One of the youngest of my batchmates in the IPS was widely expected to head the force in his cadre one day, age at entry being very important. He was doing well in the career too. Until he realised that his son had some potential in Cricket. After that, he forgot everything else and focused single-minded on getting his son into the Indian team. He chose postings (sometimes fairly unimportant ones) whereby he could devote maximum time towards that objective and his son would get the best chance. He also stopped his son’s studies so that the latter could devote himself full-time to the sport. There must’ve been a whole lot of unimaginable hard choices – diet, commute, personal coach/ trainer, on and on. It requires such single-minded obsession and sacrifices to make it. Because, in India, almost every boy plays Cricket, growing up and the vacancies in any of the Indian playing teams are exactly eleven at any point of time.
With all this and despite being from a fairly privileged background and even despite serious talent (remarkable knocks in the IPL), the boy hasn't been able to make it to the Indian team. One can only imagine what a kid or his family from a not-so-privileged background or from the hinterland must be going through when that all-elusive India cap beckons as a goal. Yashaswi Jaiswal selling Panipuris to sustain himself in Mumbai; Dhoni juggling between checking train tickets and playing; Hardik Pandya surviving on 5-rupee Maggi for breakfast and lunch, 365 days a year; Natarajan’s father a daily-wage labourer in Chinapampatti village, Tamil Nadu; Md. Siraj’s father an auto-rickshaw driver.
Cut to what has happened in the just-concluded Asia cup. Starting with the Captain, Surya Kumar Yadav (SKY) who refused to shake hands with the Pak captain at the toss in their first match. The Indian team walked off the field without the customary handshakes with their opponents in the same match. In the post-match presentation, SKY made it a point to mention the Pahalgam attack victims. Pakistani player Haris Rauf made a 6-0 gesture to the crowd. Sahibzada Farhan indulged in ‘Gun’ celebration after making a half century. SKY pooh-poohed any talk of ‘rivalry’ between the two teams, quoting the head-to-head record in T20Is. Arshdeep Singh made an obscene gesture. Bumrah signalled jet crash after taking Haris Rauf’s wicket. Indian players refused to collect the trophy and medals from the Asian Cricket Council President (Mohsin Naqvi) as he was “also one of the main political leaders of Pakistan.” The latter chose to take away the trophy and the medals. Finally, the tweet calling India’s victory “OperationSindoor on the games field.”
What exactly was the point of it all? It seems that as far as the international community and the global defence community are concerned, Pakistan won the war – witness Trump’s hosting of General/ Field Marshal Munir and the Pakistan PM, surge in stock prices of Chengdu jet company, etc.. Even our CDS admitted in public to our having made a tactical blunder which took two days to recover from in a four-day war. All these shenanigans on the cricket field will not change that. Domestically, for the discerning public, the twin spins, viz., A. we were winning and B. we didn’t cave in to American pressure, don’t add up because why then did we stop the war?
How does mentioning Pahalgam in the presentation ceremony help? If Pahalgam was still a big issue after the war, why play Pakistan at all? The conduct of the Indian team looked like the losers’ conduct, not confident winners’. It was also extremely graceless. The reprehensible conduct of the Pakistani team and officials does not justify anything because India started it all. Everyone who represents a country on the cricket field comes up through enormous struggles and heartbreaks. On their day, any team can win. In fact, Pakistan nearly won the finals. Given that, SKY’s utterances (Pakistan no rivals, etc.) speaks of unconscionable lack of respect for opponents. Well before the tournament, it was known that Mohsin Naqvi is the current president of Asian Cricket Council. If India participated in the tournament of the same Asian Cricket Council despite that, then why can’t he present the trophy? That tweet equating the match to Operation Sindoor. The final was extremely close and it was anyone’s game. So, going by the tweet, if India had lost the match, would it have meant that we were defeated in the war?
Just think of the kind of risks we as a nation were taking by using the players as pawns in the larger political game. After all the drama of no handshakes, mention of Pahalgam, derisive dismissal of rivalry talk and all the other in-your-face gestures, if we had lost the finals, it would have been such a body blow to the nation’s psyche. That last ball six of Miandad in peace times took us decades to recover from. This one would’ve taken ages.
During the most successful war of modern times (1971) which India won comprehensively in just 13 days taking 90,000 Pakistanis as prisoners, a young Pakistan Captain (Asan Malik) defended a position called Hilly so well that the Indian forces did not succeed in capturing it in several attempts. Even though we captured the post finally, our Chief of Army Staff, later to be Field Marshal, Sam Manekshaw, impressed by the Captain’s valour, sent a personal letter of appreciation and even recommended a gallantry award for him to his superiors. During his subsequent visit to Pakistan, he reiterated his request to his counterparts there. He also ensured that the 90,000 prisoners were treated well and with dignity in India. This is called respect for the opponent. And, graciousness in winning, even when the win is such an enormous one.
These cricketers are young kids who have
obsessively devoted most of their years to Cricket. MoM in the final match,
Tilak Verma is just 22 years old. Cricket is what they are best at and all that
they know and all that they should be doing. Let the cricketers play their Cricket
(when the circumstances permit) and let the battles be left to the battlefield.
Please!
The article raises some very pertinent issues with great clarity. It rightly underlines the sacrifices that young cricketers and their families make to reach the highest levels of the game, often at the cost of education, career or even basic livelihood. That very struggle demands respect, both for one’s own players and for the opponents across the boundary line.
ReplyDeleteThe recent conduct, as narrated, indeed reflects an avoidable blending of sport with political posturing. Cricket has always been more than a game in our subcontinent, it is a passion that unites millions. Precisely for this reason, it must be insulated from gestures that risk diminishing its spirit and global image. History too shows us that true leaders, whether in the military or in sports, earn lasting admiration through magnanimity and graciousness, not through antagonism.
The point is well-taken that cricket should remain the players’ arena, while matters of national strategy must remain in the hands of the State and Armed Forces. Let the cricketers focus on playing the game they have devoted their lives to, and let victories be celebrated with humility. Such balance will only enhance our stature as a confident nation.
Very well expressed. I agree whole-heartedly.
DeleteExcellent 👏👏👏 I was shocked when I heard of the events on the cricket ground and some celebrating it.. Despite the differences in religious and political beliefs, they are of same race and blood like us.
ReplyDeleteLike the merger of East and West Germany, a unification of the lands divided by the British will augur well for all in the sub-continent - it will bring both peace and prosperity to all..
Unfortunately, some vested interests continue to sacrifice the interests of people for self interests and that of some puppet masters.. 😞
Not sure about the merger but a peaceful co-existence may be tried for. Whatever it is, the kids on both sides of the divide should be left out of it.
DeleteVery rational and straightforward analysis and write-up, so refreshingly free of the jingoism that masquerades as nationalism these days. If the players had so many problems, they would have done well not play at all. Playing with Pakistan was in any case a political decision. But once that decision was taken by the powers that be, players should have stuck to their jobs—play well and display sportsmanship—rather than behave like spoilt-brat wannabe-politicians, bringing disgrace to the game, their conduct appearing (at least in private, even if not publicly expressed) most unacceptable to all reasonable people. Of course, reasonable is a big word here.
ReplyDeleteThank you. I do feel, 'reasonable' people should speak up. Some do but the majority don't.
Delete