The Sania Effect

I thought the idea was that we admire them for the sports they play and not their sexiness. A lot of the Indian sports team is unsexy. Arjuna Ranatunga is frankly gross, but that doesn`t seem to affect their following.

I agree that women`s sports needs more attention but is the only solution desi Anna Kournikovas. Don`t we have enough women in the remix vidoes.

Saniajee,
help us all

Why do you people have a problem with the fact that a very beautiful and attractive woman also happens to be a talented professional athlete and recieves some attention for it? You all know well that Sania has won her titles on the merits of her athletic performance and not her looks, therefore her looks should not be held against her. If she is being celebrated, then leave her alone, because she also recieves and equal amount of critism for breaking the glass ceiling. Women, attractive or not, always end up paying their dues in one way or another, I dont think this beautiful woman needs more flak just for being athletically competative and pretty at the same time.

Whu do you seek sex in sportswomen ??? There are plenty of models available, let the sportspersons alone. As far as sania check this out
www.asiantennis.go.to

A very good and anatical article, Sania is a media hype only coz of her looks, I found a very thought provoking article please check this link, http://asiatennis.blogdrive.com/archive/15.html

I don`t think she is talented, i played tennis too and i remember all the girls she has lost to in u12, u14,u16,u18 age groups, if she was talented then she wouldn`t have lost, anyways when you have a gvk reddy backing you up you dont really need talent

A very good and anatical article, Sania is a media hype only coz of her looks, I found a very thought provoking article please check this link, http://asiatennis.blogdrive.com/archive/15.html

I don`t think she is talented, i played tennis too and i remember all the girls she has lost to in u12, u14,u16,u18 age groups, if she was talented then she wouldn`t have lost, anyways when you have a gvk reddy backing you up you dont really need talent

[ have met many PAkistani friends who have an irresponsible arrogance about the superiority of their brand of religious conservativism!!!] - ballukhan.

it`s your fault ballu... seeing the kow-towing subserviant creature you are...every one on two legs looks superior to you... ;)

Re: # 51

The man speaks the truth.Why snarl at him?.Most ungracious.I dig you but i gotta stand with moi paysan on this one.

IM may be ``conservative`` but certainly not regressive like many Pakistanis. They have certainly stopped huddling around and have opened up to diverse cultural experiences. They do not certainly go around arrogantly displaying their religiousity like Pakis do, nor do they claim to be purer then others..........I have met many PAkistani friends who have an irresponsible arrogance about the superiority of their brand of religious conservativism!!!

``We have to laugh at ourselves most of the time.``

Exactly. Unless we take life too seriously, it is theraupatic to slap our own backs if no one else will :)

India is also a hot country and on-set of heat has loosen the synapses of the brain.
......I agree.We all suffer brain loss from the heat.

having to cheer for someone ``just because she`s Indian
........another cogent point.I do the same to but half facetiously.We have to laugh at ourselves most of the time.

This article has raised some valid viewpoints.Thumbs up!.

Sania may not be good enough by some other standards, but by our standards she is darn good. That`s all that matters. She is the pride of every Indian.

Re: # 46 There are 100`s of Sania Mirza`s languishing in India, We do not lack the talent we lack sponsorships, Sania was lucky to manage a dedicated GVK sponsor. Everyone is surrounded by media hype, why cannot you people be more practical.
This weblog is good and unbaised check it out
www.asiantennis.go.to

what percentage of Indian women are attractive any way ?

Re: # 44
How about 15%? An outside estimate.
PRK

Mantolives #15

`` I must say... Sania Mirza is the second forceful argument against my contention (which is based on several factors) that Muslims in a minority situation will be too rigid, conservative and too regressive. The first forceful argument was when I met Farzana Versey, a confident, very Indian, very progressive, very liberal Indian Muslim woman.

