Sunil Gavaskar and 'anti-Mumbai bias': Indian cricket would be well-served if its strongest voices aren't laced with regional overtones

Since the time one remembers, regionalism has been one of the biggest banes of Indian cricket, even if few have spoken about it without fear of being reprimanded. And just when Indian cricket seemed to have got past the baggage that decades of parochialism brought along, we have been reminded that even the most powerful influences can be susceptible to such thinking. Sadly, it has been brought back to drawing-room conversations by one of India’s greatest cricketing sons. Of course, Sunil Gavaskar will have reasons to express himself with such lucidity about selectors’ bias against players from Mumbai. Few have seen Indian cricket from closer quarters than him – as player, captain, mentor, commentator, analyst and BCCI President. To be sure, he will have reasons to articulate such a line of thinking. Yet, to assume that MSK Prasad, Sarandeep Singh and Devang Gandhi as well their predecessors nurse something against players from Mumbai when selecting national squads or even the India A teams is to turn a blind eye to the talent of players from other parts of the country. [caption id=“attachment_4209619” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  File photo of Sunil Gavaskar. AFP[/caption] The romantic tale of the arrival of players from non-traditional centres like Ranchi, Jalandhar, Sultanpur, Meerut, Muradnagar, Nagpur and Singhbum on the Test scene recently has been well-documented to bear repetition here. Indeed, it must be one of the more amazing stories of India’s growth that cricketers from the hinterland are making their presence felt now more than ever before. It is not as if this is a recent phenomenon. In any case, the balance of power shifted from Mumbai towards Delhi and Karnataka quite a while ago. There was a time when Karnataka had six cricketers in the Indian squad while Delhi’s batsmen assumed the upper-hand through the likes of Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir, Shikhar Dhawan and Virat Kohli. It is a pity that instead of celebrating the remarkable diversity in the Indian dressing room – and this at a time when its cricket is on top – the focus is being shifted to alleged selectorial bias against Mumbai players. It would perhaps be the right thing to lament the stunted development of a city or state’s cricket, but it is very unfair to attribute that to the bias of the selectors. At the moment, the likes of Karun Nair and Mayank Agarwal are two batsmen who can feel peeved at being ignored by the national selectors. The Karnataka pair will be justified in believing that it has been wronged. If the debate on selection illogic, if not bias, had thrown up these two names, there would have been some justification. Of course, like Delhi’s KP Bhaskar broke into the Indian team but never got to wear the cap, Mumbai’s Amol Mazumdar strode the domestic scene admirably without making it to the national team. Left-arm spinners Rajinder Goel and Padmakar Shivalkar’s names will always come up each time we talk about those who played first-class cricket with distinction but never represented India. During much of Mazumdar’s career, the Indian middle-order included the likes of Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman. With due respect to Mazumdar, Indian cricket did not quite suffer because of his absence from the national squad when he was at the peak of his skills. There is no question that Mumbai will remain the spiritual home of Indian cricket – its signature. Like the health of West Indies’ fearless brand cricket is crucial to drawing fans around the world, it is crucial for India that Mumbai regains its pre-eminent position and holds a torch for the rest of the nation.

However, its rich tradition, dating back to the pioneering Parsis and the big festival, Bombay Pentangular, through to the times when its players dominated the Indian line-up, should not give Mumbai’s players a sense of entitlement. They have to battle it out against other players, fair and square. There is no other way.

They need to be empowered with the right suggestions, including an awareness that if the selectors are not heeding the knocks on their doors, these players would have to perforce bring the door down with their performances alone. It is hard to believe that newspaper columns or TV debates can wield an influence over how the selectors make their choices. After all, the selectors would look at more factors when picking a squad than just runs and wickets in domestic cricket. When looking for balance in the team, they would have to consider a lot more than just look at the statistics of the large pool of players available to make their selections from. Besides, not all successful players have transitioned well to international cricket. Indian cricket would be well served if its strongest voices are not laced with regional overtones. There are enough such divisive trends in society and cricket must avoid that. It would be wonderful to hear these voices speak about how some of India’s most prolific players have had to grind it out in domestic circuit or on the tours with the India A team without bringing in arguments of bias. The good thing is that for some years now, Mumbai cricket has found a new mould to craft its batsmen in to keep pace with the modern game and its evolving dynamics. There was a time when Sandip Patil would stand out of the Bombay batting line up with his brazen aggression. Now, younger batsmen like Surya Kumar Yadav and Prithvi Shaw are showing it is the norm. The fast-tracking of Shaw into the Test squad can inspire many Mumbai cricketers to script their own success story. There would be great joy when they make it on other own steam rather than have to think that selectors were influenced by the weight of the words in print or on a television channel against a perceived anti-Mumbai bias. Not when India has risen to the top of the ICC rankings.