THX_1138 Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 In a display that i can best describe as courageous, righteous, and above all, very honorable; the captain of the Indian Soccer Team has notified the Indian Olympic Association of his decision to recluse himself from the honor of carrying the olympic torch after he was selected by the same for the particular task. He faxed his decision to the IOA yesterday and declared his dissatisfaction with the current turmoil in Tibet and the oppression of the Buddhist population as his primary reason for dissatisfaction with the Chinese government and his subsequent refusal to carry the torch. It remains to be seen how this move will be interpreted by the IOA and the Government of India. Less than a week ago, the Indian government refused an offer from their Chinese counterparts to accompany the later on a government sponsored tour of Tibet as an attempt to establish the 'facts' of the occurrences in Tibet. While the decision was courageous, it had little to do with an adopted political stance on the issue, but was indeed a decision made since the chinese had not provided adequate advance notice to the indian high commission about such a tour, and the invitation was extended at an unbelievable 2 am in the night. The world however, and rather regrettably has been quite mute about this entire issue. This would be the second political crisis in the subcontinent and adjoining areas in the past six months, where the oppressed, are again fighting for the right for free determination, incidentally happen to be peaceful buddhist and the onus of action has once again rested on the two giants in the area: india and china. Will India again remain mute over the issue as it was in the instance of Myanmar, where it stood by like a deaf and dumb observer reluctant to even offer as much as medical and humanitarian assistance; or will it finally embrace its destiny and stand for what the only credible democracy in the region stands for: Peace, Self Determination and above all, Equality. If the past is any indication, don't hold your breath. We are a nation proud of ourselves yet little more than spineless vermin when it comes to rescuing our neighbors when their house is alit.
Lurker Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 Good on you mate. Good to see there are still some people who dare to take a stance.
Cricketics Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 i heard Aamir Khan, the actor.. would be doing this honor now??
CC1981 Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 Good on ya, Baichung. You are a role model to many and your image just went up 10fold in the eyes of many. Greatest baller India has ever produced also turns out to be one of the classiest! Nice!
Ram Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 Sport and politics dont go well with each other. I understand and respect Bhaichung's sentiments towards Tibet, but he shouldnt have used the Olypimcs as a platform to push his own personal agenda.
THX_1138 Posted April 1, 2008 Author Posted April 1, 2008 Sport and politics dont go well with each other. I understand and respect Bhaichung's sentiments towards Tibet' date=' but he shouldnt have used the Olypimcs as a platform to push his own personal agenda.[/quote'] u mean sports and politics conflicting your viewpoint do not go together? especially a sport event that is supposed to serve as a leveling plane for all athletes where economic and social hierarchies are supposed to be non existent. if at such a platform the very host is engaging in policy that is at a complete contradiction to the philosophy of the event, then there ought to be protests and boycotts. england boycotted their tour of zimbabwe, just as the world boycotted south africa for their indulgence in apartheid. had the poor oppressed individuals in tibet been hindu or some religion you are more sympathetic to, your approach would be quite different to this.
CC1981 Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 Sport and politics dont go well with each other. I understand and respect Bhaichung's sentiments towards Tibet' date=' but he shouldnt have used the Olypimcs as a platform to push his own personal agenda.[/quote'] wtf are you on about ? Sports and politics don't go well with each other ? Says who ? Do you have any idea how many times sports has served as a platform for politics ? And why should it not ? In anycase, have you read the Olympics charter ?? It is a political charter!! Olympics isn't just any sporting event, it is THE political sports event- how the hell can not politics mix with the olympics ?? And Baichung's agenda is not personal, i am sure you realize that it has millions of backers!
beetle Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 Sport and politics dont go well with each other. I understand and respect Bhaichung's sentiments towards Tibet' date=' but he shouldnt have used the Olypimcs as a platform to push his own personal agenda.[/quote'] But his right to his opinion is much greater...... Good show Bhutia!:two_thumbs_up:
theguyinallblue Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 Good going Baichung.. i am sure there are many more indians whose moral supports are with you...
cochise Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 Sport must be principled. Or it's not sport. Bhutia can be called a true sportsman. Respect to him for his stance. Sport and politics dont go well with each other. Anybody remember Jessie Owens? Triumph: The Untold Story of Jesse Owens and Hitler's Olympics
Ram Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 Sport must be principled Wrong, sportsman must be principled, not the sport itself. As I said, I have no problem with Bhaichung having sympathetic sentiments towards whats happening in Tibet. He is justified in thinking that the crackdown on the Tibetan protesters by the Chinese army is grossly unjustified, something that needs to be stood up against. What I DO have a problem with is, Bhaichung using the Olympics as a mouthpiece to popularize his propaganda. Who stopped from arranging a press-conference in Delhi, and in front of the world-wide media, publicly condemning the Chinese actions in Tibet ? He wouldnt do that, coz he knows hardly 1 or 2 newsman only will turn up for the press meet. Instead, he has chosen to hijack the Olympic agenda coz he knows this will create lots of headlines. Besides, when you start using sport as an instrument of expression of state or personal policy, the consequences can be never-ending. We have seen that happen, many times before.
The Outsider Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 Kudos to Bhutia. With the kind of atrocities going on in Tibet, it's high time high profile people starting speaking up against it rather than cowering away in the name and fame of China, the emerging superpower. I just wish some governments in the world also grow some balls and boycott the damn Olympics being played out in the backdrop of widespread murder of perhaps the most peace loving community in the world.
