The six wise men will do nothing!

Indian Cricket's Mahayuddh

Bottomline, don't hold your breath through your day, waiting for momentous results to emerge from the review committee meeting. What likely will emerge are public platitudes about the meeting having been 'amicable'; about the committee being 'fully abreast' of the thoughts and feelings of the contentious parties; of a decision 'for the good of Indian cricket' that will be arrived at shortly. What will also emerge, given the climate of the times, are a series of calculated leaks emanating from intended parties, all intended to color the debate according to the personal predilections of the committee members (to know who is leaking what, consider the media outlet the leak appears in, then do the math).

Is it altogether a bad thing, though, that today's review committee meeting is just an exercise in going through the motions? On the one hand, it will leave possibly the worst crisis to have hit Indian cricket in living memory (oh yes, the standoff between coach and captain ranks way above the match-fixing imbroglio on the Richter scale of cataclysmic events) unresolved; it will allow the wounds to fester no matter how many pictures the principals pose for, their features freeze-framed in parody smiles.

But on the other hand, consider this: This is the same selection committee that, at the start of the season, had an opportunity to make a clean start, by picking a captain for a medium-to-long-term tenure.  On that occasion, the committee abdicated the responsibility, arguing that since its tenure ends in September, it was not not competent to take a decision that could impact on the future. Given that, the selectors have even less competence now, given their official use-by date has expired (or will, at the end of the month).

That leaves the review committee itself. Consider its members: S Venkatraghavan has remained neutral on matters of Indian cricket for the last so many years -- but that is as good as it gets. Sunil Gavaskar has made no secret of his preference for an Indian coach; it is even less of a secret that he prefers Sourav Ganguly for captain. Equally, Ravi Shastri has for months now been beating the drum for Ganguly's exit. Ranbir Singh Mahendra has not, during his tenure as board president, has met every question directed at him with a firm, unconditional, unequivocal 'maybe' (He can't be more definite, see -- he first has to go off and consult his 'inner voices'). SK Nair is board secretary only in name -- his tenure has ended, and he continues to occupy office only because the BCCI, which administers cricket, could not even administer its own annual
general body meeting properly.

And finally, there is Jagmohan Dalmiya, whose affinity for Ganguly is not stop-the-presses news. In fact, Dalmiya's inclusion in the panel immediately damns it, because there is no satisfactory answer to the question, why? He is president of a state (Bengal) cricket association -- but then, every state has a cricket association, every association has a president; why then is Dalmiya the one, among all those august gents, to be elevated onto this panel? Or, to paraphrase Shakespeare, on what meat doth this our Dalmiya feed, that he is grown so great? (The courts of this land can strike moves to get himself appointed 'patron-in-chief', but there is nothing any court can do to stop him playing the role de facto.)

Given this, perhaps it is for the best that the review committee does nothing beyond 'advise'.

So where lies the solution, and what form can/should it take? It is axiomatic that to solve a problem, you first have to define it.

Is this then a problem of interpersonal dyspepsia? A case of captain and coach not being able to get along?

(A tangential question you might want to puzzle over is this: Sourav Ganguly famously sought out Greg Chappell in Australia, and sought tips on batting that, by his own admission, helped him produce that counter-attacking century in Brisbane, April 2003, that sparked the Indian surge against Australia Down Under. Earlier this year, when the board was considering its choice of replacement for John Wright, Ganguly was the most vocal supporter for Chappell's candidature. Why then did the two fall out, so publicly, so quickly? Could it be simply this: When you go 'Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of us all?', there really is only one answer you are looking to hear -- and the one Ganguly got was not the one he expected?)

If the coach and captain cannot get along, the team has a problem. (And the solution is not to introduce an alternate power center into the dressing room, as the BCCI famously did during the end phase of Wright's tenure when it appointed Sunil Gavaskar as 'batting coach').

