It couldn’t be more ironic.
The committee observed that while certain series like the Ashes attract crowds, the symptoms of death are more pronounced in lower-ranked countries. But this observation is true for even a high-ranked nation like India, which regards itself as the spiritual home of the game. So, when Sachin Tendulkar got the 11,954th Test run of his career to break Brian Lara’s record, there were only isolated clots of spectators in the Mohali stadium last year. When India beat Australia in a terrific battle of wits in Nagpur, and Sourav Ganguly walked away from Test cricket, there were fewer people present. Crowds have been better at traditional Test centres like Chennai and Calcutta, but the decline in the numbers over the years is palpable.
Sometimes, it seems that the cricket associations aren’t too keen to fill the stands. Before the Test against Australia in Nagpur last November, this correspondent met a UK national of Indian origin who had been going around in circles trying to buy tickets. They weren’t available online, nor in the city. He went to the stadium—located 18 km out of the city—to discover there was no ticket office in the grand new facility. Directed to a roadside shack, he was told he couldn’t buy the tickets with a credit card. “I wanted several high-end tickets—I can’t be expected to carry around lakhs of rupees,” he grumbled. A month later in Mohali, a bunch of England fans was mystified by the absence of the ticket office. No one seemed keen on their watching the match, even though officials ferried children to the ground from towns across Punjab so that the stands would not be shamefully bare.
This indifference to the paying spectator isn’t incidental. “A state association would get some Rs 15 crore from the BCCI as an annual grant,” an official told Outlook. “Getting more people to watch the game only means there would be the difficulty of managing the crowds. So, no one frets if there are no crowds.” You get the money from the BCCI anyway.
Perhaps this is also the reason Test cricket in India hardly gets marketed. Those who venture to the games are left to bake in the sun, corralled in barricaded stands. “Abroad, it’s much more fun—it’s like a picnic, you can get your own food and have a nice time,” says Javed Miandad, the former Pakistan captain. “But the administrators in this part of the world aren’t bothered about the cricket and the fans, they care only for the money.”
In the absence of marketing, wouldn’t it be better to hold Test matches only in centres that pull in crowds, like Calcutta and Mumbai? Ramachandra Guha, historian and avowed purist, told Outlook, “That was amazing...Australia vs India was a grudge series, and you hold a match in Nagpur, 18 km outside the city, and there’s no transport! Bangalore had fairly adequate crowds of 8-10 thousand.... It likely is due to Bangalore having this culture of appreciating Test cricket, as do Calcutta, Chennai, Mumbai.” But even the audience of 8-10 thousand is dismal compared with the heaving, surging stadiums of past.
There’s also politics to countenance—matches are allotted by turn and often, critics say, with prejudice. An official of the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) complains there are few matches in Calcutta, which has always drawn huge crowds for Tests, because the CAB is headed by Jagmohan Dalmiya, who’s daggers drawn with the current BCCI czars. Empty new stadiums, destitute of ambience, can hardly be expected to generate interest in the classic format of the game for those in their early teens.
Also, many grounds lack competitive wickets, turning the matches either one-sided or excruciatingly boring—thus killing the appetite for Tests. Former captain Dilip Vengsarkar regrets that the icc hasn’t yet thought it wise to improve the quality of playing tracks. “It’s such an important point, and it’s not been addressed—simply amazing,” he told Outlook. Add to this the lure of easy money. As Vengsarkar points out, “If players opt for T20 over Tests at age 31-32, like Andrew Flintoff has done, or as Andrew Symonds and Chris Gayle could do, then it’s a concern. These are among the best players in the world.”
He insists money can’t be allowed to undermine the primacy of Tests. “Test cricket is the heart of cricket. It’s important that Test cricket should provide cricketers for one-dayers and T20, it can’t be the other way round,” Vengsarkar says. “T20 players can’t play Tests; some of them can’t even play 50-over ODIs. It’s impossible to argue with money and stardom. Since from some T20 games a player can earn five times the money he makes for a Test match, players, right from early teens, need to be educated that Tests are supreme, and no amount of money must be allowed to let their motivation fall,” he adds. Agrees Miandad: “It’s all right to make money from T20. Every cricketer knows T20 is easy, with practically no accountability. But the boards have a larger responsibility to save Test cricket.”
Those who love Test cricket are surprised that players perform in empty stadiums in India. “I’m deeply disappointed that Indians seem to have turned their backs on Test cricket in favour of the stunted form of the game,” muses veteran cricket writer David Frith. “I’d always thought they were thoughtful and meditative people, always ready to appreciate feats of concentration and stamina. But it seems there would be no applause for a Mankad or a Hazare these days. I’m at a loss to explain.”
To save Test cricket in these very commercial times, audiences must be made an interested party—their interest should be the joy, and the abiding memory of it, that only the unique tension of a great Test contest can provide. The BCCI must try to facilitate just that.
Test cricket might not die but the manner in which the game is being conducted and the huge divide within the icc means it is always under threat (A Test of Initiative, Aug 3). It is too precious to be held to ransom by a handful of self-serving officials. While T20 won’t disappear, it’s time cricketers—both past and present—step in to ensure better management for its bright future.Anil Kotwal, Adelaide
Although we have more results in Tests these days, I propose a stipulated 80 overs per innings format. For the growing impatience (in the manner of play) in players, T20s and odis are to be blamed. Point is, the incidence of draws should be further reduced, and more spectators drawn in.Dip, Dhaka
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT