Sport

Batting legend Sunil Gavaskar's salvo against sledging -- especially, by the Aussies -- has, once again, brought to the fore the game's ugly side -- a dark syndrome that has no easy answer, nay remedy. A meditation down memory lane -- including the how and why of it all -- even if the likes of Dennis "the Menace" Lillee don't seem to fancy Sunny's -- or, the game's high priests' -- definitive stance.

Sport has always been a part of man's social history. Which is precisely the reason why it has been subject to enormous change, in tune with life itself.

Its bottom line is also a modicum of expression, quite radical in its evolution. As John Arlott, the "Voice of Cricket," once wrote: "Games are as truly part of the history of a nation as its work, wars, and art. They are a reflection of a social life of the people, changing with it and conditioned by its changes in economy, religion, and politics." Perfect description, because Arlott did not only trace the origin of sport as a noble pursuit, but also stressed on the loosening of traditional codes of behaviour, the escalation of professionalism, and the subsequent domination of monetary factors.

A sporting dichotomy, you'd well say. Maybe, maybe not. For the simple reason that sport has also inspired art and literature, and brought business acumen and operation to the highest level possible, even if some purists label sport today as not being exactly sport.

Sport has also been thought of as a vocation that transcends barriers of race, religion, hatred, and fanatical compunctions. So far, so good. But, unfortunately, sporting ethos seems to have lost its traditional glory, over the years, owing to its increasing vulnerability to vicious tentacles of politics, regional and national prejudices, and even personal ego. What's more, it has lost its basic freedom due to the intrusion of baser human emotions and other elements that undermine the spirit of healthy competition.

For long, the sports arena has been regarded as a virtual parameter to judge the superiority of a nation. A case in point: Adolf Hitler's extravaganza that was Berlin Olympics in 1936, which the Fuhrer wanted to use as a platform to demonstrating the higher make-up of the Aryan race. The result? Sportsmanship has become a sad casualty -- albeit relationships a la Jesse Owens and Lutz Long, the German athlete, whom Hitler fancied as the Third Reich's best answer to the phenomenal abilities of the black American still exist -- and, winning rather than playing the game has become everything. This isn't all. Sport has also become the happy hunting ground to settling scores, whatever the cost. A defeat in a sport encounter, especially with a "rival" is regarded as an abominable wound on one's national pride. For example: cricket between India and Pakistan.

The basic damaging factor that has blighted world-class sport is aggressive behaviour, not to speak of anabolic steroids, or drugs. A case in point: Javed Miandad and Shane, or "Shame," Warne. Aggressive behaviour is best defined as a response that delivers hurtful stimuli to another object or person. Witness the tantrums of Miandad, and tennis' John McEnroe, both moody geniuses. But, for the sake of argument, let us accept that there was a positive dimension to their [mis]demeanour which, paradoxically, won them a certain degree of adulation. Javed's aggro stance is the stuff winners are made of, and also worthy of being "imitated" to undermine the nerves of an opponent.

Now, look at the other side of the picture. Winning alone warrants an entry into the record books. Not gentle behaviour, on the field or off it. Yet, the spirit of sport has also been a victor at times. Take for instance, Long who [in]directly helped Owens to win the long jump event, when Jesse had messed up his first two jumps -- by asking him to place a towel at the take-off mark to guide him; or, Zaheer Abbas, who over five decades after Owens' Olympian run, corrected Mohammed Azharuddin's batting grip with effect. But, there is something else, which critics call as lack of "killer-instinct." If this isn't a fiasco for logic, what is?

In the name of professionalism, cricketers, for instance, resort to sheer gamesmanship or sledging -- which is now in the eye of a storm. A debate, kicked off by Sunil Gavaskar, and refuted by well-known "perpetrators" like Dennis Lillee. It goes without saying that sledging instils undue pressure on adjudicators and players of the opposing side. Protagonists dismiss such contentions by saying, "If you can't take it, you can't play big sport." Umpires are also easy prey and targets, and  scapegoats for many players too. Remember the Mike Gatting-Shakoor Rana incident? However this maybe, sportsmanship has become a casualty with spectators too. Pakistan's crowd, for instance, frequently encouraged Miandad's aggro disposition, which often truncated the cricket arena into a graveyard of the game, with éclat. Inference? When the aggro attitudes of the players is transferred to the spectators, the outcome can be as horrendous as the violence we tend to witness on the soccer grounds in Europe and elsewhere.

