India is hugely populous,too,but a Delhi opening ceremony would be a more rambunctious affair. Nobody will ever surpass the mathematical majesty of that night in Beijing,and,in retrospect,that may be a good thing. That night in Beijing,of course,was the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympic Games,as China harnessed the directorial talent of Zhang Yimou to show that life can be more precisely choreographed than cinema. With the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony upon us tonight,its timely to have that random observation by Anthony Lane rolled out again in a collection of sports writing from The New Yorker (The Only Game in Town,edited by David Remnick). After that night in Beijing,its useful for hosts anywhere anytime in the future to be let off the hook,and to have imperfection fetishised. But I suspect Lanes point is a bit removed from this,its about how to watch these multi-sport international events. He harks back to a quote routinely attributed to Pythagoras on the supremacy of those observing the sport at the Olympics (Some come to the festival to compete,some to ply their trade,but the best people come as spectators). Why do countries wrestle each other down to get a chance to host such games? And does what applies to the Olympics hold true for the Asian or Commonwealth? After all,successful bidders have to go to great lengths to prove themselves worthy. South Korea is a sport romantics favourite example: the country became a demo- cracy as part of its commitment to the comity of Olympic hosts. Most,however,would say they do so to flaunt their arrival. The China narrative of national showmanship is so rampant after the 2008 Games,that its worthwhile to use Lanes Beijing diary to wonder if it is just that simple,perhaps we still retain a desire to revive Olympia in our hometowns. Even in a world of mega-budgets and political spin,television rights and travel advisories,it would not be entirely fanciful to foreground Pythagorass best people,the spectators. Spectator: a person who watches. The ancient Greeks believed that your life was incomplete if you had not made the pilgrimage to Olympia. The modern Games bear little resemblance to those four-yearly gatherings,and the greatest show on earth these days is the football World Cup. (It is no coincidence that,barring boxing for reasons of safety to competitors,the only Olympic sport in which there are restrictions for professionals is football.) And the Commonwealth Games are nowhere near as magnificent as the Olympics. But in so far as they approximate the ideal of drawing up a list of disciplines that must be included to rank the gathering in case of Delhi 2010,from tennis to lawn bowls,athletics to rugby sevens they demand similar skills of the spectator. As Lane suggests: If the bruised Olympic ideal still means anything,it means loosing yourself,for a couple of weeks,from the bonds of your immediate loyalties and tastes. It means watching live sports you did not know you were interested in,played by countries you have never been to not just watching them,either,but getting into them,deluding yourself that you grasp the rules,offering the fruits of your instant expertise to anyone who will listen and,most bewildering of all,losing your heart. Loose your bonds and lose your heart. You cannot do that by watching neatly clipped highlights,with special telecasts that focus on the superstars. You can only do that if you inhabit the Games,priming yourself to feel the melodrama of the competition. And as you adopt countries and learn the peculiarities of netball and Greco-Roman wrestling,a little tour of history may be of use. Watch,for instance,how the changing profile of the sports on offer since 1896,when the modern Olympics began and served as a template for assorted groupings to have their own competitions,is a movement toward democratisation. There has been,first,the slow demolition of the idea of amateurism as an ideal. Contrary to impressions that professionalism denotes the commercialisation of sport,restriction of competition to amateurs was a way of restricting entry to the elite. There has also been the gradual access given to women competitors. For example,they were allowed to compete in track and field for the first time at the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics. When some women collapsed during the 800m race,recounts Olympics historian David Wallechinsky,antifeminists attacked such feats of endurance as dangerous. And for another 32 years women could not run races of more than 200m. At these Commonwealth Games,women may not box,they cannot play rugby,they may wrestle only freestyle,and they have fewer medals to compete for in cycling,shooting and weightlifting. Then again,men dont compete in netball,and have fewer medals in aquatics and gymnastics,so democratisation must proceed in other ways too. The point? That over the next 12 days,we have a chance to recover the old Olympic ideal of spectatorhood in a modern quaint context. (mini.kapoor@expressindia.com)
