India’s approach to cricket has changed in recent years. The bowlers display a confidence and sure-footedness that has been a feature of their World Cup campaign. Likewise the batters too. Yet one element of the cricketing ecosystem does not seem to display such self-belief. The deathly silence in our stadiums whenever a batter hits a boundary against India is embarrassing.
Even after India had qualified for the semifinals, scored over 400 runs and claimed early wickets, when a Netherlands batter played lovely cover drives to the fence, fans reacted in silence. Surely they could have been charitable?
And this in Bengaluru which, alongside Chennai, traditionally had the most knowledgeable of audiences.
‘Unsportsmanslike’
Is this just a lack of generosity, or a fear that encouraging a batter might inspire him to take the game away from India? Either way it is unsportsmanslike, and belittles the efforts of Rohit Sharma and his men.
There was a time when spectators cheered as soon as a team — India or the opposition — reached 25 in a match! Boundaries and sixes were loudly welcomed regardless of the nationality of the batter. In this World Cup, Glenn Maxwell’s double century made on one leg by a physically and mentally drained batter, was received with much enthusiasm. But that was against Afghanistan. Had it been against India, how many of our ‘cricket lovers’ would have responded in the same way?
It is not unusual or even unexpected to want your team to win. And to cheer everything they do. The hush when Rohit Sharma or Virat Kohli is dismissed is understandable. But the silence when the opposition does well says something about us that is not entirely palatable.
In Ahmedabad the visiting captain gets booed and a batsman returning to the pavilion has to deal with religious jibes. In Pune Indian fans harass a rival supporter and rip apart a stuffed tiger which he had brought to the stadium as a symbol of his country. In Chennai, a policeman threatens a fan who is supporting one of the teams playing, neither of which is India. An online travel company thinks it is cute to put out an advertisement mocking a rival team.
When did we become such a crass, bigoted people unable to tolerate anything or anyone different from a segment of ourselves? When was it acceptable to be such bad hosts and behave obnoxiously in the name of nationalism? We have become sports fans who somehow believe that superiority in the game is best expressed by such behaviour.
The Indian team has won its first nine matches, but I fear that if they do not win the next two, much of this behaviour — boorish, frustrated, even angry — will be directed towards the players. In the past, effigies have been burnt and stones thrown at their houses. We de-pedestal (the word may not exist, but the concept does) sporting heroes with amazing frequency.
All the cricket fans thronging our stadiums are not boors, of course, but they do get caught up in the atmosphere. And give the impression of thousands with low self-esteem making an effort to raise that to acceptable levels through the victories of the national cricket team. The failed professional, the insecure fan, the intimidated, the bullied, all live vicariously through such successes.
There may be other issues too bubbling under the surface. Some of these may be economic, some a reaction to the difficulties involved in getting a ticket, and some the belief that once you have paid to watch a cricket match, the ticket gives you the freedom to behave badly. This is not true of every fan in the stadium, of course; it is only a small section, but this is the section emboldened by the general atmosphere where running down the opposition — players or fans — is an important step towards elevating oneself.
Not so long ago, our culture decided our politics. We aimed to be civil, respectful, courteous. Now it is our politics that decides our culture, which means chest-thumping is an important element of our social discourse. And when you are thumping your chest all the time, it doesn’t leave you two free hands to clap or cheer the opposition with.
