S Sreesanth doesn't need to prove his loyalty, has every right to practice trade elsewhere

None of us has the right to tell S Sreesanth what to do with his career and talent and it is cowardly and childish to expect him to hold the torch of our bogus cricket patriotism.

Aakar Patel, Oct, 22 2017

About 30 years ago, the West Indies under Clive Lloyd began declining, and the Australians under Allan Border had become the world's dominant team. The Australian team had many left-handers, including captain Border as well as opening batsman Kepler Wessels, who was actually South African.

Wessels changed his nationality because he could not play for his native country, which was banned from world cricket because it practiced apartheid, denying its non-white population the right to vote. A few years after that Graeme Hick, who was Zimbabwean, played for the English team. Kevin Pietersen was a South African who also decided to play for England. In more recent times, Luke Ronchi has played for both Australia and New Zealand while Eoin Morgan has played for both Ireland and England.

Clearly these countries don't have a problem with individuals from other nations playing in their teams, and nor do they have a problem with their citizens moving elsewhere to seek a career in cricket when they think their home nation doesn't want them or doesn't need them.

S Sreesanth ban for his involvement in the 2013 spot-fixing scandal had recently been upheld by the Kerala High Court. Reuters

S Sreesanth ban for his involvement in the spot-fixing scandal had recently been upheld by the Kerala High Court. Reuters

This week, the former Indian fast bowler S Sreesanth said that he would consider playing for another country if the BCCI did not want him. He said it after a court reversed an earlier order which gave him the right to play. Sreesanth was banned from cricket after the 2013 edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL), in which he was accused of spot-fixing. He was 29 years old then. Spot-fixing is the betting on each ball. Bookies offer odds of a bowler taking a wicket, bowling a no ball, or a batsman hitting a boundary on a particular delivery.

If the bookie is able to establish contact with a bowler, the exact schedule of any over can be worked out in advance and then the bookie can offer odds to those individuals (mostly Gujaratis in India) who are bored by bets of win and loss and are looking for something more exciting. As can be imagined, these are not easy bets to pull off even if there is an understanding between the bookie and the player. A few Pakistanis were caught by British media doing this a few years ago and the allegations against Sreesanth date back to that time. His ban has been upheld even though he was acquitted by a sessions court in New Delhi.

He has not been able to play in the last four years and after the latest court order, he was frustrated enough to say: “BCCI has imposed the ban, not ICC. If not India, I can play for any other country, because I am 34 now and I can only play for maximum six more years. As a person who loves cricket, I want to play cricket. And not only that, BCCI is a private firm; it is only us who say that this is the Indian team, but you know BCCI is a private body after all.”

It is easy to see his point of view. He has invested his entire life in a sport he is not allowed to play in India. Why should he not play for another country? To me, it seems absolutely fine if he does this. For a moment let us set aside the real world problems that this will produce, such as changes in nationality. It is far easier for a South African to become Australian than an Indian to become anything else. And in any case, the pacer from Kerala has hinted at playing only T20 abroad.

But whatever his decision, I would say it is unfair to ask him to show his loyalty to his country by not playing for any other country even if his own country doesn't want him. Only Indians take this sport as seriously as we do, because we have invested too much of our nationalism in it. When the BCCI team wins against the team controlled by the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), it is 'India' that has defeated 'Pakistan'. The strength of the emotion we feel in victory and defeat of our cricket team we do not show in any other form of our popular culture.

If an Indian actor like Priyanka Chopra decides to dump Bollywood and move to Hollywood, we do not see her actions as a betrayal of her country. We think it is a great thing that an Indian is succeeding in that space. So why should it be any different for our cricketers? It is not easy to understand and one can sympathise with Sreesanth on this.

The BCCI as a private body has every right to decide who should play or not play for it. The body is itself one of the most corrupt sporting bodies worldwide, but let us leave that aside for now. None of us has the right to tell Sreesanth what to do with his career and talent and it is cowardly and childish to expect him to hold the torch of our bogus cricket patriotism.

Published Date: Oct 22, 2017 | Updated Date: Oct 22, 2017




Rank Team Points Rating
1 India 4969 124
2 South Africa 3767 111
3 England 4497 105
4 New Zealand 3489 100
5 Australia 3294 97
Rank Team Points Rating
1 South Africa 6386 120
2 India 6546 119
3 Australia 5948 114
4 England 6156 114
5 New Zealand 5432 111
Rank Team Points Rating
1 Pakistan 2843 124
2 New Zealand 1925 120
3 West Indies 2395 120
4 England 2029 119
5 India 2965 119