Has BCCI Missed a Trick or Two?

Medieval imperialistic instincts may well have been satiated, when Englishmen during an early 21^st century summer gave Indian natives a hiding, to drive the final nail into the coffin of our imagination, over who are the true masters at the sport. One may well be tempted to contemplate that the meek surrender of our cricketing rock stars in ‘battleground England’ must have evoked such sentiments among old chauvinists, who still hark back to the bygone era of the British Empire. After all, isn’t sport war by other means?

Michael Vaughan’s caustic comment on BBC’s Test Match Special clearly tugs at nationalistic underpinnings, to what was traditionally considered a gentlemen’s game. Vaughan said, “It’s a disgrace to think that India were blown away in 29 overs under blue skies on a pitch that was only doing a bit. They should be embarrassed. Some of those strokes were of players who didn’t want to fight for their country.” (Emphasis mine)

Geoffrey Boycott wrote in the Daily Telegraph, “India were pathetic when they had to bat and bowl on two seaming, swinging pitches at Old Trafford and the Oval. Their batsmen lacked application and the technique to handle two of the best Test bowlers in the world in James Anderson and Stuart Broad. On these sort of pitches they are a handful for any batsman and these talented kids had no experience of such conditions. The Indian batsmen were like lambs to the slaughter.

India’s batting effort was definitely “pathetic”, as Boycott has described it. As for lack of “application” and inferior and ineffective “technique”, the old-school copybook technician is perhaps one of the best individuals to sit in judgment over those aspects of the art and science of batsmanship. Two of the “best” Test bowlers, did you say, Mr. Boycott? Anderson, may be, but Broad, well, I for one can’t be that sure, I’m afraid. That cricket has become less gentle and more a man’s game, stood out in England this season, when our boys were treated like “bachchas” on the pitch. Boycott called them “kids” in his article and I don’t suppose his advancing age had anything to do with it.

Talking of lambs being led to the slaughter, well, I wonder how the veggies among our boys would react to that expression. Anyway, the BCCI, in its infinite wisdom, which is beyond what ordinary human minds can fathom, has drawn up its own list of “bali ka bakras”. Duncan Fletcher’s wings have been clipped, with Ravi Shastri appointed the Director of Team India, and the assistant coaches asked to proceed on unsolicited leave. The services of Sanjay Bangar and B. Arun have been enlisted, in what seems to be a sudden nationalistic counter-surge. Even Rahul Dravid has been sounded out as a possible stopgap arrangement, should good old Duncan decide to hang up his boots and cool his heels in his native Zimbabwe.

Talking of “bali ka bakras”, don’t forget the targeting of WAGs (wives and girlfriends) who have also been held responsible for their nuisance value for distracting their touring better (or worse?) halves. In fact, “distraction” was squarely blamed by Jonathan Agnew, writing for the BBC website. He said, “The problem for the tourists was firstly that they allowed themselves to become distracted (emphasis mine) by the Anderson-Jadeja furore and secondly that they simply didn’t have any time for players to regroup and find form between Tests.”

Whatever the validity of Agnew’s statement, he does make an important point that is worth pondering over. It was quite clear that the tour was badly planned. Not much preparation went into it and far too few practice matches punctuated the itinerary. Given that an overwhelming majority of the Indian squad had never played in England before, such shoddy planning was all the more inexcusable. While our selectors sought scapegoats to pin the blame on, for the debacle, their ill-conceived half-measures seem like trying to treat the symptoms without wanting to root out the disease.

How about encouraging young and talented cricketers like Kohli, Pujara and Rahane to play county cricket in England? How about clearing all the logistical and legal hurdles that litter their ambitious paths? The need for budding Indian talent to hone their skills on seaming tracks in swinging conditions was constantly emphasized from the commentary box and newspaper articles. Apparently, none of the wise men belonging to the BCCI seem to have got wind of it, which reflects poorly on them. If the attitude of men who preside over the future of Indian cricket is so full of apathy, then God help us.   

