India-Pakistan matches are always emotional affairs but should cheering for a sporting opponent be considered a criminal act?
To: Cheering for Pak is an open display of discontent. root out
Najmul to walk, is an IPS officer
Is India-Pakistan cricket a proxy for a religious war between Hinduism and Islam? This is not the case, despite the Pakistani Home Minister’s undue delight over Pakistan’s victory against India in a recent cricket match. Nor is it a club match between two cricket boards – BCCI and PCB, It is a competition between two countries. Even if it’s a club match, don’t people generally cheer for the home team? No matter how great the other team is, would they want to see them win against their own team? If they do, they clearly identify with the other team for non-playing reasons. So, is cheering for Pakistan an expression of admiration for their sporting prowess, or is it a political statement? If the latter, how does one understand it—out of a raging outrage that a minority is sheltering against systemic discrimination, or religion-motivated separation from the national mainstream? If the former assumption has gained ground, the state must act on its promise of equal rights and opportunities for all; But, if the latter is true, then the state must prevent such ideological drift from reaching the point of no return.
Nationalism is not just about civic ethos. It also has a mystical dimension and an ideological character. It has its own baggage of sanctifications and ceremonies, and its rituals should be viewed with religious seriousness. Its reputation is most at stake when it faces the challenge of another nation. Sports tournaments, being a humane alternative to tribal warfare, are occasions when a nation reaffirms its identity and solidarity.
While the regime must be held to the strictest public scrutiny, the sanctity of a nation, often enunciated and transmitted through a calendar of events, ritual protocols, high-visibility spectacles and other performances honored by each of its constituents, Must be protected and celebrated. Such unwritten precepts of citizenship should be non-negotiable and should never be left open to nuanced discussion. In such cases, forbearance and candor have their own merits and should be the guiding principle. Sometimes, dry algorithms should be preferred over polished dialectics.
In the specific context of Indo-Pak cricket matches, the sentiments that led to the Partition should not be allowed to be paraded naked in public. It hurts the nation, and tarnishes both the idea and reality of India. It should have been rooted out in its inception, but it was not because, after the partition, the ideologues of the two-nation theory were regrouped under the tutelage of official secularism. He interpreted the politics of separatism as a search for identity, and used liberal and secular idioms to make communalism constitutionally secure. He perpetuated the story of persecution and created an atmosphere conducive for many Muslim neighborhoods to burst crackers and chant Islamic war slogans whenever Pakistan trampled India. How can he alert his constituency against the violation of the ideology he is promoting? Such group behavior arose directly from the premises of separatism, and served no purpose other than a separate share in power in the name of Muslims. If they identify with India, the prospects for identity politics will be in jeopardy. And, as far as their liberal patrons were concerned, they needed Muslims as foot soldiers in the fight against the right wing. Therefore, he became so liberal to Muslim communalism that he made it synonymous with secularism. First, they condemned minority communalism, now they invent bizarre post-structuralist, post-modernist and multicultural rationalization for it. They are yet to realize that minority communalism is not minor communalism. Ultimately liberalism and secularism had to face disrepute.
Pakistan is more of an ideological country than a regional state. It’s less locale and more mindset. It symbolizes the negation of Indian nationalism, the pole of separatism and the Muslim political supremacy in India. This discourse is the biggest obstacle in the way of holistic and unified nationalism. Cheering for Pakistan is a manifestation of the separatist tendencies that have been embedded in the political doctrine of Islam in India. The discourse of disconnection from India compels the Muslim community to lead an inattentive life of self-sabotage, false consciousness and bad faith.
Cognizance of this communal distortion should have been taken and it should have been corrected long back. It was allowed to spoil, so now its crop is getting bitter. It is an ideological issue, and should have been opposed ideologically, but liberal secular intellectuals pushed it under the carpet. Should the state also abdicate its responsibility or take corrective action? Cheering for Pakistan is an open display of discontent. This is a criminal act. But treating it as sedition or terrorism will not only result in loss of proportion but also loss of perspective.
