England. “He was absolutely right when he said
there was no point in saving wickets. You
[Manjrekar’s detractors] were not worried about
that part, but took on Manjrekar, who is a little
more vocal about everything. Nobody is criticis-
ing Ganguly while Manjrekar maybe guilty of his
choice of words,” says Puri.
Compared to Indian commentators, those in
other cricketing nations have much more free-
dom to criticise, and express strong opinions.
Still, compared with the government’s instruc-
tions for commentators on Doordarshan about
30 years ago—a list of do’s and don’ts that barred
them from criticising team selection and ump-
ires—those describing the game now on private
channels have much more freedom, says Puri.
“Before the 1987 World Cup, the government
instructed us to refrain from calling it Reliance
World Cup, the chief sponsor. But we argued that
if tournaments could be called Benson & Hedges
series in Australia and John Player League in
England, why not Reliance World Cup, and won
the day,” says Puri.
Veteran commentator Ravi Chaturvedi points
out how TV commentary changed drastically
after the rebel Kerry Packer series in Australia in
1977 as it became “more chatty”. “Before Packer,
there used to be one commentator and one exp-
ert. Packer brought two commentators on
Channel 9 and they talked even when the action
was on. Earlier, commentators would stop as the
bowler started his run-up,” recalls the professor
of zoology. But he defends present-day Indian
commentators: “It has become the norm that
you can’t criticise players, who anyway don’t take
criticism sportingly.”
If it was the Indian government earlier who
tried to control commentators, in 2019 the
International Cricket Council’s (ICC) rights
partner reminded them midway through the
World Cup that their “duty is not to judge or
highlight mistakes” of umpires. It came after
Michael Holding criticised the umpire for failing
to spot a clear no ball that eventually led to Chris
Gayle’s dismissal in the West Indies-Australia
match (Australia won by 15 runs). When the ICC
rights partner wrote to Holding about his com-
ments, the West Indian fast bowling legend de-
livered a thunderbolt in his letter, writing that
“commentators are being more and more com-
promised by controlling organisations to the
point of censorship”.
While the ICC employs commentators for its
tournaments, the BCCI hires them for bilateral
series at home, the IPL, and domestic tourna-
ments. That’s why when Bachchan tweeted
against “an Indian commentator”, and Dhoni
endorsed it, the BCCI may have been swayed/
influenced to drop Bhogle for the 2016 IPL.
Bhogle’s detailed explanation was not just to
defend himself, but can be seen as a statement on
behalf of all Indian commentators.l
ATER, Bhogle wrote: “The pictures are
largely the same but the telecast goes to a
fairly well-defined geographical zone. And
obviously, to people who understand Hindi.
There the commentary can be India-centric,
but not biased. You can look at every situation
from an Indian point of view; that is acceptable...
something you cannot do on a world feed.”
Bhogle, a well-mannered Hyderabadi, even add-
ressed passionate Indian fans: “I have always felt
that people take commentary, and commentators,
too seriously. We are merely storytellers, the play-
ers create the story. We don’t influence the game
and our role is no more than to be a guide....”
Yet, Jadeja did take Manjrekar very seriously
when he made his “bits-and-pieces” comment,
while ignoring what he said in the same breath: “In
Test matches, he is a pure bowler. But in 50-over
cricket, I would rather have a batsman and a spin-
ner.” Since Jadeja’s “verbal diarrhoea” tweet, there
has been no reaction from the BCCI and the Indian
team management, maybe because no one wants
to distract the team’s focus till it was a World Cup
title contender. But, since a BCCI code of conduct
is firmly in place, it remains to be seen if any action
would be taken against Jadeja, now that India has
ended its WC campaign after losing the semi-final
against New Zealand by 18 runs.
Manjrekar, who played 37 Tests and 74 ODIs,
would not have had to face a royal roasting from
fans had there been well-defined, strict guidelines
for users of social media. In its absence, it is a cha-
otic free-for-all out there. Is it a surprise that
Man jrekar, who proved to be a more successful
commentator/writer than a Test batsman, trended
for days on Twitter? Unsurprisingly, commenting
on the furore, he tweeted: “Criticism, abuse?...I see
only love for me on Twitter.” O“They were
not worried
about
Ganguly, but
took on
Manjrekar,
who is a little
more vocal.”
Narottam Puri
Veteran commentator“It’s the
norm now
that you
cannot
criticise
players, who
don’t take it
sportingly.”
Ravi Chaturvedi
Veteran commentatorPhotographs: getty images22 July 2019 OutlOOk 53