Both Sania Mirza and Farzana Versey go against the general experience I have had in meeting Indian Muslims and Indian Muslim women in the US especially. ``

In general Indian Muslims are conservative and somewhat regressive. One or two examples do not disapprove it. I do not see any reason to be defensive about it.

Dr. LokRaj #20, {``One last comment, Sania,Azhar,Zaffar Ibal,Zahir,Kaif,Pathan are not identified with religeon by the Indian masses....it is the so called intellectual class which does that..........for average Indian,they are just Indian and tye masses are proud of them.``}

Very well stated. That is the basic difference in modern Indians vs Paki mentality. I have had more explaining to do with Chauhan to justify my Muslim credentials among Pakis than to be accepted for being Salim among Indians. I think Pakis are too embroiled with religious identifcation at the micro level that they can`t think of other things. Of course there are exceptions and Manto is a welcome one. But the relentless zeal with which most Pakis, including the management and staff of Chowk, practice this myopic religious discrimination is appalling. So is the draconian censorship and attempt at thought control that is prevalent in Paki society and even on Chowk. I wish Sania all the success in her efforts. She has already proven that there are Indian Sharapovas that need our enthusiastic support and admiration.
I think Sania`s future is much brighter than that of Pakland`s and its miserable citizens.

Salim

OK, the verdict seems universal. Point taken.

I`ll just take up some of the points raised by Azure.

``This article is a disgrace to all women sportsmen out there.``
Put another way, women`s sports is a disgrace, at least in India. Which was the point of my piece.

``It should`ve been on Chaathouse instead of Gymkhana section.``
It was submitted to Chaathouse. Chowk editors got their wires mixed up.

``I can well imagine a pot bellied uncle with a pack of chips and tons of chocolate on his side writing this article, with absolutely no respect for sports.``
Yeah well, you don`t have much of an imagination then.

``People either talk about sick cricket or ridicule and laugh at true sportsmen on Chowk. I don`t understand why Chowk Editors published this article on Gymkhana / Chowk.``
Ridicule my a$$. Read it again, and try taking off those self-righteous goggles this time.

``First it was money and politics in sports, now it is sex. We get more and more disgusting everyday, don`t we?``
Face it, sex sells. Don`t tell me you watch beach volleyball or women`s tennis for the intellectual stimulation. Actually, why restrict it to women? Tiger Woods is sexy. Andy Roddick. Freddie Flintoff. Matthew Hayden. All sexy as hell. Michael Schumacher. Fernando Alonso.
We need to make sport (other than cricket) sexy sometime soon, otherwise we`ll be stuck with having to cheer for someone ``just because she`s Indian`` who loses at the pre-quarter stage at every grand slam; or write reams about someone who just barely finishes every Grand Prix ahead of the frigging Minardis ``just because he`s Indian``.

Re: # 39
Well you are right Mr! I don`t know why everyone is getting so touchy here!

Re: # 39

Strange, but i see your point of view as well.You go , girl.

# 34,Azure,
i agree with you. chowk staff sometimes up load useless article.
India is also a hot country and on-set of heat has loosen the synapses of the brain.

re;#24 by vagabond78
If YLH is the editor of Daily then it does not speak highly of journalistic standards in Pak. An editor has got to have a lot of experience in the field which YLH clearly does not (unless passing out of Rutgers is called an experience). Also, an editor should be beyond bias. I know how an article alleging Gandhi to be a racist got published in the newspaper now!
Sridhar

Re: # 37hey, man dont belittle Rutgers - its ivy league! And being an elite pakistani YLH (mantolives) has the credentials to edit a newspaper so go belittling him. He is a good person with a dent head on his shoulders.

This article is a piece of shit. I agree with Azure. The author does not have any respect or love for sport.

``I wish we had sexy pole vaulters, so that we could get a glimpse of their underchassis as they sailed over the bar; I wish we had sexy women cricketers whose skirts blew in the wind on those blustery English days.``

yes....well....good luck with that.