Against: Is our patriotism so insecure that it will break if we root out an opponent?
Avijit Pathak, Professor of Sociology JNU
What an ugly world we have created! With the proliferation of toxic nationalism, unreflective and irresponsible television channels and ostentatious patriotism, we have reduced a game to a war or surgical strike. This is madness in the name of cricket.
the idea of leveling sedition charges against three Kashmiri students for allegedly supporting Pakistan’s victory; And the venom-spreading troll army never tire is characteristic of a society that has lost its sense of genuine courage – the courage to see a game as a sport, accept victory or defeat lightly, and the glory of cricket. Appreciate the skills of the opponent team. The violence or intolerance we see around us is an expression of our collective downfall. And so, as I wish to keep my conscience alive, I have no hesitation in saying that appreciating Pakistan – if its cricketers play well – cannot in any way be seen as a criminal act. . Instead, it can only prove that our patriotism is not so insecure or hollow that it will break if we say something nice about the Pakistan team.
Well, I’m ready to admit it, even if benedict anderson Treats the nation as an ‘imaginary community’, retains its mental and emotional hold over the people. Wars are waged, walls of isolation are erected, espionage is encouraged, or war is legalized in the name of this ‘fictitious community’. and around the world, the hyper-competitive, market-driven and media-driven sports carnival (imagine the interest in knowing whether it is the United States or China that will receive more gold medals at the Olympics, or whether Brazil beats Argentina). World Cup football) arouses nationalist sentiments. In a way, these are like the much hyped modern rituals to strengthen the imagination of the nation. And so, on our part – from a priest in Varanasi to a street vendor in Mumbai, or from a Bollywood actress to a software engineer in Bengaluru – the desire to see India beat Pakistan in cricket or hockey, as I Will be reminded by many. , is not unnatural. To think otherwise, as our self-proclaimed patriots would taunt me, is pure nonsense!
Still, I am different, and object to the breakdown of reason. Why should it be difficult for us to accept that it is possible for Pakistan to play well, and there are moments when our players (neither they are immortal stars, nor do they have any miraculous power to win every match) may well do well. Do not , Moreover, even if there are those who feel that it is not a good idea for an Indian to appreciate Pakistan’s performance and celebrate its victory, especially when there is mass mourning all around, it is in no way ‘criminal’. cannot be seen as an act. , It is like trivializing the meaning of crime or treason.
Besides, I oppose this madness for another reason. Because, this frenzy reinforces what the cult of toxic nationalism seeks to do with its sharp gestures and ultra-masculine aggression – constantly creating conspiracy theories, and swaying everything from its Muslim neighbors to politically outspoken students. Creating or demonstrating the nation’s ‘enemies’. of JNU Jamia Millia From the grandmothers of Islamia, or Shaheen Bagh to the likes of Stan Swami, As fear is created in the name of ‘national security’, anyone who thinks, reflects and denies the mob mentality is perceived as potentially dangerous. Any creatively finely critical voice is tarnished. No wonder, we are told to look at cricket only through the lens of toxic nationalism and war metaphors. This old intolerance or schizophrenic mindset seems to have become the new normal in contemporary India. Therefore, this obsession with the obligatory display of patriotism at the time of India-Pakistan cricket match cannot be seen in isolation. In a way, it is not qualitatively different from those days – reducing Hinduism to the noise of Jai Shri Ram slogans, or promoting all kinds of lessons of ‘patriotism’.
And finally, I oppose this madness because it takes us away from our noble endeavors and dreams—say, walking with Rabindranath Tagore, becoming aware of the violence of hyper-nationalism, and celebrating universalism or implicit cosmopolitanism. Celebrate; interact with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and imagining the maritime idea of India—compassionate and pluralistic; And gaining the courage to look beyond the captivity of the divided/fragmented/limited self to celebrate love rather than hate, and overcome the oppressive binary—Hindu versus Muslim, or India versus Pakistan.
Eventually a society that loses its dreams in the name of totalitarian nationalism, I fear, starts sowing the seeds of violence in the minds of children. As a teacher, I can’t bear it.
