Why Does One Not 'Walk'?

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.

Load more