by Sreelata S. Yellamrazu
Of all the ridiculousness that has come from the Commonwealth Games 2010 in New Delhi, this one takes the cake. First we bring the game associated with the royalty and then, question whether a member of the royalty should open the games. This is as farcical as its gets. But is anyone getting it?
It could not get more hilarious than the Queen handing over the ‘baton’ of opening the games to her son, Prince Charles of Wales, leading to a widespread discussion on whether he is the heir apparent and if the authority over the games was then hereditary. But perhaps one would thank the Queen for some comic relief in what has been the most exasperating of times.
It could not get more hilarious than the Queen handing over the ‘baton’ of opening the games to her son, Prince Charles of Wales, leading to a widespread discussion on whether he is the heir apparent and if the authority over the games was then hereditary. But perhaps one would thank the Queen for some comic relief in what has been the most exasperating of times.
It is most unfortunate that the core element that defines the Games – not the monarchy, not the politicians, the bureaucreats or the organizing committee but rather the participating sportspersons themselves – have been overlooked almost entirely. There are next to no features on how the players are preparing, who is competing against whom in which category, what makes them tick, nothing. It is as if the athletes are merely inconsequential figurines in the background.
The irony is that the real figureheads are the Queen of England and the President of India, both with nominal powers in a legacy that has been questioned time and time again. There are serious doubts of what else the ladies in question can do other than pick themselves of their chairs and seat themselves down after being dressed in monotonous, drab tones, with next to charisma that would not have anyone turn their heads twice to look at them had they not held onto the title, which while carrying a weight of heritage does not translate to the personality.
It does not matter who reads the addressing speech; when was the last time that people sat through a speech – did people at school/college/work place allow for someone genuinely interested to even listen? That alone should signify the context of this discussion.
©Sreelata S. Yellamrazu for ©www.mindspacecricket.com
No comments:
Post a Comment