This article is a disgrace to all women sportsmen out there. It should`ve been on Chaathouse instead of Gymkhana section. I can well imagine a pot bellied uncle with a pack of chips and tons of chocolate on his side writing this article, with absolutely no respect for sports.

People either talk about sick cricket or ridicule and laugh at true sportsmen on Chowk. I don`t understand why Chowk Editors published this article on Gymkhana / Chowk.

First it was money and politics in sports, now it is sex. We get more and more disgusting everyday, don`t we?

from today`s Indian Express


The lost chances of history



COLIN GONSALVES


Posted online: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 0000 hours IST



Author of Constitutional law of India and former attorney general, the late H.M. Seervai, has provided an interesting account of Jinnah’s role in Partition. According to him, the picture painted of Jinnah as being the one who brought about Partition on account of ambition, vanity and intransigence is contrary to historical evidence. He describes Nehru as appearing imperious and shows Gandhi as being indifferent to Muslim demands. He suggests it was Gandhi who introduced religion into politics with disastrous consequences.

M.A. Jinnah joined the Congress in 1906. He was hailed as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity after the 1916 Lucknow Pact, when the Muslim League (ML) and the Congress agreed to jointly fight the British. When, in 1914, Annie Besant started the Home Rule League, the president of its Bombay branch was Jinnah. In 1920, Gandhi became League president but Besant resigned over politics becoming ‘intertwined with religion’. Gandhi had begun to subtly introduce religion into politics as his ascetic image had begun to appeal to Hindu religious sentiment. This approach to arouse political consciousness was understandable, but it came at a price. His support for the Khilafat movement saw Jinnah cautioning him against it.



In 1925, the All Party Conference appointed a committee headed by Nehru to frame the Constitution. The Nehru Report rejected separate electorates. The ML had wanted this and had also demanded residuary powers be given to the provinces. Jinnah pleaded these amendments be accepted to avoid “civil war”. They were rejected. “This is a parting of ways,” Jinnah told a friend.

Then, when the British announced the Communal Award providing for separate electorates and reservation for both Muslims and depressed classes, Gandhi announced a fast unto death. It was withdrawn after B.R. Ambedkar intervened and the Poona Pact was arrived at under which there were reservations for depressed classes but with joint electorates. In the polls to provincial legislatures under the Government of India Act, 1935, out of 485 Muslim seats the ML won only 108. Congress ministries were formed in eight provinces. Then Congress made the disastrous move of not forming a coalition with Muslims. In the United Province, it contested 9 out of 66 Muslim seats and lost all. The backlash had begun.

In his autobiography, India Wins Freedom, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad wrote “if the League’s offer of cooperation was accepted the Muslim League would have merged with the Congress.” But Azad’s recommendation was rejected by Nehru who said that no Muslim should be admitted into the Cabinet unless he joins the Congress. He wanted the Cabinet to be homogeneous. In March 1937, Nehru remarked “there are only two forces in India today, British imperialism and Indian nationalism.” Jinnah was quick to retort, “No, there is a third party, the Mussalman.” History was to bear him out. Yet, even as late as 1937, according to Shiva Rao, Jinnah was not considering a separate state.

Congress then began a search for a solution. The Desai-Liaquat Ali Pact and the Sapru Committee suggested the formation of coalition ministries at the Centre. This was turned down. In 1945, Azad suggested to Gandhi that the Constitution be federal, units be given the right to secede, that there be joint electorates with reservation of seats and parity between Muslims and Hindus in the legislature and Central Executive “until communal suspicion disappears”. Gandhi differed. Bhulabhai Desai and Tej Bahadur Sapru, prominent lawyers, also pleaded in vain. As a result, in the 1945 Central Legislature Assembly elections, the ML won every Muslim seat and Congress Muslims lost every seat. It overlooked the fact that though 200 million Hindus were not equal to 90 million Muslims in terms of numbers, while framing a constitution some sort of meaningful parity has to be worked out. Gandhi made no practical attempt to find a solution. Even after the ML call for direct action the Calcutta killings and the boycott of the Constituent Assembly in 1946, Gandhi did not budge.

