We have lots of mini bodies everywhere you can go the
cricket, the cricket stars, agents, they they behave like
Amit Shah. And so you have the same thing
in Bollywood, you same have same thing in a business, you know
and media behaves in the same manner.
What started with Bollywood and Page 3 has then has infiltrated
all over in every sphere of Indian, Indian public, Indian,
Indian public life and cricket is definitely is definitely not
an not an not an exception to do that thing.
Hi, this is Sharda Ogra. Hello, this is Mohammad Assam.
Hi, this is Pradeep Magazine. Welcome to the PCCI podcast.
Today's gold, the next bowl. The dream is diminished for
Carlos. Cricket in the subcontinent has
never just been sport. It has always carried trauma,
identity, power and at crucial moments, diplomacy.
Matches here are about who we are, who we fear and how we see
our neighbors. Today, Bangladesh has been
booted out of the T20 World Cup. Indian fans are gloating across
social media. The BCCI, more powerful than
ever, has been shaping the modern game in its image.
And yet, when you step back and look at it from a political
lens, India has perhaps never felt more isolated.
A in its own neighborhood and B in the game it prides itself as
being a part of. So what does this tell us?
Is dominance in cricket or sport translating into influence?
Is it breeding resentment? And what happens when a game
that once connected the subcontinent starts to mirror
its structures? To discuss this, all of this and
more, we have with us Sushant Singh, journalist, author,
lecturer at the in South Asian Studies at the Yale University.
He's also consulting editor at the Caravan, a columnist with
the Telegraph, The Morning Context, and you can read his
work in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Financial Times in The
New Yorker. Cricket fans have most recently
seen him on videos of the Caravan and read his writing on
cricket ET al. We highly recommend checking out
his Cricket ET al piece on Mustafizer Musafizer Rahman
called Musta Fisher. Welcome to the pod, Sushant.
How are you doing? Thank you, Sarthak, and thank
you MB. And also a big shout out for for
Sharda Agra for putting us in touch.
And so it's wonderful to be on your podcast.
Super So let's start with something that's that's recent.
We recently lost IAS Vidra and Cricinfo published a moving
tribute from S Sun Money, who served within the ICC, who
worked closely with Mr. Bindra during the 1996 World Cup.
And Sr. Money's tribute wrote about the
background mechanics at what went into making the 96 World
Cup a reality for Pilcom. Which is the Pakistan, India,
Lanka committee where they could have fought for their own shares
but they went together and you know, Pakistan and India
actually played a game combined in Sri Lanka.
So back then, power seemed to come with a willingness to tag
everyone along, to stand together.
Talking about like the contrast between the time of Bindran Mani
to what we see cricket as now. What do you think?
Has what do you think has changed?
Where are we right now? No, so you know this is an
interesting entry point into the discussion on how cricket now
looks like vis A vis what it looked like in the 80s and 90s.
So as San Mani's piece also refer to what happened in 87 and
how things going on. What I thought particularly
significant in as San Mani's piece, even going beyond the
pilkom, what 2 aspects 1 is when the Sahara Cup is he's, you
know, he's organized in Canada. I don't know if you guys
remember those six or five or six series, you know, setups
where sort of gambling once took 5 because bowling is WWE Seamus
and Inzabamuhulak went into the audience, you know, into the.
Stadium. With his bat etcetera in famous
for a lot of things and Debashish Monti troubling aside
and who could not pick him up etcetera, etcetera.
So you know, keeping that aside. So he gives a very interesting
anecdote about the, about the Sahara Cup that Mark Mescarnas
comes to comes to comes to Bindra and says, you know, that
we will pay you more because India's a bigger television
market and we'll pay Pakistan less.
And Bindra says, no, we will both be paid equally.
And, and he personally decides to inform Assan Money that and,
and, and Mastran, as I said that I will not tell the Pakistanis
that I'm paying you more. So, you know, it would have been
very easy for BCCI or Bindar to take that kind of money.
But he goes to Assan money. He says, I didn't want you to
hear from, from Mark. I wanted you to hear from me
that they came with this offer and we refuse that offer.
So it shows a kind of a respect and an equality with which, with
which you are teaching other, other countries as equal
partners. The example that you gave gave
of Pilcom also comes from there. And you were not seeing you
yourself as some kind of a superior being, as some kind of,
you know, in a power hierarchy almost like almost like the
Chinese mythology that there is a hierarchy in which somebody's
at the centre at the top and then everybody else is in a
hierarchy lower, lower below. So what you see both in 87 when
the Reliance World Cup is organized and in 1996 is very
clearly or even slightly later is something where India and
Pakistan are willing to engage as equals with with.
Mutual respect for each other. The second thing which stood out
for me in Assan Manis piece and I think that is where you know,
that is where the shift has taken place under the current
dispensation under this, you know, the under under Jaysha and
everyone else in the last few years.
I think is the is the couple of concluding paragraphs where he
says where Assan Mani says that even when India had problems
with Pakistan or you know, wanted to, you know, punish
Pakistan or show Pakistan in bad light.
Both Bindra and Jagmohan Dalmia agreed with Assan Mani that it
should not be at the cost of cricket that at no point should
the sport itself suffer, even though, you know, they're both
sides understood that they were political aims that needed to be
managed like one of the Sara cups had to be cancelled,
etcetera, etcetera because of Kargil war.
So he says we just so that the broad picture should remain
clear. So you can, you know, you can do
all these other things, smaller things, tactical things, but the
bigger goal should never should never be heard.
That almost reminded me of I don't know if you, if you guys
have seen the Lincoln, that the very famous movie Lincoln, maybe
a decade old now award-winning movie.
So there's a line where in Lincoln where he says, you know,
I was a map maker. You know, I, you never go to
your destination straight jumping over rivers and stream
and river and and fences and and riverlets.
You always take a journey, which is, which is more easy to, to
do, but you reach your destination.
And I'm, and he's talking about the anti race, anti anti race,
anti slavery legislation that, you know, if I'm not doing
everything like absolutely in a straight line, it is because I
know where, how to reach the destination.
And I think that was very clear when you look at Sr. money's
piece or what, what Bindra, what Bindra did or what, or what even
Amrit Mathur says was done at that was was done at that point
in time. I think that we should also
recognize that this is also a period when England and Usus are
England and Australia. Australia are extremely are
extremely dominant in cricket. So it in a sense allows
countries like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka to band together or
even W Indies to an extent. To band together and you know,
look at this kind of a very white men operation.
So you think of almost like India's independence movement
where nationalism could be defined in terms of being an
anti colonial national. So it was easier at that point
in time when cricket was so dominated.
I think the late 80s both England and Australia had a veto
in the Imperial Cricket Council or what became the ICC later on.
And even in the 90s England had not given the details of it's
off first for the 96 World Cup when they came with the
proposal. So I think we must not forget
that the global context in which cricket operated at that point
in time easily allowed countries like India and Pakistan to, you
know, to, to band together, to come together.
India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka to come together and other there
other their premises, other their market, other their thing.
The third thing which we should also recognize that this is a
that is a period in the 80s and 90s when India and the
difference between India and Pakistan is not really big.
