 |
| A digitally signed photo of the man, "just for me", courtesy of BCCI.
For the past one month, and certainly the last one week, all of India and Indians everywhere have been abuzz with only one thing - Sachin Tendulkar's retirement. Much has been said in infinite blogs and articles around the world about his cricketing accomplishments, and I have nothing to add to that. I enjoy the statistics but do not care enough to have them memorized. Honestly, if so much had not been made about his last test being his 200th, I would not have remembered it. Neither can I confidently tell you if his 100 international centuries are made up of 51 or 49 Test centuries. These things are important, and certainly point to Sachin's cricketing genius, but are immaterial to me. If we have to rely on numbers, then we can find many ways to argue all sorts of things, including the idea that Sachin does not make it into the list of Top 25 batsman ever, as this article does. So mere statistics are futile and do not capture what Sachin Tendulkar meant to me.
Though Sachin made his debut when I was too young to appreciate the game, his years on the field coincided with my years picking up the game. I quickly became an Indian cricket fan because of the nation it represented, but as any sports fan, desired wins and accolades to validate that crazed support. Alas, those were far and few. India as an economy was struggling and Indians as athletes had virtually no one to point to. Seeing the teams from Australia, West Indies, and even across the border in Pakistan, it was easy to say that Indians simply cannot play sports. Amidst that backdrop stood Sachin, almost alone. He was simply the best batsman playing the game. You did not need numbers, you merely needed to watch him. The fluidity, the ease, the confidence; these could not be captured with statistics, but sitting through just one innings of him making great bowlers look ordinary was enough to convince you that he was special. While any lover of the game could appreciate the talent, only an Indian fan can appreciate the other thing he gave us - Hope.
There were other good players in the team, but no one provided the confidence that India could win as Sachin could. As long as he was there, we were fine. Our scorecard would be in tatters, but if Sachin was n.o., there was hope. We would end a day's play of Test cricket hundreds of runs behind, but if I saw that Sachin was still to bat, I knew we could win. More than any one special innings or series, the child in me remembers that hope. Single-handedly, to me Sachin represented the Hope - that India could win and in a larger sense, that India could emerge as a great nation once again.
In many ways, the end of his career marks the end of a childhood for many of us. The outpouring of love for him tells me that I am not alone in feeling this. He has been a hero to hundreds of millions of people, and that he has done so with grace and humility mark him as an even more special human being. I cannot tell you that this much fame and support would not go to my head. How he maintained his dignity and respect for the game is commendable. No further proof of this is needed than his farewell speech. If his career was proof that he was a great representative of the game, then his life (and that speech) were proof that he is a great representative of India.
All I can say, is Thank You. With wet eyes that mark any ending, I can say no more than that. I am blessed for having spent my childhood watching you, and it truly truly has been fun.
|
November 17, 2013
What He Meant to Me
September 12, 2013
A Sense of Justice
Today brought a welcome bit of news to all those who have become all too familiar with the unfortunate slow pace of India's justice system. I am of course referring to the conviction of four of the six accused in the Delhi gang rape. It is no doubt that the massive public reaction to the heinous crime led in no small part to quick verdict. Many, including myself, see the death penalty as the only suitable punishment for such a crime - and that is the point I wish to explore here.
Capital punishment perhaps remains one of the most hotly debated topics alongside others such as abortion and euthanasia. The common theme amongst these clearly is the termination of a life (unborn child, terminally ill, or criminal). Human life is easily one of the most preciously guarded of treasures by every society and culture today, and for good reason, for clearly all of us can relate to it. Unlike things like vegetarianism or climate change, the suffering is immediate and immensely relatable. So, while any death is tragic, one caused purposely and sanctioned by a large group of people has to be especially so. What does it say about a group of people who see no remorse in ending a life when they continue to live theirs? By condoning the murder of a murderer, are we not all guilty of the same crime?
The argument I make is that the original murderer put her/himself in that position. They had a choice and they chose to commit a crime so vulgar and despicable that they effectively took away their right to continue in society. In fact, can we not say the same about everyone who is in prison today? Prisoners are purposely taken away from society for a pre-determined period of time. For some, it might be a day, and for some a lifetime. Capital punishment simply makes that lifetime permanent. And it does so without the costs of supporting the individual for his/her lifetime. It sounds extremely cruel (to put a price on a life), but it is a fair question for society to ask. We have imposed gradations on crime and our shock of it, and we impose punishments on that basis. I can easily see how a lifetime of solitary confinement or even one in a gang-ridden overcrowded prison would be a cruel punishment. So if we are willing to bucket certain crimes as worthy of such a punishment, then certainly we can think of even worse crimes that deserve even worse punishments. It is for those crimes that the death penalty should be reserved. I completely disagree with the wanton implementation of this punishment that some countries (including the US) practice, but there are rarest of the rare cases where it is the only suitable punishment. Where these people have CHOSEN to take away their right to continue to belong not only to society but humankind. These by definition cannot and do not happen often, but they do, and for these cases I am supportive of reserving the ultimate punishment.
