 |
|
Manu Bhaker's remarkable achievement at the Paris 2024 Olympics, where she secured two bronze medals in women's individual 10m air pistol and the mixed team event, has been overshadowed by a controversy surrounding her exclusion from the prestigious Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna award. While Bhaker herself attributed the oversight to 'lapses' in her nomination process, her father, Ram Kishan Bhaker, has voiced strong criticism of the system itself. He argues that the Khel Ratna award should not be subjected to an application process at all, suggesting that it diminishes the honor of the accolade. In his view, the award should be a recognition bestowed upon deserving athletes by the government, not a prize to be competed for. This sentiment highlights a fundamental disagreement on the very nature of the award – is it a prize earned through merit, or an honor granted by the government in recognition of exceptional achievement?
Ram Kishan Bhaker's concerns extend beyond the application process. He questions the composition of the selection committee, highlighting the presence of bureaucrats in a decision-making body that, he argues, should be exclusively composed of sports professionals. His argument emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the selection process is driven by a deep understanding of athletic achievement and performance. His statement, “Bureaucrats should not be present in these discussions at all. There should only be sportspersons,” underscores his belief that individuals with a genuine understanding of the complexities and nuances of the sporting world are uniquely qualified to judge and evaluate the achievements of athletes. This concern touches upon a broader debate regarding the role of external bodies in the selection processes for prestigious sporting awards, raising questions about potential biases and the importance of maintaining transparency and fairness.
The controversy surrounding Manu Bhaker's omission from the Khel Ratna award has sparked a broader discussion on the process and criteria involved in recognizing exceptional athletic achievements in India. While Bhaker herself has maintained a composed demeanor, emphasizing her commitment to representing her country, her father's vocal criticism suggests a deeper concern about the fairness and transparency of the award selection process. His contention that the Khel Ratna shouldn't involve an application process implies a belief that the award should be a purely honorific distinction given to athletes who have undoubtedly demonstrated extraordinary athletic prowess. This view highlights a contrasting perspective to a system that relies on a formal application process, where documentation and submission of relevant information might unintentionally cause deserving athletes to be overlooked. The potential for administrative oversights or biases, as suggested by both Bhaker and her father, underscores the necessity of a rigorous and transparent review of the current selection procedure.
The controversy has raised questions about whether the current system adequately reflects the government's intent behind the Khel Ratna award. Is the award intended to be a recognition of exceptional achievement, or is it more of a competitive prize requiring active participation in an application process? This apparent incongruity highlights the need for a careful review of the existing processes and procedures. Ultimately, the debate sparked by Bhaker's case may lead to a reevaluation of the criteria, the selection committee's composition, and the entire application process itself. The controversy serves as a timely reminder of the need to constantly review and refine systems that recognize the invaluable contributions of Indian athletes to the nation’s pride and global standing. The focus should always remain on celebrating exceptional athletic achievements rather than focusing on the bureaucratic hurdles and complexities of an application process.
Source: "Not A Job Where She Should Apply": Manu Bhaker's Father On Olympic Medallist's Khel Ratna Snub