The Pied Piper's Magic Flute

As the Indian team gears up to play in yet another one day tri-series, this time at Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, it is time to question the rationale behind these off-shore matches and also to probe what they mean for the nation at large. 

Let us be candid—the tournament at Kuala Lumpur is hardly expected to boost cricket in Malaysia. In fact, a sample survey, which a few friends were kind enough to conduct for the purposes of this article, demonstrates that 3 in 100 people in KL know that a tournament involving the world’s three leading teams is about to start. 

And, in Australia, the tournament has hardly evoked any murmur. Perhaps the only times people referred to it was when McGrath and Hayden made it back to the one day team and when Gilchrist announced his unavailability citing possible burn out. Blatantlyput, Australia is hardly taking it seriously. As the Australian selector, Andrew Hilditch, has very aptly put it,

 "Gilchrist is a vital member of the Australian Test and one-day side and performs an extremely demanding role…The best way to prepare him physically and mentally for the upcoming summer of cricket is to allow him to continue his training program at home. We consider this to be an ideal preparation for Adam before the ICC Champions Trophy, the Ashes and the 2007 World Cup." 

Even Mahinda Vallipuram, Vice-President of the Malaysia Cricket Association has stated in an interview, "We would certainly like to make it an annual tri-series event, making Malaysia a neutral venue for other teams to come and play…We don't just have the grounds but we have the infrastructure, hotels, an airline hub and a well placed time zone to back us." Interestingly, not once did he mention in the course of the interview that the tournament will help boost local cricket in Malaysia. 

The question that crops up then is why was the BCCI desperate to send the India team to play before amaximum crowd of 7000 Indian expatriates? Even with temporary stands, erected specially for the purposes of the DLF cup, the Kinara Oval can’t house more than 7000 spectators. 

And anyone who watched the first game in tri-series, between West Indies andAustralia, will have seen that there were no more than 1000 spectators in all at the Kinara Academy oval. This was despite The Malaysian Cricket Association (MCA) and the Board of Control for Cricket In India(BCCI) giving away 1,000 free tickets to school children to watch the opening match.In fact, an advertisement was printed in the local newspaper that went thus: 

Schools interested in getting the tickets can contact the MCA office at 03-2031 6761/62 or B. Ramani at 012-3298994

So it is pertinent to ask, why is the BCCI spending $4 million to install floodlights in the venue when any stadium in the Indian heartland or in any of India’s North Eastern states would have been far better off with such an installation? Is it simply to help the 7000 odd to view their cricket better?Is such a huge expense for such a small audience justified? Or is there yet another ulterior motive that goes far beyond the politically correct argument of trying to boost cricket in Malaysia and thus furthering the timeless objective of trying to globalize cricket?

The truth is that the DLF cup in Malaysia is simply a satellite TV bonanza. It is nothing more than attractive programming organized for the Indian satellite television market by the BCCI. Just like the soaps and the serials, which dominate evening television in India, the DLF cup will provide yet another alternative to these in the coming two weeks. At the same time, it is an attractive package for the television industry, not only for the broadcaster which has the rights to beam the games live but also for the news channels engaged in what is nothing less than a war for ratings. Nalin Mehtaputs it beautifully: 

"Unlike any other country in the world, the Indian television industry has consciously ridden on cricket’s shoulders to such an extent that that by 2006, cricket-oriented programming accounted for the greatest expenditure in news gathering across most news channels. So dependent is news television on cricket, for revenues and for viewers; so prominent is cricket in news programming, that it would be fair to call this process the ‘cricketization’ of Indian television." 

It is for these channels that the floodlights are being installed; it is for them that Kuala Lumpur was picked ahead of Toronto. Had it been the latter, matches would have started at seven in the evening India time and continued till the wee hours of dawn. And if played under floodlights, they would have consumed the entire night. In contrast, matches at KL will start at mid day in India and end by nine in the evening. Television programming around the games can thus easily continue till midnight allowing the broadcasters the opportunity to reap real dividends. 

The $4 million floodlights at Kinrara Oval

This is not to say, however, that the entire agenda is driven by economic imperatives. While the monetaryconsideration certainly overshadows all else, the political consideration also sneaks its way in. It is top down cricket imperialism inoperation: Play at a neutral South East Asian venue; provide them with the necessary funds to build infrastructure; contribute somewhat to promoting cricket in uncharted territories and build on votes of these Associate member countries within the ICC and also the ACC. And a strong BCCI is a must to make cricket an attractive proposition for the TV industry. Only if the BCCI is strong enough can it unilaterally decide to sell TV rights for all of India’s off-shore games, even if such games involve Pakistan and only then can it appoint a production house of its choice as host broadcaster. It is a form of neo politico-economic imperialism, where the Americanization model of globalization is turned on its head. 

This was best exemplified when, on 1 May 2006, the sub-continent led by India outwitted Australia and New Zealand in what turned out to be a rather one sided battle for the rights to host the 2011 world cup.Apart from the usual exhilaration a successful bid brings forth, the late sub-continental entry culminating in a euphoric triumph in the face of stiff western resistance drew attention to certain defining truths centering the future of India’s most and perhaps only loved passion. The world cup bid, more persuasively than ever, has brought to the fore the political and economic might of Asian cricket. The bidding also draws attention to the fact that globalization, after all, is not an outright evil plaguing global societies of the twenty first century.

