media was flooded with tweets that read eerily similar to one another, a tweet in the same fashion was posted on Tendulkar’s Twitter account, which has more than 35 million followers. Perhaps the logic of common subordination, and its ever-widening circle, explains why Tendulkar felt obliged to join this grovelling circus. Even so, Tendulkar’s addition to this collective debasement was a surprise.

Tendulkar is as close as it comes to being a sacrosanct public figure, beyond the reach of those in power. No establishment in India—not even the present, vindictive one whose modus operandi is more akin to a mafia state—would ever take the risk of being seen to be hounding or persecuting him.


What accounts, then, for this anomaly from someone unusually careful in his utterances? The answer lies in Tendulkar’s conservative upbringing as well as his psychological make-up, which can be described as a state of stunted adulthood.

The nature of his social background is easily understood. Tendulkar grew up in the salaried, lower-middle class, Maharashtrian world of what was then Bombay. He belongs to Mumbai’s largest community that nevertheless lacks any substantial economic and cultural power amidst the upper echelons of the city, the wellspring of the nativism that drives much of the politics of the Shiv Sena. The ordinary Maharashtrian Mumbaikar of Tendulkar’s background often emanates an excessively deferential attitude towards the powerful and the moneyed of India’s financial capital, a dynamic ever-present in Tendulkar’s relationship with the Ambanis.

Before 2014, in a less polarised age, Tendulkar’s timidity towards those in positions of wealth and power did not fully come into view. He was an apposite mascot for a kind of centrist status-quoism and the gradualist, incremental mobility that marked India in the first two decades after liberalisation. Tendulkar became the epitome of values prized in the conventional, hierarchal and self-congratulatory milieu of the middle class, showing no eagerness to challenge the many prejudices of society and state. His notion of ethics remained limited purely to the realm of his own personal conduct.


By all accounts, Tendulkar is a genuinely decent human being, self-effacing and humble; attentive and respectful even towards the least important people in any situation, be it slaving net bowlers or the unsung administrative staff at the countless stadiums he has played in. But this personal decency has always been accompanied by a deeply ingrained timidity towards authority, a primal fear of upsetting any establishment, whether cricketing or otherwise.


An image of studied neutrality served Tendulkar well during the indomitable pressures of his labyrinthine career; it may even have been a refuge from the maddening distractions that followed him everywhere. But no life lived in the public gaze can be sustained, through the course of an entire lifetime, with the complete avoidance of moral choices. There will be moments, such as now, where fence sitting of the sort Tendulkar had mastered becomes untenable.

Before the stark fault lines of our present time, it was harder to see what appears now with increasing clarity, that Tendulkar also shares the worst traits of the Indian middle-class: its indifference to the general good, its lack of commitment to the values of human rights and democracy, and its intellectual vacuousness.

The cricket writer Rahul Bhattacharya once described Tendulkar as a “man-child superstar.” “Perhaps uniquely,” Bhattacharya wrote, “he is granted not the sportstar’s indulgence of perma-adolescence but that of perma-childhood.” It is a curious, even comical, personality. Tendulkar’s autobiography, a monument to mind-numbing banality, was a prime example of his childlike psyche. In the book—a tedious compendium of runs scored, tours participated in and injuries endured—Tendulkar has nothing significant or serious to say at all: the nature of sporting greatness, the state of the modern game, the scourge of match-fixing that he witnessed first-hand. Emerging from its nearly five hundred pages, one is left with no impression of Tendulkar’s thoughts on the life and the times he played through; it seems he has never bothered to reflect on such things.

Uniquely for a public figure atop the most rarefied of pedestals, Tendulkar seems unaware of his stature and its import, and the many ways in which it can be employed as a moral authority in the public sphere. It was probably this misunderstanding of his own place in the national imagination that lay behind his decision to tweet; Tendulkar perhaps assumed his voice would get enmeshed and lost in the collective din. It clearly did not occur to him that while the country was resigned to the likes of Akshay Kumar acting in a similarly craven manner, Tendulkar himself stood in a far more elevated pantheon of national icons.

Unlike most other sports stars who ascend into the world of stratospheric success, Tendulkar seems peculiarly unable to transcend the limitations of his social background. His personality has not grown commensurate with his public stature, animated by no larger ideas about the society and the world that he inhabits. If ever placed in a position of pressure to make a choice, Tendulkar was always likely to squeal on the side on the establishment.


Both the social and psychological aspects of his personality play out in Tendulkar’s subservient equation with the Ambanis. One veteran sports editor recalls coming across a video recording of one of the obscenely opulent Ambani weddings. During a festive cricket match organised as part of the multi-day celebrations, Tendulkar—in the manner of any supplicant employee of the Reliance-owned Mumbai Indians—was seen bending down and strapping a pad to Mukesh Ambani’s knee. For a man who has always seemed petrified of controversy, his relationship with the country’s wealthiest family was also probably a factor in Tendulkar’s decision to align himself with a line that ultimately benefits the Ambanis.

