In 1965, perhaps in a last attempt to keep the natives from getting restive, the British Council opened a library in Bhopal. In those days, it was a rustic little town inhabited on one side of that gorgeous lake by the former subjects of the Nawab and on the other by a small gaggle of civil servants in new Bhopal.
Like all such British Council Libraries, it was a wonderful affair, full of brand new books and the latest journals. As a 14-year-old who had only recently discovered English and who could not really read or write it till he was 12, it was to the books on cricket that I first went.
There weren't many, but given the slow speed at which I read, it was enough to keep me going for the 18 months my father was posted there. I read around 25.
Over the next 30-odd years, I was able to read just about half that number because Indian cricketers rarely wrote (or write) and because imported titles cost an arm and a leg. For a while, I used the British Council in Delhi, but from the mid-1980s onwards they started cutting back on general books.
Then, about three years ago, came Flipkart and I was able to make up for the lost years. I have ordered nearly 50 titles since 2010. All told, I have probably spent around Rs 10,000, which is around Rs 290 a month over 36 months. Not bad at all.
I have read these books in the increasing order of the year of publication, stopping most recently with the absolutely marvellous biography of Mahendra Singh Dhoni by Shantanu Guha Ray. I would readily rank it in the top-20 cricket books I have read.
The autobiographies by Michael Holding, Wasim Akram and David Gower are also up there, as are the few commentaries by Sunil Gavaskar. Herschelle Gibbs has also written a pretty decent story. Alas, the ones by Rahul Dravid and Anil Kumble aren't just gripping enough, though Akash Chopra comes through quite nicely.
The big change
Be that as it may, I have been thinking about how cricket-writing has changed over the years and I would say that the key difference between then and now is that it has become less open. No one wants to stray from the straight and narrow. John Wright's 2006 book was as perfect an example of this as you can imagine. He gave nothing away at all.
Not only do the writers seem to be constantly looking over their shoulders at their respective Boards, the obsession with political correctness has also spread in cricket writing. The books, for the most part, are mere match reports now. The insights and the fun of the old days have largely gone.
Only incidents that were publicly controversial are written about, and that too in passing as if they had happened to someone else. There is hardly a word said about differences of opinion on and off the field. The feelings and emotions are completely missing, as is analysis.
It is only when you talk to the cricketers in an informal setting that you realise how much the reader is being deprived of. An iron curtain has descended across cricket.
A liberal confusion
And that makes me wonder: do only some domains make the perfect target for Indicus Liberalis? Does sports-writing, for example, interest them at all? I doubt it.
Aside from a Ramachandra Guha here or a Mukul Kesavan there, I bet no one else from the tribe spares a moment for any book on sports. Chee!
I wonder, too, if these people are aware of the irony. Sports involve millions of people and rupees, but our liberals don't think it worth their while to "engage in a conversation" with them.
I am dismayed at the refusal of cricket writers to offend the Boards, selectors and sponsors. The self-censorship is Orwellian in the name of not offending someone.
That's fine, said one of my very liberal friends. The right to offend is not absolute. But he got angry when I asked him why, in that case, its converse, the right to free speech or expression, should be absolute.
Second, in a hierarchy of rights, is the right to get offended somehow a lesser right than the right to offend? If not, why the fuss?
Who can impose a reasonable restriction on the writer: the writer herself, the publisher, the courts or the government?
Is it OK if I censor myself - the reader can go to hell - because I don't want to offend anyone, but it is not OK if someone else does it? Why?
How liberal is it of a liberal to impose curbs on himself? After all, all those liberals so deeply dedicated to political correctness are so only in order not to offend, no?
I can go on, but let me give my liberal friends a piece of advice. This is a minefield and while niceness may be a necessary condition for being a liberal, it is not a sufficient one.
Got it, dumboes?
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
