His feet would move with unlearnt, animal speed, his bat would flash and in the twinkle of an eye, the ball would cross the cover boundary. His batting skill was supreme, his mind calm and unshakeable. Now, though, due to the fear and loathing caused by career-terminating treatment at the hands of the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA), this young man doesn’t want to be photographed or named in our story. He’s given up cricket, his remarkable achievements reduced to parchments on the walls.
Jitender Monga, 40
Years active: 1980s
Story: A bright junior-level prospect, couldn't get to the state team. Says if you want to punish a good player, send him to DDCA.
Hope and fear cause most players to speak in hushed tones—the fear of reprisal, the hope of some day playing for the state and country. Some leave Delhi for other states, some simply stop playing—and they too want to keep their peace. Jitender Monga, say those who watched him as a teenager in the 1980s, was Ranji Trophy material but couldn’t make it to junior teams. “I was considered a certainty for U-17, but finally wasn’t named in the squad of 24,” he says. “It was difficult to take that in my teens, and I stopped playing at 18.”
Since those days, the tentacles of entrenched corruption have only spread wider and deeper. Vivek Khurana was a fine left-arm spinner; he’s also an exception, willing to speak about the people who’ve destroyed his career. For six years running, he played junior cricket for Delhi, each year becoming its highest wicket-taker, aggregating 125 wickets from 25 matches. “From all over India, they had selected 20 players for the National Cricket Academy camp in 2001...and I was one of them!” he says. “Right after that, I took 28 wickets in four matches.” But another lad who’d taken one wicket in four matches was selected for the Ranji team.
Khurana did get to play a Ranji game as a 17-year-old, but he believes the selection was insidious. “They wanted to finish me,” he says. “I, a greenhorn, was thrown before lions, Yuvraj Singh and Dinesh Mongia. It was a hellish wicket for a spinner, I wasn’t given the field I wanted, and was given the ball when it was soft, after 50 overs.” Wicketless, he was dropped. But Khurana believed he peaked in 2006: “When the squad was named, I wasn’t in!” He adds, “They knew that if I was in the 30, I’d likely get a game, so I was eliminated right there.” The next year, he was not even among the top 60, and he gave up the unequal struggle.
Khurana, and a host of spinners over the last few years, were treated no better than spare parts because the son of a Sports Committee member is a spinner. To keep his career alive, all spinners in Delhi became targets. Other specialists aren’t spared either. For instance, the players who helped Delhi to its solitary national Under-17 and Under-19 titles in 2003 and 2004, respectively. Most prominent players of those teams have either stopped playing or joined other teams. “Ankur Garg took nine wickets in an innings in an Under-17 game, and he’s stopped playing,” says a teammate who’s still around. “Pritpal Singh, a very fine batsman, got a century in the Under-19 final. He’s stopped playing. And where have the other spinners of the time gone?”
DDCA sports secretary Sunil Dev declared that if Sewhag wanted to leave Delhi to join Haryana, DDCA wouldn’t try to change his mind. “Imagine what they’d do to the younger players,” says a player. “They don’t want to retain promising players because that’s the only way to let their below-par sons go to the top.” Victims of such deviousness are aplenty. Rahul Dewan scored a triple century for Delhi Under-22, but wasn’t selected for Ranji; he shifted to Haryana. Anureet Singh went to Railways, Mayank Sardana to Punjab, Robin Bist to Rajasthan and Deepak Sharma to Assam. Manan Sharma’s case is curious—he was among the India Under-19 probables and, called to the Delhi Ranji nets, wasn’t named among its 58 Under-19 probables! He has shifted to Haryana.
Not surprisingly, the Delhi junior teams have been relegated to the second tier of top competitions. “There’s no worry because now all sorts of dubious players can play for Delhi,” says a player. Sometimes, as many as 32 players get to play in a season. “This way, all players from powerful clubs get to play,” he says.
There are other favours to ensure electoral support. Officials of different clubs are given contracts to supply services to DDCA, from transportation, tents and catering to equipment and gear. The posts of selectors too can be traded. “If you control 10 votes, you could bargain to become a selector or coach,” says a former Delhi player.
Women are routinely used to buy favour—often they are relatives of young cricketers. Wags in the DDCA say that one official prefers to be a selector of the junior-most teams as kids are usually accompanied by their young mothers! There are really sad stories which seem funny; an under-15 selector, for instance, moved up to the U-17, U-19 and U-22 committees as his nephew grew older.
DDCA president Arun Jaitley’s assurance of a clean-up has brought an uncertain end to the confrontation between his organisation and Sehwag. But cricketers aren’t that sanguine, especially the bitter, silent ones who’ve stopped playing the game.
DDCA president Arun Jaitley is a politician first (The Copybook Burns, Sep 7). His promise of a clean-up will remain just that! As for DDCA, it does not seem interested in cricket, only the power and money that come with it. Unless committed, high-profile ex-cricketers man these associations at state and national levels, these petty officials will rule the roost and destroy the careers of promising cricketers!
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