Silent killer, as described by his father, he is the one who spotted his son's talent when Abhinav was 5 years old. "He kept a water balloon on our maid's head and began shooting, knowing little that a slight mistake could have proved fatal. But his aim was so perfect that I couldn't think about anything else but make him a pro," says AS Bindra.
(From here)
24 comments:
I am somehow inclined to believe Bindra senior's story is not true. I think Mr. Bindra had a mike thrust in his face and this is what he blurted/made up. If my hypothesis is true, than this is way more fucked up that it sounds!!! I just hope the maid sues these fuckers.
Wow. And the ToI faithfully reports this in an adulatory tone?
Now I also understand this Telegraph headline on William Tell :(
Yup. Early-60s Dylan would probably have written a fine song about it. But it's also amazing how these stories acquire such a sheen in retrospect. Given all the nationalistic pride that's currently happening, the story could be modified to say that one of the maids lost her eye, and people would STILL be cheering and saying it was for a good cause.
Surely it is...
Even i found it strange... Glorifying such an incident...I thing his father said a thing too many...:)
But not sure how many parents would "encourage" their children to target their maids in quest of Gold...!!
No, I thought that was pretty fucking assholish myself. I was excited when I heard the news [on AIR, the morning it happened, where the cricket play by play commentators decided to focus on him and Nehwal rather than the second innings collapse] but any sense of joy has since dissipated. The 24 hour news cycle really knows how to kill joy with their schmaltzy patriotic montages and endless repetitions of the poor boy's vapid little soundbytes. I'm just not from Bhindra Country.
Reference to this song, of course.
Pravin - I'd much rather believe it wasn't true and that Mr Bindra was just making this stuff up than believe that he's proud of himself for bravely risking his maid's life (not his own, of course) because he had such faith in his five year old son.
Lekhni - I've always found stories like the William Tell one incredibly offensive anyway. When you say someone is so noble for risking their son's life/ sacrificing their daughter for a fair wind/ sacrificing their wife for the good of the kingdom (since I've just written a Ramayana post) all it does is to ignore the fact that the son/daughter/wife is an actual person. How lovely that this is reported as if it were an act of heroism :(
Jai - I suspect if it had happened, the maid would eventually have to say she was proud of having lost an eye for the greater glory of the nation.
Sachin - I suspect the answer to that is quite a few.
Roswitha - Heh, yes.
I once smacked a cousin on the head with a hammer when I was young. I used to love building bows and would shoot everyone around me using broom sticks. Luckily, I didn't hit anyone in the eye or something.
Kids don't understand how serious these things can be, and I'm sure Abhinav would have got a good shelling from his parents when the incident had happened. I think.
hey why cant u celebrate his success .. he has done india proud .. jai hind ..may god bless u abhinav
Vikramadith - You're missing the point, rather. No one is accusing Abhinav Bindra of being a coldhearted killer at the age of 5 or anything. I'm more interested in the father's self-congratulatory tone as he tells people that he had such faith in his 5 year old son that he was willing to risk the maid's life. Not his own, mind.
Anonymous - You're right, where are my priorities? Forget the maid; please stand for anthem.
well i hope u stand for the national anthem and r proud of u'r country
You know, I can't help wondering how Mr. Bindra is so sure that his son was trying to hit the water balloon? Maybe he was trying to hit the maid and missed?
On a separate note, I must confess I've never understood this whole concept of being proud because an Indian achieves something. What has Abhinav Bindra got to do with me? So the man is an excellent shot. Good for him. How does this translate into something I can (or should) be proud about?
P.S. J'wock: forget Dylan. Think how much fun Shakespeare would have had with it. He would doubtless have said something about those who shoot too early and cannot hit a maidenhead.
Anonymous - Indeed. Or fond of the bits I've lived in, anyway.
Falstaff - I don't know, but I generally find myself automatically supporting Indians to win things (unless they're competing against a) West Indians b) Real underdogs c) Someone pretty) and I'm happy if they win. But I don't see it as having anything to do with me. I suspect this makes me a monster or something.
I think his father got too excited and said things which may be only vaguely true.
oh yeah - aishwarya - totally unpatriotic of you - a maid's loss of sight is a small price to pay for a gold!
did u read the bit about his mother swearing that the phone rang off the hook all day with shaadi proposals. i didn't know how to react. who are these people who decide a groom is suitable based on how good a shot he is... although there might be something there.
agree with Falstaff. i do cheer the country on in general - but i dont get this whole pride. good for Bindra man... but I personally was unaware of his existence until he won so what right do i have to preen?!
>I've always found stories like the William Tell one incredibly offensive anyway. When you say someone is so noble for risking their son's life...
Er. Tell didn't do this to impress people and win friends. Gessler gave him a choice - shoot the apple and walk free or be executed with his son. Choosing to shoot would be the only chance his son had.