I also wish to explore another recent event that forces us to explore our views on such a topic. I am referring again to the Delhi gang rape and an equally horrific crime committed recently in the US (the Ohio man who kidnapped, held captive, and raped three women for 11 years). One of the six accused in the Delhi case, Ram Singh, was found dead in his cell as was Ariel Castro, the Ohio man. There has been wide-spread condemnation of the fact that these men were allowed to commit suicide. This despite the fact that perhaps the vast majority of people actually wanted these people to be killed for their crimes. So why is it that even though we wanted them dead, we are angry that they were allowed to take their own lives? To me, we did not simply wish them to die, but rather wanted some justice system to condemn them to it. Perhaps barbarically we as a society wanted to have the collective pleasure of pushing the syringe or pulling the lever. By them killing themselves, they took away that sadistic pleasure from us and the sense of justice that would have come with it.
 |
| Death penalty laws by nation. View original here. Blue = Abolished, Green = Abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances, Orange = Legal but not used in past 10 years, Red = Legal |
Capital punishment perhaps remains one of the most hotly debated topics alongside others such as abortion and euthanasia. The common theme amongst these clearly is the termination of a life (unborn child, terminally ill, or criminal). Human life is easily one of the most preciously guarded of treasures by every society and culture today, and for good reason, for clearly all of us can relate to it. Unlike things like vegetarianism or climate change, the suffering is immediate and immensely relatable. So, while any death is tragic, one caused purposely and sanctioned by a large group of people has to be especially so. What does it say about a group of people who see no remorse in ending a life when they continue to live theirs? By condoning the murder of a murderer, are we not all guilty of the same crime?
The argument I make is that the original murderer put her/himself in that position. They had a choice and they chose to commit a crime so vulgar and despicable that they effectively took away their right to continue in society. In fact, can we not say the same about everyone who is in prison today? Prisoners are purposely taken away from society for a pre-determined period of time. For some, it might be a day, and for some a lifetime. Capital punishment simply makes that lifetime permanent. And it does so without the costs of supporting the individual for his/her lifetime. It sounds extremely cruel (to put a price on a life), but it is a fair question for society to ask. We have imposed gradations on crime and our shock of it, and we impose punishments on that basis. I can easily see how a lifetime of solitary confinement or even one in a gang-ridden overcrowded prison would be a cruel punishment. So if we are willing to bucket certain crimes as worthy of such a punishment, then certainly we can think of even worse crimes that deserve even worse punishments. It is for those crimes that the death penalty should be reserved. I completely disagree with the wanton implementation of this punishment that some countries (including the US) practice, but there are rarest of the rare cases where it is the only suitable punishment. Where these people have CHOSEN to take away their right to continue to belong not only to society but humankind. These by definition cannot and do not happen often, but they do, and for these cases I am supportive of reserving the ultimate punishment.
I also wish to explore another recent event that forces us to explore our views on such a topic. I am referring again to the Delhi gang rape and an equally horrific crime committed recently in the US (the Ohio man who kidnapped, held captive, and raped three women for 11 years). One of the six accused in the Delhi case, Ram Singh, was found dead in his cell as was Ariel Castro, the Ohio man. There has been wide-spread condemnation of the fact that these men were allowed to commit suicide. This despite the fact that perhaps the vast majority of people actually wanted these people to be killed for their crimes. So why is it that even though we wanted them dead, we are angry that they were allowed to take their own lives? To me, we did not simply wish them to die, but rather wanted some justice system to condemn them to it. Perhaps barbarically we as a society wanted to have the collective pleasure of pushing the syringe or pulling the lever. By them killing themselves, they took away that sadistic pleasure from us and the sense of justice that would have come with it.
September 4, 2013
Mankind: Made in the Image of God, (Not Pencils)
One of my closest friends - Zac Nagel - posted the following in response to my previous post, "The Point". In keeping with the spirit of this blog as a discussion, I do not want his views to be lost in a comment thread. I feel that a separate post, in the form of a "guest post", is needed to do his response justice.
Yes, it is too bad that many Christians resort to trite similes to make a profound statement. It usually ends poorly, as in this case. However, just because the vehicle is ugly and broken-down doesn't render the truth it is carrying to be false.