India and Pakistan is still hyphenated both economically and
geopolitically. So, you know, the first time it
happens is when Clinton comes to India to visit India, he spends
four days in India and then spends an hour and a half in
Pakistan. And that's the first time that
the different that the hyphenation is going away.
So II and Pakistan were hyphenated and were seen to seen
as at peers at par with each with each other.
So there was no idea that we are we are massively superior and
how can we engage with a riffraff country like Pakistan,
which is a kind of narrative which has gained ground in last
12 to 15 years, particularly that you know that we should not
be engaging with Pakistan. So if you see within this
context, the people who are leading the, the BCCI and the
PCB, the quality of people and I know while we are critical of
BCCI, the quality of people leading PCB and BCB is equally
bad. The Bangladesh Cricket Board and
Pakistan Cricket Board, we should recognize are led by
equally bad people. And I think the the the
structure of the ICC where the power was distributed with the
with the, with these countries, Gora countries, with these white
countries and the fact that geopolitically, economically,
etcetera, India and Pakistan were still peer were peer
countries allowed that kind of thing to take take place.
But the factor the fact remains that the cricket was at the was
the was the larger aim which should not have been hurt at
that point in time. Yeah.
And I, since you mentioned this other, one of the core memories
of our time when you mentioned the 99 Kargil war and the
cancellation of the Sahara Cup in Toronto was the India, the
test series in India, that where Pakistan came over for two tests
in India and the world Test, the first Asian Test championship
game in Calcutta. And you know, Shiv Sena dug up
the page for the Kotla test. The Kotla test had to be moved
to the second test. All that.
And there is a footage that's, that's been recorded and put on
YouTube and everywhere else is documentary footage before the
1st test as Tendulkar is, you know, training.
I think Sara is just born or Arjun is just born.
So Wasim Akram goes with a gift and goes up to Sachin, puts his
armor behind his bag and says baby Kesar.
And Sachin is like baby buddy. And he also tells the story of
how Saeed Anwar approach him in Toronto.
And he's like Sachin Bhai Baat Karniya.
Sachin is like, please tell me. And he's like ball in swing.
And these are stories of friendship.
I mean it is being, you know, it is the way the the film has been
made. It's like these massive enemies
and hurling stones at each other where there has been lots of
camera triggering the 23 World Cup.
For example, there were articles coming out of how Gawasgar and
Nihadat's families travelled together when they were touring
and how they would stay at each other's place.
Their wives would go out together, these two would go out
together. Sidhu went over for Imran Khan
when he became head of state. And.
You know, one thing that it may be repetition of the initial
conversation, one thing that really hurts us is that
camaraderie has gone with so many countries where it's become
so tribal. And there is a pride that BCCI
takes at being in the position of power today where it's like,
oh, no, I mean, back when we were not in power, somebody else
was behaving this way. Today we are in power.
We have all the right behaviour. Like bullies.
Do you see it as also societal change towards, you know, an
almost alpha male personality ruling everywhere, be it
politics, be it trade, be it tech?
It's UCD's alpha male very, you know, big Bollywood led by these
Bollywood, these massive alpha male saying we will, we know how
it's done. Do you see it as a societal turn
towards, you know, the alpha male ecosystem?
Yes, I think a lot of threats should be in there and I don't
know how political your podcast can get, but as as.
Political as you. Want to as political as it can.
OK, and we so you know as as Hartosh and I was discussing and
I said Hartosh, every field in India now have their mini
Modi's. We have lots of mini Modi's
everywhere you can go the cricket, the cricket stars,
agents, they they behave like Amit Shah.
And so you have the same thing in Bollywood, you same have same
thing in a business, you know and media behaves in the same
manner. What started with Bollywood and
Page 3 has then has infiltrated all over in every sphere of
Indian, Indian public Indian, Indian public life and cricket
is definitely is definitely not an not an not an exception to do
that thing. You know, as far because you
raise the question about India, Pakistan, camaraderie and, and,
and people coming together. The 99 documentary that you're
talking about, I think there was Channel 4 documentary Sharia
Khan. And this is just before the and
you'll see Wasim Akram with his wife, then wife, you know, who
passed away unfortunately, and the and the two sons, etcetera
in the in a, in a hotel room. There's, there's very nice
footage. There's a lot of nice footage
and Shehra Khan telling him that we are ambassador, our job here
is to you know, is to this is a diplomatic activity that we are
doing and Sharia Khan being the old world diplomat, you know,
all all that is in that all these are thankful.
But even in the past history to this.
So 99 is after the Kargil war is over and Musharraf is coming to
Agra, etcetera, etcetera. Please remember, 71, you know,
if you go back and read Sunny Days again, there is this
portion about the rest of world playing Australia at that point
in time because South Africa could not travel because they've
just been barred in apartheid. And you remember that, that
famous Gary Sober's innings, you know, which Ian Chapman and
everybody says is the greatest betting display?
The greatest. Don also.
Said that you know where he thrashes Dennis Lily all over
the place after getting out for Duck in the first innings.
So it isn't that series that the 71 war is on at that point in
time. And in the Kaabalam and Bishan
Bedi and Farooq engineer and Sunny Gavaskar and all of them
are there in the rest of the world 11 and sunny Gavaskar
mentions it in sunny days that they are actually going out for
dinners every time they're actually listening to the
updates on radio about the war and and they say in the Kaab is
worried whether Lahore would be bombed and Bedi is talking about
whether India and Punjab will be bombed.
But the camaraderie and the bond does not go away even when the
two countries at war and these people are travelling together.
So, you know, we we were, we were talking about, we were
talking about the past where where things were like this
between in in sport to a point. Now where, you know, the kind of
some of the kind of language that that Surrey other views
after the Asia Cup or during the Asia Cup was like really toxic
and bad. And and I I really don't know
whether that that, you know, that really goes with the idea
of sport. If the idea of sport is to
build, is to build bridges, is to is to explore the best of
humanity is to excel, to be imperfect, to accept
imperfection, to have second chances, you know all all those
glorious things which you are the Olympic code.
Essentially the Olympic code, essentially the.
Olympic code, you know, there are problems with the Olympic
code as well. But the point, the idea is that
you can fail, you can succeed, you can, you can be imperfect
and you can, you have second chances in life.
And this is human excellence at it at it's best and it can
inspire others and you know, do a lot for humanity.
Bring people to bring people together, not not divide people.
But I think something which happened in in in English
football primarily and that got transposed this kind of
tribalism which perfectly fits with nationalism.
So, and this is something which started happening in the late
90s in India, as you would remember, there's that very
famous book about the 1996 World Cup as to, you know, how things
started changing. So that tribalism which which
comes in and primarily you see this with marketing gimmicks,
you know, the English football, the the English Premier League
football teams going out with their, you know, with their kids
and with their and, and actually trying to sway the minds and
trying to create a cult around it.
So that cultivification and the, you know, and the idea of
celebrity hood of Indian cricket where, where you know, at a new
trophy match having Virat Kohli will have 10,000 people and all
10,000 will manage the moment Virat Kohli's out, you know,
kind of a thing. You're not coming there for
cricket, you're not coming there to enjoy sport.
