« Deepak Chopra supports “The Love Guru” :+: Snappy jawabs to stupid prashnas »

China

Olympics and the freedom of choice

By: Anantha :+: Under: China, Media Watch, Opinion, Opression, Personal, Politics, Sports, olympics
On: ⋅ April 10, 2008 ⋅ Post a comment

Looks like you are new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Much has been said about the Olympic torch relays and the fact that some people are calling for the torch bearers to boycott it to express solidarity with the Tibetans. I have a couple of things to say, things that seem to have been conveniently forgotten in all the politics and events of the past two weeks. And I will take the risk of being labeled heartless (and possibly leftist/communist etc., if the trolls get here).

I have constantly seen three stakeholders in this issue – the Chinese and the Tibetans are the first, while the Olympians and bystanders like this blogger make up the other two. Everyone has a personal stake in this matter, in varying levels.

The bystanders are the ones with almost zero stakes apart from a moral responsibility. But I am going to set aside the “moral responsibility to take sides” stake, since it is personal and I do believe it’s their own choice and by that measure, they should not attempt to foist it on others.

Moving on, that is also where almost every single bystander has been consistent – the disregard for the same “freedom of choice” that they themselves would claim. In Aamir Khan’s case, even he is seemingly ignorant of that fact that he owes no one any explanation. Ideally I’d have no problems with him choosing to carry the torch over the reservations expressed by members of (his) “family, personal friends, people who are associated with the Tibetan struggles, and (readers of his) blog”.

But what got my goat was the obvious naivety that Aamir displays while explaining his stance. While this is the same naivety that most bloggers including me display while talking out of their comfort zone, personally I’d take care that I don’t shoot my mouth off. And that’s what I’d tell Aamir – to stop while he is ahead and not get into things that he is not competent to explain.

Having gotten that out of my way, I have to say that I have also found alarming, the reactions that Aamir’s stance has evoked in my own countrymen. I have always felt that desis in general consider themselves unworthy of any independent opinion of their own. Placing society before self is an honorable concept, but it is hypocritical to judge and preach without setting a personal example (when it matters), which most of my countrymen don’t understand.

If you were to go and look at the opinions conveyed on various forums discussing this event, you would think that India epitomizes a truly selfless society, but we all know better. Even more alarming is the fact that, while the concept of true personal opinion seems alien to most, the concept of personal agendas though, is omnipresent. And I am not even going to go into B. Raman’s open letter and its various misinformed emotional drivel laden points.

Consider this closing shot from a post on the Desicritics blog (which is remarkably restrained otherwise), for example.

A great sportsman like Tendulkar should know better than to carry the Olympic torch when others like Kiran Bedi have refused to do so. We can blame the politics of it all, but the simple point is, that it is our Government, and it is our character which is revealed. We ought not to sacrifice it at the altar of “interest”.

Honestly! What gives us the right to judge? Why are we questioning Tendulkar’s character now? And, no. It is not so simple. I know the whole “of the people, by the people, for the people” motto, but it is not so simple. Our government’s stance is not the true reflection of our our character. It’s not even the true reflection of the majority and it will never be, unless it is in an ideal world. What is simple though, is the fact that when there is no way to aim for the correct target, the simplest choice is to aim at the easiest and the closest target, i.e. in this case, Tendulkar. In my view, if you cannot find the right target, then don’t shoot at all.

Right, so, coming back to the freedom of choice question, I think Aamir’s stand can be better explained from a prospective Olympian’s perspective – like Bhaichung Bhutia, for example. Bhaichung Bhutia’s act is heroic only because of the amount of dirty talking that he has had to endure from ex-Olympians and others. But he surely cannott and should not do more than just this one symbolic act.

Anything more, like a boycott of the Games themselves, that some people seem to be suggesting, is not just stupid, but a waste of everyone’s time, particularly when it is never going to gain universal acceptance.

Let’s face it. The decision to award Beijing the right to host the Olympics was not made overnight, as this brouhaha would make you believe. Beijing was chosen to host the Olympics way back in ‘01. And the Chinese were not really followers of Gandhian principles then either.

At that time, China was expected to improve its human rights record.

