Aum Sri Sai Ram

Why does one not ‘walk’?

Virendra Sehwag slashes hard and Taufiq Umar spills the offering at the slips. Mistake : By the Fielder. Beneficiary: Batsman. Sachin Tendulkar caught bat-pad but appeal turned down. Mistake: By the Umpire. Beneficiary: Batsman. These two seemingly different scenarios have more similarities and lessons than what meet our eyes. A moment’s reflection on the above two instances perhaps will have more than mere academic value, for as it so often happens in sports as in life, it is one’s reactions to the happenings on the field that characterize him / her more accurately than even the wealth of knowledge, and possibly talent too, that one is supposed to possess on the game itself. Firstly, in both the cases it is the batsmen who stand to gain. Secondly, it is the fielding team that is left with heartburns as a result. Perhaps the only difference in the above two scenarios is that the fault lies on different ends. Why then do we not complain in the first case, but take a moral high ground, in the latter, and condemn the beneficiary? What is so special in the second case that catapults us on to a pedestal and hands us a judge’s gavel to brand the beneficiary? How is it that we condemn the person who committed the mistake in the former but overlook, or sometimes even sympathize with, the person who had not lived up to his professional commitment, in the latter? In fact, in the latter case we readily denounce the beneficiary. For the record, these are incidents that are as common and frequent in the game as are waves in the ocean. Why then this exaggerated attention to what has become an accepted trend? An ounce of rumination on this issue would suffice to gladden our hearts. For, these are sure signs of the last bits of morality that we expect, regardless of whether we ourselves possess or not, from others. Especially, when the name involved is Sachin Tendulkar. Sachin Tendulkar – a name that is as strange to any Indian as the rising sun. An appellation that inspires, invokes awe and pride. A label that we are proud to wear on our dresses. A somebody whom everybody wishes to be associated with and nobody wants to offend – well almost, except perhaps the great Sunil Gavaskar or the sports philosopher Nirmal Shekar. A batsman par excellence, a nightmare for bowlers, a constant feature in every little cricketer’s dreams, a genius with the willow. A person with a closed private life and an open, in fact scrutably open, public life. Well, at least it was, till as recently as a few days ago.

The Walking Cult: These are days when “walking” has become fashionable in the game of cricket. It is a sure shot short cut to fame and media attention. The shortest path to recognition and adulation. In short, “walking” is synonymous with instant celebrity status , no matter the result of the match or one’s contribution towards his team’s cause. Before this writer is misunderstood any further, the point of this article is not to discuss the merits, or otherwise, of this sudden but welcome ethical inclination on the part of a microscopic community of players - a mindset that should be actively encouraged. Neither is it about whether one should “walk” or not? Nor is it about why somebody would choose to belong to the latest cult so actively promoted by its leading evangelist Adam Gilchrist? The point is this: Why would any body not choose to “walk”? Why would an accomplished player like Sachin Tendulkar hesitate to join this supposedly elite club of ‘walkers’? An answer to this question, or even a justifiable attempt at it, cannot be done in isolation or to the mutual exclusion of some of the questions raised above.

The “Value” of Walking: Rahul Dravid, as a debutant at the most hallowed cricketing turf called Lords, was batting on 95, well on his way to what would have been a maiden century. Then it happened. Dravid nudged the ball to the keeper, so softly that even the stump microphones failed to show any break in the silence, the angle of deviation of the ball so imperceptible to the naked eye that the man in black and white did not consider it worthy of his attention, and yet, he walked . What would prompt a young man, making his debut for his country, to walk away when he knew he was out? Why would a man, after years of effort, at the verge of realizing his long cherished dream willingly shatter it? What must have gone through in Dravid’s mind in that split second after he saw the keeper cupping the ball and before he started his long walk to the pavilion, showing his back not just to his opponents but also to the century that was there for the asking? Would have he thought of the opportunity that would be lost to become a debutant century maker at Lords? Or, was his mind worrying about the loss in millions a century at Lords would bring to him by way of sponsorship deals? At the least, should he not have thought of his team? Surely, his stay there at the crease can only help his national team, no matter what the predicament it found itself in. Nobody knew. Nobody cared to know. But as he would later reveal in the post match press conference, where he said, “ I know what values are”.