You're just coming to watch a celebrity.
You know, it could have been instead of Virat Kohli, it could
have been Ranveer Singh for all you care.
Like it's just you're coming for celebrity watching in the name
in the, in the name of in the name of cricket.
So I think the one is 1 is to come back to your original
question before we divert too much is but yes, the Indian
society and polity has changed dramatically in the last 1520
years. The idea of these mini Modi's
being everywhere there where they where they try to control
and show that they are superior to everything.
And it's all hierarchical where somebody's above you and
somebody's below you. So you'll be very nice to Trump
and say nothing to Trump, but you will try and punish
Bangladesh or whatever or Nepal or whatever, supposedly a small
smaller country. And I think that is replicated,
that is replicated in every sphere in India, whether it is
films, whether it is cricket, whether it is television,
whether it is media houses, whether it is journalism.
In all these, Indian public life has been diminished to a great
degree by doing this. But let's also not forget that
sport, particularly when sport is diminished in this way, it
has a larger consequence. You know, then there's some of
those good things in life. It is like art, you know.
Why do we do art? Why do we do music?
If music is only going to be toxic and going to tell you to
do to do nasty things to Pakistan or to kill all Muslims
or do or to punish all Christians, then that music has
really no value or any argument. Don't give them ideas.
Sushant No. They have enough ideas.
Bhojpuri thing. There's a great book on how much
Xbox. The Edge pop.
Book is there so they was there they already have all the
audible ideas that you and I can't imagine of they already
have part of the life. So you know so so sport to my
mind, you know, growing up and I'm sure as you were growing up,
sport was about something fine in life, something nice in life,
something positive, something which made you feel good about
yourself, about your group, about people you know about you.
That's why you clap even when an opposition player hit hits A6 or
does well, then AB de Villiers is massacring.
You're a key pointing in 2003 World Cup final.
You have to acknowledge that this guy is playing at the peak
of his pass. Now you can't say enough like
this guy is not playing well. You know, we or Wasim, you know,
Wasim Akram, like this peak is Wasim Akram.
There is no no one else like it is it is that kind of a thing.
But I think unfortunately, we have reached that stage where
where everybody's an enemy rather than being an opponent in
a sport field where the idea that, you know, our team has to
be win, win at all at all costs. And if we don't win, then it is
not a sport, then we'll not talk about it.
I don't know if you guys realize this and we, you know, and
Sarthak Indian media coverage of cricket matches where India
loses is so much lesser than Indian media coverage of cricket
matches II wins. There is hardly any coverage.
They don't want to do anything which will show Indian cricket
team in bad light that Indian team, cricket team can fail.
The the reports will just vanish so quickly.
And I'm talking about even as prominent aside as ESPN,
Cricinfo or Cricbuzz or whatever, you know, some of
those prominent sites, the difference in coverage.
If it wins, it will come. It will be running for three
days with 10 pieces. I think you're talking about
everything. And if India loses, then it's
like vanish. It vanishes.
And there will be no, there'll be some very minor technical
pieces here and there and then you'll just vanish.
So. So even a tenure like Gautam
Gambhir is not analyzed critically enough.
You know, you will skirt around the boundaries adjacent to what
is what the real issues are without, without playing it.
So yeah, we we really are in a very weird time in that in, in
that sense. I see this often there.
Yeah, go ahead. I think, I think it's the same
joke that essentially India's never lost on Star Sports.
So Star Sports we really. Yeah, Sanjay Gupta.
There's a Sanjay Gupta quote, no, when when they were
conceiving the IPL that in this India will win every day.
Sanjay Gupta was head of ESPN Star or I think Sony, one of one
of the companies at that time and he had said that during the
IPL, India will win every day. Now he's the ICC CEO, man.
He's the ICC CI. Yes, now India will win either.
India will win or there will be no matches.
Did you guys see that India will?
Win or India will win. Did you see that?
Kunal Kamra tweet about ICC being the parody account of the
BCCI. Yeah.
So incidentally, our next question is on that itself.
So Sharda of course, in her now famous interview with Karan said
that ICC is BCCI is the way office.
So I think I will take it one step ahead.
I'll say that it's the BJ PS Dubai office with a dotted line
reporting to Mukesh Ambani. So I mean.
How do you see this from a geopolitical lens that ICC is
essentially speaking the BCCI's language and even without
Jayshah at the helm, it's essentially powerless in front
of Indian money? Yeah, I think that much is
pretty clear that the that this recognition that ICC or world
cricket runs on Indian money and India can run the world run, run
world cricket the way it wants to run.
It's something very, very, it's something very, very, very, very
clear. And I think when Shabba said
that ICC is BCCI is Dubai office, she's actually saying
the same thing that you're saying BJP is BJP is the way
office. Or Mukesh Bai's dotted line,
dash line. Or maybe not even a dash line
because the lines are all all Criss crossing all over the IT
is same way. Or Geo ICC.
Sorry, it's Geo. ICCICC powered by Geo Yeah,
yeah, it's Geo. ICC and it's crazy, like the
ESPN Griffin Co is also owned by Geo, Yeah.
Like what is left then that everything, the whole ecosystem
is owned by owned by these guys. Now when coming to the parallels
with geopolitics, so this how India behaves with ICC and world
cricket is how the Hindutva regime in India would want to
behave in geopolitics. This is what?
Their idea is that if we tomorrow have the kind of power,
then we should be able to get away with anything that we do.
The idea of almost, you know, as they used to call it, or an
Arctic part where might is right only only words.
So we criticize Trump for doing might is right now kind of a
thing that today I'll bomb around, tomorrow I'll bomb
Venezuela kind of a thing. Indians are doing the same in in
world cricket and they will do the same.
If they had that kind of part, if they had that kind of part
geopolitically, now what? What else you are?
Seeing is something which somebody had told me just
yesterday, somebody whom we both of us know, but I don't want to
name the person is is that the? That the BCCI and ICC are now
actively going out and soliciting smaller countries for
Olympic bids by giving them largest, by giving them money,
etcetera. Large number of small countries
in South America and their cricket just doesn't exist at
all. But you know, you can always go
and, and, and give them, you know, give them funds, give them
grants and almost like a lobbying activity.
So, so that you know, Ahmedabad, it gets to host the, you know,
host, host, host the Olympics in 202036.
And both Jaisha and Sanjo Gupta are part of part of that
exercise. Even, you know, countries like
Uganda, which is of course now famous for tweeting what it
tweeted a couple of days back. If you if you go for if you go
to the Uganda cricket website, the picture on top is the Uganda
cricket guys with Jaisha at the top of the top of their website
and these guys are actually making fun of ICC etc.
So. I was actually.
Inquiring whether these guys are really the cricket board etc and
they said yes, they are the real cricket board And you go and
click the link and you can see the picture with Jaisha there.
So by the way, Iceland is not affiliated to ICC.
