The intervention of a section of politicians and social commentators has added a new, mainly retrogressive, dimension to the continuing controversy over the Indian Premier League (IPL).
Even as the focus remains on suspected shady deals, the resignation of Shashi Tharoor as minister of state for external affairs and the abrasive working style of IPL commissioner Lalit Modi, a group of politicians and commentators has tried to link the cricketing extravaganza to the pitfalls of modernism and consumerism.
While Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav has turned his ire on cricket itself, describing it as a 'videshi' (foreign) game which has distorted the sporting scene in India, Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) leader Sitaram Yechury has accused industrial magnates of exploiting the popular passion for the game to make money.
Forever on the lookout for issues, Bal Thackeray of the parochial Shiv Sena has also entered the fray to call for saving the "gentleman's game" although the acts of his followers in digging up cricket pitches can hardly be included in the category of graceful conduct.
Clearly, the scam-tainted atmosphere enveloping IPL has given these critics of Western influences and neo-liberal economics an opportunity to air their views with renewed vigour. They had been lying low till now following their defeat in the last general election, which was seen as an endorsement of the government's forward-looking policies and market-oriented attitude.
Since the IPL was interpreted as a manifestation of the spirit of free enterprise with its intermingling of sporting talent, business acumen and uninhibited entertainment, exemplified by the introduction of attractive young women as cheer leaders for the first time in India, its fall from grace has been grist to the mill of its detractors.
While the Communist Party of India's (CPI) Gurudas Dasgupta described the frenetic Twenty-20 format as a "caricature" of cricket and favoured a return to five-day Test matches, social commentators are moaning over the huge expenses for the gala events even as the poor suffer in silence.
This combination of regressive politics - Mulayam Singh is not only against cricket but also against computers and the English language - and socialistic concern for the underprivileged is not new in India. One aspect of this attitude is the belief that Maoists are really fighting for the poor and deserve sympathy rather than being seen as an internal security threat.
Another is the condemnation of anything foreign and flashy like the IPL. The subtext of this outlook is the conviction that any event which is so glitzy violates the country's traditions of sobriety and restraint. Since such a display of conservative preferences is expected to touch a chord in the Indian heart, it is not surprising that the line-up of critics ranges from the rural hinterland of north India's cow belt to city-based trade union leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment