It's a `manufactured' debate in my opinion, but one that deserves some attention nonetheless for the simple reason that for the first time a sportsperson has come seriously under the ambit of the highest civilian award in the country .
This, according to me, is more significant than who will win this 'race', for it signals a profound rise in national and governmental awareness about sports. For decades, sport had been perceived as a mere recreational or leisure activity, not something which contributes substantially to the making of society or a nation, and any change in this mindset is to be heartily welcomed.
Indeed, it was only as late as November 2011 that the government changed the criteria for nomination to the Bharat Ratna to include sportspersons. Where it was originally restricted to persons excelling in arts, litera ture, science and public service, the amended criteria now reads as for performance of highest order in any field of human endeavor.
It must be remembered that this amendment was triggered by the clamour for awarding Sachin Tendulkar this honour. It began with his scoring the first double century in One-Day Internationals a year earlier and got a massive fillip when he played a key role in India winning the 2011 World Cup.
The then sports minister Ajay Maken worked hard to get this change effected, lobbying with various sections in the government and also writing to the home minister and Prime Minister, before the assent came.
It was a triumph for sports, but it also gave rise to the debate as to who the first recipient should be. While Tendulkar had become the cause celebre, as it were, even in 2011, Maken had suggested that hockey wizard Dhyan Chand was an equally worthy recipient.
This debate has now gathered steam, what with the current sport minister Jitendra Prasad and sports secretary Pradeep Deb — after furious backroom lobbying — formally petitioning the government that the hockey great be awarded the Bharat Ratna. On the face of it, the debate is specious because there is little to choose between Tendulkar and Dhyan Chand where achievements are concerned: both have humungous amounts to their credit, not the least that they have been considered the best in the world in their time.
In this context, I would throw a third name too in the ring, Vishwanathan Anand, who has been a towering global figure in chess and multiple world champion. If he is not ahead of them in title and honours, Vishy Anand is at least the equal of both Dhyan Chand and Tendulkar.
Where Anand might lose out by a wafer-thin margin is the fact that the other two is the fact that hockey (at least till the mid-1980s) and cricket (always) have enjoyed mass popularity which can swing public sentiment, and hence even government decisions.
So where does that leave the issue of who should get the Bharat Ratna? As I mentioned at the start, the ‘race’ for who is the first is media-contrived.
That said, my own preference would be for Dhyan Chand who lies buried in memory and nostalgia, which too is fading rapidly.
Both Tendulkar and Anand are in their early 40s, very young and still active. Their contribution is unimpeachable and their time will surely come.
As a nation, we have a poor sense of history and legacy which desperately needs to be corrected.
Dhyan Chand getting the award would help acknowledge a true-blue genius as well as give hockey a massive shot in the arm.
Moreover — and this is entirely my speculation — if put to the vote, both Tendulkar and Anand would go for the Major from Jhansi whose skills at the 1936 Berlin Olympics made Adolf Hitler bite his tongue in consternation and deflate his theory of Aryan supremacy.