It remains baffling to a large extent what Tendulkar has gleaned from those he claims as his sporting heroes, none greater for him than Donald Bradman. In the aftermath of Tendulkar’s tweet, Raunak Kapoor, a talk-show host at the sports website ESPNcricinfo, shared a 2008 piece from the Sydney Morning Herald. Written by Roland Perry and headlined “The day apartheid was hit for six,” the piece described Bradman’s dilemma in the 1970s while he was chairman of the Australian Cricket Board. Bradman was faced with the decision of whether to ban the all-white South African cricket team from touring Australia in 1971-72.

Bradman flew to South Africa to meet its prime minister, John Vorster, an admirer of Hitler and the Nazis. “Vorster expected Bradman to support the tour, but the meeting quickly became tense, then sour,” Perry wrote. “Bradman asked questions in his direct way about why blacks were denied the chance to represent their country. Vorster suggested they were intellectually inferior and could not cope with cricket’s intricacies.” Referring to the legendary West Indian all-rounder, one of the greatest cricketers to ever play the game, Perry recounts Bradman asking the prime minister: “Have you ever heard of Garry Sobers?”

Appalled by Vorster’s racism, Bradman returned to Australia and announced the tour’s cancellation. Perry narrates Bradman making what he called “a simple one-line statement.” “We will not play them (South Africa) until they choose a team on a non-racist basis.” A South African cricket team would not land on Australian shores until 1992, after the end of the apartheid.

If Bradman seems too remote from our present epoch, there is an example closer to home. In 2011, Kumar Sangakkara, a modern great and a former captain of the Sri Lankan cricket team, delivered the prestigious annual Spirit of Cricket lecture at the Lord’s cricket ground, home to the Marylebone Cricket Club. In a speech that received a standing ovation from a MCC crowd usually understated in its praise, Sangakkara movingly located cricket within the bloody and turbulent history of his country, the unifying impact of Sri Lanka’s miraculous 1996 World Cup victory and the continuing obligation of cricket to be an agent of reconciliation as the island limped back from decades of civil war. (Later, in 2019, Sangakkara would take over as the first non-British president of the MCC.)

In 2019, during the festival of Easter Sunday, Sri Lanka was struck by a series of coordinated bomb attacks at churches and luxury hotels, killing 267 people. The attacks were reported to be the handiwork of the Islamic State and its local affiliates. In the weeks after, as reports of rioting and attacks against Muslims began to pour in, Sangakkara once again reaffirmed his role as an ambassador for his nation’s plural ethos. “If we lose ourselves in violence, racism, thuggery and hatred we lose our country,” he tweeted. “Unite as Sri Lankans, be peaceful, keep each other safe. Do not give into shameful, divisive political agendas.”

Sangakkara’s moral courage should be seen in the light of a polity dominated by the ideology of Sinhala supremacism for more than half-a-century—the entirety of his life—and a democracy that has been relatively far less robust and free than India’s for most of its history. The contrast with Tendulkar could not be starker.

On 11 February, Wasim Jaffer, a former India Test batsman, who had been working as the coach of the Uttarakhand state cricket team, was sought to be maligned with communal overtones by its administration. Jaffer had resigned as the team’s coach, alleging unethical interference in team selection. Cricket has thus far remained largely undiminished by sectarianism; the dog-whistling by the Uttarakhand cricket administration was so egregious and scurrilous that it immediately sparked outrage from within the cricket fraternity and beyond.

Even Anil Kumble, who had joined the orchestrated chorus of tweets earlier and is generally seen as close to the Bharatiya Janata Party, tweeted in defence of Jaffer, widely considered a figure with an unimpeachable track record with more than two decades in the game. Throughout the day, a clamour grew for Tendulkar to speak up in defence of his fellow Mumbai and India teammate. In the statement following his retirement last year, Jaffer had spoken of Tendulkar in effusive terms, describing him as his “role model.” On Thursday, as much of India’s cricket community showed its solidarity with Jaffer, this time Tendulkar’s Twitter stayed silent.


