Needless Criticism

The Indian cricket team lost miserably in the second and third one-dayers. This is nothing new, and not surprising as well. The Indians of late haven’t performed well overseas.

What was new this time, was the reaction that their performance evoked from an unlikely quarter – the Parliament. Several MPs went up in arms demanding the sacking of Greg Chappell, the Indian coach and held him solely responsible for the team’s dismal show at South Africa.

Chappell responded to the comments made by MPs, admitting candidly that several players in the side were out of form and that the MPs were being paid to do their job. In other words, Chappell simply said that the MPs were doing their job and were right in expressing their opinion.

This response by Chappell was misconstrued by MPs back home. Several of them mistook them as ‘offensive’ comments and expressed their ire in front of the media. Laloo was in his characteristic self, with pan parag in his mouth, stating in essence that Chappell mustn’t have said what he did. Renuka Chaudhary suggested that a privelege motion be moved against Chappell, if Parliament was willing. Another MP said that Chappell didn’t understand ‘the nuances of democracy’ (though whatever that’s got to do with this issue, I do not know). I was most disappointed when the Lok Sabha speaker too joined the bandwagon and stressed that ‘none should lecture’ any parliamentarian and that he was ‘concerned’ about the team’s performance.

Sidhu was one of the sensible few who came out supporting Chappell. He rightly pointed out that MPs should stick to running Parliament, just as Chappell stuck to his job of coaching. Pawar too was sensible, stating that he wouldn’t interfere in the functioning of the team or coach.

I’ve observed several things from the entire episode.

Firstly, why do the MPs give so much importance to cricket? It’s just a game, isn’t it? Second, how many of the MPs who commented actually know the nuances of cricket? Third, why is cricket alone picked up among all sports? Why doesn’t Parliament utter even a single word when Indians perform poorly in hockey (which, incidentally is India’s national game) or football? Doesn’t the speaker have any ‘concern’ for the national teams of other sports when they under-perform? The Parliament should be concerned about SPORTS in India, not CRICKET.

This only goes to show that sensationalism rides Parliament, not genuine issues. Every Tom, Dick and Harry in Parliament starts commenting when he finds something remotely sensational. Parliament should stick to its job of framing, enforcing and implementing laws with minimum disruptions and adjournments, and leave cricket to the BCCI.