So while it is an official account of the Iceland cricket
which keeps on doing those shit posting, it is not officially a
member of the ICC. There are just 5 cricket clubs
which operate in Iceland and this is an this is a group of
that. So at least let me clear Iceland
is at least when it's mocking or doing the shit posting it is not
part of the ice. The Iceland Football Association
to a Twitter account is the same.
I think it's the same dudes handling it.
Because they also. Do pretty much the same stuff.
Yeah, and they claim that they are not S Asians.
I, I, I refuse to believe it, but that's the claim that they
make. I don't know.
I don't know another thing that is.
Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead. I don't think that in in the
same conversation about, you know, lobbying and, you know,
owning disproportionate power. And to tie back to an older
point that you make, the main Sushant is when we were growing
up, and I'm 100% sure it's true for you and a lot of our
listeners in our almiras, in our bedroom walls, we'd have posters
of this multiple. Like all of us had jaunty roads.
Every single person in my generation had jaunty roads.
That same picture of his run out against in the month we had
warned we had Lara, we had we had lots of people and that came
from an appreciation of what the sport was.
Yes, we were fans of India and we desperately wanted India to
win every game, but there was an appreciation for the sport.
Do you feel that in trying to be this overlord, at least from our
perspective, that appreciation is gone where we are now more
interested in, you know, victory and glory rather than the nuance
of a sport? And it's unfortunately coming at
a time when the 2 cricket team, the men's and the women's
cricket team are bloody good. No, I completely, I, I, I 100%
agree with you that the idea of sport as a scale has something
to be appreciated, appreciated, something to be inspired by,
something, you know, even if an, even if an opposing team or
another team does well. And the whole idea of people
clapping in the cricket field when somebody scores a century,
etcetera, you know, comes from, comes from there.
But you know, one of the indicators of that will look at
the cricket commentary. I'm sure you guys have done
podcasts on cricket commentary and the quality of cricket
commentary, particularly in India, but globally, and I don't
think the Australian commentary is any, any great.
Maybe NASA Rosen and Michael Arthur, certain maybe the last
couple of guys left who might still be doing some decent,
decent work other than particularly.
But other than that, I if you look at the cricket commentary,
the way the way it covers. So, you know, you and I in our
growing up years were also shaped by cricket commentary,
like, you know, in the kind of cricket commentators that were
there. So you you get a particular kind
of narrative, you get a particular kind of understanding
and you they don't, they tell you to appreciate good things,
you know, and say, OK, this guy's so good or this opponent
is so good and you don't got to say the right thing about
opponent, what you have right now.
Is a very. Is a very.
Parochial and I'm, I'm using a very mild word here, very
parochial kind of commentary. So the younger generation which
is listening to that kind of commentary or seeing that kind
of coverage. And then you of course have the
toxicity of social media. So how are you being socialized
into cricket? How are you being socialized
into sport, sport and in today's India?
If you are in today's India, you are being socialized into into,
into cricket only through nationalism, through very toxic
social media and through a commentary which which doesn't
talk about finer part, but in which is only that into hype and
hoopla. And like only the Indian cricket
team and the Indian cricket star exist, you know, star building,
etcetera, etcetera. So how do we socialize a young
person? If you, if you and I were 10 or
12 today and we're being socialized into this kind of
cricket, we're being, we will not have the kind of cricket
education that that, that that we have also have.
When we say, when we talk like this, Arthur and MV, I'm happy
because I'm a old man. You guys are much younger.
You should not talk about our time, our time.
You know, people who think you are some 65 year old, 70 year
old guys when you are like when you're like barely out of.
But the difference is such, I mean, I hear a point, I'm sure
MV will agree with me. And we, MV and I, because we
live close to each other, we have this chat often.
The difference is so stark. The generation gap is so massive
that a 12, you rightly said the 12 to 15 year old.
It's not their fault because when we're growing up, there
were these programs run by Ramiz Raja, a Tony Cosio, Richie Beno,
a Tony Gregor. Boycott whoever sometimes John
Dyricks Well, it would be a program on the history of the
game, nothing to do with the two countries playing it.
I have seen footage from West Indies versus Pakistan during
the 80s. Pakistan were the only operands
they struggled with in that 80 to 95 period.
And there was such an appreciation for Imran and Zahir
Abbas and even in our households.
I Prem Pannekar is a is a friend, guide, mentor, all of it
with to me. So I keep talking to him about
cricket and he I remember him saying that when when he was
growing up and when even our generation, you looked at the
sport 1st and then you funneled into your like players and like
teams and the conversation was always about the sport.
Today, that conversation itself has shifted to, you know,
recognizing your identity, your power, and I guess I'll.
Segue into the next question, I mean along with Mark.
Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, just before that, I think
kids today because I have a 7 year old and I see other kids
around. So kids today essentially, even
if they play sport, it's from that hero worship side itself,
right? So, so it's always like a
Cristiano Ronaldo versus Messi or versus somebody or or Virat
Kohli versus Rohit Sharma or something like that.
It is, it is not about key. Like my entire childhood is
essentially spent copying bowling actions of every bowler
that I knew because I used to play with the wall.
I had no friends in my own building to until I started
started getting good to play in another building essentially
played with the wall. So you would copy everybody.
Now that itself is gone. The other the other thing about
commentary is that painfully I I've I've watched cricket on
mute and and now and now it has come to a scenario where my 7
year old like maybe just put it on mute.
It's fine. It used to be like, why?
Why are you watching on mute to OK, I think it's fine.
You can put it on mute and. So I think.
Even the younger generation, probably if you are able to
guide them through, they will understand that this is probably
not the right kind because I mean, what are what are they
looking at? If, if you are looking at a
match between, let's say Pakistan versus New Zealand, but
the as soon as the innings break happens, I think Pakistan versus
Australia was the game in, in the 2023 World Cup.
As soon as the innings break happened, instead of discussing
Travis Heads 100, they essentially showed that Indian
team has landed in some city and that was what was discussed for
20 minutes. They landed.
I'm like, I have, I have no relation to this.
And and and and it further confirmed my biases that I
should I shouldn't watch any pre post match coverage at all.
When earlier, if you look at it like you, you would wait for
Inzimam to do something in the post match like that youngster
that that is like like for four months on end, friends would
tell each other youngster just just as Inzimam had done to
Ramiz Raja or like copy Azar saying boys just need to bat
well, bowl well and field well. Like like these were the things
right. And I don't think that's part of
the DNA copy other saying exactly I would have.
Like I would play against Hayas like 5 years elder to me and I
just use this line. They'll get so pissed.
It was very funny. Exactly.
Right. And I don't see that happening
as much because when I see people playing sport and people
playing any kind of sport at different age groups now and,
and luckily I mean, I understand that I am from privilege.
One change that I that I do see at least in the last 6 to 9
months is that the number of boys and girls playing together
has increased. And I and I say it from a very
privileged lens and I'm not commenting about all of India,
but that has increased. So I think that at least gives
me some joy. So in so in case any of the
listeners say he, we only talk about the bad things.
I think I've just shared a positive.
And one more thing which I will definitely say is that the caste
hierarchy and the social hierarchy of you know of Indian,
even male cricketers has flattened to a great degree in
last 2025 years that you have to acknowledge.
