NEWS
OTHER SPORTS
DIARY
PEOPLE
MATCH REPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

Deja view

Invoking a right-wing editor may not be the ideologically-propitious way of kick-starting a column, but even if you disagreed with almost everything he said, there was that odd little pearl that Girilal-you-Tarzan-me-Jain dropped every now and then that would leave "pseudo-secular" swine groping amidst the pearls of wisdom.

Shortly before 'bhajapa' bowled him over in the mid-'80s, the last great helmsman of The Times of India wrote a 3-4-5 (Boribunderspeak for the lead article on the edit page) which said what everybody knew but nobody cared a flying fish about. That, in India id est Bharat, politics sets the pace; everything else merely follows in its wake.

Now, Sachin Tendulkar may not have been legally permitted to devour the offerings of the leader writer; he was 16 around then. And then again, the "on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other" outpourings of "Giri" would have probably whooshed over the shoulders of the HSC-failed faster than Shoaib Akhtar's slower one.

Jain has been long dead and gone. That we should still be offering our salaams to him shows the durability of good commentary: It isn't so much about saying something earth-shatteringly new as about giving a fresh, original take to the obvious in a manner that leaves people wondering "Gee, why didn't I think of it that way?" long after.

So, you wonder today, does Indian cricket, too, follow subconsciously in the footsteps of Indian politics?

In its drama-baazi over the reappointment of Sachin Tendulkar as "caretaker captain"? In the nanga as in naked lunge for the gaddi by Ajay Jadeja? In its backroom backstabbing of Mohammad Azharuddin? In its intrigues, cockups and coverups? In its ability to quell dissent and ambition swiftly, silently?

Take, for instance, the selectors' decision "in two minutes" to bring back Sachin, in spite of his having told chief selector Ajit Wadekar and coach Anshuman Gaekwad that he wasn't mentally prepared to take on the job. "Two minutes" is supposed to convey urgency and unanimity among the five wise men of who they felt was best equipped to lead.

Far from it, the reappointment till September-end -- after which a new set of selectors takes over -- only indicates that our skippers survive from tour to tour, pretty much like our chief ministers, who live from election to election. And that this selection committee's decisions are not binding on the next. Or the next one's or the one after.

Like our politicians, do our selectors have India's long term interests at heart at all? If they did, they wouldn't be doing this to Sachin.

Question one: Why did the selectors, who had travelled all the way to Nagpur, not sit long enough to discuss more names for the future after picking Sachin? At least to smooth the roughs for the selectors who will succeed them? At least, for heaven's sake, to do their travel and dearness allowances, and their five-star stay, some justice?

When Clive Rice began leading South Africa in the early '90s, bang after their return to international cricket, an Indian journalist gingerly asked Dr Ali Bacher if the Proteas had identified a captain for the long run. "Hansie Cronje," replied the United Cricket Board bossman, and this although there was Kepler Wessels still to follow.

Imagine Wadekar shouting "Rahul Dravid" or "Ajay Jadeja" if a similar question was flung at him. No. It's almost as if in India it is a crime to prepare for the future, to be ready for any exigencies; to have a successor peering over the leader's shoulder.

Because, to prepare, to be ready, robs them off a ready excuse in the event of failure. In which case, it provides them another occasion to manufacture some bogus drama, very much in the nature of our political discourse, where every leadership change whips up a euphoric honeymoon, that hides the warts for some more time.

"No other names were discussed," Little Lele says in his usual post-selection postscript. Intended again for public consumption, this is the selectors' happy way of telling the new captain that they and the board are fully behind him, when everyone knows that the sword is dangling till such time the "high command" deems otherwise.

Question two: If it took so little time to decide and if indeed no names were discussed, on the basis of what great demonstration of leadership skills since his removal 18 months ago, was Sachin deemed to be fit to lead the side again? None, really. Does that perhaps explain a little Sachin's "mental unpreparedness"?

The Australian model of getting the best player in the side to be captain doesn't work in the Indian context, where Javagal Srinath's swipe in the World Cup match against Zimbabwe proved that some of our players need a spare set of brains, preferably that of a captain who drills their duties into the head time and time again. Can Sachin do that? No.

As one batsman confessed the first time Sachin was made captain, the fellow is at the nets two hours before the start of play, in the field for six hours, and back at the nets for two more hours, and expects everybody else to do so. Clearly, he is one level above the rest. The Indian team needs some one more human.

