PDF 13th August 2016
The Board of Control for Cricket in India’s decision last week to appoint a former Supreme
Court judge, Justice Markandey Katju, to “interact with the Justice Lodha Committee” and to
“advise and guide” the BCCI on its affairs is, at best, an effort at prevarication (वा छल), and, at
worst, a subversion of the Supreme Court’s authority. Exacerbating ( बगाड़ दे ना) the tension,
following his appointment, Justice Katju, rather indecorously given his stature as a retired judge,
on August 6 released what he termed as a “first report,” with “more reports to follow,” in which
he declared theSupreme Court’s judgment appointing the Lodha Committee as illegal and
unconstitutional.
It is one thing to critique the court’s judgment as an outsider; for instance, it is plausible
( शंसनीय) to argue, even if incorrectly, that the court ought to have exercised greater restraint
(अवरोध) in interfering with the board’s affairs. But to do as Justice Katju has, to advise a party to
openly disregard the Supreme Court’s verdict (फैसला), presents a dangerous proposition, one
that is far more threatening than any act of judicial overreach. What’s more, in any event, given
the peculiar facts and circumstances surrounding the BCCI’s structure, Justice Katju’s assertion
that the court has exceeded its brief also fails to pass muster. If anything, these developments
exemplify precisely why the Supreme Court’s intervention in this case was justified.
To understand why the Supreme Court thought it fit to appoint the committee presided by the
former Chief Justice of India, R.M. Lodha, to inquire into, and to recommend changes, to the
BCCI’s organisation, we must confront a few fundamental questions. Too often, amid the
chaotic (अ त - य त) world of modern sport, we tend to lose track of why we play sport, why
we watch games, why we revel in them, and why we invest so much of our emotions into
seemingly pointless pursuits. We must first ask ourselves, therefore, what the abiding purpose of
cricket is. What do we want from it? Is the sport meant for pure entertainment? Can it be
commercially exploited (लाभ उठाना) by a band of the elite owing no responsibility to the public?
Or do we want the sport to represent a higher, more virtuous purpose? If so, how are we to
achieve these ends?
To take any sport seriously, and to ask such questions, seems to represent, in some ways, an
incongruity (असंग त) in terms. In fact, many commentators considered the adjudication of the
dispute concerning the BCCI and allegations of spot-fixing as a waste of the Supreme Court’s
precious time. The public, they warned, was according more importance to cricket than it really
deserved. But the danger, contrary to such counsel, is not that we are taking sport too seriously.
It is that we are not taking sport seriously enough.
As the American academic, Jan Boxill, has argued, sport serves to establish a moral function for
society. It is “an unalienated activity which is required for self-development, self-expression, and
self-respect”; or, put differently, it is morally important because it is “the art of the people,” one
that ought to be included in what Marx termed as the “realm of freedom”. In India, where cricket
plays such a pervasive ( यापक) role, the sport would therefore have to necessarily be seen as a
primary cultural good, one which, to borrow from another American, the philosopher John
Rawls, is critical to the fulfilment of a person’s conception of a good life. In that sense, access to
cricket has to be considered as an end in and of itself, and as not in any manner subservient to
some other veiled purpose, especially entertainment or business. In his marvellous epic, Beyond
a Boundary, C.L.R. James argued that cricket allows us a grasp of a more complete human
existence, where social justice is a legitimate aim. To seize ownership of the game we must,
therefore, hold cricket’s administrators answerable to standards of public law, a check that would
help in bringing about within cricket’s province ( ांत) a more equal distribution of resources.
1. Prevarication (N) वा छल

Synonyms : Dishonesty / Fib / Equivocation

Antonyms : Honesty
2. Exacerbate (V) बगाड़ दे ना

Synonyms : Aid / Alleviate / App ease / Soothe / Pacify
3. Plausible (Adj.)
शंसनीय / मु म कन /
वीकाय

Synonyms : Credible / Tenable / Logical / Possible

Antonyms : Impossible / Irrational / Untenable
4. Restraint (N) अवरोध

Synonyms : Caution / Correction / Confines / Coercion

Antonyms : Freedom / Help / Liberty
5. Verdict (N) फैसला / वचार

Synonyms : Award / Judgment /Decree / Opinion

Antonyms : Accusation
6. Chaotic (Adj.) अ त - य त / अराजक

Synonyms : Anarchic / Helter - Shelter

Antonyms : Clam / Harmonized / Quiet
7. Exploit (N) लाभ उठाना / शोषण करना

Synonyms : Feat / Coup / Deed / Adventure

Antonyms : Inaction / Passivity / Idleness
8. Incongruity (N) असंग त / वषमता

Synonyms : Inconsistency / Difference
9. Pervasive (Adj.) यापक / फैलने वाला

Synonyms : Extensive / Rife / Universal

Antonyms : Scarce / Narrow / Light
10. Province (N)
ांत / अ धकार

Synonyms : Colony / County / Zone / Bailiwick

Antonyms : Avocation / Retreat / Whole
Daily current affairs Quiz
GK Quiz
English Quiz
Aptitude Quiz
Reasoning Quiz
Computer Quiz
Banking Quiz
Marketing Quiz
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
http://currentaffairs.wifistudy.com/
http://gk.wifistudy.com/
http://english.wifistudy.com/
http://aptitude.wifistudy.com/
http://reasoning.wifistudy.com/
http://computer.wifistudy.com/
http://bankingawareness.wifistudy.com/
http://marketing.wifistudy.com/