So Indian cricket was highly dominated by by upper caste or
upper class social groups and that is that has completely
changed in the last 20 odd years.
This, you know, young girls and women playing is very, very, you
know, is a is a great positive. You know, this may simply help
probably in some way help us treat women better, treat young
treat young girls equally. And this may if it helps in any
way denting patriarchy in India or do anything for gender
equality. You know, I'll be more than
that's a huge, huge positive, even if it is does in a limited
way because people see, you know, young girls on the same
cricket field are playing with play playing with them.
That would be that would definitely, definitely were
youth. But the way the way three of us
are talking, you know, I don't know, I don't know if you guys
ever remember this. There was a there was a very
famous Zambi Bharti play called Andaiyuk, which is at the end of
Mahabharata. This is a small play and very
famous play and that was conducted on at Puranakla also.
And he wrote it when he was just 25.
Zambi Bharti who wrote Gunahuka Devta and Suratka Satva Gora
Vishyam Manikal made it into films.
Very famous Hindi writer and. Obvious you know there is a.
Opening line to Joe Sabhitha song.
So you know, it's almost like when you, when we are talking,
it's almost a limit for the times that have that have that
have that have gone by, that have gone by.
No, I, I, there is nothing to disagree here on what you what,
what we are, what three of us are, what, what three of us are
saying. But what essentially we should
recognize is that 1 is a diminitious sport and
diminitious cricket, and it diminishes as human beings or as
a group of people or as a community.
And I think that is something which people should recognize
very quickly. Like with art, like with music,
sport has an ability to uplift you and make you a better
version of yourself both as an individual and as a group.
But it can also now we are seeing it also has the ability
to make you a more diminished version of yourself, more
smaller version of yourself, and also reduce the group to, you
know, how should I put it, a more reduced Group, A more
diminished group, not as as cohesive to as evolve a group as
as we as we can be. I hear you.
Speaking of Kalu, let's go to Pakistan.
Sorry, that joke was right there.
One of our favorite book, all time favorite books is Rahul
Bhattacharya as Pundits from Pakistan and I as somebody who
writes, I keep reading it just for multiple reasons.
But I think what we lose out on and to carry on this point you
made Sushant is Pundits from Pakistan shows Pakistan from the
lens of an Indian tourist, both the country, it's people you
know their love towards India. The 2004 tour was one of the
great tours of you know, our times.
Do you, do you foresee a world in which a newer, younger India
will ever see Pakistan normally like the people of Pakistan for
like and separately, you know, their alternative militia with
the average Joe in Pakistan? And find that everything between
your sense of humor to your food, to the things you watch,
to the things you, you know, talk about with your parents,
everything is the same. Do you think there's a world
where, you know, we can even out or flatten out to that?
I would definitely want to believe that that world is
possible, maybe you know, and hopefully in our own lifetimes.
So, you know, the the way I'll tell you, explain to you is
this, think of it this way. You might think that I'm talking
absolute nonsense and not talking out of my hat.
Just remember you guys come from you guys have grown up in areas
which also saw violence during partition.
And just remember what was happening between 46 and 48,
between 46 and 48 till Gandhi's assassination.
And we are talking on the day Gandhi was assassinated on 30th
time we are sees massive criminal violence, shifting of
population, targeting of people. And think of India by 5456.
India is back to being a harmonious country which has
come in, which has come in together under a constitutional
system, countries can change, societies can change, can change
dramatically. Who could have imagined it for
between 46 and 48 that India would dramatically change and
become this country? You know that it could, it could
become this kind of a very secular, cohesive kind of a
country where where you had Muslim ministers, where you had
all kinds of people doing all kinds of things.
There was no discrimination at that point, at that point in
time, although they may have remained, social remnants may
have remained or even if by the 60s, if I weren't talking about
if anybody tries to target Muslims, I'll be the first one
and come and punish you because India is not about in those
India. So you know, so societies can
change. So we, I would like to believe
that that that such an India is possible.
Such an India is definitely possible.
But is it possible if you continue on the current
trajectory? No, It is only possible if this
current trajectory, the political trajectory on which we
are on, if this project, if this project is defeated and
reversed, then only is that alternative future possible.
You know, just one point about Pakistan.
I have travelled to Pakistan as a journalist.
When I was with the Express in 2017, I did travel to Pakistan
and I attended a conference that took me to North Waziristan,
Afghanistan border. So I have seen a bit of Pakistan
etcetera. I when I was with the UN
peacekeeper, with the UN peacekeeping assignment as a
military observer in Kodiwa in Ivory Coast, in West Africa
many, many years back, a couple of decades back even then we had
Pakistani officers, etcetera. So living with us, you know,
working with us, you know, in the, in the same teams.
So I have a little more understanding and of course, my,
you know, international experience at Yale, etcetera,
where of course you meet people from all nationality.
But I work closely and I've also travelled to Pakistan.
This is true. What Rahul also mentions in his
book and what a lot of other people have experienced about
Pakistan is what even Sharda has experienced and written about is
the people of. Pakistan.
The average Joe in Pakistan is extremely friendly towards
India. So the state may be very toxic,
you know, and very and very vicious towards India.
Or the militia backed by state may be very vicious.
So they may be hardcore conservative groups, which may
be very vicious, but the people of Pakistan and it actually
comes as a surprise because that's not replicated in India.
We are not that outgoing. We are not that positive about
people coming from Pakistan. And this is not just last 10
years, even 20 years back or 25 years back in Pakistan, you get
you actually all of you, all of us can get really surprised as
to why are these guys being so nice to why are these guys being
so nice to us? And you feel that at one level
you almost feel embarrassed, embarrassed about it.
And this is something which a lot of people who have travelled
to Pakistan have experienced and written about.
And I think the point that you make about differentiating
between the Pakistani state, the Pakistani military, the the
jihadi groups and the people of Pakistan, I think that
differentiation has to be definitely there.
We should not lose the goodwill of people of Pakistan like I
always believe we should not lose the goodwill of people of
Bangladesh. You know, governments can come
in, governments can come and go. The people of these countries in
our neighborhood have to believe that Indians, India and Indians
are the lodestar, that they should aspire to that we that we
stand for good things. We stand for, we stand for a
bright future. We stand for together,
togetherness. We stand for, you know, a kind
of a harmonious future for a good future.
People have to believe that we can't afford to lose the people.
What my fear is what has happened is that as in the case
of Pakistan and primarily also more prominently in the case of
Bangladesh, we have lost the people.
Forget the government. Sheikh Hasina can go, you know,
and Kalidarja's son can come or somebody else can come.
Nawaz Sharif will not be there tomorrow.
Musharraf was there, etcetera, etcetera.
How, how could we lose the people of this country?
That is something which is which is really disturbing and that is
something where cricket has also played a part in, in making us
unpopular and, and and and helping us lose the goodwill of
the of large sections of, of people in these in these
countries. Yeah, I mean, coming back to
Bangladesh. Then another friend of the
board, Swaroop Swaminathan, who writes for The New Indian
Express, he has a question. Have Bangladesh showed the world
India's duplicity? That if they.