To: Cheering for Pak is an open display of discontent. root out
Najmul to walk, is an IPS officer
Is India-Pakistan cricket a proxy for a religious war between Hinduism and Islam? This is not the case, despite the Pakistani Home Minister’s undue delight over Pakistan’s victory against India in a recent cricket match. Nor is it a club match between two cricket boards – BCCI and PCB, It is a competition between two countries. Even if it’s a club match, don’t people generally cheer for the home team? No matter how great the other team is, would they want to see them win against their own team? If they do, they clearly identify with the other team for non-playing reasons. So, is cheering for Pakistan an expression of admiration for their sporting prowess, or is it a political statement? If the latter, how does one understand it—out of a raging outrage that a minority is sheltering against systemic discrimination, or religion-motivated separation from the national mainstream? If the former assumption has gained ground, the state must act on its promise of equal rights and opportunities for all; But, if the latter is true, then the state must prevent such ideological drift from reaching the point of no return.
Nationalism is not just about civic ethos. It also has a mystical dimension and an ideological character. It has its own baggage of sanctifications and ceremonies, and its rituals should be viewed with religious seriousness. Its reputation is most at stake when it faces the challenge of another nation. Sports tournaments, being a humane alternative to tribal warfare, are occasions when a nation reaffirms its identity and solidarity.
While the regime must be held to the strictest public scrutiny, the sanctity of a nation, often enunciated and transmitted through a calendar of events, ritual protocols, high-visibility spectacles and other performances honored by each of its constituents, Must be protected and celebrated. Such unwritten precepts of citizenship should be non-negotiable and should never be left open to nuanced discussion. In such cases, forbearance and candor have their own merits and should be the guiding principle. Sometimes, dry algorithms should be preferred over polished dialectics.
In the specific context of Indo-Pak cricket matches, the sentiments that led to the Partition should not be allowed to be paraded naked in public. It hurts the nation, and tarnishes both the idea and reality of India. It should have been rooted out in its inception, but it was not because, after the partition, the ideologues of the two-nation theory were regrouped under the tutelage of official secularism. He interpreted the politics of separatism as a search for identity, and used liberal and secular idioms to make communalism constitutionally secure. He perpetuated the story of persecution and created an atmosphere conducive for many Muslim neighborhoods to burst crackers and chant Islamic war slogans whenever Pakistan trampled India. How can he alert his constituency against the violation of the ideology he is promoting? Such group behavior arose directly from the premises of separatism, and served no purpose other than a separate share in power in the name of Muslims. If they identify with India, the prospects for identity politics will be in jeopardy. And, as far as their liberal patrons were concerned, they needed Muslims as foot soldiers in the fight against the right wing. Therefore, he became so liberal to Muslim communalism that he made it synonymous with secularism. First, they condemned minority communalism, now they invent bizarre post-structuralist, post-modernist and multicultural rationalization for it. They are yet to realize that minority communalism is not minor communalism. Ultimately liberalism and secularism had to face disrepute.
Pakistan is more of an ideological country than a regional state. It’s less locale and more mindset. It symbolizes the negation of Indian nationalism, the pole of separatism and the Muslim political supremacy in India. This discourse is the biggest obstacle in the way of holistic and unified nationalism. Cheering for Pakistan is a manifestation of the separatist tendencies that have been embedded in the political doctrine of Islam in India. The discourse of disconnection from India compels the Muslim community to lead an inattentive life of self-sabotage, false consciousness and bad faith.
Cognizance of this communal distortion should have been taken and it should have been corrected long back. It was allowed to spoil, so now its crop is getting bitter. It is an ideological issue, and should have been opposed ideologically, but liberal secular intellectuals pushed it under the carpet. Should the state also abdicate its responsibility or take corrective action? Cheering for Pakistan is an open display of discontent. This is a criminal act. But treating it as sedition or terrorism will not only result in loss of proportion but also loss of perspective.
Against: Is our patriotism so insecure that it will break if we root out an opponent?
