Convergences and Divergences

BY Nagamallika G| IN Books | 09/09/2006

Nagamallika G

Cricket is a ¿religion¿, not just in India, but in most cricket playing nations; a common legacy that was handed down by the colonial powers. A legacy common to both India and Australia.

Its obsession for the common man even after these colonies gained independence is visible by the way cricket, the game introduced by the British, continues to hold sway even to this day, where it is more popular than the national sport in countries like India, (where Hockey is the national sport) and Australia (whose national sport is Footy). Perhaps, an inherent feeling to prove themselves better than their erstwhile rulers have made them take up this sport in right earnest. This game in particular is linked to the national sentiments of entire populations, where political is entwined with the social and culture of sport. In addition, cricket more than any other sport, has brought out the spirit of nationalism and patriotism, and a sense of unity between people of different languages, cultures and communities, both in Australia and India. For instance, the Indo-Pakistan rivalry has socio-political dimensions, where the entire nation unites in a spirit of both camaraderie and hostility, inciting passions and celebrations. Similarly, cricket is more popular in Australia¿s international itinerary, than in the domestic circuit, whose well known rivals include the English amongst others.

While the common roots, and the varied ethnic groups that live together as one nation had brought in a feeling of synergy to the sport of cricket between Australia and India, it no longer holds true today, as the whole notion of the colonial rulers being ¿them¿ have been usurped by the East-West debate. India as a third world nation now lies in opposition to the developed western nation Australia, which was once the common sufferer under the British yoke, but whose fortunes however are much different from India, due to their vast natural and economic resources.

Cricket is one ideological force, which serves to generate a feeling of nationalist sentiment, holding together different communities and culturally diverse people together. The bounded nation state contains within it the seeds of its own potential destruction in the shape of class, racial/ethnic, religious, regional and other groupings which offer an alternative concrete and often more compelling means of identification. (Rowe,1995). Cricket has proved to be one very effective alternative, to provide a national identity, rather than divide.

The importance of cricket as a cultural symbol becomes even more critical in an intensified global political, economic and culturally integrated environment, with porous national boundaries. This is witnessed when cricketers use national symbols like the flag and colours to evoke a feeling of nationalism, and increasing display of nationalist symbols by fans who come for the matches, who paint their faces in national colours or wave the national flags to display their patriotism, while the ¿other¿ team gets the raw treatment with temperatures running high in the event of the host nation losing the match. Similarly, when the English team came to play the Ashes recently in Australia, it evoked a strong sense of ¿us¿ and ¿them¿ in both the nations.

Thus cricket also serves to build not just a sense of unity amongst one nation but also to differentiate the other. Where does this leave the individual players, who by themselves are idols and celebrities, arousing passion amongst their fans? Does it truly matter to the fans whether their favourite player is playing for the country or not? And more importantly, does it matter to the players themselves, whether they play for their country or not? Does the notion of a nation serve as a point of convergence for the team or the divergent players hold on to their individuality in such an event? One such unique occasion arose when three One Day Internationals (ODIs) were played on 5^th, 7^th and 9^th October, and one Super Test between 14^th and 19^th October 2005 between Australia and the ¿Rest of the World¿. The ODIs were played at Melbourne while the Super Test at Sydney. The Rest of the World XI comprised of champion players from South Africa, India, Pakistan, England, West Indies, and New Zealand (Sportstar, 2005b). The Australians won all the ODIs and the Test match, crushing the World XI, bringing to an end the dream of ¿World Champions¿ playing against ¿Champions of the World¿ that was originally planned as a quadrennial feature by International Cricket Council (ICC).

All the aspects discussed above can be best studied through an analysis of the media, which reported these sports events. For instance, the captain of India, Australia as well as the captain of the ¿Rest of the World XI¿ team that played against Australia in October 2005 wrote individual columns, while the play was on, along with some ex-champions. Media being an inherent part of the nation and society are also influenced by the complexities that exist, yet are expected to present an objective rendering of the issues. Do media also help in building a consensus or bring out a distinct ¿us¿ and ¿them¿ syndrome in their reports? Does the lack of a nation or a team that supports an individual player change the equations between the ¿other¿ players/ nations that are forced to converge with ¿us¿? For instance, both players of India and Pakistan were part of the same team, creating a sense of deja vu for the media.

In this context, the paper analyses the media coverage of cricket matches between Australia and World XI, to see if they reflect sporting values like universalism, heroism, competitiveness, invincibility, individual motivation and team ship, and ideological renditions of ¿us¿ over ¿them¿. A textual analysis of the sports coverage in two national Indian dailies The Hindu (Mangalore Edition) and The Times of India (Mangalore/ Manipal Edition) would help locate these. As sports pages in all editions would be the same, except for a few local events, the two editions were chosen for the study.