Money is, perhaps, the only magnet. But, paradoxes do exist. Let's cull some incidents that have brought shame and honour to cricket. Dr W G Grace's antics, pardoned because of the gentleman's standing; Douglas Jardine's "Bodyline" design; Charlie Griffith's chucking row; Trevor Chappel's under-arm delivery of the last ball in an international match; the Miandad-Lillee showdown; John Snow-Gavaskar rummage; Colin Croft's shoulder charging an umpire in a Test match; Gavaskar-Lillee squabble; Lillee's aluminium bat incident and "betting;" Rodney Hogg's kicking the wickets for being no-balled; Manoj Prabhakar-Maninder Singh's fisticuffs; Peter Kirsten's abusive words at Kapil Dev for his own fault, not to speak of Rod McCurdy who once kicked his manager during Australia's tour of South Africa. Also, the last but not the least -- match-fixing allegations, and their terrible aftermath… The list is endless. On the contrary, Mammon was no consideration for the likes of Vijay Samuel Hazare and his ilk, nor for "King" Viv Richards, who refused to tour South Africa of the apartheid era for a fabulous, undisclosed sum. Also, don't you forget Gundappa Vishwanath, who recalled Bob Taylor after the umpire had declared him "out," when he wasn't out, only to lose the Jubilee Test match against England at Bombay. However, let us emphasise that all these events have been examples in isolation, not regulation.

Lord Harris, a patriarch of old England, had faith in cricket as an instrument for moral missionary, character building. On his 80th birthday, he wrote an affecting letter in The Times, London: "You do well to love it [cricket], for it is more free from anything sordid, anything dishonourable than any game in the world. To play it keenly, honourably, generously, self-sacrificingly, is a moral lesson in itself, and the classroom is full of God's air and sunshine." Obviously, cricket and God in the minds of the Victorians were strongly linked. Why, even in the early 1950s, there were a few cricketers who held the game as a vehicle for instilling virtue, and compared it favourably to some of the unwanted and suspect activities of modern youth. Fine.

Over to the irrefutable wisdom of Arlott, again: "The game affords a perspective in which the petty or childish attitude is so disturbingly conspicuous that no reasonable person is prepared to maintain it." But, what has one got to say of Lord Harris, who years earlier, had caused a furore by running out, sans warning, an opponent, who was out of his ground at the non-striker's end? The fact of the matter is yesterday's sportsmen become the "reformers" of tomorrow. So, don't be surprised if Miandad writes an accolade on the merits of civilised behaviour, down the line. Maybe, "A Handbook of Good Behaviour in Sport!"

Yes, pass the buck or coffee-cup this way, if you will. But, the air of holy pomp lies with the press and the media as well. It is, indeed, sad that many of our perceptive observers take a cynical view of modern sport, what with their acknowledged brilliance, arid periphrases, and formal droolings on what was done, or how it should have been done.

In this vast ocean of perplexity, the soul of sanity comes from one discerning scribe. Says he: "Avoid clapping and laughing in the face of the persons you have defeated… Certainly, you are not going to face a cannon ball or hear the ugly sentence of your death, but on the other hand you are going to examine, as a batsman, your own ability as a striker." Mike Brearley made it fundamentally simple. He said: "Have respect for the game, the opposition, crowd, umpires, and one's own colleagues." A noble idea, yes. But, you don't have only Sir Frank Worrells and Vishwanaths playing the game… today.

One plausible answer is, perhaps, related to moderation; maybe, even awareness. Not just draconian measures -- whatever their orientation. A strict code of conduct, punishable if violated, imposed on both players and the crowd, may also not solve the basic attitudinal problems that result in smearing the spirit of competition in sport. There has to be a concerted effort by each sportsman/woman, and us all, to restore the great tradition of fair play, forthrightness, and justice: to put an end to this ignoble rot in the world of sport… In our context, cricket.

Is this asking for the impossible, or just too much?