Cared so much about avoiding Pakistan it's actually possible
to walk away from the tournament.
Yeah, no, I, I, so I'll give you 2 things on hypocrisy. 1 is of
course what happened with the Asia Cup and how it was
conducted in Dubai and it gave an unfair advantage to the
Indian cricket team which New Zealand and others, Internet
also etcetera, etcetera. So it's it's, it's possible.
And if you are so angry with Pakistan, you will not play them
even even in Colombo. But as you know, then the whole
Geo ICC network will completely collapse because that's the
that's the match which drives the revenue for for the ICCICC
tournaments. The second thing, which we wish
many people actually miss out on this whole debate, is that if
you're. So.
Angry with Bangladesh because it is treating religious
minorities, women etcetera poorly under the current regime.
Man, what is Taliban doing? What is Taliban doing in
Afghanistan? The Afghan cricket board and
with due respect to a place from Afghanistan, I absolutely adore
them. I like their joy of life.
They remind me of Sri Lanka for Wendy Silva and and and those
days of Sanga Guru Sinha 1996. If you if you, if you go back to
they, they enjoy playing. And I'm not against the Afghan
cricketers, but if you're going to punish cricket teams.
Or punished cricketers because their governments and their
states are behaving in an obnoxious manner with religious
minority or are targeting religious minority man.
There is no more horrible regime than the Taliban.
But you're willing to play up with Afghan players, You're
willing to invite Afghan players.
Afghan players are not being targeted because Hindus are
being killed in, are being targeted in Taliban or Sikhs are
being targeted in, in, in, in Taliban or in Afghanistan or
women are being treated poorly. So this idea that we are doing
it because even by their own logic that we are protectors of
religious minority, non-muslim religious minority in these
countries does not hold true. So at 2 levels it is clearly
hypocritical. And I think.
The Bangladesh episode. In a sense, you are absolutely
right and we has brought the spotlight, actually brought it
to the fore that this whole thing is completely hypocritical
and does not no principle applies to it.
And so you see, I'm actually pleasantly surprised that a lot
of coverage in in non mainstream Indian media or non corporate
owned media is actually calling out India and the BCCI and ICC
for what they have done. Which is actually a very good
thing because because in the kind of environment that we have
lived in, it would be very difficult.
You would all worry about being called anti national.
Lot of other people would say we will be targeted if we if, if
this was said. But well, I think he's so many
people have have called us out. You know, Sharda, of course, has
pulled it out so prominently. You guys have been have been
vocal about vocal, vocal about it.
So this is definitely true that the whole Bangladesh episode has
shown up. What was under the, you know,
almost like under, under, under wraps brush under the carpet has
come to the fore and how you need to see this muck.
This muck is this muck is very much, very, very, very much
lying there. So this there's no principle
that actually applies here. The principle that that you
know, that we are targeting because that because when
something has happened there doesn't apply because that same
thing is happening in Afghanistan and principle that
ICC cannot manage it because because Pakistan is doing it.
And there's something great that's wonderful, which Hartosh
actually said, you know, he said you don't want to shake hands
with Pakistan after playing the match.
The ball which you are hitting is also coming from Pakistani
hands. Now that the back to that the
ball that you're feeling is also coming from Pakistani, then why
are you fielding the ball? Why are you touching the why are
you playing the ball? This is exactly what you're
saying. Now you are transferring the
Hindu hierarchical cast structure by saying that these
guys are untouchable for me so I don't want to shake hands with
them. So if you are, if they are
untouchable, then the whole story of Balu and Ramgas corner
of a foreign field, we have reached that.
We have reached that stage because the.
Geo in geopolitics is Jio. Please stop your period.
So, yeah, I mean, it is that Asia Cup was probably the most
farcical tournament I I remember in a long time.
I mean, it was, it was as if there was one part of the
discourse, which was, oh, we'll boycott and we'll this and we'll
that. And you know, the, the other
part was we'll play and we'll profit off it and but we'll
behave as if we are having to do it.
While the tournament was maximized for 3I Pakistan
fixtures, you will have now have something called the Super
eights. You'll have super twelves is all
these new supers coming in which which Sussan brings us to again,
part Bangladesh and part is general subcontinental air to
our favorite place, all three of our favorite place, which is
Twitter. The reaction lately over the
last few years to BCCI rise and our general condescension
towards our subcontinental neighbors is that there's a
sense of gloating that, you know, if we should be this way,
we should be condescending. We should, you know, talk down
to Pakistanis. We should use derogate free
terms if you repetitious for things they do and the way they
live their lives. And there is obviously the
racism and the classism that comes from it.
Do you see in other parts of the world, one, is it happening in
the vacuum of social media and say, you know, within the
subcontinent, but say in other parts of the world where you
know, there is a more ready mingling of each other.
Do you see this creating fishers within, you know, between
members of certain communities, members of different
nationalities? Because how do you break what
you're saying on Twitter with what you're saying at the
grocery store? No, it is happening.
Are you, I'm sure you've heard examples in France about which
football team do you support? Do you, do you, do you support
Senegal? Do you support France?
You know, even somebody like Zinedine Zidane, you know, you
know. Yeah, but the whole debate about
DLGS and we are his father who whose father purported at when
the LGS this thing was there drug bar.
So this has been a debate in many countries where this kind
of ethno nationalism has risen and ethno nationalism,
particularly in Europe has really risen in the, in the, in
the, in the, in the past few in the past few years.
So, you know, if you were to look for parallels, there will
be some parallels, but are there going to be absolutely exact
parallels to where India is? No, I don't think that those
kind of those kind of parallels are there because India has a
particular history, a particular kind of political context and
the whole idea of the of the Indian.
Subcontinent so. Fundamentally, if you were to,
if you were to dig slightly deeper, you would come to the
conclusion that the idea of Hindutva, which essentially
starts with in the first stage of Hindu Rashtra and then in the
next stage is a Khan Bharat is incompatible with the idea of
modern South Asia. So if you're going to tell a
country that you cannot exist, if you tell Bangladesh that you
cannot exist as an independent country or Nepal or Sri Lanka
or, or or Pakistan, then essentially how is it compatible
with the idea? So I think that is what we are
grappling with in a, in a geopolitical sense.
If you're asking me about South today's, today's South Asia.
And Please remember, these countries are very young.
Bangladesh is what 55 years, 55 years old, 55 years old.
Pakistan is what, 7576 years old.
These are very young countries and these are very small
countries in South Asia. Now if you are a small neighbor.
Dealing with a. Bigger neighbor.
The only way to build your nationalism is in opposition to
to the bigger neighbor. So you will.
Have but you are, you will be forced by your own national
identity to create that kind of nationalism, which will always
be like I'm standing up to my, you know, bigger to my to my, to
my bigger neighbor. That is the that is the nature
of of nationalism. That is the nature of
nationalism in in the in the, in these countries, in these
countries itself. So, so you know, the whole, the
whole, the whole thing interacts in a manner or acts in such a
manner where it becomes where it becomes very difficult to, to
disengage or to disengage these various parts and go back, to go
back to a past where our, you know, where our Twitter feeds,
the toxicity of our Twitter feeds and the toxicity of our
grocery stores or lived lives and.