Satisfaction – The quest of life: That was said with the flavour that is unique to this great Dravidian land. Values – an abstract term that connotes good thoughts and good conduct and everything in between that helps one translate these thoughts into deeds. The next logical question is “Why does one practice values?” One simple answer is “for one’s own satisfaction”. Satisfaction is a key ingredient for a fulfilling life. For, life is not so much a quest for happiness as it is for satisfaction. You might score a century and win the man of the match award but still end up on the losing side. Then you may be happy but surely not satisfied. On the other hand, if one walks away when he is out, without even waiting for the umpire’s signal and by a quirk of fate ends up on the losing side, would he be satisfied or happy? One might say, it depends. And for certain it does depend on the individual, for satisfaction is very much individual- dependent. A student who secures 65% may be satisfied with his performance while another despite getting 98% may not be. Granted that the student who secures 65% may not have done justice to his potential and his teacher would rather urge him to do better the next time than allow him be satisfied. But does one have the right to impose on another what one thinks is the minimum justifiable threshold that needs to be surpassed for another’s satisfaction? In the present context, should Rahul Dravid start advising others to “walk” when they know they are out because it would give them immense satisfaction? How justified is Gilchrist in his new avatar as a forceful “conversionist” of other cricketers to his new-found cult of walkers - no matter that all his potential converts somehow mysteriously seem to exclude his own team-mates? What right do we have to impress our collective conscience on somebody else, almost to the point of infringement, while on the other hand, we rightfully fight for individual choice, freedom and such other democratic values?

Sachin – the Team Man: There have been umpteen instances where a batsman known for his aggressive shot making at the behest of the team management has stood his ground, grinding the bowling attack without an appreciable rate of change in the team’s scoring, almost to the extent of appearing circumspect. Also, there are numerous examples of batsmen known for their solidity and anchorage suddenly going on a rampage, often with disastrous results. The perceptible amongst us would immediately know that what these men of valour are doing on the field, often much to their dislike, is nothing more than executing a part of the strategy that the team management has deemed best fit under the circumstances. Should these men be condemned for not being themselves when actually they are doing what they are supposed to do, viz., serve the interests of the team? If a Sachin Tendulkar, whose rise and fall tends to mirror the hopes of a billion people in this country, is asked to stay put as long as he can at the crease by his captain and coach, should he walk when he knows he is only technically out but not legally yet? If he does walk, will not he be forsaking the cause of his team and incurring the wrath of his team superiors? If he does walk, will not he be accused of trading the interests of his team for a mere lip service from the others, notably the media? If there were to be a mix up in running between the wickets involving Tendulkar and a player X in the team, whom would we expect to give up the wicket? If we as cricketing fans put so much price on his wicket, should he not do the same when he is asked to and when he can help it? This is precisely why a non-walking Sachin Tendulkar should still be accepted with open arms, because unless he is satisfied that his not-so-exemplary display in this tiny aspect of his game is but a puny sacrifice towards a greater cause for his team, one can safely assume he would not do it.

A Moral Dilemma? If the only way to secure a berth in a train for one’s ailing mother is to pay a little “extra” money, should that be considered an erosion of one’s values? If a corporate manager has to bear the extra “charges” to cut through the all-pervasive red-tapism so that his company can continue producing goods, should such compliance be construed as shirking of corporate values? How often do we not find men of values stuck up in such catch-22 situations? Should these men stand by their values while the others face the consequences? How defensible would one’s action be if it were to cause one’s ailing mother to endure a painful travel or result in the shutting down of a company thus rendering thousands of employees jobless? Should one’s personal satisfaction be the cause, either knowingly or unknowingly, for another’s unpleasant predicament? Does one not owe his allegiance to the lady who brought him into the world and to the very people who have helped him lead a comfortable life therein? Can one not be little less ‘satisfied’ for the greater good of his community? If the answer is a certain “NO”, is that reflective of his staunch adherence to his conscience or is it reflective of his selfishness? Or, is it a sin to even ask such questions – questions that are born out of pragmatism than of idealism? A moral dilemma occurs only when there is a choice. More often than not, the only choices life throws at us are of the proverbial “ Deep sea or the Devil” kind. Then it all boils down to a question of priorities. If one is willing to be part of a group, the accepted norm is that the group’s interests are given a higher priority than the individual’s. In case of a conflict between the above two, the choice is clear – either leave the group or sacrifice your interests at the altar of the group’s interests. In the event that “walking” has not been made a team policy, is not Sachin correct in standing his ground, even if he is certain in his mind that he is out? To quote the great man himself from a recent interview, “I do not set goals, I set standards for myself”, he said. That was said like the Lord, God and Almighty that He is of Indian Cricket. Undoubtedly, a walking Sachin would be setting better standards, not just for himself, but also for the other mortals to follow. But if he is not then there is more than a fair share of logic why he is not – otherwise, it would be a travesty of everything that he has stood far in his entire career. As these words are being typed, it might well be the case, that this supposedly unfair extension of his stay at the crease might well be a major factor in the position Team India might find itself at the end of the first test, irrespective of whether India wins or avoids a loss – a distinct possibility nobody in his sane mind would exclude. Sachin, sadly does not have the comfort, an Adam Gilchrist, might enjoy. Nor does Gilchrist have to shoulder the burden of Himalayan expectations every time he takes his stance unlike Sachin who stands tall and unwilting under its crushing force.