Lurker Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 Who stopped from arranging a press-conference in Delhi, and in front of the world-wide media, publicly condemning the Chinese actions in Tibet ? In all honesty I would think that on a normal Indian day no media persons will turn up for a press conference of Indian ace footballer. It doesnt matter if he talks about Tibet or SAARC, they just wont come. And even if they did not many Indians would follow the news. I mean come on in the 2 or so years of ICF when was the last time anyone uttered the name Bhaichung Bhutia here?? What Bhutia has done is brought more attention to the Tibetan cause. Whether it was planned or just a reaction of instinct we can't say but we certainly can not disagree that this has indeed brought more focus on the whole issue.
cochise Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 Wrong, sportsman must be principled, not the sport itself. I don't think I was saying anything different. What is sport without the sportsman? I was not refering to sport in it's abstract as a set of rules whereby a game is played or a competition conducted, but sport as in that which arises due to the direct action of a sportsman i.e. sport as in the verb, if you may. Apologies for the confusion. But I thought it was self-evident. What I DO have a problem with is, Bhaichung using the Olympics as a mouthpiece to popularize his propaganda. Who stopped from arranging a press-conference in Delhi, and in front of the world-wide media, publicly condemning the Chinese actions in Tibet ? He wouldnt do that, coz he knows hardly 1 or 2 newsman only will turn up for the press meet. Instead, he has chosen to hijack the Olympic agenda coz he knows this will create lots of headlines. If it is his own personal stance and he has a high profile due to sport and he genuinely feels that his actions will highlight the persecution of his people, I see no issue with him doing it. I do not see sport as more important or higher than the cultural genocide of a people...which I imagine is what he believes is happening to the Tibetans...you may differ. I put myself in his shoes and if it were Indians that were being persecuted and you asked me to carry the torch for the games being held by the persecutor...I would reject it out of hand and I would use my profile to the utmost to highlight the persecution of my people. My conscience would demand so of me. Again, you may differ.
Ram Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 In all honesty I would think that on a normal Indian day no media persons will turn up for a press conference of Indian ace footballer. It doesnt matter if he talks about Tibet or SAARC, they just wont come. And even if they did not many Indians would follow the news. I mean come on in the 2 or so years of ICF when was the last time anyone uttered the name Bhaichung Bhutia here?? What Bhutia has done is brought more attention to the Tibetan cause. Whether it was planned or just a reaction of instinct we can't say but we certainly can not disagree that this has indeed brought more focus on the whole issue. Which is exactly what I am saying. As I have mentioned before, I am perfectly fine with Bhutia expressing his anger over the recent events in Tibet, I can understand his sentiments. But he shouldnt have used a world-wide event to push his own agenda. I don't think I was saying anything different. What is sport without the sportsman? I was not refering to sport in it's abstract as a set of rules whereby a game is played or a competition conducted, but sport as in that which arises due to the direct action of a sportsman i.e. sport as in the verb, if you may. Apologies for the confusion. But I thought it was self-evident. What I actually meant was, it was possible for the sportsman to be 'principled' without the help of the sport itself. To be more precise, Bhaichung Bhutia the person, has the right to voice the opinion on any event that happens in the world and he is free to do that. But Bhaichung Bhutia the Indian footballer, has the responsibility to follow the instructions of his govt, which is to carry the torch. I know this sounds a bit stupid coz Bhutia couldnt possibly give a press-conference thrashing China on one hand and carry the torch on the other, so in that sense, I can understand his actions. But why would he not use his stature as India's best footballer and criticize China ? If it is his own personal stance and he has a high profile due to sport and he genuinely feels that his actions will highlight the persecution of his people' date=' I see no issue with him doing it. I do not see sport as more important or higher than the cultural genocide of a people...which I imagine is what he believes is happening to the Tibetans...you may differ. I put myself in his shoes and if it were Indians that were being persecuted and you asked me to carry the torch for the games being held by the persecutor...I would reject it out of hand and I would use my profile to the utmost to highlight the persecution of my people. My conscience would demand so of me. Again, you may differ.[/quote'] I agree to most of what you have to say, but lemme clarify why I am against the general use of sports as in instrument of political expression. Maybe, in this case, Bhutia was justified in doing what he did, but on most times, this tactic is just mis-used to send across tit-for-tat political signals. Like for example whats happening in Zim. The British govt is livid with Mugabe over his actions, grabbing land from rich white farmers and handing it over to poor Black Zimbabweans. Most people, especially within the African union, think his moves are justified. But obviously, the British govt thinks otherwise and had been consistently using international cricket to make more public, its boycott of Zimbabwe politically. Which is why I said, on most occassions, this sort of using sport as an instrument of expression of political and personal sentiments is biased and manipulated.
cochise Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 I get you. Yes, sport should not be used for political opportunism, instrument of policy or as a lever for power over rivals. This I would agree. This would lie mostly in the realm of state actors though.
PaiN_KiLLeR Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 How is the Tibet issue any different from Kashmir?
The Outsider Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 How is the Tibet issue any different from Kashmir? For starters, China invaded Tibet to take over the country and their leader did not sign a treaty handing over the country to China as was the case with India. The violence and resistance in Tibet is not being fuelled by an arch enemy of China and no one is sending militants and suicide bombers in Tibet from another country to foster the insurgency. Having said all this, I am all for people to make a choice and Kashmir should have a plebiscite if and when all parts of Kashmir including PoK vote on a referendum in the absence of military and troops from either India or Pakistan.
Recommended Posts