Spirit of the game, did you say? Stop trolling Deepa Sharma!

Raju Korti
A lot of bile is being let loose on the manner in which Indian woman cricketer Deepti Sharma ran England player Charlie Dean out yesterday. Self appointed custodians of the game are indignant that the Indian bowler took to a very "ungamely recourse" of running the rival batsman (batswoman if you like) out when Charlie had set off for a run and was well out of her crease. In other words, the player was "Mankaded" after that infamous episode when Vinoo Mankad ran Aussie Bill Brown out in the 1947-48 Sydney Test.

Mankad was at the receiving end of commentators and players for getting the batsman out this way as it was considered against the "spirit of the game". For the record, although the Mankad episode raised a lot of dust, that was not the first of such instances. More than a century before in 1835, George Baigent of Sussex was run out by Thomas Barker in a county match. Considering the stakes involved in both these cases, Mankad took more flak than Barker. Since then, there have been instances, far and few between of batsmen getting out this way and each time, it kicks up a row if that is strictly in the spirit of the game. Indian fans would particularly recall Ravichandran Ashwin doing it to Jos Butler of England during an IPL match.

This kind of run-out in now part of the Laws of Cricket. The unspoken rule is the bowler or team should warn a player first before attempting this attempt. The warning can be given verbally or the bowler can perform the run out before withdrawing the appeal. Such dismissals get controversial when no warning is given and often involve umpires in an animated discussions between themselves and the captain of the bowling side to confirm if the latter wishes to continue with the appeal. This even though these dismissals are easy to adjudicate.      

Now consider at this: The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), custodians of the Laws, has tweaked the Mankad episode and changed its wording over the years. The 2017 code said, "Bowler attempting to run out the non-striker before delivery" was replaced with "non-striker leaving the ground early". That clearly put the onus on the 'non-striker" to remain in their ground. Two years later, rephrased it slightly saying "the bowler is permitted to run [the non-striker] out" with "the non-striker is liable to be run out". Previously, the bowler was only permitted to run out a non-striker backing up before entering his delivery stride. It meant that as the bowler's back foot landed, the non-striker could move down the wicket a considerable way before the bowler actully delivered the ball. The ICC Match Officials  in their interpretation considered this "unfair". The new playing condition permitted the bowler to run the batsman out "any point before he releases the ball provided he has not completed his delivery swing. To cut the long story short, "Mankading" is nowe a thoroughly fair and legal act. It was endorsed by even Don Bradman who was skippering the Australian team in 1947.

It is generally accepted and believed that Cricket is a game that is by and large batsmen-centric. That includes even the average spectator who shells out money only to see the bowlers flogged all over the park. The argument against "Mankading" -- now perfectly licit -- that it is against the spirit of the game and unfair on the batsmen, holds little water. Admittedly, that might not be a very exemplary way of getting a batsman out and may not make a bowler feel proud but then it is not just a bowler versus a batsman but one country pitted against another in times when the stakes are very high. All arguments against "Mankading" should be given a decent burial now that is made a rule. The basic question is if it is not in the spirit of the game, why is it a rule in the first place phrased and rephrased in its present avtaar?

My first encounter with such a dismissal was in my school days in late 1960s  when our all rounder skipper got a rival batsman out. In fact, we all were thriled with it not because it got one of their best batters out but for the sharp presence of mind shown by the bowler. It was not as if people were naive or ill-informed but there was not a murmur of protest. Sometime in the mid-90s, I clearly remember watching Courtney Walsh stopping just short of delivering the ball to look askance at the batsman who had run far from the crease. Don't recall who was the batsman but I do recollect the sheepish smile on his face on getting a reprieve. My contention is if batsmen feel so upset at getting out this way, they should be careful before the set off for a run.

Rules, for whatever they are worth, should always be consistent. Those who believe that batsmen who set out of their crease when the bowler begins his run up should be considered from the point of view of gamesmanship should show similar consideration towards the bowler. The rule in that case is equally harsh on a  bowler when he oversteps even a inch. Our learned commentators never fail to mention ad nauseum that the umpires are very strict on the no ball and bowling down the leg side. Consideration for the batsman and strict for the bowler? What is the spirit of the game here? There can be no margin of error here or leniency shown on how much leeway a batsman or bowler should be shown when they transgress.

