Ramachandra Guha
Cricket writer and historian

The strange silence of Gavaskar and Shastri

Why have these two stalwarts of Indian cricket never spoken out about the damage the IPL has done to the country's Test team?

Ramachandra Guha

August 14, 2011

Comments: 131 | Text size: A | A

Former India captains Ravi Shastri and Sunil Gavaskar arrive at the BCCI headquarters for a meeting to find reasons for India's World Cup debacle
Gavaskar and Shastri: not so outspoken when it comes to matters regarding the Indian board Sajjad Hussain / © AFP
Enlarge

With the loss of three successive Test matches to England, in England, Indian cricket fans are consumed by despair. However, my own despair had set in even before the first Test began, when, in an election held to select a new president of the Mumbai Cricket Association, Dilip Vengsarkar was defeated by a politician named Vilasrao Deshmukh.

My dejection was deepened by the fact that Vengsarkar was no ordinary cricketer. In his playing days he was a batsman of high class, with an outstanding record against West Indies, and against England (he remains the only overseas batsman to have scored three Test hundreds at Lord's). He was also a fine one-day player, and a member of the teams who won the World Cup in 1983 and the World Championship of Cricket two years later.

After his retirement Vengsarkar has focused on training young cricketers. Among his early wards was a certain Yuvraj Singh, Man of the Tournament in the last World Cup. Unlike some other cricketers Vengsarkar does more than lend his name to a cricket academy; he supervises the players' progress, pays (if required) their school and medical fees out of his own pocket, and travels with them across India. And he refuses to take any payment himself. The veteran Mumbai cricket writer Makarand Waingankar says that in his own (several decades-long) experience he has not seen a former Test cricketer so devoted to nurturing young talent.

On the other side, Deshmukh is a rather ordinary politician. Unlike some others (for example Arun Jaitley or the late Madhavrao Scindia) he does not have a previous interest in the game of cricket. His record in his chosen field, public service, has been undistinguished, and on occasion (as in the aftermath of 26/11) disastrous. Deshmukh's desire to become president of the MCA did not stem from a love of the game or a commitment to clean administration. His motivation appears to have been the restoration of his social status, which had been damaged during the Mumbai terror attacks and the subsequent loss of his chief ministership.

When, some months ago, I first heard of this contest, I wondered if the two most famous former cricketers from the city, Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri, would support their old team-mate. They had played alongside Vengsarkar for many years, for both Mumbai and India. But then, I thought, perhaps it was not necessary for them to make a statement to this effect. That the sportsmen of Mumbai, the sporting clubs of Mumbai -- of Mumbai, which in many ways is the capital city of Indian cricket - would elect Deshmukh over Vengsarkar seemed scarcely believable. But they did, out of what motives and intentions one could only speculate. When I first heard of the result, I was appalled. Surely many MCA members would have voted the other way if Gavaskar and Shastri had publicly endorsed Vengsarkar?

One believes that, in general, former cricketers would run cricket associations more ably than serving politicians. Given Vengsarkar's commitment to young cricketers, and Deshmukh's own spectacular indifference to the public good, this general principle should have been emphatically validated here. Yet two celebrated cricketers from Mumbai, two cricketers produced by Mumbai, two cricketers who were close contemporaries and colleagues of the cricketer in the fray, chose not to help him. Why? What would it have cost Gavaskar and Shastri to ask the clubs of Mumbai to cast their votes in favour of the man who was far and away the better candidate?

Their silence during the elections of their parent association confirmed, for me, the pusillanimity of the two. The recent revelations that they are paid propagandists of the Board of Control for Cricket in India have confirmed, for many other fans, the lack of principle in Gavaskar and Shastri. They feel betrayed by the disclosure that commentators they trusted to give a fair and credible account of the game were under contract to speak in His Master's Voice alone.

 
 
One would expect Gavaskar and Shastri to make the connection between the board's obsession with the IPL and the poor performance of the Indian team in England. That they have stayed silent suggests that their commitment to cricket is not as dispassionate as it perhaps should be
 

My impression, based on press reports and conversations with friends, is that the fans felt more let down by Gavaskar than by Shastri. This is for two reasons. First, while Shastri was a decent allrounder, Gavaskar was one of the greats of the game. Second, while Shastri was never known for selflessness, Gavaskar had in the past fought bravely for the rights of his fellow cricketers. Gavaskar played an important role in organising a players' association that succeeded in raising match fees manifold and in securing pensions for retired cricketers. Gavaskar led a movement in his native Mumbai to have flats allotted to former Test players who lived in the city.

Gavaskar had, in the past, showed pluck in a political sense too. After Pakistan won the World Cup in 1992, he was invited to Karachi to speak. Bal Thackeray, the leader of the right-wing, regionalist Shiv Sena party, demanded that he not sup with the enemy, but Gavaskar defied him, saying that he was going as a cricketer and an Asian. Again, during the Mumbai riots of 1992-93, when Gavaskar saw, from a window of his apartment, a mob setting upon a Muslim, he rushed down to the street to stop them.

