Burn Out!

In the next 14 months the Indian cricket team is due to play 22 Test matchesand 41 one day internationals. In a period of 420 days, India will play 161 daysof international cricket. In other words, the team will be in action once every72 hours. One should also take into account the amount of travel the playerswill have to undertake.

Even in a home series fixture, the travel from one part of the country toanother, (the recent series with Australia is proof enough) is an extremelytiresome proposition. With away test matches against Sri Lanka and South Africa,and a one day series against Australia, the flying time will take up a fairshare of the schedule. Take this together with numerous commitments to the state,province, club, office and finally the sponsors, and the players no longer seemobjects of envy for the peace loving spectator.

This state of things indicates that all talk of limiting the number of oneday internationals to be played in a calendar year to allow the playerssubstantial rest is biting the dust. The BCCI while finalising these encountersdo not for a minute take into account the well being of the players. They do so,knowing fully well that the players are in no position to protest.

Unlike in Australia, where the players association headed by Tim May wieldsconsiderable power, in India, the talk of forming a players association is stillfar from gaining fruition. With players like Tendulkar, despite being in aposition to dictate terms to the board, preferring to take a non confrontationalstand, the BCCI is only expected to continue functioning in a similarinsensitive manner in the near future.

With a strong captain in Saurav Ganguly at the helm of affairs the situationwas expected to improve. But with his own form being a matter of concern, Sauravis temporarily better off being a 'yes man' of the board. Finally, with JohnWright as coach the BCCI has a field day. A low profile personality, Wright isonly concerned with his coaching, rather than trying to interfere with theframing of schedules.

In this situation, resort to unsportsmanlike conduct is no longer a distantpossibility. Without resorting to that it is often impossible for a player tocontinue performing at his best on most occasions. Players, aware of the factthat their careers are considerably shorter than in the past, are forced toresort to energy increasing substances to maximise their prospective earnings.

On account of cut throat competition for a place on the national team even atemporary loss of form is certain to cost a player his place. Haunted by thisrealisation, the temptation to refuse assured success becomes almost impossible.Every professional knows that he only has a decade or so in which to reap hisprofessional rewards.

With this notion always haunting the players, the after effects ofirresponsible behaviour seem excusable on most occasions. The question thatautomatically comes to the fore in this situation pertains to the role of theBCCI and the government in tackling excessive cricket. Why is it that thealready rich BCCI formulates such unrealistic fixtures and why is that that anotherwise extremely moralist sports ministry does not interfere to preserve thewell being of the players?

If the ministry thinks itself capable of deciding who to play with and underwhat circumstances, it is incumbent upon them to check any misuse of power onthe part of the BCCI. Yet, there has till date been no stir from eitherorganisation on this count. This is because cricket, both realise, is one of themost profitable sectors of the Indian economy.

While the board earns huge amounts from guarantee money and the sale oftelevision rights, the government earns huge amounts in foreign exchange fromany domestic series.

The cricketers, pawns in this money making game, often fail to perceive thisprocess of exploitation. While they endorse consumer items on behalf ofmultinational corporate giants helping these firms to appeal to the masses, theyunknowingly become metacommodities and are marketed by the BCCI, the governmentand these firms to suit their ends. This commodification of the cricketer is thebiggest evil excessive commercialisation of the game has given birth to.

The average Indian cricketer, while being a national icon has also become avictim of the processes of our capitalist modernisation. His existence is guidedby the dictates of the sponsors and his actions are bound by the norms of thecorporate market.

It is common knowledge that Indian stars endorsing Pepsi stay away from anyon field Coca-Cola drinks trolley on the ground. Even in moments of utmostconcentration a slip up is unpardonable. The cricketer is the safest marketablecommodity in India, one that is certain to yield rich harvests, a fact thathelps explain the inhuman schedules prepared to by the BCCI.

This schedule if looked at closely spells doom for the other Indian sports aswell. With the sponsors almost certain to bid for a cricket match against anyother sporting activity in the country, round the year cricket is fast eatinginto the market of all other sports. The creation/fruition of a sportinghierarchy resulting from this process is certain to make cricketers unpopularamong their peers.

The latter, feeling deprived and with due reason, are bound to look atcricket with an attitude of envy, eventually leading to jealousy and hatred. Themass appeal of cricket it seems is fast becoming its own enemy. The BCCI and thegovernment are unconsciously aiding this process: the alienation of rivalsporting fraternities who justifiably demand the popularity and adulation thatleading cricketers enjoy.

This process of hierarchisation is furthered by cricket's unparalleledsupremacy over others as a television sport. The relationship between cricketand the camera, a fact discussed at length by Mukul Kesavan has largelycontributed to the evolution of this hierarchy. In a totally different contextthis factor also helps to explain the greater commercial success of Aamir Khan'slatest venture, Lagaan over his other 'sporting films', 'Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikander'and 'Ghulam'.

Cricket's ability (as of no other) of being captured on the small screen gives it a head start over other sports in the country. Unlike soccer orhockey its two potential rivals, cricket is much better suited to televisioncoverage. The cricket pitch is ideal for represention on the television frameunlike the football or hockey field.

A random still photograph of an ongoing hockey or football match fails togive the viewer any perceptible idea of the positioning of the ball. In crickethowever the pitch and the direction of the batsman's shot, if evident in thestill, is enough to convey the basic impression as to what the  type ofshot had been. Further, the brief gap between overs, one that suits the showingof commercials also contributes to making cricket a better bet for televisioncoverage.

This cricketing hegemony explains the petition filed by Sunita Godara in theDelhi courts. She justifiably demands equal treatment for all sports persons. Itis born as much of a threat perception as from a feeling of helplessness. Inthis situation it is incumbent upon us, people associated with the media to bechampioning her cause for dual reasons.

On the one hand this will save our cricketers from burn-outs, an inevitableconsequence of excessive playing. On the other,  it will also help in theevolution of an egalitarian (or at least near egalitarian)  sportingfraternity' in the country. It is time to pull up our socks and  force theBCCI and the sports ministry to sit up and  take notice.