After last year’s enthralling Twenty-20 cricket world cup finale, Ravi Shastri, the anchor at the presentation ceremony, asked the Pakistan skipper Shoaib Malik to reflect on the game. Malik’s response began with a disgustingly ridiculous remark which I would go to the extent of describing as communal or even racist, given the context in which it was made. Here is what I can recollect:
“First of all I want to say something over here. I want to thank you back home Pakistan and where the Muslim lives all over the world.”
Who the trash cares about your thanks-giving desires for the Muslim world, Mr. Malik? Hasn’t the newly appointed captain been told that he represented Pakistan – the nation – in the T20 world cup, NOT Muslim – the religion? We have all come to expect linguistic (English in particular) blunders, plentiful at that, from a typical Pakistani cricketer but this one had all to do with the semantics and nothing with the syntax. It’s NOT as if Malik meant something and his lack of expressive skills brought out something else. If I were the PCB (Pakistan Cricket Board) chief, I would certainly reprimand Malik and ensure that no such comment, bordering on religion-based discrimination, ever surfaces again. Cricket (any sport for that matter) is supposed to bridge divides among races, colors, castes and nations. Anything that violates this spirit should be treated with a zero-tolerance policy by the governing bodies.
Stepping aside from the post-match stuff and digging into the match itself, it was an exhilarating contest. However, what made it that way was not the quality of cricket. It was actually the lack of it. The best way to describe India in the inaugural T20 WC final, in my book, would be something like “the lesser of the two evils”. An unbiased cricket fan has every right to say “I have seen better”. Sure, this one went right down to the wire. But, that’s because the Pakistanis didn’t know to how to win, NOT because the Indians knew how to win. I had come early from the office, mainly to see two of my favorite modern-day batters blaze away: the brutally elegant Yuvraj and the ever-excitable, huge-hitting Afridi. Sadly, neither fired (Ironically, Afridi bagged the man of the series award, leaving me bewildered as to why).
However way the win was achieved, the emotion-filled celebration, that this victory evoked in India, was typically gigantic. Around my place (in B’lore), people walked out onto the roads, many drove (something I don’t approve of) across the streets, some fired crackers (again something I don’t approve of) and plenty jumped for joy, literally. It was really pleasing to witness that (After all, sports are designed to entertain, evoke smiles). What was more heartening to see was the sense of oneness, the sense of patriotism that had prevailed, transcending the boundaries of wealth and religion.
Filed under: General Musings | Tagged: India vs Pakistan, muslim, racism, shoaib malik, t20 final
Hi Pulkit,
No one seemed to mention one serious stuff in your post and hence me doing it.
We have all come to expect linguistic (English in particular) blunders, plentiful at that, from a typical Pakistani but this one had all to do with the semantics and nothing with the syntax.
Isn’t the above mentioned statement of yours biased, racist and generalaising?
Hey Arun,
While writing the statement, I surely didn’t have anything racist in mind. But, one can argue that without having observed a sufficiently large set of Pakistani nationals, I should have refrained from using the phrase “a typical Pakistani”. What I had meant was “a typical Pakistani cricketer”. I surely have seen enough samples of that kind to make this statement (Imran being a glaring exception). At any rate, it wasn’t a factual accusation, it was just a personal opinion based on my own observations. Nevertheless, I am making the correction. Thanks for pointing it out.
PS: When you say Gujaratis love sweets or a typical Gujarati has a peculiar accent while speaking English, these are more or less correct statements that are targeted at a community/race. But, I wouldn’t call them racist, certainly not in a bad way. Would you? If a race has some peculiarities, what’s wrong in observing and highlighting them? In many articles on outsourcing, you will find statements that say that Indians still have an edge on people from African countries because the latter still aren’t that good with English. You wouldn’t call these statements racist but my similar statement on Pakistanis is objectionable. Why?
Hi Pulkit,
Actually if I found the sentence somewhere else, I wouldn’t have noticed, I’m not sure. But here, in this particular post of yours it seemed terribly paradoxical and questioned your intentions. Indeed thanks for the explanation.
Now of exceptions: Of course every one knows Imran had his education at the Ivy League Cambridge and played for the university. But there are others too who are ‘educated’ in the real sense of the word. Sayeed Anwar was one of the best students in his college days, Rameez Raja communicates in impecable English. Doesn’t he? And for peoples accents, it has a lot to do with where one had one’s primary education rather than which part of the universe he’s from. Thank you.
Arun
At the outset, calling Rameez’s English impeccable would be like calling Ajit Agarakar a world class all rounder :). You know very well how Pakistani cricketers goof up their press conferences (from Inzamam to Malik). Now, whether or not one knows English is no big deal, and I have never said otherwise. That statement (about the English of Pakistani cricketers) was highly contextual – I wanted to convey that Malik’s (in)famous “Muslim” remark wasn’t a result of a linguistic folly; he really meant it.
My intention was not to defend Malik, infact i fully agree with you. What my point was your remark that begins with ‘we have all come to stuff…’ and that’s it.