The divine right?
Peter Roebuck writes in The Hindu that Sachin Tendulkar should be picked in the Indian team without further ado, and that the master blaster should not be dropped until he claims himself that he is no longer fit to play.
I’m a fan of both Tendulkar’s swashbuckling batting and Mr. Roebuck’s writing. I agree that in the overall scheme of things, we should welcome Tendulkar’s return to fitness. I believe that he should be included; but this should not be by default, but should rather be based on performance. The article in question though seems replete with overtones of idol worship, and doesn’t reflect a reality of today — that even Sachin Tendulkar has to earn his place in the team.
Roebuck writes:
Tendulkar must play until he has beyond argument been reduced to a pale shadow of his former self. Everything else is madness.
I’m not sure if adulation can extend to such levels where it can blind a level-headed writer. For one, I do not understand what Roebuck’s intentions are, when he brings this up. The point to be addressed here is not whether Tendulkar, based on his records, can be selected or not. If records were the only criterion, he can walk into any World XI, of any age. But records, while they are indicators of player’s greatness, must be viewed in perspective. Whenever great people fail, we hear a familiar refrain: “Class is permanent; form is temporary.” Yet, for all its temporal baseness, it is form which separates a paper-tiger from a performing player. If Roebuck’s argument were true, then Bjorn Borg can be given a wild-card entry into the pre-quarterfinals of the Wimbledon next year.
Roebuck’s argument that the selectors should “put him in the team, and then start thinking about the rest” reeks of a feudal mindset — one which is best captured in Bossuet’s theory of the Divine Right of Kings, according to which the king or the ruler is not answerable to anyone, as he is considered to belong to the line of God. Tendulkar’s fans may call him God, but really, that doesn’t bestow him with any such right. He is first a player, an equal, and then a great one. Let our adulation not make us deify him.
Haven’t we had enough problems already by waiting for Ganguly to come back to form? Isn’t it time we learn from our mistakes? Especially the ones we committed more recently!
P.S.: Roebuck makes a similar error, suggesting that Sehwag’s place should also not be questioned. But hasn’t Sehwag been inconsistent for long? If only one of Sehwag and Tendulkar can stay, however, I would vote for Tendulkar!
Related posts:
- If winter comes… 4, 2, 6, 123, 1, 9, 93, 67, 2, 11, 19, 39, 2, 2 and 2. That gives you the runs...
- Welcome back, Sourav! The word pathetic is inadequate to describe how pathetic India's pathetic...
- Bring in the experts One of the major problems in India's downfall in the recently concluded one-day...
- Captain audacious To call him audacious is one of the most charitable acts I've done in recent...
- Thank God, we lost Watching India "surrender meekly" to Sri Lanka last night made me think if we...
Filed under: Cricket
if you notice, roebuck raises this topic, when there is no debate about it at all. i think its more of ‘rabble rouser’ (although with a lot of subtlety) than ‘idol worship”.
its like saying “tendulkar should be CM of maharashta, when nobody really is talking about it”. it will only evoke -ve comments like “why should he be CM. What nonsense is this idol worship”. its a lose-lose thing for tendulkar. sadly people will never realize that tendulkar himself never said anything to this effect.
Hawkeye, very very true. “Rabble Rouser Roebuck” — sounds good, eh?
Is Peter Roebuck really a “level-headed” writer? I choose to disagree. That Roebuck turned to writing by chance rather than by choice is known to everybody. Though that in no way relates to the question of him being level-headed, there have been instances in the past when he has written articles which have bordered on the extremes of ridiculousness.
Only a month back, Roebuck’s vituperative article criticised Sachin Tendulkar for opting to play for Lashings - the celebrity club that plays for charity - on route to gaining full fitness, on the grounds that playing cricket against school boys wouldnt serve as a gauge for measuring someone’s fitness. And now he says Sachin shouldnt be questioned at all. And that he should decide everything about his career, including his retirement.
Also, a year or two back, Roebuck wrote of VVS Laxman as excellent captaincy material. Look now where Laxman is - Not assured of his place in the team and sure that failure in a single Test would mean the end of the road for him. Literally, he has been living to fight another day.
And yeah, Peter Roebuck “The Rabble Rouser” doesnt sound bad at all!!
Nothing that Roebuck has mentioned above makes him inconsistent.He criticised Sachin for playing against Lashings and I agree with his view point there.He has always maintained that Sachin is his favourite player but if there’s something that needs to be criticised, he should do so. I don’t there’s much of an issue with the fact that Sachin should come back and most people are in favour of that.He is only reiterated the fact that many have been echoing.
Tendulkar more so than any other player in world cricket since Bradman, is as close as you would get to the possessor of a divine right to a place in his national team. It is all fair and well to say that his place should be based on performance. You are not entirely wrong, but Tendulkar and Sehwag are on two different podiums.
Tendulkar, at 50% of his powers, is far better and more valuable than most other people you would replace him with. I think, and sincerely hope, that he will be around for a lot longer yet, if only to entertain us with his wizardry.