Is the Master Fading Away?

Prologue: I must admit this write-up is a bit outdated, but I couldn’t see myself having a blog without this piece on it. This article is a mere reaffirmation of my faith on one of my two Gods.

Once in a while there appears on the horizon, be it in life or sport, an individual who captures the imagination of an entire population. One who seems to saunter on a totally different level. They hog the limelight and grab all the eyeballs and hence, perhaps naturally, every move and comment they make is closely watched, dissected and analyzed. To say that Sachin Tendulkar belongs to this group would be stating the obvious. Ever since he made his debut at the tender age of 16, he has been part of the national consciousness.

From a prodigiously talented teenager, with copybook technique and an almost obsessional urge to dominate bowlers, he transformed himself into a voracious run-gobbler by the mid 1990s. The early part of his career was spent playing audacious shots sprinkled frequently with some unforgettable innings. This was a young Tendulkar, out to make a mark for himself on the cricketing stage. The transition from a swashbuckler to a more mature batsman was smooth and natural. Not that he didn’t dominate; it was just that he realized how vital he was to the team’s prospects. Hence the mid and late 90s saw some of Tendulkar’s most unforgettable innings. And because the change wasn’t that obvious and also the fact that the run-tap kept flowing, the subtle change went practically unnoticed.

Now in the final third of his career, the great man seems to be at crossroads, again. A more subdued avatar has emerged, one who isn’t averse to take a few bowler-barrages in the calmest of manners. The lofted shots are out, well almost, the ordered-from-heaven cover drives have ceased and a propensity to play on the leg-side has increased. He owns a Ferrari but doesn’t score at that pace. The aura among the opposition is intact, the fear perhaps not.

The fact that Tendulkar has been riddled with injuries has made the transition seem almost catastrophic. Reams and reams have been written about his injuries and its impact, with some former greats even going to the extent of prophesizing that Tendulkar is ‘past his prime’. It’s worth wondering what the entire fuss is all about. Yes, the slump which he has suffered has coincided with his injury but then it could well be a minor blip which every sportsman goes through, and there is no reason why he can’t be back to his best. The tennis elbow injury he suffered has been successfully treated upon, and perhaps most importantly, Tendulkar is just 33. How then can anyone prognosticate what the future holds?

The psychological scar that an injury leaves on an athlete’s mind is acceptable to a certain extent. The injury perhaps, may or may not hamper the player’s performance on the field. All this is a matter of conjecture. The manner of response will certainly vary from player to player. Great players aren’t great just because they are supremely talented. As Muhammad Ali once said, ‘champions must have skill and will. But the will must be stronger than the skill.’ A sport in the present era is played more in the mind. Mental strength and toughness is what separates the champion from the also-rans. An ability to adapt to different conditions and produce a response that is both exhilarating and breathtaking at the same instant is what separates Tendulkar from his contemporaries. It would be foolhardy to suggest that Sachin Tendulkar won’t be able to come out of this crisis, if there is one.

In his journey through cricket, Sachin Tendulkar has reached destinations which were hitherto unknown to cricketers. He has scaled new heights, setting new benchmarks for others to emulate. But the journey isn’t finished yet. Greatness he has attained, immortality is what remains.

Like Halley’s Comet, which appears once in 76 years, Tendulkar is a shining star, one like whom there won’t be another. And the thing about great people like him is that just when they are written off, they come back, with vengeance and newfound zeal. It is only in extraordinary circumstances that we realize the true greatness of a truly great individual. Great people require great hurdles, for they won’t be recognized as being great without overcoming supposedly insurmountable odds.

The true extent of Tendulkar’s impact on Indian as well as world cricket can only be gauged when he hangs up his boots. To expect him to stumble and fall go into the sunset of his career without a flourish would be wrong. He will go on his own terms, with his head held high, for this is what champions do, and there is no doubting that he is one.

Epilogue: I guess what Tarun Tejpal wrote in Outlook is absolutely brilliant and deserves a mention here: Much before Sachin commences strapping on his armour, a nation begins to prepare.Across the dispirited homes and listless ofices a strange frisson starts to course. The frisson has a hormonal edge, a near sexual charge. In pulsating minutes a sublime duet will be set in motion, it will play between the puissant boy-emperor and his loyal subjects.

Willed Death

“It’s better to die than to bend on knees”

Philosophers and sages for long have extolled the virtues of freedom and free will. Yet its ironical that for a matter as personal as death an individual has no right what so ever to decide about it.

For centuries man has envisioned new things and conquered unknown frontiers. Our thoughts, ideas, views and opinions about ourselves and the world around have undergone a drastic change. What is sound socially today might not have been so a few centuries or even a few decades back.