The rest is history. Lord Wavell who, according to Seervai, tried repeatedly to get the Congress to accommodate the ML for a unified India, was sacked. The Congress began planning for Partition. Gandhi, who had previously said that Partition would come to India over his dead body, advised that circumstances had arisen which made Partition unavoidable. Jinnah left India with an appeal to both Hindus and Muslims to bury the past. The next day Patel said at Delhi “The poison has been removed from the body of India. We are now one and indivisible.”


The writer is a Supreme Court advocate

comment on #22:
Practitioners of Bharatanatyam dance-form in Pakistan obviously think nothing of wearing the red dot on their foreheads and they do look exceptionally beutiful with their get-up compared to the bottom heavy Indian counterparts from South India. I have always wanted to let the Sangh Parivar know about this fact- just to let them know that the red dot on the forehead is not the preserve of the Hindus alone! It would be a Great Disappointment for the Sangh Parivar to know that the red dot is no more than an adornment of a Culture and not a religious symbol- not withstanding what the Mullahs have to say. While the Tilak can look charming on a beautiful face, the Trishul does make one loook medieval. All said and done, putting on the red mark on the forehead does not seem to carry much symbolism with the general English-speaking population of Pakistan as I gather from reading the Pakistani Magazines. It would be a great confidence builder if the Indians could get to read Dawn and Herald in their living rooms. Ofcourse the Urdu press is a good antidote! I have met many Indians who are amazed at the quality of reporting in Dawn and the many nice things about India that get reported in it.
It would be nice to hear more well-researched views on the symbolism of Tilak and its cultural foundations. The practice of putting a large blobs of the red mark on the foreheads of visiting Goras seems to be no more than a touristy gimmic of some sort.
PRK

are u a sports lover or a voyeurist?

are u a sports lover or a voyeurist?

are u a sports lover or a voyeurist?

are u a sports lover or a voyeurist?

I agree with drlokraj.The masses don`t care about their heroes antecedents or religion.It is only the elite and intellectual who love to parse everything into tiny pieces.

And, Veershji,

I read your article on vehicle mileage in Outlook Money.Please!!.Why don`t we import `Sitara`s` from pakistan and merrily chug our way through the streets of our cities??.Really, 600cc cars!!.Why not a horse drawn carriage instead?.

OK, say what you will about Sania`s physique or her serve, at least she`s shown that she`s a gracious young lady, even in defeat. Unlike this Russkie sour puss who can`t be gracious even in victory...bah!

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/interviews/2005-06-22/200506221119465578691.html


Post Match Interview - S. Kuznetsova - Day 3
Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Q. You`ve played with Sania before in the Juniors circuit?

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: No, I didn`t.

Q. As a junior in India?

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: No, I never been to India.

Q. Okay. Were you surprised at the way things turned out today?

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: The thing is, I played her in Dubai this year and she had good match. She played well in India ‑‑ oh, sorry, in Dubai. I didn`t do so well.

Today, I mean, I just ‑‑ it wasn`t my day at all. You know, as professional player, I ask myself to go through, to play through it, you know. I couldn`t ‑‑ I didn`t play at all. I couldn`t do anything. I was just ‑‑ I couldn`t move. I was so tense that my nerves just get me today. I just couldn`t think properly, you know.

But I was there, you know. I was doing as it were going today. Next match, well, Sania, she is good player, but, I mean, there is big difference between us I think. She has great future. She has very good shots. But, I mean, if I play my game, I should have win much easier.

But of all conditions today, I just didn`t do anything. I am very upset of the game I played, but I am very happy to go through.

And I understand it`s a Grand Slam and I wanted to win so much. Nerves get me, because I was not moving and just didn`t do anything. But my serve helped me out, so I`m very happy to get this match through.

Q. Had you ever been on Centre Court before?

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: No, it was first time on Centre Court.

