Cricket and Congress!
Cricket is very popular in India. Cricket and cricket administrators are often accused of hindering the development of other sports in India. While this is far from the truth, I believe that the popularity of cricket in India is strikingly similar to the support of the Congress party in India. Both thrive in this country primarily because competitors are not doing better. Let's take a closer look at the situation.
Congress is, of course, the first political party to be formed in India. With stalwarts like Tilak, Gandhi and Nehru as its leaders, he naturally enjoyed tremendous support from the citizens, which led to independence. However, after independence, many national and regional parties emerged. But, with the exception of a few years, Congress was the party that held power for most of the period. So even after nearly 60 years, Congress has a nationwide appeal.
Cricket has also been extremely popular since the days of Pentangular tournaments. Other sports had stripes. It's like hockey has survived its golden age in the fifties and sixties. Tennis also peaked in the late sixties when India reached the Davis Cup final twice. Indian football was at its peak in Asia in 1962 and at the 1960 Olympics. But leave these deviations aside and you will find that Cricket constantly rules the hearts of Indian fans.
So what's so exciting about cricket and Congress? Are there better leaders in Congress than the opposition? Is Congressional politics more people-oriented than opposition-oriented? Are cricketers more talented than other athletes? Is the BCCI more transparent than other sports organizations?
The point is, both are thriving by default. The people of India continually drop a mandate from Congress out of aversion to opposition rather than support for Congress policies and programs. Likewise, cricket captures the imagination of people primarily because of the anarchy that prevails in other sports.
The Congress is also divided, like the opposition. Likewise, the BCCI also has a long history of bitter power struggles. But it all comes down to choosing the lesser evil. It's not that the opponent didn't have a chance. In politics, the people of India have given a chance to non-congressional militias at least three times just to be disappointed. Likewise, in sports, fame has come several times outside of cricket. India won the Ice Hockey World Championship in 1975. But instead of winning it, the Indian Ice Hockey Federation committed suicide due to feuds. The Indian national football team reached the semifinals of the 1956 Olympics, but then the interests of the club owners overpowered the interests of the country. Thus, the people of India had to trust and support the Indian cricketers who won the 1983 World Cup. Discerning marketers such as Dalmia and now Lalit Modi have since made sure that cricket becomes an enterprise and the global nerve center of cricket.
In politics, they say that there are no permanent enemies. It is known that politicians protect the mutual interests of friends, even in opposition. It's the same here at the BCCI, where we find Arun Jaytley of the BJP, who sided with the Supreme NCP, Sharad Pavar, and Congress spokesman Rajiva Shukla and National Conference leader Farouk Abdullah, who all belong to different parties. So what is really true? Politics is like a game of cricket OR Cricket is political Achad?
Congress is, of course, the first political party to be formed in India. With stalwarts like Tilak, Gandhi and Nehru as its leaders, he naturally enjoyed tremendous support from the citizens, which led to independence. However, after independence, many national and regional parties emerged. But, with the exception of a few years, Congress was the party that held power for most of the period. So even after nearly 60 years, Congress has a nationwide appeal.
Cricket has also been extremely popular since the days of Pentangular tournaments. Other sports had stripes. It's like hockey has survived its golden age in the fifties and sixties. Tennis also peaked in the late sixties when India reached the Davis Cup final twice. Indian football was at its peak in Asia in 1962 and at the 1960 Olympics. But leave these deviations aside and you will find that Cricket constantly rules the hearts of Indian fans.
So what's so exciting about cricket and Congress? Are there better leaders in Congress than the opposition? Is Congressional politics more people-oriented than opposition-oriented? Are cricketers more talented than other athletes? Is the BCCI more transparent than other sports organizations?
The point is, both are thriving by default. The people of India continually drop a mandate from Congress out of aversion to opposition rather than support for Congress policies and programs. Likewise, cricket captures the imagination of people primarily because of the anarchy that prevails in other sports.
The Congress is also divided, like the opposition. Likewise, the BCCI also has a long history of bitter power struggles. But it all comes down to choosing the lesser evil. It's not that the opponent didn't have a chance. In politics, the people of India have given a chance to non-congressional militias at least three times just to be disappointed. Likewise, in sports, fame has come several times outside of cricket. India won the Ice Hockey World Championship in 1975. But instead of winning it, the Indian Ice Hockey Federation committed suicide due to feuds. The Indian national football team reached the semifinals of the 1956 Olympics, but then the interests of the club owners overpowered the interests of the country. Thus, the people of India had to trust and support the Indian cricketers who won the 1983 World Cup. Discerning marketers such as Dalmia and now Lalit Modi have since made sure that cricket becomes an enterprise and the global nerve center of cricket.
In politics, they say that there are no permanent enemies. It is known that politicians protect the mutual interests of friends, even in opposition. It's the same here at the BCCI, where we find Arun Jaytley of the BJP, who sided with the Supreme NCP, Sharad Pavar, and Congress spokesman Rajiva Shukla and National Conference leader Farouk Abdullah, who all belong to different parties. So what is really true? Politics is like a game of cricket OR Cricket is political Achad?
Comments
Post a Comment