Go, the government!

I was surprised -- pleasantly -- when, on Sunday evening, I got a call from a friend telling me that the Government of India has announced a moratorium on the Indian team's participation in one day tournaments at non-regular venues for a period of three years.

I was puzzled when, later that same evening, a national television channel in its news programme aired a debate on the GoI order -- and one very famous former cricketer, and one very senior journalist, talked of nothing other than Sheikh Abdur Rehman Bukhatir's 'confidence' that cricket in Sharjah would be unaffected by India's participation, and of India's 'loss' by not playing there.

And to round it off nicely, I got here this morning, opened the mailbox, and got hit with a flood of mail the tenor of which (correction -- the majority of which) was startling, to say the least.

Here is the text of one mail -- picked at random, but typical of the kind I found awaiting me today:

"At a time when every cricket loving person around the world along with the administrators who think for the benefit of the game are looking forward to globalize the game to bring more and more nations to the forefront, it is a disgusting decision taken by the Government of India.

"It is understandable that India will not play against Pakistan under the political disturbances prevailing between the two countries, but India not to play at non regular venues is a decision completely unacceptable to any cricket lover. it is a shameful decision on the GOI's part which has bowed down every Indians head in shame.

"The ban has been made for a period of three years which is again very mysterious to one. Is the Govt. sure enough that within that period tension between the two countries will end. It is an utterly disgusting and baseless decision made by the Government which has broken the hearts of many hard core followers of the game, like me, around the world. Hope sanity prevails by this Govt. and it changes its decision soon."

Sorry, I just don't get it. In the first place, I have never quite understood the argument that playing cricket in Sharjah helps "globalize" the game. How, precisely? If India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka play in Sharjah in April this year, how does it spread the game to more countries, or enhance interest in say Kenya and Canada, not to mention Timbuktu?

What surprised me even more is that 9 out of every ten mails received here linked the decision to India's political differences with Pakistan.

Is our collective memory, then, so very short after all? Less than a year ago, the cricket-following segment of this nation was alternating between fury and despair, at each fresh revelation in the match-fixing scandal. And at that time, the overwhelming consensus was that playing meaningless one-day tournaments in non-regular venues was the prime cause for corruption.

Today, the selfsame public is up in arms because India will not play in Sharjah, Toronto, et al? Why, pray?

There are several questions within the main question. The first relates to Pakistan -- and in this context, it needs emphasizing that nowhere in its order does the government mention Pakistan. The government policy on Pakistan remains in situ -- specific tours and tournaments will be considered in context of the political situation prevailing at that point in time, and permission will be granted or refused on that basis alone. So what exactly is wrong with that?

The second question relates to the ban on non-regular venues -- and again, what is wrong with such a ban? If we admit that match-fixing has in recent times plagued Indian cricket, if we further admit that the proliferation of standalone one day tournaments has contributed to the malaise, then by an extension of that logic, is it not right, and proper, that India stop playing in such tournaments as a means of curbing that evil?

That in turn leads to two peripheral questions -- firstly, is there any real, valid reason why India's frequent participation in Sharjah needs to be reviewed? And secondly, is there any truth in the suggestion that India's cricket has been harmed, not benefited, by an overemphasis on ODIs?

Both questions have been answered, in detail, during our earlier analysis of the CBI's case against the BCCI -- so we will merely give the relevant links here.

One dayers versus Test cricket

The Sharjah syndrome

Taking off from there, consider this -- we have, for years now, been lamenting the fact that we do not win abroad. And when looking at the reasons, we keep saying that we don't play enough Tests (vide the story linked above), and more to the point, we don't play enough tours abroad.

Now consider this: As per the ICC schedule, India (having just finished a series against Australia) will go to Zimbabwe, then Sri Lanka, then South Africa, and then host England (all in 2001). In 2002, India will host Zimbabwe, then go to the West Indies, then England, then host the West Indies before going away again, this time to New Zealand. And in 2003, Pakistan hosts India, India then hosts New Zealand, and ends the year flying down to Australia.

Check that out -- that makes 13 Test series for India inside the next three years. Out of which eight are away. And the team has played every single one of the major nations in that span of time.

Would you rather the team played in Sharjah eight times?

It would seem, on balance, that the Government of India has in fact done what we have been begging the BCCI to do for years now -- to wit, end this nonsensical practise of filling the cricketing calendar up with meaningless one day bashes, and focus on reciprocal Test tours instead.

A whole heap of crocodile tears are also being shed about how Indian cricketers, who have been beneficiaries of the Sharjah series in the past, will now lose out. That article on Sharjah spells out some of the anomalies relating to the CBFS -- but an even more telling argument is furnished by the BCCI's annual reports themselves.

For instance, the 1998-1999 balance sheet shows that the board, in its Cricketer's Benevolent Fund, has a sum of Rs 15,548,566. And there is more coming in, every time there is a tour or a home series.

Instead of using the bulk of that money as an interest-earning device, what is wrong with giving it out to the deserving? Similarly, for home series, what is wrong with earmarking a sum -- even two per cent of the total profit -- per Test and ODI, and handing it over to beneficiaries decided upon before each tour?

And finally, there is this -- if you go through the last few series played at non-regular venues, you will find that in all those instances, the lead sponsors have been Indian companies. In fact, Indian companies have contributed 70-80 per cent of sponsorship money.

Isn't it time to ensure, through proper distribution of tours and fixtures, that it is Indian cricket the reaps the benefits of the readiness of the sponsors to give of their plenty?

Mail your comments