I am not sure if anybody has thought about it in this sense. But really if you think about what the term "Common Wealth" means, then you would get my point. Common Wealth nations is meant to indicate the countries that were under the British rule. Do we really need to participate in such an event that is meant for the once-suppressed countries? I know we cannot change the fact that we were once ruled by some other country, but do we need to continue acknowledging it? It is like saying "hey erstwhile slaves, are you interested in competing among yourself". I would say we should no longer participate in such an event and give it any glorifying sense.
If you need to know anything more, just google what Common wealth games is supposed to mean. It was originally called the "British Empire Games". I don't think it can get anymore obvious than that.
But, we continue to participate in this. In fact are putting all efforts (or lack of) to host the event, and to top it all get the Prince to come and inaugurate it.
Of course, we gave them a royal treatment by having the President's husband (accused of land-grabbing) to sit next to the Prince. So i guess it kind of evens out some things.
Anyways, just some thoughts to ponder.
2 comments:
Guess it is more to do with finding a smaller subset of countries which India can actually hope to compete with. If all countries are allowed to compete like in the Olympics, people would get bored of seeing the US, Britain, France, Italy etc. on top all the time.
Kicking these guys out of the competition due to no good reason might lead to lawsuits :)
Think that's why the name still remains. That and laziness, I presume :P
@Dha: Good try at an excuse of avoiding lawsuits :). I just think it doesn't make sense participating in "The British Empire Games" anymore. Maybe I am in the minority of folks who think this way.
Post a Comment