The stinging editorial of The Independent says it all. It said: “The reputation of India’s batsmen has undergone its own mini volte-face as well, with Virat Kohli suffering even more than the rest. He arrived being lauded as the only man who could challenge AB de Villiers for the title of best batsman in all formats of the game, he ends the series with an average of 13.40 and only 22 runs more than James Anderson, who batted five innings less — nobody’s calling him new Tendulkar anymore.” Can we fend off such insinuations any longer?  

After all, the stats never lie, do they? The first Test was a draw. India won the second Test by 95 runs, which seems like a flash in the pan now. In the third Test England won by 266 runs. In the fourth, they beat us by an innings and 54 runs. And, as if that was not enough, they delivered us a massive drubbing in the fifth and final Test when they beat us by an innings and 244 runs. So, the question is, would the BCCI’s reaction and responses to this debacle prove adequate to turn things around for Indian cricket? Well, your guess is as good as mine.

My Take on PM Modi’s Maiden I-Day Speech

My initial gut reaction to Modi’s maiden Independence Day speech could best be encapsulated in the words of Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi. He told Barkha Dutt of NDTV, in a special programme produced to analyse the PM’s speech, “I had come here to criticise Modi, but, after having heard his speech, I must say, it’s difficult to do that.” I have been a journalist in the past, and it was drilled into my impressionable mind by my seniors then, that one of the attributes of any journalist worth his salt was “objectivity”. I don’t intend to use up space to speculate on the possibility, or lack of it, of ever reaching the mirage of total objectivity. I shall leave such philosophical introspection for another post, perhaps sometime in the future. For now, however, I do beg your pardon, particularly, if you happen to find me being somewhat indulgent towards Modi, in this article.

For starters Modi’s oratory stood in stark contrast to that of his predecessor, the mannequin-like Manmohan Singh, who droned along in his dull under-pan tone, reading from a prepared script that impressed nobody. Modi spoke extempore and straight from the heart. He spoke every bit like the prime minister of India who enjoyed the mandate of the people of this vast and diverse country, and not like some unelectable babu who had been nominated and foisted up to that position by his political boss, who desperately needed somebody as pliable as him, so she could rule India by proxy.

Modi referred to himself as the “pradhan sevak” and stressed that that was how he visualised his role and did not see it through the traditional prism of power politics, despite occupying the gaddi of the “pradhan mantri”. I am not sure when was the last time any Indian PM had sought to consciously cast himself, or herself, in the humble mould of a “servant”. Modi acknowledged the contribution of every Indian prime minister before him in making India what it is today. Honestly, I cannot recall any other prime minister before him, for as long as I remember, displaying such magnanimity of spirit. In fact, most of them used the occasion to take potshots at their political opponents and indulged in petty gamesmanship to score worthless brownie points over them.

In fact, Modi alluded to Congressman Lal Bahadur Shastri’s stirring slogan of “Jai jawan; jai kisan!” He also referred to the Mahatma more than once, and dwelt on issues other prime ministers may well have considered beneath the dignity of their high office. He emphasized cleanliness and urged his countrymen to undertake a nationwide drive to clean up our cities. That, he pointed out, would be the best tribute we could all pay to Bapu on his 150^th birth anniversary, coming up in 2019. In this context, Modi bemoaned the fact that even in this day and age our women were forced to defecate publicly, which they were forced to do under the cover of darkness.

He encouraged parliamentarians to “adopt” villages in their constituencies and transform them, into what he termed, “ideal villages”. Modi called upon entrepreneurs to help build toilets in the schools of India where none exist at present. This, he opined, could be done as a part of their CSR obligations. Hence, Modi, not only diagnosed problems, but also prescribed their remedies. This came as a breath of fresh air, when his predecessors had preferred pious platitudes instead, and indulged in empty rhetoric which was without much substance.

Allaying the misgivings in some quarters about the future of India’s Planning Commission, Modi shared his vision of replacing the defunct institution with something that is more in tune with contemporary realities. His clarion call to businessmen abroad to “come, make in India”, followed by his challenge to the youth of our country to work towards seeing goods with the “made in India” label flooding international markets, exhibited his economic vision in simple and direct terms. He did not take refuge in bland theorising or hide behind vague promises. Modi’s pledge to ensure that the underprivileged sections of India’s populace hold bank accounts, coupled with life insurance cover of Rs. 1 lakh, is welcome as it was a long overdue measure.

