The most amusing aspect of the reaction in England, and society at large, to Azeem Rafique’s call to oust racism in English cricket comes as a surprise to all who know it. Tearful on television for activating a reaction by a talented player (who is still only 30 years old), this is testament to both its pervasive nature and its casual acceptance by the perpetrators and in many cases even the victims.
Rafiq spoke with a clear and controlled zeal which added extra weight to his words. The England and Wales Cricket Board apologized, while the Yorkshire whistleblowing hotline received 36 calls in the first week. The problem may be too deep in society to keep the sport untouched, even as administrators try to make amends – if not for respectable reasons, then at least to prevent their sponsors from abandoning them.
When one of the committee’s MPs asked Rafiq whether he would consider helping Yorkshire attract new sponsors or bring back those who had dropped out, he clarified that he would sell some for money. The ones were not. The more old the question was, the more respectable the answer was.
Rafiq has not only stunned the cricket authorities, he has also activated the media. According to Guardian“Privately educated white British players are 34 times more likely to become professional cricketers than state-educated British South Asian players.” The newspaper was citing research conducted by Birmingham City University, which found that white British players are three times more likely to become professionals than their South Asian counterparts, regardless of schooling.
Similar statistics are not available for India, and it is believed – conveniently, perhaps – that cricket is a field where merit is everything and accidents of birth, parents, education and circumstances matter. Doesn’t matter Yet, of the 302 players who have played Test cricket for India, only five per cent are Muslims (as against 15 per cent in the general population) and nearly eight per cent are Dalits (as against 25 per cent in the general population).
No need to memorialize on these figures, but clearly things are a little skewed. This comes due to lack of opportunity, pressure to earn a living and contribute to the family income along with educational and sports.
A parliamentary committee like in England which questioned Rafiq on live television (Culture, Media and Sports Department) can do Indian cricket very good too. There may not be a need for a parliamentary committee to gather information, put it together and make sensible patterns, but such a committee would need a committee to recommend changes. If they talk to the stakeholders, maybe even on national television will help. It is important to remember that caste discrimination is as gruesome and pervasive in India as it is elsewhere.
You cannot establish true casteism or casteism by including it in a small section of the society. But at least it’s a start, especially if the focus is on fixing things at the lower levels. India’s key players, from Vijay Merchant to Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar to Rohit Sharma, have been Brahmins who were educated and had more opportunities at the caste level than those born low. The percentage of Brahmins in the country is about five, yet they are more than fifty percent who have played for India.
It’s not unknown or even unusual, but it hasn’t been commented on. The worst is seen at lower levels – for example, in age-group cricket – and not so much at the highest levels. You have to perform well and perform consistently to play for India. It is fair. But to perform, a player has to be given an opportunity to do so and that is where the problem lies at the lower level. We have no way of telling how many Dalits and Adivasis lost to Indian cricket due to lack of opportunities.
Sunil Gavaskar has written in his book how, as a newborn, he was accidentally mixed with another child. An uncle noticed that Sunil the child was not the same as the one he had come before. A search was launched and Gavaskar was found in a cradle next to a fisherman in the hospital.
If Gavaskar grew up to be a fisherman, would Gavaskar have become a great cricketer? Or will the fisherman’s son be raised as Gavaskar played for India? Especially given that his uncle Madhav Mantri had done so?
While we applaud Rafiq and the British establishment, one for speaking out and another for its official investigation, let’s not lose the issue in our backyard. Who will be the Rafiq of India?
,