Bharat Ratna should be awarded to the people who dedicate their life for the upliftment of people. Those excelling in the fields of sports, arts, films, music, engineering, medicine and law, do not qualify for the Bharat Ratna. Fame and success in their respective field should not be considered a criteria. In fact, martyrs like Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Sardar Udham Singh , who sacrificed their lives for their country should be awarded the Bharat Ratna.
Even Though "Bharat Ratna " is from Indian Point of View/context, the acheivement in any field for Bharat Ratna SHOLUD be World Class. Sachin's achievement at best is Semi-World Class, because Cricket has Very Limited Competition.( Only 9 Countries). If Sachin's name is Listed on "Forbes List of Celebrities", which is the Real criteria for judging whether Sachin's achievement are truly World Class or Not then he shold be given Bharat Ratna. Remember, Tiger Woods , Roger Federer, David Beckham are all listed on Forbes List.(NO Indian is Yet to make it. If Sachin is first, then award him Bharat Ratna.)
Re: Forbes List. shold be criteria................
by shakil on Mar 01, 2010 10:24 AM
That is true, There is NO "Question Mark" over Sachin's Achievement, there would be "Asterisk Mark" over his achievement. Asterisk is used to draw attention that - Sachin has faced moderate competition and hence achievement could be Semi-World class which deserves" Padma-Vibhushan" and that has already been awarded.
He is one of rare human being & crickter in this World. We should be proud of him because he belongs to INDIA. Now-a-days, politicians don't know to whom they should nominate padmashree or whatever. They should consider how much exposure the person have in the field he/she is performing. Also, how consistent she/he is and since how long he is maintaining the consistancy. Before, annoucing any award, I want the people of Maharashtra to take-up this seriously to tell the Governement to mention that they should be atleast one stand in the every cricket stadium of India. Next, Mumbai should have a Place on his name. Sachin is heart and sole of Indian Cricket.
Prakash Padukone of Karnataka was really the first Indian sportsperson to win a world championship. He truly deserves Bharat Ratna if awarded to a sportsperson. Gundappa Vishwanath, the master batsman is equally deserving.
this is for all dead-brain morons who keeps blaming sachin for not winning wc... had he been captain of any indian wc team so far... does he controls indian bowling when he plays in wc... did not he took india to wc 2003 finals where that greates captain ganguly handed the cup to australia by fielding first on a batting pitch... was not sachin player of tournament in wc 2003...means he did what he could for india... it is other 10 players who failed... did not he score 65 odd runs in semi-final agaainst srilanka in 96 wc whereas all other batsmen could not make a toal of 50 runs... list can go on but it will be too much to u/s for these morons... even if sachin was part of a wc winning team then they will find fault that he did not score enough runs or bowlers were responsile or susch and such player took catch thats why india won wc... all these critics of sachin have done nothing in their life and never will... for them to criticize sachin is their only way to get some attention...
The father & mother of cricket: England & Australia which have named it their national sport; they too have departed away from this game & embraced Soccer. In Eng, cricket is watched by old people who have to pastime somehow & 5 day/9 hrs a day affair acts as a good pastime. Very hardly u see young guys in England stadia crazy for it. In contrast, just have alook at BPL in England? In AUS, no#1 game is Rugby, no#2 is Australian Rugby, No#3 is Association Football & then comes the poor stupid game cricket which makes you fall asleep