Invincibility of the teams

The Australians are the No. 1 cricket team in the world, according to the current International Cricket Council (ICC) world ranking for the year 2005. The Hindu¿s teaser on October 16, ¿Aussie bowlers call the shots¿, shows the media¿s acceptance of the World champs¿ performance. This fact was reinforced through their performance, with the matches being one-sided, as the Rest of the World XI, lost all the matches. Coming close on the heels of the ignominious defeat they suffered in the Ashes against the English, (which took place in July 2005) this win came as a reinforcement of their superiority and nationalist pride that took a dent due to the Ashes.

Where did it leave the Rest of the World? There was a sense of sadness and sympathy in the media as was seen by the headline in The Hindu, (October 9) ¿The World needs consolation¿. Ofcourse, it tried to salvage the pride of the individual players, as the idea of this ¿Rest of the World Vs Australia¿ was what was blamed rather than the players. As The Hindu ( October 18) said: ¿As an innings collapsed on Monday, so did an idea¿. It further said, ¿The world¿s finest batsmen will return home, pull on a shirt of patriotism and continue to burnish their reputations¿. and ¿Legends came and went leaving little impression¿. The invincibility of the champions of World XI took a beating, by their dismal performance.

At this juncture, all the media could do to find solace was talk of individual performances. So while it was ¿Sehwag, the lone star to shine¿ (October 16 The Hindu), ¿Muralitharan¿s brilliance brightens up the day¿ (October 17 The Hindu.) The team came across as secondary to the individual, as the loyalty was more towards the individual player than the team. Thus, in the absence of a national team, the media¿s loyalty was focused more on individuals¿ performances. Even in that, the Indians were favoured over the rest, unless they come up with superb performances like Muralitharan, as was seen in the defence of Sehwag¿s performance. In the same article on the 16^th, the kicker said: Sehwag slams 76; Dravid scores Blob¿ which showed the focus is on the individual Indians, rather than on the team as even Dravid¿s poor performance made it to the headlines. The overall acceptance of the superior performance of the Australian team could not be wished away, but the occasional consolation was visible, when the media tried to perk up the performance of the World XI. For example in Virendra Sehwag¿s column on October 9, he wrote that the World XI played some great cricket too, and put up a pretty stiff fight (The Hindu).

This shows that the point of convergence between India and Australia stops at being cricket crazy nations, as India stands on its own merit, where it meets every other country as an equal, especially in the cricketing arena, although the same cannot be said of many other sports. While India cannot really compete with the other developed nations, in terms of economic or health resources, this is one area that it can compete and even dominate many of the Western nations. Thus, cricket, is a point of convergence for all post colonial nations, as well as a point of divergence today, in terms of being a nation of sports stars and powerful performances, separate from the others. The media in its reports shows this difference in covering its own players, from those of ¿others¿.

Nationalism, Nation and the Team

The first thing that comes across when both the sides are mentioned is the clear national identity of the ¿Australian¿ side as against the ¿Rest of the World¿.  To a large extent the team could be equated to a nation, with all its features of binding together loosely knit individuals into a whole, bringing in an imaginary sense of unity. Thus Australia was ¿one¿, while the Rest of the World was just that, the rest, who comprised of individuals, unknown, strange and divided by their different cultures and sense of loyalties.

The nationalism of the Aussies came through in the words of their captain, Ricky Ponting, who stated that ¿they were playing for their country, and for an established team. Those (meaning the World XI) more than anything were probably playing for themselves¿. (October 19, TOI) Along with it, the Australian side had the spatial advantage, the match being played in Australia. The pictures of a victorious Australian team bunched together holding their cup, helped reiterate this picture of unity, apparent in their yellow and green attire, feeding to a feeling of a ¿nation¿. While no such picture of the opposition was available, it further added to the feeling of alienation, even in the minds of the readers.

There seemed to be a general acceptance of this feeling of nationalism or the lack of it being the cause of desultory performances, as it was difficult to replicate the spirit of nationalism, evident in the words of the captain of the World XI, Graeme Smith, who felt that the pressure and the intensity felt about 20% less than what one would feel while playing for one¿s own country (October 18 TOI). ¿You grow up dreaming of playing for your country. When you come here, you don¿t really know the guys you¿re playing with. There was something missing if we¿re all honest¿ (October 18 The Hindu).

This probably proves that an emotional anchor is required for good performances, namely a feeling of playing for one¿s own country, a patriotic feeling of doing something for their people or acting on behalf of their nation, to show their superiority in the face of cultural/ racial/ economic or political imperialism, depending on the equation of their country within the international milieu. 

