The mind of the edit writer

BY Darius Nakhoonwala| IN Opinion | 30/08/2007

You don`t say!

Darius Nakhoonwala

These days I have taken to praying to God to help me understand the mind of edit writers and if possible their editors. So will you when I tell you that only four major newspapers wrote about the setting up of the Indian Cricket League and the quarrel between it and the BCCI. Amazing, really, when you see how many millions follow cricket in this country and how many thousands crores of rupees the game generates.

The Telegraph wrote, of course, as did the Hindu. The Asian Age also wrote and so did the Business Standard. But for the rest it was a non-event. The mind, as Bertie Wooster would say, boggles.

The Telegraph was the only one to point out that, for once, India and Pakistan, acted in unison. The Pakistan Cricket Board threatened players with banishment if they played for the ICL. "Since Indian viewers cannot take their eyes off Pakistan when it plays India, the PCB gets the second largest share of the pie."

It was also the only one to point out that "BCCI`s decision to fight shows that it thinks it can win. That is open to doubt."  Thus even though the BCCI does hold the upper hand vis-a-vis the players, players who are past playing for their national teams but are still pretty good, "would prefer immediate and certain earnings even if they are less than what playing for India would earn them."

That indeed is the key to the whole thing plus the fact that "ICL can make matches more interesting by making up teams of equal strength."

The Asian Age edit was written, I rather suspect, by someone who knows very little about cricket. It dwelt one just one point, the sacking of Kapil Dev from the National Cricket Academy. It did get the crux right. "The BCCI, instead of spreading the game, has decided to make it a closed business and sooner, than later, is bound to face unrest, discord and eventually, litigation."

But its friendliness to Sharad Pawar shone through like a beacon. "The hawks within the BCCI advised its president, Union minister Sharad Pawar, that accepting something like this, let alone encouraging it, would dissipate the BCCI`s authority…the BCCI had no alternative but to gear itself to confront what seemed a challenge. Then it decided to remove Kapil Dev as the chairman of the National Cricket Academy, which, given the circumstances, probably had to be done." (Italics mine). Really? Is it the National Cricket Academy or the BCCI cricket academcy?

The Hindu called it, daintily, Oo la la! a "Quirkish adventure". It was the classic two-tone edit. "While the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) understandably views the formation of the Indian Cricket League (ICL) as a disruptive development, its tough official stand is entirely in keeping with its reputation for thinking conventionally." Such a sharp stiletto in the ribs, that last word, "conventionally." Lovely, dear.

Then it said that the sacking of Kapil Dev was expected, and unfortunate. Like a chap dying of cancer, you know, "expected and unfortunate".   Then came the inevitable homily. "Instead of venting its spleen on the rebels, the Board would do well to address the cause of the ICL`s success in weaning away close to 50 of its cricketers. More than one cricketer has spoken of being disillusioned with the system."

The Business Standard, as behoves a pink paper with limited circulation amongst people with brains, took the high intellectual line from economics. It talked about super-normal profits and the like. Why can`t these fellows keep it simple?

Contact : Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com