It is conveniently forgotten that batsmen often set out of their crease far enough and that puts them at an advantage when they are stealing runs, especially in the shorter and competitive matches. Isn't following rules not in the spirit of the game? Or is it some kind of a dichotomy that what is a rule is not necessarily in the spirit of the game? By that logic, people will complain that the wicket-keeper should warn the batsman before stumping him. In such cases, even a fraction of a second can turn the match on its head. Rules have to supercede the spirit and if they are inconsistent with each other, they should be suitably tweaked to be fair on both the teams and its players.

The lament against "Mankading" and the argument for "better ways of getting a batsman out" is mainly because the batsmen feel stupid getting out that way. It is a price they must pay for their indiscretion just as a bowler pays for his by overstepping. In the absence of such a strict rule, batsmen will find a specious excuse to step out half way down the pitch and will resent being "Mankaded." The spirit of the game is always in favour of the batting side.

This is, of course, not to run down gamesmanship. The spirit certainly counts when it comes to honest conduct on the field including that by the two gentlemen in Black and White. Now that the rule is in place after due thought, a batsman "Mankaded", howsoever it rankles, should walk back to the pavilion gracefully. That will be in the true spirit of the game. Not by cursing under the breath and banging his bat on the ground as show of anger and frustration.

PS: Just check out the picture and see how far Charlie Dean had stepped out of her crease. Deepa Sharma could have had a few sips of tea and still run her out. If that is unfair, Dean should have been allowed to run to the striker's end and come back to her crease laughing all the way. In the true spirit of the game! 

A conundrum called Congress President's election

Raju Korti

Shashi Tharoor and Ashok Gehlot (File grab)

Political pundits who believe that winds of change have finally started blowing in the country's oldest political outfit, the Congress, are probably jumping the gun.
The upcoming polls are being dubbed as "historic" with the new incumbent set to replace Sonia Gandhi, its longest serving party head since 1998 except when son Rahul presided over its continued disaster -- both as a party and its electoral debacles.

Party elections in the Congress have always been for people's formal consumption if history is any indication. It lost any democratic import when Indira Gandhi upstaged strong contenders like Morarji Desai and Yeshwantrao Chavan in deft political manoeuvres. After Indira's assasination, sympathy factor enabled elder son Rajiv to call the shots who made all the right noises about eliminating power brokers from its hierarchy. If it helped the party to re-establish its past credentials, it only did for a while before Rajiv too got sucked into its infamous coterie circuit.

Earlier, veteran Sitaram Kesri had pipped Sharad Pawar and Rajesh Pilot to the post with the choicest blessings of the Gandhi family. It was actually a no brainer as Pawar's track record was too wily and Pilot a little more than honest for the first family's comfort. Kesri's track record was nothing to rave about except that he parroted what his masters told him to.

It is not as if the party did not have leaders who were incapable of steering it. But years of sycophancy and a mindset brainwashed into believing that it was only the Gandhi charisma that could see the party through, the thought of challenging did not even occur to their servile minds. Year after year, even when the Congress started sliding downhill, party leaders still swore by Sonia, Rahul and an occasional entrant Priyanka. In all fairness, initially Sonia seemed reluctant to take the party president's mantle given her political imaturity and apparent lack of interest. Basically, she was never cut out for politics, and among other reasons, was never allowed to raise her head by Indira. She gave the impression of a disinterested bystander. All until Rajiv's tragic killing in the thick of the Sri Lankan ethnic crisis. She was pitch-forked into the party's front by the same termites who never thought that the party needed to be brought out of the morass it was stuck in.

If there were voices of dissent, they were either quietly smothered or brought up to put up a show of democracy. Remember, how Jitendra Prasad lost to Sonia who had just started picking up her moorings and was trying to gain a toehold in the party apparatus. She didn't have to sweat over it. The partymen thought it was sacrilege to think beyond her and despite a spate of crises, the last word was the reins sould be left to her and her alone.

The first murmurs for a change in leadership started six years after the party's electoral rout pushed it into a continuing downward spiral that 23 senior leaders in an unprecedented pushback wrote to Sonia calling for a complete overhaul of the party -- sweeping changes from top to bottom. This should have been warning enough since those demanding change included some former heavyweight ministers and a number of Congress Working Committee members. But Congress being Congress, these voices were muzzled. There can be no prizes for guessing what and who shut them up. The leaders had touched a raw nerve pointing out to the uncertainty over leadership and the drift in the party that had left its rank and file utterly demoralised. All petitions for change in leadership were chucked into the dust bin as canards against the family. In Congress, dissenting voices just do not have any longevity and this one too died a natural death. The occasional dissent was inconsequential.