¿Us¿ and ¿them¿

In the absence of a national team, as discussed above, it becomes a different ball game for all concerned, including the media, to address the situation. The definition of ¿us¿ and ¿them¿ might vary in such a situation. Where does the Indian media¿s loyalty lie? For the Rest of the World, or only the Indians within the team? The fact that the Indian media tried to conspicuously highlight the Indian sports stars was self-evident, the earlier examples of Sehwag and Dravid being noteworthy among them.

Further, the defensive style of reporting when it came to Australia¿s victory was visible when TOI stated, ¿For the record though, Australia who had resumed at 331 for six, crashed to 345 all out¿ (October 17). It was a mix of admiration coupled with cynicism for the media, with an overall admiration for the Aussies¿ performance. One could also see a growing cynicism in the media as more matches were being played and the World XI came up with increasingly desultory performances. So the tone, which was initially sympathetic, turned hostile and sarcastic, by the end of the Super series, writing epitaphs for the World XI. So, despite the media¿s best efforts to be neutral or objective, one could sense a feeling of reluctance in lauding the performance of the Australian teamwork.

In addition, an inadvertent support creeps into reports regarding ¿us¿, where ¿us¿ now become all the countries who are on our side, in other words, the Indian side. Thus, an interesting obituary written for the Rest of the World XI goes: For a few romantic moments, a ray of hope lit up the Sydney Cricket ground, promising to dazzle the world in its after glow and radiance. But alas, the blinding light proved to be the final flicker of a fading bulb, the last glimmer of a dying soul (October, 18 TOI). This showed a grudging acceptance of the defeat of the Rest of the World XI, where the ¿World was laid to Rest¿. The world at large becomes a part of the national psyche, in this instance, where a surreptitious sympathy sneaks in. 

Of-course, one very interesting factor that comes out is that even traditional foes who belong to different countries, gets the sympathy and becomes one of ¿us¿, in the Rest of the World team. In an article on October 18, The Hindu mentions that ¿only Inzamam (of Pakistan) of the batsmen can claim misfortune; - referring to the fact that Inzamam was dismissed without being referred to the third umpire.

Similarly, the Sri-Lankan, Muralitharan, who normally would have been in the enemy camp was one of ¿us¿ suddenly, which is apparent in the headline: Muralitharan¿s brilliance brightens the day¿ with his admirable qualities of ¿engaging cheerfulness¿. (The Hindu, October, 17).

Brian Lara with his ¿wonderfully exaggerated movements send shots stinging through the square that woke up the senses briefly.¿(October 16). Lara has often taken flight down under. If he waltzes, the Telstra Dome will swoon. The man (Lara) is enormously popular in these parts. )… (October 9 The Hindu)

This dichotomy, and confused loyalty ultimately led to the downfall of the World XI.

The above analysis makes it amply clear that everyone concerned, including the media, the players and the country as such needs a notion of a united whole, coupled with an inherent need to prove their patriotism for the country rather than their individual skill.

Conclusions

1. It is a well known fact that the spirit of nationalism that is nurtured through sports like cricket plays an important role to hold together a nation and at the same time bring out distinct identities different from the ¿others¿.
2.  The individual players however good they are, need an emotional anchor to perform, where playing for their country becomes a prime cohesive force, without which they diverge in different directions than converge.
3. Cricket as a point of convergence for even post colonial countries no longer remains. Their common past only served as a starting point, which today, however, is grounded more in the newer international equations.
4. The ¿team¿ serves the same qualities as that of a ¿nation¿, in building the spirit of unity, whose absence, might result in the failure to perform. Thus when pitted against the ¿other¿, which is a team, the individual performances are also affected, as the spirit of nationhood becomes the focal point for any team to win a match. In the absence of ¿our¿ nation or ¿our¿ team, the cricketing world and the media relies more on individual heroes to idolize, preferably from ¿home¿.

Bibliography

Abilash, N.U. (2005): Standing out forever, Sportstar, August 20: 13

Anderson, B,(1983).Imagined Communities: reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London, Verso.

Cashmore, Ellis, (1990) Making sense of sports (2^nd ed) London, Routledge: 88, 89.

Stoddart, B. (1988) Sport, cultural imperialism and colonial response in the British empire, ¿Comparative Studies in Society and History, (October 30) :649-73

Sportstar (2005a ) Our Imran and Lloyd, Perspective. October, 22.6

Rowe, David, (1995) Popular Cultures. Rock Music, Sport and the Politics of Pleasure, New Delhi, Sage Publications.

Sportstar, (2005 b) October, 8.