The problem, here, goes way beyond the two central protagonists -- thanks to the desire of various board members to captialise, through selective leaks, on the current imbroglio to score political points off the opposition; thanks also to the media's rush to capitalise on the cupidity of various players by getting them to open their mouths and stick both feet firmly in it, the matter has gone way beyond 'I dislike thee Dr Fell/The reason why I cannot tell.'

So much of bad blood has been let, so much venom expended by all parties, that nothing short of drastic surgery will now suffice. The question is, where does the scalpel cut -- and what? The answer to this lies in the answer to another question: What, precisely, is the BCCI's vision for Indian cricket? What are the goals it has set itself?

Is a good performance against Sri Lanka next month, and maybe against South Africa the month after, the extent of this 'vision'? If yes, the solution is simple: Get rid of Chappell; retain Ganguly. Which is not to say this solution will ensure India wins against those two opponents -- what it will do is defuse the current crisis, for now, and allow the team to stumble along from one day to the next, hyping its occasional victories as signalling the turning of yet another corner, and explaining away its defeats with canned sound bytes on the order of 'The middle order must make runs'; 'The opening partnership must fire'; 'The bowlers must take wickets'.

Or is the BCCI's vision more far-reaching? Does it extend to March 2007, when India begins its World Cup 2007 campaign in the West Indies? If yes, the current imbroglio could just have played into the BCCI's hands, in that it affords opportunity for some introspection, and sensible action. Thus, if WC'07 is in fact the team's medium-term goal (Why medium term? Because we really need to look beyond that;  'vision' cannot end at the tip of your nose. Consider that we had a 'vision' to win the 2003 World Cup; we made it to the final -- and lo, the vision ended, the team drifted -- all the way down to number seven in the ICC rankings table), then the board needs to do certain things, and do them now.

First, it needs to identify the captain, and coach (sure, Chappell has been appointed with the brief of taking the team through to WC'07, but appointments can, and if necessary should, be rethought) it believes can deliver on that vision. It then needs to sit with that captain, that coach, and clearly define their individual responsibilities.

That done, the board needs to identify the core of the team that it believes can do the job in '07; it needs to communicate its vision clearly to the players concerned so there is no ambiguity over each player's projected role in the team make-up (and no 'communication gaps' as in the case of V V S Laxman, or 'fear and insecurity' as manifested in a media interview by Harbhajan Singh). Having built that core, and identified the peripheral players, it needs to push the captain, coach and members into working on every aspect of the game from fitness up; it needs to communicate to the players that slacking will not be tolerated.

It needs to use the October '06 ICC World Championship, at home, as the litmus test for the team's preparedness and, from that point on focus exclusively, for the next five months, on fine-tuning the team for the big one.

In other words, it needs to focus on the goal, not the personalities; it needs to do what it takes to attain its targets, not what will keep a section of the team, and/or the fans, happy. And it is one hell of a tough ask -- you cannot axe an internationally renowned player you hired as coach three months ago as casually, say, as you postpone an internal democratic exercise; nor can you insouciantly say goodbye to a much-loved player who put the starch in Indian cricket's spine at a time when the match-fixing controversy leeched it of its spirit).

Neither choice is easy -- yet the BCCI has to chose, unequivocally; it has to explain its choice clearly, if only to end the mud-slinging and air of uncertainty shrouding the game today; it has to enforce its choice so there is no further scope for internicine strife.

Or does the BCCI have a third choice? Board (soon to be ex) secretary SK Nair indicated as much, when he told a section of the media that the BCCI would 'take a final decision later'. Exactly. The BCCI always -- no matter how dire the situation -- has a third option up its sleeve: it can opt to park its fanny on its spiritual home, the fence, and pretend that the longer it puts off a vital decision, the less likely it is that it will have to make one. Isn't that how it has always been?

Postscript: In the past, when I have from the depths of seeming hibernation emerged to write a cricket column, I've been flooded with e-mails asking one question: Have you left Rediff? Have you returned? Before you ask, the answers are no. And no. I work now in New York, with Rediff's print publication India Abroad. I don't 'write' on cricket much anymore, but I do 'taste' the writing in the various media outlets on my blog.