A couple of days ago, I saw a video clip tweeted by a YouTuber whose Twitter/X handles claimed that he was based in Washington, DC. The gentleman in question, by the look of his posts, seems inclined towards a certain political party, which is not in the good books of the ruling establishment these days.
The clip showed a man armed with a mic barging into Arshad Nadeem's home and haranguing him for an interview. Apparently miffed by this clear intrusion of his personal and family's privacy, the Olympic gold medalist is shown walking away while refusing to speak to the man clutching the mic.
The person who tweeted this video clip suggested that the Olympic gold medalist had become too arrogant after securing awards and the riches bestowed upon him by the public and private sectors and should not have acted this way towards a young journalist who had travelled all the way to the athlete's home town to interview him.
Under the tweet were dozens of comments — most of which castigated Pakistan's newly minted hero. Almost all such critical comments used the argument that the newly acquired fame and riches had inflated Arshad Nadeem's ego and made him arrogant, hence his crustaceous behaviour.
The fact of the matter is that while celebrities like Arshad Nadeem should have little expectation of retaining their privacy from the media, they are by no means under any obligation to give an interview to any reporter who barges into their homes without an invitation or an appointment.
If anything, the reporter should have enough basic training and sense, even as a novice journalist, to know that such an interview cannot be demanded as some kind of a right and that there should always be a request or a prior invitation by the subject of the interview. Furthermore, just because a reporter is young doesn't mean that people who are the subject of news coverage must necessarily give them interviews. The age of a reporter has nothing to do with what kind of coverage he can get, and suggesting that just because he is starting off in the field, they are entitled to some sort of remission from basic journalistic norms and ethics is absurd.
The attempt to portray him as having 'changed' and become arrogant because of his newfound riches and fame also suggests a comparison with their own sporting icon who, for his supporters, is defined by an aura of incorruptibility
Arshad Nadeem did nothing wrong by refusing the interview and walking away from what was a clear and obnoxious intrusion into his and his family's privacy.
A new idol?
Moving on, one would have to argue that the change in behaviour by many people towards the Olympic gold medallist and record holder seems to suggest that they are not only upset at how they think that his fame and riches have gone to his head, but they are also upset because there is now a new national hero in Pakistan - and one who can legitimately dislodge any existing national sporting icon from the collective national pedestal. They seem so upset that there is now a new national hero who is so beloved that history books may have to be rewritten on who the country's biggest-ever sporting icon is.
At a subconscious level, certain elements within the same section of society also seem to simmer with resentment toward the Olympic gold medallist because his historic achievement didn't take place when their one-and-only sporting icon was running the country.
All this translates into the overt hostility that we now see is being shown towards Arshad Nadeem, especially on social media. The attempt to portray him as having 'changed' and become arrogant because of his newfound riches and fame also suggests a comparison with their own sporting icon who, for his supporters, is defined by an aura of incorruptibility and of never having done anything wrong or illegal.
Hence, the treatment Arshad Nadeem has received on social media, in particular, is part of furthering the narrative that there can only be one national leader and only one national sporting icon—and that the country certainly does not need another hero.