Still, man per se has not changed in any dramatic manner. For instance, a group of men still require a leader to lead and majority of us still believe in a Supreme power who controls us all. In the same manner, though political thoughts have changed we still cling on to our old beliefs. Euthanasia or the right to die with dignity is one among them.

The arguments against one's own will to die are utterly preposterous. From legal sanction to moral and ethical conscience, human society has used every possible measure in an attempt to deem death as something which ought to happen naturally. It can't and shouldn't be induced; nature has to take its own course.

The main obstacle against the free will to choose death lies in the dominance of religion in matters political. As Henry Maine rightly points out in his criticism of the Monistic theory of sovereignty which says that the command of the sovereign is law, even the most powerful sovereign bows down to some sort of religious authority. Almost all states of the world take religious sentiments into consideration before enforcing any law. Christianity, the dominant religion of the West, is totally against death which is brought about by artificial means. Human life is given by God and only He has the right to take it back. Even Islam exhorts its followers to respect life as the gift of God. This deep rooted dominance of religion has proved to be a stumbling block in pushing forward the right to die honorably.

Religion, as such is an abstract concept. The origin of God can be traced back to man's intrinsic need to feel that he has a kind of protector over him. Its wrong to allow religion to blur our vision regarding the inherent rights of man. Religion talks of things eternal, it talks of heaven; life on the other hand is short, the main focus of life is earth. To juxtapose these two would certainly prove deleterious. It’s better to keep these two separate and allow reason to shape our thoughts rather than the other way round.

The ethical arguments against willed death stand `firmly' on quicksand. The Hippocratic oath asks all doctors to have a clear conscience and to try their best at all times. The oath, however, has lost all its relevance in modern times. With cases of doctors turning into serial killers or contriving to sell body organs, doctors have long ceased to be the `angels of God on earth' which they were perceived earlier.

The moral considerations for a doctor while administering a lethal injection is highly exaggerated. It is as right or wrong as a soldier killing another soldier. Just as the soldier has to perform his duty in the interests of the nation, why can't a doctor have the right to serve the interests oh his patients? It all depends on our own outlook towards things. Its man himself who decides what is right and what isn't.

Laws are basically made to bring about regimentation and a certain uniformity to society. Rousseau has rightly said,” Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Legally, though Right to life is considered as a fundamental right, death is not considered in the same manner. Voluntary Euthanasia is regarded as a crime according to Indian law.

The need of the hour is not to keep harping about the possible repercussions of legalizing voluntary death for the ill; but to adopt a pragmatic approach to the entire problem.
Firstly one has to accept the fact even today in this age of advancement of human civilization there are still many diseases which are incurable. Many a time patients are required to undergo immeasurable pain in vain hope that their situation will ameliorate. It’s in this regard that the lawmakers of the land have to delve whether it can so blatantly trample the basic rights of its citizens. It cannot be ignored that every individual is responsible for himself. To each his very own' is an old saying. Another point in this regard is that pain as such cannot be explained through the vehicle of language. What pain a sick person undergoes is something which only he himself can elucidate. As such every individual should be given the right to decide the course of his own life. Putting restrictions is nothing but undermining the intellect of man himself.

Further, our constitution itself guarantees the right to lead a life of dignity and respect. People who are seriously sick become physically and emotionally dependent on others. Are they then able to lead a life of dignity? The biggest pain for a man is the pain of dependence. Man by nature wants to be free. If circumstances so unfold that a person is ill beyond any chance of improvement, it is nothing but chains which keep him tied down; his hopes and aspirations are crushed. Surely he must have the right to decide what he does with his own life.

Another important aspect to be considered is the form of government that is prevalent in our country. Ours is a democratic form of government which believes in certain basic human rights. Furthermore unlike a socialist state which undertakes welfare schemes for its citizens, democracy doesn't even ensure basic life to its citizens. How then can it control our death? Its about time we consigned our antiquated thoughts and views to the dustbin of history.

Every new endeavor of ours is fraught with the imminent danger of failure. However, this fear should not be an obstacle in our quest to form a just, humane society. What is needed in the present scenario is adequate legal measures to enable a person to choose his own death. This is not to say that suicide should be legalized; what is necessary is, those patients who suffer from incurable disease and unfathomable misery should have the right to put an end to their tale of woe. The government cannot argue that there arises a scope for misuse of such a law. The government is present to enforce the law and hence cannot wash its hands from the matter. Enough deterrents should be present to prevent misuse.

To conclude what Rabindranath Tagore said is apt,"If it is necessary to die in order to live like men ,what harm in dying?" The choice in front of us is simple: we have to decide whether we want our sick fellow brethren to live in pain or die in peace.