A Simple Arithmetic: “Life is unfair”, seems to be the constant refrain of the living. The following appears to be one unwritten tenet of the religion called Cricket, as espoused by the cricketing pundits: “If one is given out wrongly some time, the chances are that he may be given a reprieve some other time and that at the end, with all things considered, the rights and wrongs cancel each other and even out ”. By the above dictum, will not a batsman who refuses to leave the crease be right? Also, does not the above assertion, by simple arithmetic, make a batsman who obliges his conscience a loser? Should not there be a corollary, much less an assurance, anywhere that says, “If thou art willing to walk every time thou knoweth thou art out, thou shall not be given out wrongly”. Would those of us, who are hesitant to accept this logic, or fallacy if you please, be unwise in asking the following questions? “If a batsman is condemned for not walking when he knows he is out, should not the fielding team call-back the batsman in the case that he is not out but mistakenly given out by the umpire? If a team of 11 players can refuse to see the truth and follow their collective conscience, should not an individual enjoy the same luxury?”

Increasing intolerance and Players’ attitude: A batsman who is at the receiving end of a mistaken decision, if he so much as lets out a sigh of disbelief or shakes his head in exasperation, it is immediately misconstrued as “a conduct that is incompatible with his playing status”. This is followed by a hurriedly convened committee handing over a long sentence, the only purpose of which is to drive home a virtue called patience in the “erring” cricketer. These are days one can be fined for excessive appealing, regardless that an umpire can turn them down even if the bowler is correct! Why is it that the umpires are endowed with such high levels of impunity while the toiling cricketers are left boiling with ignominy? What is it in some of us – read, the committee for drafting cricketing laws - that refuses to accept the frailty of a batsman but embraces that of an umpire? In such a conjuncture, if a batsman chooses to stand his ground considering it as a personal triumph against this increasingly intolerant attitude of the men in black, can he be faulted?

A few parting thoughts: Despite all that has been written in the above paragraphs, a few questions remain persistently unasked: Has not the same Rahul Dravid declared, a little later into his burgeoning career, that he would think twice before doing what he did as a debutant? Does any body care to know why? Why has an Adam Gilchrist taken these many years to realize the merits of “walking”? Or, was all this born out of a sudden awareness of a part of his name – Adam GilCHRIST - and an innate urge to measure up to its solemnity and holiness? Or, if he has been practicing it all through his career, why did the media choose to highlight this “value” of his only now? Why then did such acts of his not hog the headlines much earlier? Is it because of the bigness of the occasion – a world cup semi-final - in which a batsman preferred to listen to his conscience, that it assumed a far greater significance? Presumably, if you want your acts to be taken notice of you need to enact it on a big stage. You could have been an epitome of sportsmanship and values in your local cricket club, sorry, gentleman, who cares? Perhaps, of all the questions that have gone down begging without being raised, one that has lingered most doggedly in this writer’s mind is this: Should we need to extol somebody for doing something that should have been the only logical course of action? Should we, at all, eulogize a batsman for walking when he is out? One would have thought that is the most natural thing to do – If you know you are out, get out . If the media hype that has surrounded the “walkers” is a precursor of things to follow, the day will not be far off when the following appear as headlines: “ Ram from Chennai bags “ The Most Honest Gentleman ” award for buying tickets every time he traveled by the metro” “ Shyam from Mumbai gets “ The Most valued Customer ” prize for paying for all the items he has bought in his grocery shop”. After all, Cricket is a gentleman’s game! Amen!

P.S: This writer wishes to assure the readers that if the tone of this article has seemed to suggest an attempt at justifying the actions of his Lord, it is despite the writer’s best efforts to conceal them.