What we are seeing the the daily lynchings and killings and the
kind of language should be that we that we use against other
people becomes a problem. So I learned this many years
back, as I said when I was with the UN.
So I learned this very quickly that the Nepalese military
officers did not like being told that Nepal is just like India.
Because if you keep on saying that Nepal is just like India or
Bangladesh is just like India, then the whole question of why
does this country exist comes into play.
And so you have to be cognizant of not constantly emphasizing
and saying, oh, you are just like us and you are just like us
and you are just like us. Because if Nepal is just like
us, then it then it should be the 30th state of the of India.
It should not be an independent country.
But so. So you know, it becomes.
Very tricky. And the point that you started
with initially that the whole idea of India being this
patronizing kind of controlling figure in South in, in world
cricket and trying to dominate then of course triggers those
emotions, those kind of, you know, those, those, those kind
of thoughts about is Twitter playing?
Is Twitter playing playing a role?
Yes, definitely. Social media has allowed
barriers to be broken. Social media has allowed a kind
of, you know, even what we thought were fringe groups to
become mainstream to, to have voices to, to articulate the,
some of the, some of the kind of language or some of the emotions
which we thought were completely beyond the pale and would never
ever feature. And this has happened globally.
This is not just and this has not just happened in India.
In India, of course, the consequences have been far
bigger and far more crazy. The kind of killings, lynchings
of Muslims, targeting of Christian churches and, and
pastors, religious minorities, targeting of Dalits, targeting
of tribals, the environmental degradation, etcetera that we
see. That is clearly the
consequences. I think in India have been much
bigger, although the, the country where I, where I
currently reside, President Trump is trying his best to do
things in Minnesota and other places, which is not far off
from, from, from, from, from, from, from what we, from what we
see in India. So, you know, I, I, I think we
are dealing with a very tough, we are in a very tough space.
We are in a tough period, but it is in this these tough times and
in these very hard times that voices of sanity matter.
And that's why people, people like you and me, people like
you, Sardar, people like Sharda, people like others, these
voices, Mukul Keswan, who's a very dear friend of mine, these
voices definitely matter. At this point in time, we need
to keep saying the right thing, irrespective of being, you know,
seen as kind of, you know, completely beyond the pale or
not being not creating a getting a popular opinion.
Because what is right will always remain right.
What is moral will always remain moral.
What is human will always remain human.
A lot of people ask this question, how would so and so
have behaved in Nazi Germany? And we know like you would have
behaved this you are behaving today, You would have not
behaved any of you would have not suddenly become some kind of
a glorious fighter if you were living in Nazi Germany.
So we need so I'm, I'm actually, there's a matter of great pride
that people like you and others do all this and say the right
things and speak up for the right values.
And that's I think something which which gives us hope.
People like Prem, people like Sharla, people like, you know,
Mukul and you all. So that's that's something which
is which is really truly wonderful.
Anyone you know anyone you brought up in Germany?
Anyone talks the same question has been put so many times.
One of my favorite book links to send is Valkyrie.
And just to tell them the boss there were people within the s s
that wanted him gone. So please Speaking of US,
Sushant, I, I do feel this, this rise of BCCIS is overlord comes
at important time. the US has denied visa to sanitify
countries. Many of them will play the World
Cup this summer, including Haiti.
And all that the US has, like you said, is having massive,
massive protests and killings. Gun violence is a huge issue.
And yet the FIFA president is now the best friend of Donald
Trump. He's at the Oval Office
frequently. Similarly, we know how football
is dealing with Saudi Arabia's incursion.
And you know, as much as you know, we show, we show
resentment towards what the BCCI has become and is becoming and
how, you know, post 2014 post the big three cricket has
changed. How?
Do you? How do you create a global
enough riposte to the market, by which I mean the the resource
that the BCCI will never lose? It could lose 30 matches in a
row, lose all its sponsorships, completely run out of money.
It will never lose the billion people audience which will
generate it's own money. How do you make a feasible
reposs do that? Yeah, I think I've never really
given it a thought. Start again.
I really can't immediately think of, think of, think of what can
be done to, to counter this or to or to create a narrative.
Football because you raise and football, you know, for a long
time or IOC or golf, for example, have been really
notorious for what they have for, for the way they've been
run and for the way they have conducted, conducted themselves.
The FIFA World Cup in US is under a lot of pressure.
I don't know if you, if you guys have seen the news that they've
been huge debates in Europe, whether Europe should even
participate in, in the, in the next FIFA World Cup in, in, in
the United States. So those kind of debates and
those kind of questions are being, are being, are being, are
being, are being raised in US. So eventually the shift in India
will only come when people of our country get back to their
senses and you know this drug induced haze in which they are
living or at least a section of them or which gives 240 seats to
Mr. Modi in 2024. A section of that, a section of
that crowd goes out of that drug induced haze and goes back to
the same kind of sanity which defined us where, you know,
where we would believe in the right things and do the right
things. So you do the right thing
because you believe in them, not because not because just because
you're under pressure or somebody going to slap you down,
slap you down. And I think the dealing with the
market, the oligarchic structure of Indian, of Indian economy
where I don't know if you saw this fact couple of days back
that 50% of India's corporate tax revenue to the, to the, to
the, to the federal government, to the Union government comes
from .1% of corporates in India. That's 50% of so you know the.
Structure is so. Dominant in, in, in, in India
that, you know, even the whole business idea, the model of
business and, and what kind of support is, is, is there.
Eventually the people will have to people will have to wake up
from, from whatever his they are and whatever their, whatever
their consume. And only I think then we will be
able to be able to see it. As for the business model, you
guys are already aware that the, that Jio is already wanted to
renegotiate the, the deal with, with ICC and even for the next
round of ICC rights, they're not willing to give the kind of
money that they gave this year because there's no competition.
So oligarchies and the, and the monopolies that are there in
India will have, will have its consequences, will have its
consequences, consequences for, for, for cricket, for cricket as
well. But the larger shift will have
to come from a change in the global political environment and
within a change in Indian society and polity.
And that's, that's the only answer I can think of.
Lasting change will only come in that manner.
And do you, do you reckon that also kind of because usually
when you think of these single like, you know, monopolistic,
monopolistic identities, they, we think of them as doomed to
fail. And but do you reckon, do you
reckon that can be conveyed to cricket that, or that there is
even a sense that we don't need to price this product this
highly. We are doing it because we have
it. But is, is there a sense within
the sport that, you know, if all power has to rest within India
and partly with Australia and England, the amount of money
that's flowing in that's causing this kind of inequality is
almost in unnecessary. And thus there is maybe a shift
back to a level playing field, or that is a shift that sailed.
I think that ship has sailed. It was possible in 20/16/2017
where where England and Australia and others could have
come together. And I think you are referring to
a kind of a MM Carney speech at Davos where he said that the
middle part would come together and stand up to the hegemonic
behaviour of the United States. Because if they don't, if
they're not on the, if they're, if they're not at the table,
then they're, then they will be on, they will be on the menu.
