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... 

Beyond the statistics...

The statistics alone are truly mind boggling. By the time he decided to hang up his boots, he had scored a whopping 13,288 runs in Test cricket, behind only Tendulkar's 15,470. He had notched up 36 tons at an impressive average of 52.31. Besides, perhaps, his world record of 210 catches may never be broken. Furthermore, in the history of the game, only three Indian batsmen have retired with a higher away average than at home. The other two were Sunil Gavaskar (52.11), the original Little Master, and Mohinder Amarnath (51.86), one of the greatest come-back men. What is amazing is that Dravid did even better than them. He averaged 53.03 abroad. His highest score was recorded at Rawalpindi, where he scored a brilliant 270.

On the 18 occasions that he came to the crease, with his team tottering at 0 for 1, he averaged 51.94. On the 45 occasions that he took guard, when the first wicket fell, with the team score reading anywhere between 11 and 20, he averaged 60.54. A laborious 123.06 deliveries have separated any two times that he has been dismissed in his brilliant 16-year career, making him the second most enduring batsman in the history of the game after Jacques Kallis, who averages 125.55 deliveries between any two dismissals. During the most productive phase in his career, between 2002 and 2006, Dravid averaged 100.3 in England, 123.8 in Australia, 77.25 and 80.33 in the two series he played in Pakistan, and 82.66 in the West Indies.

Although he was not a specialist opener, he walked out to open the Indian innings as many as 23 times and scored four centuries in that position. He averaged 65.70 in India's overseas Test wins, which is the highest in the history of Indian cricket, and 75.19 in draws abroad. So, you see, whenever Dravid did well, India won or saved the match. I could go on and on, but that is not the aim of this post because Dravid, to me, transcended statistics, despite his obvious talent and unparalleled commitment to the cause of Indian cricket. He impressed me as much by his conduct as he did by his game.

That is what set him apart. Perhaps, both his game and his conduct were meant for another era, when cricket was still a gentleman's game, when sledging did not figure in the cricketing lexicon, and limited overs cricket had not yet ravaged the pristine beauty of willow meeting leather on the pitch, as the sun shone brightly on men in spotless white, whose mettle was put to the ultimate test of talent and temperament. Was it any surprise that this epic encounter on the field came to be called "Test" cricket? Yes, it still is, and, that is why batsmen like Dravid will be sorely missed.

Dravid, in an uncanny sort of way, personified all that cricket is and has always stood for. Perhaps, it may not be too far-fetched or fanciful to dub him "Mr. Cricket". While Tendulkar epitomised the aspirations of Indian cricket almost at a subconscious level, Dravid transcended national boundaries to become synonymous with the game itself. Personally, I don't think the game has had many who can claim to have been better ambassadors of the sport. And, look at the manner in which he chose to retire, quietly, without any fuss. No grand gesture of one final outing followed by a standing ovation by the spectators. Just a quiet Press conference at which he read out a statement for the media. That was it.

If actions really spoke louder than words, coming as it did from a man who never groped for words, and was arguably the most articulate Indian cricketer after Tiger Pataudi, was somewhat ironic and a bit of an anti-climax, which was not much dissimilar to Don Bradman scoring a duck in his last outing. But then, just like the Don has always been remembered as the greatest batsman ever, Dravid may well be remembered, by generations to come, as having been one of the greatest gentlemen the game has ever seen.

Unsung Hero of Indian Cricket

Our cricketers are really lucky. No, not because of all the moolah they rake in. Not because of the demi-god status most of them enjoy. Not even because of the opportunity they have taken for granted to represent the country on the sports field. They are lucky because the Anna movement has deflected public attention and anger from the drubbing they received in cricket, at the hands of a resurgent English side. Considering the huge margins of defeat, this must certainly rank as one of our worst overseas defeats in cricket. What makes it worse is that it was handed out to an outfit that was ranked the World No.1 in Test cricket for the last 20 or so months.

Through all the din of subdued criticism somewhat immobilized by the shock of defeat, very few seem to have noticed the Wall of Indian Cricket, who alone stood tall throughout this series. To have equalled and then surpassed the legendary Sunil Gavaskar’s tally of Test tons during the England series was no mean achievement. Dravid already stood as the second-highest run-getter in Test cricket behind only Sachin Tendulkar. Somehow, I can’t help thinking, though, that the man has never got his due. He has, undoubtedly, been the unsung hero of Indian cricket.

Admittedly, he lacked the natural ability of a Sachin or the flair of a Saurav. He even lacked the charisma of a Dhoni as captain. However, in his own quiet sort of way, the man has served Indian cricket with a rare distinction, be it as a batsman or a wicket-keeper or a slip fielder. Whenever the chips have been down Dravid is the man the team management has invariably turned to for the rescue act, and he has seldom disappointed. Not for nothing did he earn the sobriquet, The Wall. His solid defence, his ability to play a long innings and his sense of focus became the pivot around which many a team score was put together any number of times.

The latest, and perhaps, one of the best instances of his ever-abiding commitment to his team was evident in the last Test match of the series versus England. Dravid not only carried his bat through the first innings when he scored his 35th Test ton, but also came out to open the innings again when India were forced to follow on. That has been the spirit with which the man has played his cricket. What makes his achievements truly remarkable is his gentlemanly behaviour on and off the field. His modesty and humility have earned him many friends and admirers even among his rivals.

Despite all these obvious qualities of head and heart that made him the cricketer he has been for India, his achievements have hardly been acknowledged in our Tendulkar-obsessed country, whose shadow he has had to play under. Left out of the ODI and T20 sides a few seasons ago, without even so much as having been offered an explanation by the selectors, Dravid went on to do reasonably well in the IPL although his captaincy came in for some criticism. Personally, I did not find it at all surprising that Dravid should have announced his retirement plans in England from ODIs and T20 cricket when the selectors suddenly rediscovered the virtue of including him in the ODI squad to play versus England.

It was his way of telling the selectors, “I'm not a use-and-throw commodity…” And yet, the manner in which Rahul Dravid did that was so typical – it was all done in such a dignified manner. He reluctantly consented to play in the ODIs versus England, but said that would be it. No more. A thorough gentleman, Rahul Dravid, must surely rank as one of the unsung heroes of Indian cricket.