Gavaskar has answered the charge that he is a spokesman for the board by claiming that his newspaper columns have sometimes been critical of its policies. However, in hundreds of hours of hearing Shastri and Gavaskar speak on television, I cannot recall them ever being critical in any way of the BCCI. Crucially, in both print and on air I have never heard either commentator ever do anything but praise the Indian Premier League in lavish terms. Neither has commented on the shady financial underpinnings of the league, neither has dared point out that the ownership of the Chennai Super Kings by the board's secretary is legally and morally indefensible.

My view, and not mine alone, is that the existence of the IPL is the main reason India is no longer the No. 1 team in Test cricket. The case can be made on cricketing grounds, without any reference to the business methods of Lalit Modi or N Srinivasan. If India have performed poorly in the ongoing Test series against England, the excessive burdens placed on the players by the IPL are surely a key factor. That Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir, and Zaheer Khan had to play that tournament immediately after the World Cup is why they had to miss the West Indies tour and did not recover their full fitness for the England tour. The under-performance of other major players, such as MS Dhoni, is likewise linked to the fact they have been playing too much cricket.

One would expect Gavaskar and Shastri, as active, influential, full-time commentators on the game, to make these connections between the board's obsession with the IPL and the poor performance of the Indian team in England. That they have stayed silent suggests that their commitment to cricket is not as dispassionate as it perhaps should be.

The cynic would say that these criticisms are beside the point, that Gavaskar and Shastri are merely doing a job. But in this fan, the sense of disappointment remains. Having watched Gavaskar and Shastri win and save Test matches for India, I ask: why must they be so blind to the ways in which the IPL is bad for Test cricket in India? Having watched them, time and again, help Mumbai defeat my own state, Karnataka, I wonder: why could they not support their former team-mate in the MCA elections against a cricket-illiterate politician?

Historian and cricket writer Ramachandra Guha is the author of A Corner of A Foreign Field and Wickets in the East among other books

RSS Feeds: Ramachandra Guha

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by ashok16 on (August 17, 2011, 22:03 GMT)

I personally prefer the IPL to test matches. Why? the goal is very clear, win the championship, many local players and some interested international players make for good sporting drama, and the game gets over in 3-4hrs. If as Ram Guha says both cannot exist, I would rather get rid of test matches. After all, it is not just my personal opinion but the ad rates of IPL are 10 times more than test matches. And if there are no test matches, IPL will only go up in value. Just like Ram Guha will not write a book nobody wants to read nor will he accept the third lowest publisher's bid as royalty, it is time to say "bye bye" to test cricket.

Posted by   on (August 17, 2011, 8:53 GMT)

Wonderful article. We always knew that Gavaskar is a very biased commentator but it was heartbreaking to hear Shastri's commentry recently. He happened to be very neutral commentator in the past the sudden shift of gears really raised the eyebrows of many. Same applies for Harsha, how nice he was when he did the 1996 WC countdown. What a changeover. Thanks for revealing the insides.

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (August 17, 2011, 7:00 GMT)

I really don't understand the author's gripe and sour mood... Maybe Gavaskar just decided not to meedle in the elections bet V'kar and Deshmukh. And why have such great faith on V'kar when he was singularly responsible for putting an upbeat team under Dravid go into a shell after the previous English tour? Gavaskar and Shastri are paid to comment on a personal capacity as well as be BCCI spokesmen on the DRS issue - which seems to be largely perception driven anyway. Where's the problem especially if their views broadly coincide with BCCI concerns anyway? Shastri in fact is also an ICC spokesman - and he manages to wear all the 3 hats without any problem.

I think Guha should leave cricket alone...

Posted by   on (August 17, 2011, 6:24 GMT)

IPL is good for Indian Cricketers as simple as it is and helps economy too. I will always favor IPL, It gives good platform to youngster to perform well and come into media attention. It also gives them career to earn money. Before IPL Indian perfomance was poor as well, what was excuse then ? We got beaten by Bangladesh in 2007 in World Cup, where was IPL?...We won world cup why IPL didn't come into reason ?....Leave IPL alone, that format providing so many new jobs to India and specially well paying jobs. IPL is healthy for economy and future of being cricketer for young Indian. Always getting carried away with blaming stuff, Indian team got out perform by England team simple as it is. We are behaving foollingly, we have no balling attack and its their homegrounds, and we were not given sufficient practice and selection was poor. Players coming out of long breat and without fitness and enough practice trying to get back in game, and BCCI have no clue of conseuences.

Posted by Meety on (August 17, 2011, 5:40 GMT)

Good article, but I think the motives for the BCCI to pay Gavaskar & Shastri is the most concerning. Next step for BCCI (a political beast), is to place subliminal messages in the cricket broadcasts! Big Brother (not the TV show), has well & truely arrived in India!!!!