Liu Jingmin, Vice-President of the Beijing Olympic Bid Committee, said in 2001 that allowing Beijing to host the Games would “help the development of human rights”.

However, Amnesty International says (and as everyone knows) things have not exactly “developed”. And I think it is too late now to declare “Support the Beijing Olympics, if you support the bloodshed in Tibet” (link). Honestly, this is one time when I won’t subscribe to the “better late than never” argument. I don’t see why a boycott would suddenly viable now. And to see why that argument is logical, you have to look at this from the perspective of the other stakeholders – the prospective Olympians, who have a lot more to lose.

Mike Golic, one of the hosts of the “Mike and Mike” show on ESPN radio every morning and a former defensive lineman in the NFL, recounted an anecdote (he also hailed Bhaichung Bhutia’s stance as honorable) involving his brother, former NFL offensive lineman Bob Golic.

Bob (Golic) played high school football at St. Joseph’s High School in Cleveland. He was drafted by the Patriots out of Notre Dame in the second round (52nd pick overall) of the 1979 NFL Draft. Bob was a 3-time Pro Bowler: 1985, 1986, 1987.

At Notre Dame, Golic was voted first team All-American for the 1977 and 1978 football seasons. For the 1978 season, Golic was selected by a unanimous vote at linebacker. Golic was also a 2 time All-American for Notre Dame as a heavyweight wrestler, capturing 4th place in 1977 and 3rd place in 1978[1], placing ahead of future Olympic gold Medalist Jeff Blatnick. Golic was also a member of the 1977 NCAA National Champion football team.

Bob was on track to make the US Olympic wrestling team for the 1980 Moscow Olympics. And then he was faced with a perplexing choice. He could declare himself available for the 1979 NFL draft. But if he did so, he could not represent USA in the Olympics, which were then strictly amateur, then. He chose the NFL over the Olympics and then watched as, a year later, the US and its allies withdrew from the 1980 Games in boycott over the USSR’s political policies.

A number of careers were affected then.

For 46-year-old Glenn Mills, this whole controversy is like a hideous flashback. Mills was an 18-year-old high school senior in 1980 and an Olympic-caliber swimmer. After 11 years of training six days a week for hours every day, Mills’ Olympic dream was within reach, right up until it was snatched away.

On hindsight, if Bob Golic had chosen to qualify for the Olympics (and chosen to skip the NFL draft), his life would have possibly changed for the worse, because after two years of not playing football, it would have been next to impossible to get into the NFL. But he had a choice, something that a lot other Olympians, particularly the ones from third world countries, do not have.

For the average athlete, the Olympics are perhaps the pinnacle of their often fruitless professional careers, more so for the Indian, who is often hampered by poor infrastructure, and mismanagement. Sometimes the Olympics Games are the difference between a life of penury and a chance to live a decent life. So every four years, when they find a plane ticket in their hands to go wherever the Olympics are being held, every athlete should and would normally embrace this chance to do what they are meant to be doing. Or maybe not, but then that is their own choice.

And the athletes themselves say so,

“Too many governing bodies see Olympians as expendable, but those athletes will only have one shot,” Mills said. “Everybody has a cause, and those causes are valid but people want the athletes to take a stand. I say if those big powerful movie stars who have made billions of dollars are asking people to boycott the opening ceremonies then I would ask them not to make another movie for four years, these athletes only get one shot every four years…The only things swimmers should be worried about during the games is whether or not their suit is tied on the block.”

So I think it is not in my brief to decide if participating in the Games equates to support for the Chinese occupation of Tibet. That’s the athlete’s personal decision alone. So, everyone else should just take a step back, leave the Olympics to the athletes and confine our opinions to the bigger picture - the Tibetan struggle.

Let’s protest against China and its oppressive government in occupation. Yes, the Chinese propaganda machine WILL use the Olympics for its own purposes. But it is far too late to stop them now. So let’s take this as a lesson. Maybe in the future, the powers that be will place more emphasis on current scenarios versus empty promises while handing over responsibility of an institution such as the Olympics to a totalitarian regime that revels in playing Big Brother.

« Deepak Chopra supports “The Love Guru” :+: Snappy jawabs to stupid prashnas »