What if we lose this match?

This is no longer a cricket match. Both sides have invested so much that a defeat of either side is unimaginable.


Khurram Husain March 29, 2011
What if we lose this match?

It’s here. The day the poet sang about, the day the Book promised millennia ago. Today is the day of judgement.

What if we lose this match? I’ll get to that in a minute, but first please consider the stakes. We’re not looking for just cricket today. Today, we want to see the vengeance of our ancestors unleashed in that stadium in Mohali. Today is the day we tally it all up. Five thousand years of history has gone into making this day so let the winner take all.

Who’s buying the whole ‘let’s win this cup together’ business? I understand some sentimental souls have taken vows to cheer for the winning team in the final, irrespective of who the winner in today’s game is. I’m touched with this sentimentality, I really am. But I’ll wait to see who wins today before making any decisions about the final.

But what if we lose? What if our worst fears parade around the ground today? I’ll get to that in a minute, but first please consider the situation. This is no longer a cricket match. This a smackdown for the history books, something akin to the Rumble in the Jungle legend of Muhammad Ali. Both sides have invested so much of their national and individual pride, prestige, honour and every other primitive impulse to have survived our evolutionary journey, that a defeat of either side is unimaginable. Herman Kahn thought he was tough for “thinking the unthinkable” about how to fight and win a nuclear war, but he had no idea how big that potato really gets. Today we’ll find out.

But what if we lose? Well, in that case there’s not much left to do but wrap the whole thing up, turn the clock back to zero, wipe the slate clean and prepare to start over again. No I’m not talking about the team or restructuring the Pakistan Cricket Board, or anything quite so mundane. I mean we should just bulldoze the entire country into the ocean and go back to being single cell organisms all over again. This whole complex organism thing cannot be considered to be working out for us, in the event of defeat today.

We can then debate the merits of walking on our hind legs all over again. Is it really all that it’s cut out to be? We could even consider just staying in the ocean. Or some of us could decide to keep our tails, they’re mighty useful when swinging in the trees.

So that’s the plan folks. Put it all on the line for today. Everything. Today, we yell every time the ball is in the air, we shout at every boundary, we scream ourselves headless with every wicket. Today, it all comes together. Today is the day your parents brought you into the world for, some may even say today is the day the earth was created for. It’s judgement day, and don’t you dare think you’ll walk away from it with your sanity intact.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 30th, 2011.

COMMENTS (39)

abhinav | 13 years ago | Reply Dear Amlendu, You have given a long post and as you can realize half cooked knowledge is not good and you should not start jumping the gun if you are not well versed in this field. If you accept Rig Ved as first document of Hinduism/Santan Dharm then by any estimates it is at least 3500 (1500 BC) yrs old (not 2000) and some expert put it back to even 4000 yrs (2000 BC). even Buddhism is at least 2500 yrs old (well documented without any controversy). The reamins of Indus valley civilization are dated around 3000 BC ( which is 5000 yrs from now) there are some sites (Mehargarh) which are dated even older 5000 BC (7000 yrs from now). And all above facts opinions are shared by most of the secular historians not hindutva brigade. Your whole post is full of abuses and derogatory language and mixed up information, so instead of shouting at others you should first think why can't you debate something rationally without getting too much emotional/illogical.
amlendu | 13 years ago | Reply @pl/sql: You know in history there is something called archeology, it is study of artifacts from past. If you go through the ancient history of India you will find that the archeological study of objects found throughout the subcontinent clearly show that 5000 years ago the people here used only stone artifacts and this was the time which is termed as megalithic and Mesolithic ages in Indian history and when most of the activity was centered in South India (Megalithic) and Eastern India (Mesolithic). Then came Chalcolithic age, which developed in to Bronze Age in Indus and Ghaghghar (Sarswati) valley. Then came the Iron Age which was the marker of your Sanatan Dharm. Rigved (And if you don't know what it is then find a copy and read it) is replete with mention of Iron. But not single artifact of this metal is found in the subcontinent which dates back more than 4000 years old. It also mentioned horses a lot of times but there are no archeological remains to prove that there were horses in the subcontinent before 2000BC. Rigved is based on rural and nomadic societies but the archeological remains of 200BC show a completely urban society. Then again if you go by another methodology of historical research, namely study of linguistic development, you will find that the Sanskrit language on which your Santan Dharm is based is a synthetic language and does not emerge from other primitive languages and that is why it is so systematic and complete. But the same fact makes it clear that this is not an organically evolved language. This means that this language would not be much older than the first text created using it. Go and study history in a proper way if you want to debate history. Or remain stuck with your stupid Purans and other mythological literature. You are such fool that you would take mythical literature like Mahabharta, Ramayana or any of Purans as historical texts. And for your information Mahabharta was not written by a single person either. It is actually a compilation of works created by different people over a few hundred of years. If you try to juxtapose it to other historical sources, you'll be able to reason it out. But I know that you are a sanghi (RSS/Khaki chaddi wala) and you have shut all your reasoning abilities. So good luck with you one-dimensional and blinkered tunnel vision of history. I made one mistake though. I wanted to say 2000BC when I said 200 years old. So it makes your Sanatan Dharm 400 years old but still short by 100 years. And finally the point is not how old this Sanatan Dharm is, but why can’t you debate a point which has nothing to with religion apparently without dragging religion into it. Religion by nature being based on faith is illogical. You can’t use it to settle a logical debate.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