Given the way the party has been run with its brand of ultra-loyal leaders and the long state of flux it finds itself in, it might be a little premature to say anything categorical about the president's poll the party is set to witness. It is almost after two decades that the Congress is staring at the prospect of watching a straight contest for the party chief's post with the polished Shashi Tharoor and Ashok Gehlot named as front-runners. Although no one else has thrown his hat in the ring so far, you never know if Rahul gets annointed at the helm despite his reluctance which is understandable. For whatever people, especially his rivals in the BJP would think about him, Rahul wouldn't want to be saddled with a responsibility that would lay blames at his doorstep. It makes politically expedient to remain on the sidelines before further damage is inflicted on the already battered party. I would still not say at this juncture that the party might see a first non-Gandhi as its president. If the party breaks that jinx, it should be a good augury since a rejuvenated outfit with fresh leadership and a transparent mindset alone can arrest the BJP juggernaut. That, of course, is a long haul.

Sonia's assertion that she would remain neutral in the elections and that there would be no "official candidate" implies it could be a keener contest than the one between her and Prasada in 2000. The problem here is not Sonia but "yes men" who will try their best to prevail upon her on the premise that they trust her alone to turn around the party's fortunes. In that case, you can draw your own conclusions whether Sonia accedes condescendingly to "respect" the so called majority view.

 It would be interesting to understand Tharoor and Gehlot as case studies in the context of party president's polls. Tharoor may have been indirectly bolstered by Sonia's declaration of staying neutral but the man known for his articulation though not a vocal dissenter, is not a sycophant either unlike Ashok Gehlot whose loyalty to Sonia has never been in question. The Congress' claim that it would be an open, democratic and transparent process should not be accepted on face value. At least until both officially announce their candidature and the contest appears fair till the end. I say this because in Congress, such fights have been known to be rigged where a boxer wins first few rounds and then goes down mysteriously in the later rounds.

The statement by party general secretary Jairam Ramesh that any member is welcome to contest for the top party post should be seen and understood from this perspective. Gehlot has added the predictable pepper and spice to his candidature by saying he would convince Rahul to contest. That would bring the situation back to Square One as; if the latter really accepts "to respect partymen's wishes", Tharoor either becomes a fall guy or gets eliminated automatically. In fact there would be no contest at all. For all the talk about transparency, nobody really knows what transpired during the meeting between Tharoor and Sonia.

Tharoor, incidentally, has been among the 23 bigwigs who had demanded party overhaul and sought constructive reforms, whatever that means for the Congress. He has found like-minded partymen who in the true traditions of the party, have supported him without being in-the-face. The Congressmen keen to see the party turning over a new, welcome leaf, would be seen as taking the party's Udaipur Declaration in May, 2022 well and truly forward.

In the Declaration, the party had announced wide-ranging organizational reforms so it could roll up sleeves for the 2024 elections. Among them is the emphasis on representation be given to those under 50 years of age and one-person-one-post and one-family-one-ticket norms. So far, neither Tharoor, Gehlot or anyone else remotely named with regards to the president's poll have spoken in elaborate details. That raises the predicatble spectre of the maxim there could be many a slip between the cup and the tea. A little more clarity will come when the process of filing nominations begins tomorrow (September 24, 2022).

Gehlot, on the other hand, is a dyed in the wool Gandhi family loyalist with a hefty political stint compared to Tharoor. It is pertinent to note that he has been "pressured" by the top leadership to contest and has a majority backing for reasons that are obvious. Gehlot also has a better public image when one considers that Tharoor has often been mired in controversies The pitch has been queered with many Pradesh Congress Committees issuing a one-line resolution that Rahul is made the party president. If the Rahul X-factor fizzles out, as it should, Gehlot emerges as the likely winner. 

One hopes for the sake the country's oldest party that it shakes off its complacency and the disillusionments of successive poll debacles to emerge as a strong alternative. The murmurs for change need to become strong voices if the party is not to hurtle into bigger mess, moves like Bharat Jodo notwithstanding. This is a now-or-never situation for the Congress and any backtracking would perhaps be is last chance at revival. Ignoring the clear writing on the wall would be catastrophic and put the party on the point of no return.

If the battle lines are drawn, they should be taken to their logical conclusion. One family has presided over it for decades, let others take over the reins now.  It has nothing more lose.