Q. Were you really nervous about that?

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: Yeah, of course. I mean, everything, you know. All pressure was on me, it was nothing on her. She was ‑‑ she had lower rank. She had nothing to lose.

I mean, I am here. I gotta win these matches. I am playing in big arena, on Centre Court. I guess they put my match because they were expecting me to play well, but I`m very upset I didn`t do well. But hopefully next time I`ll do better.

I mean, just very happy to get it through, but really upset with my game.

Q. You said you struggled, but how much was because of how much she pushed you? She pushed you all the way, didn`t she?

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: Well, she was hitting good shots, but because I was letting her. I just didn`t hit the ball at all. My game is to hit my forehand, is to go for my shots. I was doing all different today. I was serving. When I serve well, I wasn`t expecting her to receive well, and she was doing it very well. She was keeping me back in baseline. I just was hitting ‑‑ I was trying to hit my backhands harder than my forehands. This is not ‑‑ this is not my game, you know.

She was playing well because I`ve been letting her go. I just was tense. I didn`t know what to do. I pushed the ball up and she just hit it as hard as she could. This is her game. This is the way she play, and not my game. It was my worst against her best, and this is like it was.

But just, I don`t know. Something came in my mind and I had to do serve and volley last game. This really helped me out.

Q. What do you plan to do to get over these problems in the next game that you face?

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: I guess I wouldn`t have it. I cannot imagine to have every match like this because it`s not possible, I hope, in this world, you know.

But I just will go and fight back again. I just want to win each match so bad, and I just want to play better, you know. I played much better last matches. I played much better than this one today. Just very happy because I stayed there and won this match.

Q. Do you enjoy playing on grass?

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: I didn`t enjoy. You know, my goal now this season is like, ``I did very well last season and I want to enjoy playing.`` I start like, you know, when you get on the court, you like not thinking like get tense, get nervous. It was today, it was just enjoying.

During the match, I was like, ``You are not enjoying this.`` I was thinking, ``But what you want to enjoy if you are so tense you just cannot do two steps to the side?``

I mean, I was looking like maybe a duck on the court today because I just ‑‑ I mean, I was silly, even embarrassed for my game because I just can`t imagine how I could play that way.

Q. How much do you think it was the Centre Court versus being just at Wimbledon or just today with nerves?

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: Maybe like 30% of all my nerves. Maybe 30, 40.

But the thing is, I want to do so well. And wanting this, it`s make me go so nervous, you know. But now it`s looks like I`m saying that I play so bad and it`s looks like I`m saying that Sania is not playing well. Yeah, she does play well, but I just expected much more game of me, you know, from my side.

I was very surprised when I saw last night`s schedule and I was playing on the Centre Court. I was like, ``Hell, no, I can`t imagine this,`` you know. I know it was tough match because especially some player you never beat before, and I lost to her in Dubai. I know I didn`t play well, you know, but still it`s puts pressure on you. It just wasn`t going. It was not my day, but I still happy to get it.

Q. At the US Open you played under the bright lights.

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: Yeah.

Q. How is this different?

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: You know, is just different. It`s completely different. It`s grass court. There is hard court. Hard court is my best ‑‑ best, I guess, best...

Q. Surface.

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: ...surface. I just catch up my game there, you know. It was like match to match I was playing, playing, and not thinking after now what is gonna be, after if I win, after if I win. Just in the final, I was like, ``Wow, I`m in final.`` I played the best tennis I ever played, I guess, because I was hitting the ball as hard as I could. I was really doing my things I have to do: I served well, I played lots of forehand. I really was enjoying this. It was just a great atmosphere, great people, and just really good memories about it.

But also Wimbledon is so different, you know. It`s completely like black and blue maybe, or white and black, you know, or red and black, whatever, you know. It`s just different. It`s like Sprite and Coke, you know. Doesn`t matter that I love Sprite more than Coke, but it just completely different. But also I would love to do well here.