In response to #1:
If God does exist and He did create mankind, why is it foolish to think that He has the best perspective on man's purpose? And I think your analogy is more supportive of the theistic position...if an engineer designs something, say a computer, and it is being used as a boat anchor, then the engineer's perspective on the device is meaningful...the device is not being used to its full potential and purpose.
In response to #2:
It doesn't look like you've posited a disagreement here...
In response to #3:
I disagree with the idea that God was "bored", he is and always has been self-sufficient. So creating mankind was not necessary to fill some divine void. Furthermore, I'm not seeing the logic in your alleged tautology. If we were created by God for a specific purpose, then we find meaning in life by fulfilling that purpose.
In response to #4:
There are many layers to this point, so I'm only going to focus on two of them. The wording you used for "how much we believed" makes it sound like a scale of graduations. In truth it is a digital outcome: Romans 10:9 tells us "...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (ESV) So there is no concept of how much, but rather did you or did you not believe. This ties into your final assertion: "...they can convince God...". We can convince God of nothing. He has granted us a gift of eternal life, if we wish to accept. We cannot pay for it, leverage God into granting it, nor obligate Him into offering it. He has extended it of His own volition. There is no amount of goodness (real or contrived) that can convince God that he must do something on our behalf.
In response to #5:
Science and God are not enemies. In fact, the majority of science has arisen from societies with theistic world views. This has become muddled due to the institutional church losing its focus on its main purpose (to "celebrate the glory of God" as you say) and instead become involved in nationalism and other political power struggles. One response has been for naturalists to hijack the theory of evolution to provide an intellectually satisfying world view that doesn't involve God. So now there is a perceived implicit conflict between those who believe in God and science since science is explicitly invoked by naturalists to satisfy the 1st world view question of "how did we get here?"
In response to the final paragraph
The response I have to this thought is: what happens if you're unable to fulfill your self-made purpose? If you are infirm and cannot care for others or those around you or the planet? Or if you're blind and deaf and unable to admire beauty? Ultimately every self-fashioned purpose will fail, if nothing else it will in death. So what then, was/is your life meaningless and a waste? It is only in God who identifies himself to us as a Heavenly Father that we find a purpose that cannot fade or decay.
Yes, it is too bad that many Christians resort to trite similes to make a profound statement. It usually ends poorly, as in this case. However, just because the vehicle is ugly and broken-down doesn't render the truth it is carrying to be false.
In response to #1:
If God does exist and He did create mankind, why is it foolish to think that He has the best perspective on man's purpose? And I think your analogy is more supportive of the theistic position...if an engineer designs something, say a computer, and it is being used as a boat anchor, then the engineer's perspective on the device is meaningful...the device is not being used to its full potential and purpose.
In response to #2:
It doesn't look like you've posited a disagreement here...
In response to #3:
I disagree with the idea that God was "bored", he is and always has been self-sufficient. So creating mankind was not necessary to fill some divine void. Furthermore, I'm not seeing the logic in your alleged tautology. If we were created by God for a specific purpose, then we find meaning in life by fulfilling that purpose.
In response to #4:
There are many layers to this point, so I'm only going to focus on two of them. The wording you used for "how much we believed" makes it sound like a scale of graduations. In truth it is a digital outcome: Romans 10:9 tells us "...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (ESV) So there is no concept of how much, but rather did you or did you not believe. This ties into your final assertion: "...they can convince God...". We can convince God of nothing. He has granted us a gift of eternal life, if we wish to accept. We cannot pay for it, leverage God into granting it, nor obligate Him into offering it. He has extended it of His own volition. There is no amount of goodness (real or contrived) that can convince God that he must do something on our behalf.
In response to #5:
Science and God are not enemies. In fact, the majority of science has arisen from societies with theistic world views. This has become muddled due to the institutional church losing its focus on its main purpose (to "celebrate the glory of God" as you say) and instead become involved in nationalism and other political power struggles. One response has been for naturalists to hijack the theory of evolution to provide an intellectually satisfying world view that doesn't involve God. So now there is a perceived implicit conflict between those who believe in God and science since science is explicitly invoked by naturalists to satisfy the 1st world view question of "how did we get here?"
In response to the final paragraph
The response I have to this thought is: what happens if you're unable to fulfill your self-made purpose? If you are infirm and cannot care for others or those around you or the planet? Or if you're blind and deaf and unable to admire beauty? Ultimately every self-fashioned purpose will fail, if nothing else it will in death. So what then, was/is your life meaningless and a waste? It is only in God who identifies himself to us as a Heavenly Father that we find a purpose that cannot fade or decay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)