When the sub-continental delegation led by the BCCI and PCB landed in Dubai for the ICC meeting, they had the necessary financial muscle to take on, and overpower the West. The sub-continental financial might was such that it could easily buy out the West Indians, as was alleged in the media, with a promise to help them monetarily before CWC 2007. And in their bank balance, the BCCI-led Asian delegation had elements of aggression that is so historically typical of the West. In fact, the bidding process of the 2011 tournament provides some justification to arguments advanced by globalization champions like Tom Friedman. Friedman often cites an Africanbit of folklore that he feels captures the very essence of the process:

Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It doesn’t matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle. When the sun comes up, you better start running.

Though the Australasian gazelle had started running way before the Asian lion had even come off its blocks, Asia had the strength to catch up. Thus while cricket has helped India establish a place in the world parliament of nations, the cricket field has also become an instrument to coerce the very global West, lending credence to the saying that globalization continues to be a romantic term with different meanings for differentpeople—success for the powerful and eclipse for the powerless. Only, in this case, the power centers have been reversed. 

Indian coach Greg Chapell and support staff at Kinrara Oval

And as mentioned earlier, satellite television plays a central role in this role reversal because of its unique relationship with Indian cricket. Why are they such good bedfellows despite the high costs of international cricket coverage? Simply becauseif television had not generated the money it does for cricket, the organization of these tournaments would not be feasible. On the other hand, these tournaments are major attractions for the television industry for wooing prospective advertisers. 

Given the structure of satellite television in India, in which there is an extreme reliance on advertising in the absence of proper monitoring of households with access to cable, cricket is like the Pied Piper’s magic flute, which has a lasting charm on advertisers. Also, as Nalin Mehta argues, 

"Cricket is the most tele-friendly game on the planet. According to a TAM study, a single game of cricket affords 127 different ways to advertise a product on television. In 2001, for instance, as many as 473 brands advertised on cricket for 16,400 advertising spots on television. For television in general, cricket is a predictable news event, for which advertising can be bought and sold well in advance. For news television, in particular, cricket’s centrality to notions of Indian identity offers an opportunity to capture audiences and advertising."

Also, with the satellite channels starting to target the diaspora with live feeds on the web, the reliance on cricket is sure to rise in the months to come. This is because cricket, religion at home and a symbolic flexed muscle in the international arena, is India’s best known global brand name. In recent times, cricket has emerged somewhat like the ubiquitous "Indian curry" that is fancied as an "authentic" flavor of India the world over. 

And given that cricket has been crucial in fashioning people’s identification with a consumerist ethos within a liberalizing society and economy, it seems that it is destined to be thenation's leading newsmaker in the years to come making it a darling of the television industry. It is for this reason, besides many others, that modern Indian cricket is enmeshed in politics and this mesh will be pulled tighter in the years and decades ahead. 

The takeover of the Indian cricket board by the new dispensation under Sharad Pawar in November 2005 was indeed a pointer to what lies ahead. While it is true that politicians have always dabbled in cricket (NKP Salve, Madhavrao Scindhia and the list can go on) and Indian cricket was hardly ever left tocricketers—Jagmohan Dalmiya was no cricketer for example— the scale of political interference we now see is unprecedented. WhileLalu Prasad Yadav heads the Bihar Cricket Association and Arun Jaitley is the President of the DDCA, Sharad Pawar heads both the Maharastra Cricket Association and the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Narhari Amin, yet another politician heads Gujrat and Farooq Abdullah is the President of the Jammu Kashmir Cricket Association.

Such is the power and appeal of cricket today that even when India is not doing too well on the field interest hardly wanes. In the Victorian era cricket was a political tool of Anglo Saxon purpose to civilize the world. Today it seems that an Eastern economic imperialism rooted in cricket is about to commence and the link between cricket and satellite television is central to this commencement.

This is why every match is dissected across many channels in great detail, with the media alternating between baying for a player’s blood and praising him to the sky. This media hype explains the large-scale convergence of politicians around the cricket field. As agriculture minister Shard Pawar is on television not more than once every fortnight. As BCCI President he is on television more than twice a day...

the Indian team during net practice at Kinrara Oval

Finally, the question that begs to be asked is whether this linkage between cricket and television is limited to being a money spinner for both the BCCI and the television industry or does it have a broader significance for the nation both at home and in the diaspora? In other words, are tournaments like the one at Kuala Lumpur examples of simple role reversals of globalization or do they have further complex dimensions that continue to remain ignored? 

What these tournaments help accomplish in this age of globalization is they help to cement enclaves of Indian identity based on cricket. To go a stepfurther—it can be suggested that they help Indianize the global Indian. Thus when the Indian board seeks to organize a tournament in North America or South East Asia, what it is in effect doing is contradicting the central tenet of globalization by localizing spheres of Indian influence in these regions. Spheres, which are then made known at home by satellite television channels thus contributing to a strengthening of an Indian identity. This process is profoundly different from globalization. When for example American multi nationals enter foreign markets and take over large shares, they are in effect Americanizing the world. With cricket it is different. By organizing tournaments in the West or in South East Asia, India can never hope to Indianize these regions. This is essentially because the export exponential of cricket is profoundly different from that of Coke or Pepsi and also because the local foundations of these tournaments will continue to be dominated by Indians expatriates clinging on to their sport. 

Thus whether India wins at Kuala Lumpur or not, the BCCI and the Indian television industry have already won their matches. The wedding can only get more colorful with an Indian victory.