And also I just like Wimbledon because I know I can do different things here, you know. Maybe I can serve and volley more. I just have to push myself. I just have to see as moments as today, that it`s help me out and it could help me out much more times. I will have to do it more.

Q. Is this your worst match that you`ve played for a while, do you feel?

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: No, I don`t think it`s even like worst. Just nerves get me. I played ‑‑ I just don`t know. I had really bad matches this year.

No, my worst match was in Rome, I think. But just this year was not going that well and I just ‑‑ you know, it`s difficult because the years before I was coming like junior maybe and just had nothing to lose. Now, when you get to Top 10, maybe Top 5, you just have all the pressure on you. You have to understand. This takes you a while to understand it. You got to handle this pressure how you have to handle it. You have to learn it, you know.

Q. How do you cope with nerves now?

SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: Well, trying to get matches, just try not to think of it. This is what I said. I`m trying to enjoy the tennis, you know. To play like players like Sania that play ‑‑ I mean, she was playing really well, but I was not doing the things what I`m doing well, so this is what gets me in problem.

I have to really concentrate on my things while I play.

Damn. I hadn`t read Farzana Versey`s article on Sania before posting this yesterday, otherwise I`d never have done it. Bad timing.

Thanks for reading anyway.

Re#13 veeresh- what`s this about? Heaven knows. Why does everything have to be ABOUT something?

Manto uncle,

Are you really the editor of dailytimes?
Holy shit! We have in our midst Pronnoy Roy of Pakistan. How does it feel sir to be an editor of a national newspaper of Pakistan? Now I see your points of view with new respect. You must be a bigshot in your country like Pronnoy Roy in ours, hanh?

Manto explain this (the below is from the paper you edit)

from the paper you edit

Any Pakistani hero accepted by India subliminally destroys our ‘separate’ nationhood. In truth, all this emanates from our outmoded theory of separatism. In modern state theory, adoption of a Pakistani hero in India enhances Pakistan’s image and weakens India’s adversarial stance


In Pakistan the only social exemplars are the clerics. Our moral yardstick doesn’t allow anyone else to become a truly public icon. Actors and actresses are out because of fahashi; sportsmen are out because of their lack of high seriousness. Even Imran Khan was made to suffer a sabotage by his past. Both he and Wasim Akram are more fully accepted in India. A playboy Fazal Mahmood saved his Oval heroship by adopting the posture of the clergy. Cricketer Saeed Ahmad also did the same sort of thing.

Reported in Khabrain (May 5, 2005) cricket icon Wasim Akram allowed someone to put red colour on his forehead during his visit to his father’s birthplace in a village in Amritsar in India. The reaction of the ulema in Pakistan was recorded to put Wasim Akram in trouble.

Jamaat Islami leader and MNA Abdul Malik said that Wasim Akram had become an apostate after accepting a Hindu tilak on his forehead. Maulana Sarfraz Naeemi said that Wasim Akram had wounded the hearts of the Muslims by letting Hindus put a tilak on his forehead. Ahle Hadith leader Ibtisam Elahi Zaheer said that Wasim Akram had given a chance of shuddhi (reconversion) to the Hindus.

Hero worship unites a nation. There is a consensus on an individual when consensus in politics is absent. This is natural to all nations. People transcend national divisions through hero worship. In the case of India and Pakistan, the sub-text of inclusion in the case of India and self-exclusion in the case of Pakistan complicates the issue.

An Indian fan-following of Wasim Akram tends to negate the national boundaries, thus threatening Pakistan with ‘relapse’ into India. But while Indian response to our heroes is natural, Pakistan’s self-exclusion from India is an intellectual effort to maintain the 1947 partition. Therefore any Pakistani hero accepted by India subliminally destroys our ‘separate’ nationhood. In truth all this emanates from our outmoded theory of separatism. In modern state theory, adoption of a Pakistani hero in India enhances Pakistan’s image and weakens India’s adversarial stance