Eastern son
Sourav Ganguly fired Bengal's imagination. He was a talisman the state had waited too long for
Soumya Bhattacharya
10-Nov-2008
![]()
| ||
I am writing this in the early-morning Sunday quiet of my Mumbai flat, an
eye on the clock, my nerves tingling a bit, the sense of keyed-up
anticipation that all addicts know flowing through my system as I wait for
the fourth day's play in Nagpur to begin.
I am relishing the wait; the hours leading up to the first ball are an
excruciatingly slow, gorgeously pleasurable wind-up. Thank heavens for Test
cricket - again: play gets underway as early as 9.30am.
It's a big day in a big game in a big series. But hang on. Isn't there
something else too? Yes, at some point later today, Sourav Ganguly is likely
to come out to bat for the last time in his international career.
I have just returned from Kolkata, my - and Ganguly's - hometown, and the
public discourse over there in clubs, bars and street corners (sorry, that
may not be a fabulously representative sample, but those are the places I
tend to hang out at when I go to Kolkata on my annual visit) was dominated by
the former captain and his decision to quit. Was he pushed? Should he
have quit? Couldn't he have played for a little while longer? Oh, Dada!
Hell, the largest-selling Bengali daily put Ganguly in as part of the headline the
day Sachin Tendulkar got his 40th Test hundred. (Ganguly was 27 not out at
stumps.)
You wouldn't think it talking to the man on the street and reading the
Bengali papers but there is among many members of the educated elite in
Kolkata a tendency to go against the grain and profess no extra love for
Ganguly. The way it works is to specifically say that the masses
illogically, irrationally support Ganguly. In a way, this stands to
reason: Kolkata is a city of self-conscious irony; it is bashfully
apologetic about itself and is suffused with a severe abhorrence of
self-congratulation in certain circles.
Several of my friends resort to this sort of thing. I never have. I have
always been an admirer of Ganguly's. And I insist that my admiration has
nothing to do with being parochial. Nor do I think I need to go against the
grain in this respect to exhibit my distinctiveness from the masses.
But I have been thinking about it this morning. And, you know, I've been
asking myself if it is at all possible to entirely divorce parochialism of
some form or the other from support. Isn't all support a sort of tribalism?
Isn't that what it's all about? I mean, I am a big fan of Roger
Federer and John McEnroe and Diego Maradona, but with cricket, a sport
in which we are actually good? You tell me.
Well, Bengal's fanaticism about Ganguly is to do with parochialism. I am
not sure if this is something to be bashfully apologetic about. Sport, you
see, as Nick Hornby writes in The Complete Polysyllabic Spree, is part
of popular culture, however much some of us try to deny it sometimes. And
Bengal has been traditionally big on culture - and tremendously proud of it.
If you don't have much else to show - like, say, top industrialists, or a
lot of money, what else can you do? Culture is your badge of privilege, of
genuine distinction.
Now we always had people who would talk about cricket; who would pride
themselves on forming the most literate, intelligent cricket crowd in India
(a patent lie. I think it went by a name in the popular press: congnoscenti); who would say that the Eden Gardens had the most atmosphere (a nebulous assertion because one isn't quite certain what "atmosphere" might really, objectively, mean); and who would talk about Kolkata's culture of following cricket in a, well, cultured way.
We had everything, you see. The trouble was, there was no one to follow. We
didn't have the players. I mean, okay, Pankaj Roy was from Bengal, but to
find people who could recall him in his pomp - well, let's just say you won't
find too many of them hanging around at street corners or clubs or bars.
Ganguly fired Bengal's imagination because he was the talisman Bengal had
been looking for for decades; he gave us someone to specifically root for.
Every state had its players in the national team. Where were Bengal's?
Here was a state that had historically produced nearly no Test players of
any stature. In Ganguly came the answer to years of prayer for a hometown
boy who had made good. And how good he made. But that's not quite why I admire Ganguly. Or at least that is what I think.
All this I have figured out, keyed up, in the early-morning, Sunday quiet of my Mumbai flat, waiting for play to begin.
I think I am a huge Ganguly fan because of the way he has changed Indian cricket. I have written about this before, but it bears repeating. (Fans can't ever have too much of repetition.)
Becoming captain in November 2000, he forged on the anvil of his
spectacular, stare-you-in-the-eye-and-not-blink, tough, provocative
leadership a side that went from being crumbling-pitch bullies in India to
the team that has beaten the (still) world champions, Australia, on more
occasions than any other side in this century; the side that has won around
the world; the side that has played with audacity and impunity and courage
and guts and beauty.
Indian captains were supposed to be polite, stoic, decent, not
overly, demonstrably ambitious, middle class in sensibility if not
lineage. Ganguly changed all that.
He was the fulcrum around which the contemporary game's premier
confrontation, India versus Australia, was built. Indian cricket was always
about silk, about splitting cover and extra cover with neither fielder
moving. It took Ganguly to put the steel in it.
Bengal's fanaticism about Ganguly is to do with parochialism. I am not sure if this is something to be bashfully apologetic about. Sport, as Nick Hornby writes, is part of popular culture, however much some of us try to deny it sometimes | |||
This has been a thrilling decade - why, a thrilling century, I realise as I write this - to be an Indian cricket fan. And we shall be remiss if we don't acknowledge the extent of Ganguly's contribution to that fact.
It is probably true that his record as India's most successful captain ever
has somewhat obscured and taken the attention away from his achievements as
a batsman. His Test average has never fallen below 40. He is India's
fourth-highest Test run-scorer and fourth-highest century-maker. He has
played more Tests than all but a handful of players in the history of the game, and
he has, in them, offered us numerous beautiful, gutsy, unforgettable
performances.
Ganguly himself is acutely aware of this fact. A couple of days ago he was
quoted as saying (in - where else but? - a Bengali daily) that he has made
more than 2000 runs in the past 22 Tests. He is very conscious of his
stats. And why not? If others aren't, perhaps not as much as they ought to
be, the man who made the most stirring comeback in contemporary Indian
cricket ought to be. It's not something to be exactly ashamed of, is it? Or bashfully apologetic about, perhaps?
But the fact remains that more than Ganguly the batsman, it is Ganguly
the captain - the "game changer", as the marketing blokes like to call it - I
shall remember. And I shall miss him when he is there no more to remind me
of how he did what he did.
Wish you luck, Sourav. Have a good one, mate - as your favourite opponents
would say - now that it is all over. And thanks for what you gave us.
It's still nearly an hour to go for the start of play.
Soumya Bhattacharya is the editor of Hindustan Times in Mumbai. A (sort of) sequel to his book You Must Like Cricket? will be out in 2009