The intervention of a section of politicians and social commentators has added a new, mainly retrogressive, dimension to the continuing controversy over the Indian Premier League (IPL).
Even as the focus remains on suspected shady deals, the resignation of Shashi Tharoor as minister of state for external affairs and the abrasive working style of IPL commissioner Lalit Modi, a group of politicians and commentators has tried to link the cricketing extravaganza to the pitfalls of modernism and consumerism.
While Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav has turned his ire on cricket itself, describing it as a ‘videshi’ (foreign) game which has distorted the sporting scene in India, Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) leader Sitaram Yechury has accused industrial magnates of exploiting the popular passion for the game to make money.
Forever on the lookout for issues, Bal Thackeray of the parochial Shiv Sena has also entered the fray to call for saving the “gentleman’s game” although the acts of his followers in digging up cricket pitches can hardly be included in the category of graceful conduct.
Clearly, the scam-tainted atmosphere enveloping IPL has given these critics of Western influences and neo-liberal economics an opportunity to air their views with renewed vigour. They had been lying low till now following their defeat in the last general election, which was seen as an endorsement of the government’s forward-looking policies and market-oriented attitude.
Since the IPL was interpreted as a manifestation of the spirit of free enterprise with its intermingling of sporting talent, business acumen and uninhibited entertainment, exemplified by the introduction of attractive young women as cheer leaders for the first time in India, its fall from grace has been grist to the mill of its detractors.
While the Communist Party of India’s (CPI) Gurudas Dasgupta described the frenetic Twenty-20 format as a “caricature” of cricket and favoured a return to five-day Test matches, social commentators are moaning over the huge expenses for the gala events even as the poor suffer in silence.
This combination of regressive politics – Mulayam Singh is not only against cricket but also against computers and the English language – and socialistic concern for the underprivileged is not new in India. One aspect of this attitude is the belief that Maoists are really fighting for the poor and deserve sympathy rather than being seen as an internal security threat.
Another is the condemnation of anything foreign and flashy like the IPL. The subtext of this outlook is the conviction that any event which is so glitzy violates the country’s traditions of sobriety and restraint. Since such a display of conservative preferences is expected to touch a chord in the Indian heart, it is not surprising that the line-up of critics ranges from the rural hinterland of north India’s cow belt to city-based trade union leaders.
It is doubtful, however, whether their stance will yield political benefits. The reason is the IPL has turned out to be one of the most successful sporting ventures in the world and a favourite of the growing middle class. According to Newsweek, it has been valued at $4.13 billion, which is comparable to America’s National Football League’s value of $4.5 billion.
The resultant beneficiaries are not only the reputed foreign players but also a large number of talented local young men. Although only a handful of them may be able to make it to the national team, their income from IPL will undoubtedly help them move up the social ladder.
Besides, the chance they are getting to rub shoulders with some legendary figures in the game, like Shane Warne and Adam Gilchrist, as also outstanding players like Jacques Kallis, Andrew Symonds, Kevin Pieterson, Paul Collingwood and others (not to mention the national icons) is an enriching experience.
It is worth recalling that many foreign players avoided coming to India earlier because of the heat and unhygienic conditions. But now the lure of money and the more improved living conditions make them flock to the country.
Their arrival has also made India stand out as an attractive sporting venue at a time when the Pakistan-Afghanistan region has regressed into medievalism, where no international events are likely in the foreseeable future. The IPL, therefore, marks a step forward in India’s emergence as a major regional power.
Like the so-called mall-and-multiplex culture, which is derided by the traditionalists because of the emphasis on shopping and eating out, the IPL has come to reflect the lifestyle of young, middle class Indians, many of whom earn more in a month than their fathers did in a year.
It is not without reason, therefore, that the two major parties – the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – have not echoed what the regional and the Left parties have been saying about the IPL because they do not want to alienate this vocal social sector.
Instead, the two have rightly focussed on bringing greater transparency into the affairs of the various teams and their sponsors so that the baby is not thrown out with the bath water. They are aware that any decision to “nationalise” IPL will be disastrous, for it will not only discourage the foreigners from participation but also entail huge cutbacks in expenditure to the detriment of advertisement revenue and even media coverage.
Yet, the free hand that was given to organisers cannot be allowed any longer because they haven’t shown the requisite maturity and responsibility. There is no alternative, therefore, for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), whose brainchild the IPL is, to take matters into its own hands.