The prime minister also touched upon sensitive subjects such as communal harmony and the necessity of maintaining peace. He invited leaders of SAARC countries to join him in fighting the scourge of rampant poverty in this part of the world. He left his audience much food for thought as he alluded to the vision of great souls like Swami Vivekananda. Incidentally, I couldn’t help notice that foreign dignitaries who attended the function at the Red Fort had headphones on, which meant they could listen to Modi’s speech in English. I am not sure whether this had been done before.

Just to sound a note of caution, while Modi’s speech certainly inspired many, he would do well to rein in the strident Hindutva elements within the establishment to ensure that the minorities, particularly the Muslims, do not continue to feel insecure. While there has been nothing overtly communal in his words or deeds ever since he became the PM, some of his party men and women do queer the pitch, off and on, when the national discourse has thankfully shifted to development and peace. If Modi allows these lunatic fringes to take centre stage and hijack his nation-building agenda, it would be most unfortunate.

Many had pooh-poohed Modi for his humble background and lampooned his “chaiwala” pedigree. But, the “outsider”, as he called himself, has settled well into his new role. The chief minister of Gujarat has transitioned remarkably into the prime minister of India. In the process, he has had an “insider’s view”, as he put it, and spotted all that was wrong in the system, such as inter-departmental rivalry, and people running their ministries as if they were running their personal fiefdoms.
 
So, while New Delhi’s elite may continue to turn their noses up at Modi for his humble background, I for one would much rather have a chaiwala who is a self-made man, as my prime minister, instead of a learned man with impeccable academic credentials and an Ivy League educational background, dictated to and remote-controlled by an Italian-born school dropout, who had worked as a waitress to make ends meet in England. What say?

Much Ado About Nothing!

The media seems to have lapped up Natwar Singh’s so-called revelations with an eagerness that makes one suspect it has nothing better to report these days. What the disgruntled former Congressman and one-time close associate of Congress President Sonia Gandhi has “revealed” is old hat. I am referring specifically to his “disclosure” that Rahul was dead against Sonia becoming prime minister, as he feared for her life. Well, this is not news at all. The proverbial “short public memory” that politicians bank on and the media relentlessly exploits, seems to have infected the fourth estate itself, or at least large parts of it seem to be guilty of selective amnesia that seems to be willfully self-infected.

When the NDA was defeated despite its much-touted ‘India Shining’ campaign and the United Progressive Alliance came into being, with Sonia Gandhi as its chairperson, it was assumed then that the Italian-born bahu of Indira Gandhi would succeed Atal Behari Vajpayee as India’s next prime minister. With the Left parties more than willing to prop up a coalition of convenience headed by the Congress, merely to settle an old ideological score with the BJP, crossing the mandatory halfway mark in the Lok Sabha had become a foregone conclusion.

Readers would recall the reactions of a section of the political class to the prospect of a prime minister of foreign origin which was anathema. The current external affairs minister had even threatened to shave her head and lead the life of an ascetic, if it ever came to pass. This dark drama was being played out even as the victors were busy celebrating their unexpected victory at the polls. It was at such a time, when uncertainty loomed large over who would become India’s next prime minister, that former chief minister of West Bengal, Jyoti Basu, had first spilt the beans. 

Basu had revealed to sections of the media in Kolkata that Sonia’s children were strongly opposed to her ascending the prime minister’s throne as they feared “she would be killed, much like her mother-in-law and husband”. This was even reported widely in the print media at that time. Therefore, whatever Natwar Singh has ‘revealed’ is not really news. It is merely confirming what has been known all along. So then, what has evoked such a response from the Indian media, with the electronic media especially going to town over these so-called revelations?

Has the electronic media become so preoccupied with TRPs that it has lost all sense of proportion and timing? Or, is it merely symptomatic of a dearth of tell-all political memoirs in India that makes even the public lap up anything and everything that is on offer, every now and then? Or, did the fact that the so-called revelations were contained in the autobiography of Natwar Singh, who was a close confidante of the Gandhi family for close to three decades, and had worked with Indira, Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi, have something to do with the way it was received? Did it whet the appetite of the public making the media feed it with regurgitated news? You decide...