So I think that's, that's, that's exactly what's happening
with cricket as well. But in cricket, these middle
powers particularly, particularly I think South
Africa, England, Australia and West Indies have chosen
completely to be to be beholden to India and to accept India's,
you know this thing be India's lackeys in the in the world of
cricket and in that sense. So this idea of middle pass
banding together and standing up to India and trying to create an
alternative at this point in time seems seems far fetched,
seems clearly, clearly far fetched.
That window has gone, but windows can appear again, Indian
economy can go down, something else can happen.
You know, we don't know what can happen what can happen how you
don't know how, how first of all, first of all, what
happened? Somebody, somebody killed,
somebody fired a gun and you know, and then the whole, the
whole world went into war. So we really don't know what
what, what kind of changes, what can trigger what kind of changes
at what point in time. And especially if cricket
becomes popular in the United States or gets a share of money
out of here, how those how, how the business models change and
how and how things happen. But hoping that cricket
administrators in these other countries will will band
together and stand up to the BCCI.
As of now, it doesn't seem to be, it doesn't seem to be on the
horizon. But about the future Kesarasara,
what can we say? Kesarasara is a great note and
we. We generally don't end the part
without asking for any kind of recommendations, Books, YouTube
channels, whatever media you feel you're reading now.
Like sorry, is it, is it, should it be only cricket or should it
be we are? As political as it gets.
So you can see 3. OK.
If it is, if it is about a book, the, the recent book 2 books I
will recommend, one is slightly older, one is slightly newer.
There's a book called Leah Free by Leah AP Leah AP LEAHYPI.
She's an academic in, in London now.
She grew up in Albania and this book is about her childhood in
Albania, which was under a communist regime.
And then of course, the Cold War ends and then she lives a later
part of a teenage etcetera in a, in a, in a neoliberal Albania.
So quite a lot of parallels with people like me who grew up in
India, which are more socialist and economic.
It's a it has been translated in some 1890 languages.
It's an award-winning book. It just came out a couple of
years back. The AAP is a star.
If you're not read it, you should read that book.
It is beautifully written both about his her journey of the
childhood income incoming to Sylvania and thereafter.
It's free by the AAP is one second book is is by my
colleague and my colleagues and friends at Yale by Rohit Day and
Honit Shani, a book called Assembling India's Constitution.
So you know. We have all.
Been told, and this came out very recently, only a couple of
months back, we have all been told that India's constitution
was made by the Constituent Assembly.
Rohit, who's a historian and on it, who's also a historian,
Rohit and on it show that actually there were massive
debates going in the public space based on what how
constitution was created. So because we've all focused on
the constituent assembly debates, we have not focused on
what was going around. And they have on earth archives
on earth documents to show that it was a very, you know, it was
a process where people were involved.
It was a people centric process where a lot of lot of things
were involved. So I could I would immediately,
I would immediately recommend recommend these two books.
And if anybody, if anybody's interested, anything that Sharda
writes on on spot, I always recommend people to people to
people to read that she, she, I absolutely, absolutely,
absolutely like what she, what she says.
And I don't say that because she's a friend, but definitely,
you know, and she's, she's perhaps the best that we have in
terms of what we have on spot. Sharda is the first voice in our
podcast header. When our podcast title track
starts, Sharda is the first voice.
And not to sound too grandiose, but to us, at least all of us at
PCC and clearly you, she'll be the first voice in Indian sports
writing like was, is, will be. Yeah, yeah.
You know, the fact I'm here is because of Sharda.
Like it's it's as simple as that.
So you respect for her what she writes.
And of course Prem is there. Mukul is there.
Lot of lot of good, lot of lot of good writers, people who are
actually writing in with about sport in a holistic manner and
not just about the technicalities because you see
it now, I'm sure you guys will see the newspaper.
Then you see people talking about 1.5° turn and three degree
turn and this is happening and that's all fine, but there's a
lot that's also happening along along along alongside.
So you know what that Clr James line, what do they know of
cricket? They only only the cricket know.
That's what essentially. Yeah, that's what.
And Mike Marquez, I'm sure you guys have discussed the book on
your on your part. I don't want to say that.
Yeah, every single. Part.
It's a thing. We have to actually when when
you're. Discussing 1996 World Cup I I
was very careful. I should, I should not go
towards the Mike Marquez the argument and start quoting from
his experience in the ferocia court law.
But, you know, yeah. We.
Quote from it all the time,
Sushant. In every book it's man what a.
What a book. What a book.
Things he. Saw in 94 and he perceived in 94
and he wrote that book on that because they're talking.
Because we are. Talking cricket, I think.
I'm sure you guys know this, that Osman Samyuddin piece on
hall in Pakistani cricket of course.
Of course, but I. Don't think there's a greater
piece of cricket writing than that.
Yes, that piece is. That essay is like, worth its
written code. Nothing captures it.
It captures everything about South Asia, about how we feel
about sport, about television. That hard piece is by Osman.
Yes. Have you?
Read. His recent essay on Imran.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the equator now.
Yes, yes, yes, yeah. And even his book was good.
But that hard piece, you know, sometimes some people, that hard
piece like really blew me completely.
Like I was like, wow, this is something else.
Yes. Have you by any chance been
following his Co conspirators YouTube channel?
But a fast because we are big fans of Amer as well.
And, and I think what Amer does in storytelling in cricket, I
think there's pretty much nobody like that as well.
Yeah. Unfortunately I'm not, I'm not
following Amber's podcast, but I was in touch with Amber.
Amber was trying to write something for a Pakistani
newspaper and wanted some quotes from me etcetera.
I was only in touch with Amber for that.
I will try and look for it but a fast I'll try and look for it
and see that. But I hope you guys are seeing
Muhammad Hanif's you know, V logs in Punjabi on BBC.
If you have not seen that Mohammad Hanif, who wrote that,
who did that great satirical novel about, you know, a case, a
case full of mangoes about Zia's death.
And you know, it's a, it's a satirical novel Great.
He's a great satirist and a great writer.
You have to see those very short vlogs he does at BBC in, in
Punjabi on, on, on various issues.
He did one on AR Rahman. This thing you know, Hanif is
Hanif is Hanif. And again, another level.
Another level altogether. Fantastic.
On that note, thank you so much Sushant for coming on the point.
Thank you so much. Sushant, it was so good.
And yeah, thank you guys. And it was like really
wonderful. I really enjoyed myself as you
can make out. I'm sure you we had, we had
great fun. I had, I had great fun chatting
with you and talking to you and all the all the best to you
guys. And I genuinely admire what you
do. And I and I appreciate that you
do this in these times and become the voice of sanity about
the sport and trying to bring value to Indian society and to
and to India as a as a as a country.
Thank you so much for all that you do.
Yeah. Thanks a lot.
Thank you so much for coming over, Sushant.
We'll be in touch. We'll keep talking to you.
That's four in a. Row there is good.
They're gonna blow next in the prodigal son, Turn the fire gets
a second hundred in successive romantic style.
The whole of Bengal are on their feet.
Not that important. He's gone the next ball.
The dream is diminished for Carlos Pratwin.
Favourable scenes here.