India, the land that has “inherited” structured hierarchies that permeate its social life at all levels, is also a country that has made successful attempts to break free from the exploitative nature of these entrenched identities. It is still a work in progress whose reflection we see in the life we live, where exploitation and resistance go hand in hand, and does not leave any mode of existence untouched, individual or collective.
The unlikely ignition to these thoughts came from former Australian captain Steve Waugh’s reaction to a question on the “Big 3” model in which India, Australia and England dominate in revenue-generation and share of profits in the ICC. His answer, in an interview that appeared in the Times of India, was: “There is no point having it if you have three strong nations.
We have to develop countries like Zimbabwe, Ireland, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Money needs to go to those countries too. I understand it’s business and the Big 3 want more than everyone else, but if they want the game to thrive and survive you definitely have to share and develop other countries.”How I wish these words had come from the man, who during his playing days had many intense, bruising mental battles with his Australian counterpart while leading India in the first decade of the 21st century — Sourav Ganguly. A cricketer whose aggression and self-belief set a chain reaction that has led to India becoming one of the best cricketing nations in the world, is now heading the Indian board. Unlike Waugh, he is in a position to liberate the game from the pernicious influence of greed of the powerful that could deepen the segregation of cricketing nations into the haves and have-nots.
Unfortunately, one of the first statements he made when he became the board president was to say he wants India to get its due share from the ICC, matching the revenue and profits it generates for the game. He wanted the earlier plan mooted by his predecessor N Srinivasan, to be put in place again, which puts more money in the hands of the Big 3 — India, England and Australia. The justification being that we earn more therefore we should get more. The rest are not good and worthy enough to get an equal share of the bounty.This move had caused a furore within the ICC when Srinivasan had almost managed to get his plan implemented with the help of the other two. But it somehow got stalled and now it has been given a new life by India’s aggressive advocating of this market economy model.
Let us face it that despite the inflow of large revenues, due to its popularity in India and the IPL, followed by Australia and England, the financial health of cricket is almost in tatters in most of the other nations. West Indies was the first to fall and South Africa is the latest. Countries like Pakistan are crumbling and Sri Lanka is no better. Given this alarming situation, it would be suicidal and selfish for India to go ahead with its plans to think only of adding more layers to its bulging financial pockets.India played a stellar role in unshackling the world’s cricketing body from the control of England in the late nineties. It used its financial muscle to unseat the powerful elite which it felt were discriminating against those who were at that time at the bottom of cricket’s hierarchy. The world owes much to India for democratising the game’s power structure and making cricket a financially rich, thriving sport.
Ironically, it is India which is now at the forefront of making it again the preserve of a select few. Ganguly and his board should listen to what Waugh and many others have to say. It is time to share, not accumulate.