Avijit Pathak, Professor of Sociology JNU
What an ugly world we have created! With the proliferation of toxic nationalism, unreflective and irresponsible television channels and ostentatious patriotism, we have reduced a game to a war or surgical strike. This is madness in the name of cricket.
the idea of leveling sedition charges against three Kashmiri students for allegedly supporting Pakistan’s victory; And the venom-spreading troll army never tire is characteristic of a society that has lost its sense of genuine courage – the courage to see a game as a sport, accept victory or defeat lightly, and the glory of cricket. Appreciate the skills of the opponent team. The violence or intolerance we see around us is an expression of our collective downfall. And so, as I wish to keep my conscience alive, I have no hesitation in saying that appreciating Pakistan – if its cricketers play well – cannot in any way be seen as a criminal act. . Instead, it can only prove that our patriotism is not so insecure or hollow that it will break if we say something nice about the Pakistan team.
Well, I’m ready to admit it, even if benedict anderson Treats the nation as an ‘imaginary community’, retains its mental and emotional hold over the people. Wars are waged, walls of isolation are erected, espionage is encouraged, or war is legalized in the name of this ‘fictitious community’. and around the world, the hyper-competitive, market-driven and media-driven sports carnival (imagine the interest in knowing whether it is the United States or China that will receive more gold medals at the Olympics, or whether Brazil beats Argentina). World Cup football) arouses nationalist sentiments. In a way, these are like the much hyped modern rituals to strengthen the imagination of the nation. And so, on our part – from a priest in Varanasi to a street vendor in Mumbai, or from a Bollywood actress to a software engineer in Bengaluru – the desire to see India beat Pakistan in cricket or hockey, as I Will be reminded by many. , is not unnatural. To think otherwise, as our self-proclaimed patriots would taunt me, is pure nonsense!
Still, I am different, and object to the breakdown of reason. Why should it be difficult for us to accept that it is possible for Pakistan to play well, and there are moments when our players (neither they are immortal stars, nor do they have any miraculous power to win every match) may well do well. Do not , Moreover, even if there are those who feel that it is not a good idea for an Indian to appreciate Pakistan’s performance and celebrate its victory, especially when there is mass mourning all around, it is in no way ‘criminal’. cannot be seen as an act. , It is like trivializing the meaning of crime or treason.
Besides, I oppose this madness for another reason. Because, this frenzy reinforces what the cult of toxic nationalism seeks to do with its sharp gestures and ultra-masculine aggression – constantly creating conspiracy theories, and swaying everything from its Muslim neighbors to politically outspoken students. Creating or demonstrating the nation’s ‘enemies’. of JNU Jamia Millia From the grandmothers of Islamia, or Shaheen Bagh to the likes of Stan Swami, As fear is created in the name of ‘national security’, anyone who thinks, reflects and denies the mob mentality is perceived as potentially dangerous. Any creatively finely critical voice is tarnished. No wonder, we are told to look at cricket only through the lens of toxic nationalism and war metaphors. This old intolerance or schizophrenic mindset seems to have become the new normal in contemporary India. Therefore, this obsession with the obligatory display of patriotism at the time of India-Pakistan cricket match cannot be seen in isolation. In a way, it is not qualitatively different from those days – reducing Hinduism to the noise of Jai Shri Ram slogans, or promoting all kinds of lessons of ‘patriotism’.
And finally, I oppose this madness because it takes us away from our noble endeavors and dreams—say, walking with Rabindranath Tagore, becoming aware of the violence of hyper-nationalism, and celebrating universalism or implicit cosmopolitanism. Celebrate; interact with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and imagining the maritime idea of India—compassionate and pluralistic; And gaining the courage to look beyond the captivity of the divided/fragmented/limited self to celebrate love rather than hate, and overcome the oppressive binary—Hindu versus Muslim, or India versus Pakistan.
Eventually a society that loses its dreams in the name of totalitarian nationalism, I fear, starts sowing the seeds of violence in the minds of children. As a teacher, I can’t bear it.
,