Cricket legend or PR hack? Gavaskar's silly defence of silence

“Gavaskar’s silence is shameful. He has become an embarrassment to his fans of decades, and as I said, I am one of them,” wrote Aakar Patel in a scathing indictment of his childhood hero. Sunil Gavaskar, along with fellow veteran players Ravi Shastri and Sanjay Manjrekar et al, has been under fire for steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the elephant-sized BCCI scandal. On Sunday, the Little Master expressed “dismay and amusement” at his critics in a column that evoked much the same. “[T]o say that I have been silent is erroneous and downright mischievous,” he declares at the outset of a weak and incoherent defense that relies on 4 precarious claims. [caption id=“attachment_836963” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  AFP[/caption] One, I have signed an exclusive contract as a commentator with the BCCI. This explains his refusal to comment on this issue on other channels, or give interviews to other publications: “That is also why I have not appeared on another TV channel excepting the news channel that has a contract with me. If all those who are reporting on the episodes for their papers or TV channels cannot write for a rival paper or appear on another TV channel, then how can I appear on a news channel other than the one I’m contracted to? And since I don’t appear on the other channels, does it mean I am being silent?” But it does. The criticism isn’t that Gavaskar hasn’t spoken a word on the BCCI, but that he hasn’t said a word against the BCCI – despite staggering evidence of mismanagement, bad leadership and corruption. He’s instead dutifully played his contracted role as the board’s overpaid spokesman, defending its actions and dismissing the scandal as the misdoing of a few individuals. Two, I am merely fulfilling the terms of my contract. “There are reasons given about why I am ‘silent’ , and the main reason is that my ‘silence ’ has been bought by the TV contract that the BCCI has with me,” writes Gavaskar, raising the primary charge against him – which he then inexplicably fails to rebut. Worse, the headline of his column reads: “My ‘silence’ has been bought by my TV contract with BCCI: Sunil Gavaskar.” This bizarre self-indictment makes sense only if Gavaskar sees nothing wrong in selling his opinion for Rs 3.6 crore to the BCCI. In his mind, he’s just a brand ambassador like any other, paid to leverage his celebrity in support of the board. We should no more expect him to speak independently on the BCCI than expect, say, Ranbir Kapoor to offer his independent opinion on Pepsi. Except one requires hawking a product in an advertisement, while the other entails doing so between ads – during the course of programming, be it in the commentator’s box, studio discussion or on news panels or newspaper columns where Gavaskar is speaking not as a clearly identified BCCI spokesman but as a cricketing legend. And would we attach such a high value to his opinion if he spoke as a BCCI PR hack? Three, I am free to express my opinion but choose not to do so. “I always speak my mind, and I’m always honest on air. I am not under instructions from anyone that I shouldn’t talk about this or talk about this,” said Gavaskar back in 2011 when questions were raised about his BCCI contract. Now that it’s time to demonstrate that independence, he has grown curiously coy. In the column, he points to previous instances when he spoke up for players’ rights despite being under contract to the BCCI during the course of his entire cricketing career. His vocal past, however, only serves to underscore his present silence. If he spoke up then, why not now? Gavaskar doesn’t offer an answer, but makes note of the explanation offered by his critics: “It is just that the quantum of fees has changed from the one rupee and that is thought as being the reason for my so-called silence.” A charge he once again leaves unrefuted. Four, I am taking a moral stand not to take a moral stand. Gavaskar makes clear his moral outrage at the “erroneous and downright mischievous” claims of those criticising his silence.. Yet, on the matter of the BCCI’s greater offenses, he refuses to judge its alleged sins: “As for the morality part, it is a free world and to each his own. What maybe immoral to one may not be immoral to another. So whether Mr Srinivasan should stay or step aside while the probe committee does its job is a moral issue, and it is for him to take a call on that. That has been my stand, and since it is not one that resonates with most TV channels and the print media, I am accused of being silent. It is for the BCCI and Mr Srinivasan to take a call because it is a moral issue.” According to this dizzying piece of logic, Gavaskar refuses to comment on the BCCI scandal on principle. According to such principle, one should not express a moral view on any matter involving ethics – because morals are subjective and cannot be judged by others. Such restraint would be admirable if Mr Srinivasan was cheating on his wife as opposed to his son-in-law cheating an entire cricketing franchise. Besides, if we adhered to such lofty principles, we would not express any opinion on any kind of misdoing, be it 2G or spot-fixing, but confine ourselves to commenting solely on legitimate issues, such as for example, Dhoni’s Test captaincy. Though when asked about Srinivasan blocking Dhoni’s removal back in 2012, Gavaskar stoutly declared, “We should believe that the BCCI president would certainly have the interest of country’s cricket at heart.” Ah, so we can indeed comment on other people’s morals, but only to endorse them – for the right price. “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt,” observed Mark Twain. Now that Gavaskar has finally broken his ‘silence,’ we find ourselves wholly without doubt.