Of course it's an unverified fable and all that, but we are somewhat finicky about stories (especially old, beloved ones) being reported right. Please adjust. :-)
Abhi - As I said in my comment to Vikramadith, what worries me about this situation (since we know that if it happened the maid did not die) is precisely that the father thinks this is something to boast of. If it didn't happen and he made it up because he wanted a boastworthy story, it's hardly an improvement.
The Mad Momma - *shrug* What most people look for in a partner is beyond my understanding in any case. Skin tone, occupation of great great great (x300) grandparents, height, profession, why not add shooting skills to the list?
Varali - Pedantry about things like old stories is always welcome on this blog. :)
You're right that Tell (if he existed) had very little choice but to do what he did, and in that sense he's definitely not culpable in the sense that Agamemnon or Rama (who you probably guessed were the other characters I was referring to) are.
But it really annoys me, the way these stories (assuming for a moment that the Tell fable is not actually real/historically accurate) always glorify the person making the difficult choice and reduce the person whose life is actually at stake (Walter Tell, Iphegenia, Sita) to a secondary object.
There were too many brackets in this reply. Apologies. ;)
But it really annoys me, the way these stories (assuming for a moment that the Tell fable is not actually real/historically accurate) always glorify the person making the difficult choice and reduce the person whose life is actually at stake (Walter Tell, Iphegenia, Sita) to a secondary object.
What's so glorious about being a victim?
At least in the Tell story I would think the glorification makes sense - it is, after all, William's skill that matters. And he isn't being glorified for risking his son's life, he's being glorified for having the skill to make a difficult shot when forced into a position when he has no choice.
Also, I don't know what you mean by the glorification of Agamemnon. How is Agamemnon 'glorified'? By whom? Homer? No. Sophocles? Not really. Euripides? Hardly. I would argue he's more a pathetic figure than anything else. In fact, where he does start to be glorified (in the Oresteia, for instance) it's precisely because he's been brutally killed.
Obviously people who make decisions are going to be more the focus of dramatic attention than people who have decisions made for them, but that doesn't mean the people who make the decisions are being glorified. Think of Euripides - Hecuba, Trojan Women and, of course, Iphigenia in Tauris.
I'd initiated a heated discussion on this topic recently on IndiaMike:
http://www.indiamike.com/india/sports-in-india-f111/gold-medal-for-india-t59940/3/
A Bindra was on CNBC's Beautiful People today - the only sensible interview so far, by Anuradha S.
He glided past the Papa / maid comment very glibly, saying he really couldn't remember ...
But then again. I saw a v. brief TV grab of the maid - actually a male servant - who spoke of A B shotting bottles off his head!
TheFoolOnTheHill
Falstaff - Glorification isn't the right word, perhaps - I'm less interested in the culpability of the individual characters (William Tell, as I said in my comment to Varali, hadn't really much choice) but in how the story focuses entirely on them. You're right that people very rarely go yay Agamemnon (the thought of Euripedes doing it pleases me) but there's enough wankery about the choice he has to make. I realise it's inevitable that the characters who make the difficult decisions are going to be more interesting/ get more screen time than the ones who get victimised, but all too often I feel the victims get written out completely.
This entire discussion is reminding me of "Story of Isaac".
TheFoolOnTheHill - Was the male servant blind? Proud of his contribution to Indian sporting history? I read the discussion on IndiaMike - Mridula from BlogBharti linked to it. :)
Fair enough. Though it's useful to remember that the Greeks aren't necessarily the biggest believers in free choice. So that in a sense all tragic heroes are victims themselves - victims of the gods or the fates - their 'choices' a mere illusion. Agamemnon 'chooses' to sacrifice Iphigenia, but the decision is inevitable, given the logic of tragedy and an integral part of the bloody history of the House of Atreus. Part of the reason the plays focus on these characters is because they are, in a sense, the larger victims - they will not escape punishment, but unlike their victims they will be made to suffer the mental torment of knowing their guilt.
Now the hero whose 'glorification' I really find annoying is Jason. I mean, the man doesn't actually do anything - without Medea he'd be toast. On top of which he consistently behaves like a jerk.
Also, of course, all gods (not just Ram or Jehovah) fall into the 'how can we glorify them when they go around making people suffer' category.
Agreed on the Greeks-and-Free-Will. I'd overlooked that. Still, from my 21st Century perspective I reserve the right to feel indignant for the people who got no choice.
I also agree with you on the subject of Jason. This is one of the many reasons I like Euripedes.
All gods can be accused of making people suffer, of course, but then the Greek gods (and many of the Indian ones, and I suspect most gods, really) are never really held up to us as people whose behaviour we should model our own upon. Jehovah and Ram both are - Jehovah to perhaps a lesser extent, but it's there. In the Ramayana, Ram is upheld as the ideal man*, which is what makes the difference for me.
*I italicise this to draw attention to man-not-god, not man-not-woman. Just to avoid any confusion. :)
What else are servants made for?!
Not like they got shot or something.. which wouldn't be too bad either.. they're servants after all.. :-/
Post a Comment