Name game, cricket's latest dilemma

Kuldeep Yadav became the first Chinaman bowler to play for India

The selection of Kuldeep Yadav, 22, for the Dharamsala Test against Australia was seen as a bit of a gamble. Had it gone wrong, Ajinkya Rahane, in his first full Test as captain, may have got pilloried for being reckless in a series decider. It did not. Yadav, in his first Test, ran through the Aussie top order in the first innings.

This should be a cause for celebration. Instead, Yadav’s success has become fodder for a debate on racism. Yadav is a left-arm wrist-spinner whose stock delivery turns from off to leg for a right-hand batsman, and is called Chinaman. It is the mirror image of a right-arm wrist-spinner’s leg-break.

Should the term Chinaman be used to describe the type of bowler Yadav is, they ask, though few readers of this article would have paused at the use of the term Aussie at the end of the opening paragraph.

But Chinaman has always had pejorative connotations, something Englishman or American never did, and Indian, in these times of rising national identity in this country, is a favoured term of self-description. But you cannot argue with historical connotations. And Chinaman is as historical as it can get.

The story goes that in the 1933 Test at Old Trafford Englishman (there we go again) Walter Robins was stumped when he failed to read a ball bowled by left-arm spinner Elllis Achong of the West Indies, who was said to be of Chinese origin. As Robins trudged bank to the pavilion, he apparently said to the umpire: “Fancy being done by a bloody Chinaman.”

This, some say, was when the term Chinaman originated. But, as is the case with many cricket stories, this, too, comes with doubts. Reports say Achong had traces of Chinese origin, but was far from being a bona fide Chinese. Then, it seems, the term Chinaman was being used in English cricket much before 1933.

The debate around Chinaman has become so intense that few remember the 1933 Old Trafford Test for what it should be. This was when the West Indies served Douglas Jardine his own medicine, with two of their quicks bowling at the line of Jardine’s body. Yet the controversial English captain stood up to the challenge and scored a fine century.

It will be a pity if Yadav’s fine effort at Dharamsala gets overshadowed by cricket’s new zeal for political correctness. Not too long ago, the use of the term batsman was a subject of debate, whether it should be replaced by something more inclusive of women’s cricket. They could not find a suitable alternative — “batter” sounds more at home in a kitchen.

The question with cricket, with its rich and layered heritage, is where do you stop? Should a bowler be allowed to ball “maidens”? The field placement, in itself, is a minefield. Is “short leg” offensive to people with disability? Should a “slip” be left in the layers of women’s clothing? What about “fine leg”? Should “12th man” and “nightwatchman” be made gender-neutral? Can a fielder object to being called “silly mid-on”?  

Then, there may be country-specific issues. Recently, social media erupted with mirth when a journalist described the way some calves ran to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath. Will a Test match in Kanpur be able to endure the burden of having a part of the field named “cow corner”?