Posted by jay57870 on (August 16, 2011, 15:36 GMT)

Virtually all the players - a "generation of gifted and selfless cricketers, among them Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly and Anil Kumble, but perhaps Tendulkar the most" (ref: Guha's "Vintage Wizardry" tribute to Sachin) - have played in the IPL and benefited from it. IPL has been a boon. As many cricketers will tell you, past and present, it has given opportunities to aspiring youngsters (many poor) from all corners of the nation (many small towns) to play and make a living. This real world scenario is not much different from those chronicled in Guha's "A corner of a foreign field." Undeniably, T20 is very much a big part of cricket history in its impact. Market forces will dictate the future direction of cricket. Much as I love Test cricket - my favourite sport as a kid and ardent fan - we have to adjust to the ground realities: It must find its space and co-exist with the shorter formats. (As for Vengsarkar, Gavaskar, Shastri and MCA, Guha is free to present his own views. No comments.)

Posted by kool_Indian on (August 16, 2011, 15:33 GMT)

I totally agree with NumberXI, Anshu_ism & AlokSinghai. So should we say that Mr.guha is a paid agent of anti-bcci nexus/media like cricinfo to write the article just to damn the great like Mr.Gavaskar and a good cricketer/analyst like Mr.Shastri? Also, why is IPL not given any due credit like saying - it may have helped Indian team to face the stiff challenges in the WC 2011 and win the cup bcoz all the players are battle hardened? I think Mr.guha and all those criticizing IPL n Gavaskar/Shastri - should actually get their mind cleared and listen to what gavaskar n shastri comment. They were not happy with youngsters technique n partly blamed IPL for their technique during WI tour. Have some decency and perspective before blasting everythg about IPL/BCCI. There was no IPL before 2008 and rem'ber India was NOT no.1 in tests or wc winners. Also, if IPL is the reason for current loss - then it should have helped India winning all T20 wc's right? Just think guys b4 commenting.

Posted by jay57870 on (August 16, 2011, 15:19 GMT)

It is disappointing to see an eminent historian fall into the usual human trap: Reacting to a single event and using that snapshot to make a point. In this case, playing the blame game for India's Test defeat in England. Instead of pressing the "panic" button, Guha is better off pushing the "pause" button. Take a deep breath and let us reflect on the situation. England clearly beat India fairly and squarely. This time they were better. It happens in sports. One cannot win it all. (Ask Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. Or Tiger Woods. Or Manchester United. Or New York Yankees. On and on.) To blame the IPL as "the main reason India is no longer the No.1 team in Test cricket" is far-fetched. Look at the bigger picture and time horizon. IPL has been around for four popular seasons. And in those same four years, we have seen Team India rise to the top Test spot, that too in dramatic circumstances - recovering from the aftermath of a disastrous Chappell period. All credit goes to Team India. (TBC)

Posted by kasturi on (August 16, 2011, 13:39 GMT)

The article is nice one I agree with your comments and I feel disheartened and sad that the behavior of these people is similar to Paid news. In media, I think it is the credibility and character that is sacrosanct and these guys have ruined. I was astonished to find a statement in one of the leading magazine The Outlook "We also have two eyes, two hands and a stomach" which is very absurd given their stature both economically and socially. Man the guy is the poorest of all :)

Posted by   on (August 16, 2011, 10:51 GMT)

Spot on ram guha .. spot on

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Ramachandra GuhaClose

Chanderpaul, the coach's nightmare

Modern Masters: He developed a rhythm that worked for him and gave him better balance at the crease

    'I spent 95% of my career bowling the same ball'

Angus Fraser talks about his workmanlike bowling, playing second fiddle, his stop-start career, and England in the '90s

    'A coach earns respect by working as hard as the players'

Sanjay Bangar talks about his quick transition from player to coach, his philosophy and the reasons behind Kings XI Punjab's turnaround

    'Swann could bowl length blindfolded'

Erapalli Prasanna on a thoroughbred professional whose basics were extraordinarily strong

The mathematician who loved cricket

Haider Riaz Khan: GH Hardy, a regular at Cambridge, ranked mathematicians and physicists on the 'Bradman class'

News | Features Last 7 days

Champions League T20 still battling for meaning

The thrills are rather low-octane, the skills are a bit lightweight, and the tournament overly India-centric

From Constantine to Chanderpaul

As West Indies play their 500th Test, here's an interactive journey through their Test history

'My kind of bowling style is gone now'

Former New Zealand seamer Gavin Larsen talks about wobbly seam-up bowling, the 1992 World Cup, and his role in the next tournament

Busy keepers, and Waqar's bowleds

Also, high scores and low averages, most ducks in international cricket, and the 12-year-old Test player

Soaring in the 1980s, slumping in the 2000s

In their pomp, West Indies had a 53-13 win-loss record; in their last 99, it is 16-53. That, in a nutshell, shows how steep the decline has been

News | Features Last 7 days