In the ensuing backlash following Tendulkar’s tweet, a meme has been doing the rounds. It is a picture of the little master from his playing days, mid-motion through one of his majestic upper cuts, with one intervention: the blue trousers of the national kit have been overlaid with the khaki shorts of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. In the end though, it is a misleading characterisation. More accurate would be to think of Tendulkar as a man who wears the colours of whichever establishment happens to be in power—let us not forget he became a member of the Rajya Sabha under the Congress government—a man without any beliefs at all, devoid of any ethical or moral concerns towards the society and country that has so deified and venerated him.

https://caravanmagazine.in/sports/the-moral-timidity-of-sachin-tendulkar

 
Last edited:

Chhatrapati

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 4, 2016
10,928
-22
9,041
Country
India
Location
Mauritius
Not sure why someone expected moral courage from a person who declared himself as an artist to avoid taxes
Someone who acts in an advertisement is an artist as it requires it's own skills independent of cricketing skills and is thus entitled to the tax benefits for the income he earned acting in advertisements.
A great find at digging up dirt on him lol! A tax dispute and carefully removing reference to what he availed the benefits for. Whoever is his CA did a great job.

@ topic, there is nothing that Sachin said was in support of the government rather, he simply asked foreigners not to interfere in our politics. Idiots in Caravan is not worth a spit, talking shit about Sachin.
 

masterchief_mirza

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 29, 2019
9,506
17
19,848
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
The contrast with the eloquent and statesman-like wordsmithery of Kumar Sangakkara is indeed stark. Let's not even start with any comparisons with Sir Imran Khan's grandiosity, which the Caravan has cunningly avoided, lest it be burned down overnight by a mob of moderates!

I think though that those who are judging Sachin's political leanings on the basis of his silence are being harsh.

I would argue that Sachin is simply a bit too mentally deficient to notice what's going on beyond his various flavours of chutney laid out neatly on his cane and wicker veranda furniture.
 
Jan 24, 2021
1,591
0
2,320
Country
Bahrain
Location
Bahrain
foreigners not to interfere in our politics. Idiots in Caravan is not worth a spit, talking shit about Sachin.
yeah. India has the right to interfere in the internal politics of other countries. Modi can kiss Trump's as* and tell NRI in USA to vote for Trump, therefore messing with another country's election. but no one can cover events and big protests going on in India. seems fair.
 

Chhatrapati

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 4, 2016
10,928
-22
9,041
Country
India
Location
Mauritius
yeah. India has the right to interfere in the internal politics of other countries.
Lol! It is not about whether India has the right to interfere or not. But whether others have the right to interfere in our politics, which we simply don't entertain. :azn:
There is a world of difference between the two.
 

xeuss

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2019
3,587
6
7,536
Country
India
Location
United States
Someone who acts in an advertisement is an artist as it requires it's own skills independent of cricketing skills and is thus entitled to the tax benefits for the income he earned acting in advertisements.
A great find at digging up dirt on him lol! A tax dispute and carefully removing reference to what he availed the benefits for. Whoever is his CA did a great job.

@ topic, there is nothing that Sachin said was in support of the government rather, he simply asked foreigners not to interfere in our politics. Idiots in Caravan is not worth a spit, talking shit about Sachin.
Obviously worth more than a spit because you decided to respond.

Funny you barking about internal affairs on a foreign platform. Stick to your WhatsApp group when discussing such "internal issues". Sadly WhatsApp is also a foreign tool to use to discuss such internal issues.
 

Chhatrapati

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 4, 2016
10,928
-22
9,041
Country
India
Location
Mauritius
Obviously worth more than a spit because you decided to respond.

Funny you barking about internal affairs on a foreign platform. Stick to your WhatsApp group when discussing such "internal issues". Sadly WhatsApp is also a foreign tool to use to discuss such internal issues.
If getting ridiculed is your thing, sure why not.

Congrats on finding the most illogical equivalence. :lol:
 

masterchief_mirza

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 29, 2019
9,506
17
19,848
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Wow! Did not expect this kind of scathing criticism in an Indian paper.
Caravan's editorial team are already marked and targeted from previous pieces.


Yknow, free media and all.

Like our friend said already: India doesn't entertain foreigners interfering in its "politics", nor will it even entertain Indian citizens interfering in its "politics". Yknow, basic functionaries here have a phull understanding of demokrashee shirr jee.
 

Goritoes

BANNED
Jan 20, 2021
651
0
848
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
One thing Modi did was expose all those Celebs from Bollywood and sportsman from India and their hate against the minorities in India, I can see why Akshay Kumer, Ajay devgan and other Hindu Celebs are always in support of Modi because Bollywood was for so long was dominated by the Khans. I Sincerely hope that Indians keep electing Modi as PM for at least 10 more years and than give the command to that Yogi or Amit shah.
 

pothead

BANNED
Jun 18, 2017
4,129
-20
3,059
Country
India
Location
Germany
How dare he support his own country instead of supporting Khalistani Cucks and 5 star farmers..

Look at the farmers working so hard to grow high quality bangan and muli....
Sachin is a coward for not supporting below farmers.

1613535548308.png
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom