India Versus Australia: Of Cricketing And Media Wars

One of the unexpected beneficiaries of the ongoing spat between Indian and Australian cricket governing bodies has been an editorial writer in The Indian Express. Looking for a moment to use the trendy phrase, the strapline for an edit in the paper says: “Steve Smith ‘brain fade’ during the Bangalore test match was cricket’s post-truth moment”. The problem is that the use of post-truth here is as naïve as it’s in context of politics.

Politics, or for that matter, on- and off-field competitive sports were not truth-seeking or fact-based activities at any point in history. They have always been post-truth. Anyway, it has been almost seven decades since George Orwell famously described modern sporting culture as “war minus shooting”.

In cricketing folklore, Bodyline gave reasons for believing Orwell. More often than not, while reporting and commenting on sporting battles, media becomes part of the contests itself or unwittingly shapes the mythology of on-field gladiators.

Closer home, staying with the war metaphor, you may still remember what former Deputy Editor of The Telegraph, Sumir Lal wrote in a piece for the 15th Anniversary issue of Outlook. He wrote, “my greatest day of regret was one of the Telegraph’s best days of sale: a front-page banner headline I wrote during the 1996 cricket World Cup that screamed, ‘India Forces Pak to Surrender’. The headline could not have been any different or any bigger had it been a story on an actual war.”

So did media in India and Australia become part of the row triggered by Australian skipper Steve Smith’s much-debated gesture to the dressing room for guidance on DRS (decision review system) after being adjudged leg before wicket? Was Indian captain Virat Kohli quite sure of the spin Indian media, or for that matter Australian media, was going to give to his statement accusing Australia of ‘crossing the line’ with DRS?

The answers aren’t easy this time. First, the escalating of media debates and insinuations have been slow this time — with the benchmark of volatility being 2008 test series in Australia that not only instigated a diplomatic stand-off but would go down in public memory as ‘monkeygate series’.

It would also remind Indians of being accused of something that they always knew they were — racists whenever they come across an unfamiliar face ‘type’or colour of skin. Now early this week when Steven Smith admitted his lapse as a ‘brain fade’ moment, it was never expected to douse the fire. Though Big Media’s penchant for milking is a given now, you don’t expect Australian papers to pull any punches either, particularly when their skipper in under attack.

On March 10, there was a news flash that Indian and Australian cricket boards have called truce and the lid has been put on the official face-off between the governing bodies. That hasn’t come too soon. This was also the day when Indians woke up to new allegations surfacing in Australian paper, The Daily Telegraph. A report filed by Ben Horne accused Indian coach Anil Kumble of storming into the umpires’ room to lodge a complaint while innings was in progress, and it goes on to allege that Kohli hurled an energy drink bottle at an Australian official.

The report sees a pattern in this, as it says “Kohli might be the aggressor in the brazen campaign India is running against Australia’s integrity but coach Kumble, one of the main instigators of the Monkeygate fiasco, would appear to have reclaimed his role as the puppeteer behind the scenes.” It’s important to see that the report has no intention to see the controversy as detached from the 2008 face-off.

Other sections of the Australian Press too had no intention of letting the unspoken ‘c’ word go unpunished. The Sydney Morning Herald’s report said, “Kohli all but accuses Australia of cheating after epic Indian Test win”. Andrew Wu’s piece saw it as a new low in Indo-Australian cricket ties. Wu writes, “relations between the two sides are now at its lowest point since the Monkeygate scandal of 2007-08.”

Herald Sun didn’t waste words as it called Indian captain “cricket’s ultimate bully”, while Malcolm Knox was sarcastic when he wrote in The Age, “Kohli discovered a newfound respect for politeness when declining to use the C-word [cheating]. But he said as much when alleging that Australia used changing room support twice while he was batting: which is some accusation, given the brevity of Kohli’s innings.”

The Indian papers, surprisingly, seem to be relatively guarded in their response this time except dropping some hints about the possible motives of Smith’s admission of “brain fade” oversight. In a piece for The Times Of India, Sanjeev Singh saw the admission as an ‘afterthought’, as he argued, “the footage of the incident reveals a picture where there was little Smith could do except blame it on ‘brain fade’ else he ran the risk of the entire Australian team being accused of cheating in the gentleman’s game.”

The paper’s edit on the row, however, calls for the match to be remembered for the quality of cricket and exciting contest it offered rather the controversy overshadowing it. The Indian Express, the other paper that chose to write an editorial comment on the controversy, viewed the row more as emanating from “the ambiguity that exists in the ICC match referee exercising the rule regarding off-field assistance while reviewing a decision.”

In what could be seen as a point of departure from expected binaries of support, a piece in The Wire argues, “While Steve Smith got caught exploiting a grey area in the game, Virat Kohli took things further by making claims of cheating without providing evidence.”

It stands in contrast with two trends. The entrenched sense of victimhood in influential voices on cricketing matters in Indian media, like the batting legend Sunil Gavaskar and other players of the past. Even when India is the undisputed centre of cricket finance and is dictating the script of world cricket, these former players have not shed their sense of being discriminated against in cricketing community by white-skin cricket playing nations — England, Australia and New Zealand to be precise.

Now in their role as leading voices on the game in media commentary, they have been reinforcing the perception of 70s and 80s that the International Cricket Council (ICC) tends to be soft on English and Australian players while dealing with any breach in their conduct. Even in this episode, Gavaskar, Kapil Dev, VVS Laxman and other players have slammed ICC for not punishing Australian skipper.

Second, this form of gora-bashing conveniently forgets to scrutinise Asian players. It feeds on the Indian psyche expecting perfection from their sporting icons – as much in achievement as in conduct. This mythology of demi-gods responds to any challenge with backlash, often obfuscating, or amnesia. One may recall Indian media’s response back in 2001 when match referee Mike Denness accused Sachin Tendulkar of tampering with the seam of the ball during the second test match against South Africa at Port Elizabeth.

Indian media had labelled Denness as ‘racist’ and commentators like Ravi Shastri also lent their voice in creating that perception. The Indian board prevailed, the match wasn’t given official status as Indian team flexed its financial muscle by threatening to pull out of the tour.

One more reason for BCCI-backed cricket commentators grabbing this moment could be a juvenile sense of being vindicated for Indian board’s reservations about using the DRS before agreeing to it. They would be tempted to use it as a ‘we-told-you-so’ moment. The memories of the on-air spat between Ravi Shastri and Nasser Hussain on use of DRS during 2011 India-England test series are not too distant.

Perhaps in a non-election season in India, ‘DRS-Gate’ would have generated more media heat in India. Still there is nothing to suggest, as it doesn’t in other spheres, that it’s a post-truth moment for test cricket. What the acrimony possibly suggests that it’s time to revise Ashis Nandy’s description of test cricket as the “only surviving critique of industrial revolution”. With idyllic acceptance of leisurely flow of game giving way to intense fight for anything on offer, it’s time for a post-industrial revolution version of test cricket.