Give the devil his due. Azhar gets the sack after giving what most "experts" (Sunil Gavaskar to Tony Greig) felt was his finest show as captain. And Sachin gets the crown after it was universally acknowledged that Jadeja had it in him to lead on the strength of his showing in Sharjah earlier this year. And, yet, what gives?

"I'm prepared to play under Sachin, says Azhar" was the headline on the day the selectors were to meet. Witness, again, how similar the whole process is to Indian politics. "Long-serving chief minister under pressure to quit. High command sends observers to oversee legislature party meets. Outgoing CM proposes new leader."

Question three: If a vice-captain who has done well cannot expect to be naturally named captain when the post falls vacant, why have a vice-captain at all? Jadeja's crime, in hindsight, was to be seen so publicly, so hungrily wanting to be the top dog. Is that really that bad? An eager captain is anyday better than a reluctant one. At least we know whom to hang when it is time.

There are three big lies every cricketer at every level of the game learns to utter very quickly in his career to reinforce the myth that cricket is a team game. a) "I don't look at the scoreboard while batting." b) "My score/wickets don't matter a thing to me if my team doesn't win." and c) "I'm not after the captaincy."

Truth is, everybody does it all the time. Yours truly once saw a famous India cricketer ask the 12th man to bring him a headband at a festival match, yes festival match, because all his runs were being added to the score of his similarly-built partner on the big scoreboard! And which self-respecting bowler won't reel off his match figures backwards?

Likewise, who is Sachin trying to fool by playing the reluctant hero in l'affaire captaincy? Nobody. Renunciation may come easily to Brahmins in Bandra or Bangalore, but leading a side is what every cricketer who wears the India colours wants to do. Or, if they are motivationally-challenged, should want to do. It's unreal if they don't; almost inhuman.

It's like them, politicians. Every MLA, every MP has his eye on the big chair. "Serving the masses" is a figleaf waiting for the winds of change to blow it away. It's the same with the captaincy of the Indian team. Which fool with a few thousand runs and a couple of hundred wickets wouldn't want the nation (and sponsors) drooling over his every move?

One is about power, the other is about honour. How can you spurn it unless, of course, you are not up to it, or if you are scared?

Not seeming to be dying to lead the "best" eleven cricketers may be Sachin's sign of greatness in some people's books; a decent contrast to the daringly ambitious assault for the captaincy mounted from the heights of Kargil by Jadeja, a cricketer with politics in his blood. But it's poor leadership on view.

As Mark -- McCormack not Mascarenhas -- would have told Sachin if International Management Group was representing him, not seeming to want something offers a ready excuse for failure in the event of getting it. Compact Discs are all Sachin may listen to, but one of these days, he must borrow a copy of McCormack's audiobook "The 100% Solution" from a Mr H. Bhogle in the ESPN box and plug it into his ears.

Question four: If the world's best batsman (courtesy: ESPN-StarSports) and the most thinking cricketer to have straddled the solar system (courtesy: every Bombay journalist) was not mentally prepared to don the mantle after seeing the treatment Azharuddin was getting for his captaincy, when was he planning to be?

In other words, what if Jadeja -- who can't hold his place in any decent Test side -- had been named captain and what if he had gone on to do a great job in Sri Lanka and Singapore? The mind boggles, and the heart goes out to sponsors.

Salute Girilal Jain one last time.

Sharad Pawar questions Sonia Gandhi's locus standi to become India's first NRI (Non-Resident Italian) prime minister. Signora doesn't answer the question, but quits and sulks. Congress chief ministers too quit, and beg and grovel before her to return. Mrs G reluctantly relents. CMs happy, Sonia happy. But the big question still remains unanswered. Where does that leave the party?

Ditto Sachin. Selectors name him captain in spite of being told he doesn't want the job. The Bandra ka Chokra ducks and switches on his answering machine. Players past and present, and pundits hail the move and ask him to accept. SRT reluctantly relents. Selectors happy, Sachin happy. But the big questions -- will Sachin stay on as captain after September, will we lose our best batsman if he doesn't, will India have separate Test and one-day captains -- remain unanswered.

Where does that leave Indian cricket?

To those who follow the vagaries of Indian cricket, Krishna Prasad is the journalist who, with Aniruddha Bahal, co-authored the Outlook expose on betting and match-fixing in Indian cricket. He will be writing regularly for rediff.com -- and on present evidence, they promise to be well away from the beaten track.

Guest column