Over the years it had become a cliché: cricket unites India like few things do. So how did we reach this stage when cricket seems to be dividing the nation?
In the left corner, wearing a smile and carrying a placard with the definition of ‘cricket’ on it, stands the Indian who thinks we should not pull out of the Champions Trophy, nor should the BCCI work so hard to endorse its reputation as the bully of world cricket. In the right corner, wearing a bandana and carrying a placard with a definition of “nationalism” on it stands the Indian who wants to tell the world that if you’ve got it, then flaunt it (and vice versa).
The middle ground — as in so many other debates — is gradually disappearing. Those directly affected: the players, for example, have no voice. Those who see everything as patriotism in different hues have found yet another subject matter for breast-beating.
Ramachandra Guha, a passionate cricket lover who has written some of the finest books on the game, tweets: “Speaking in my personal capacity, as a cricket fan, I believe the Indian cricket team absolutely must take part in the Champions Trophy… boycotting a prestigious tournament does not become a great cricketing nation.”
Two responses are representative: “How much they paid you to sell ur mother (@BCCI)?” Someone calling himself Yogi Adityanath (possibly because that might be his name) says: “As a cricket fan, I am asking what the hell are you doing in @BCCI? Resign.”
This is disturbing, and not just because of the language used by the trolls. Black-and-white has replaced nuanced argument in our national discourse, and now its cricket’s turn to bear the burden. Suddenly the Champions Trophy is the test of nationalism!
India’s original hijacking of the ICC along with England and Australia based on figures plucked from thin air was wrong. Now the others (including England and Australia), thinking India are at their weakest, see a chance to strike.
Where India might have got $570 million over an eight-year cycle, they are now offered $293 million, although an extra $100 million is still available if India want it. Thin air, which supplied the earlier justification, supplied the one for this one too, and is therefore just as meaningless.
It is the lesser, non-Test countries, struggling to make ends meet, who will pay the price. India’s argument is that they have to look after their own interests, and get as big a slice of the cake as possible, leaving the crumbs to those who cannot survive otherwise.
There is no doubt that as things stand, without India, there can be no international cricket. The Ashes alone is likely to survive as a bilateral competition. Television money, which drives the sport, will be slashed; sponsors will find other interests — India have the biggest audience for both. Perhaps after an initial dip, things might improve, but would any country like to take that chance? Unlikely.
In the last cycle, when up against it, the members of the ICC decided that it was better to have a bullying India within its folds bringing in the money rather than outside diverting funds away. That was a practical decision; something similar might be the guiding force once again.
But the growth of the IPL and the possibilities of top players focusing on T20 leagues around the world raises another scenario: with just ten countries playing Test match cricket, this form of the game will be directly under threat.
India can argue about best deals, but would they like to be held responsible for the death of Test cricket?
Ego might be the player’s friend on the field of play, fuelling competition, in the boardrooms, ego is not necessarily the administrator’s friend. For it is not just the individual country or the international council that will be threatened, but the game itself. Administrators (unfortunately) take no oath of allegiance to the sport they serve, nor do they promise to do everything that is in the game’s best interests.
What is in the game’s interests now is that India remain within its fold, and the ICC itself works for the game rather than its individual boards. Somehow the whole has been less than the sum of its parts.
In its May 7 meeting to decide on the next step, the BCCI should look beyond the money and focus on what is best for the sport. Already, as the voting in Dubai showed, they have no friends in the international fold; now is a good time to be the leader and restore sanity to the way cricket is governed.
Otherwise the BCCI v the Rest fight will go on; one round here, another round there, and instability all around as egos rather than hearts and heads decide on both sides. Magnanimity, not boom-lowering is the call of the hour. And let’s leave Guha’s mother out of this; in any case, she is not the BCCI.
