Part one can be read here: Cricket and the Indian Woman–Part One
 

I have written about women who don’t know cricket but talk about it and about women who know that their interest in the sport is actually their interest in men. I shall now write about their social position in the context of the sport. Surely, they are not equals to men.

There are women who don’t like the sport and they don’t feign interest in the sport. They don’t buy tickets to go to cricket stadiums or spend hours watching live telecasts. Then there are women whose interest is solely sexual. What bonds both the types is the subservient position that this sport has given them. Globalisation and relaxation of morals has exposed several cricketing countries to India’s sexual insecurity and her attitudes towards women.

And Indian women don’t seem to mind if they know about their stature.

They are relegated to looking pretty on television, talking about male adrenaline and asking the male ‘experts’ questions about playing techniques; the women are not experts themselves.

Women who can talk about cricket (Anjum Chopra, prolific) are not media darlings like the spaghetti and noodle strap-wallas. They are not asked to promote cricketing events; at least not in the same stead as the models in mini dresses. So along with fairness cream ads and ‘item-numbers’ in movies, cricket reinforces stereotyping of women. The social position of women as aides to men is redefined every time the woman is seen as doing nothing greater than gushing over cricketers.

Last year, foreign women were brought to India to work as cheerleaders in the IPL tournament. Indian women are generally not seen as promiscuous unlike foreign women. So they were not approached to wear tiny clothes and dance every time a batsman hit a ‘sixer’.

Foreign cheerleaders (bottom) are doctors, lawyers and even students who have to earn their education and livelihood. Their bodies are supple and dances are sexy. They are not seen as scandalous in their countries. Indian cheerleaders (top) are untidy imitations grappling with fear of a conservative society.

And then the fairness cream ads have ensured that men salivate over white skin and women aimlessly apply loads of cosmetics on their skin. So, Indian women were sidelined in favour of the foreigners. The cheerleading act was criticised but men drove in large numbers to watch the dancing girls or stayed glued to the television sets waiting for the camera to show them semi-naked bodies. On one hand the white girls were being criticized and on the other hand men were whistling with joy.

The cheerleaders from foreign countries are much more honourable than the Indian women in context of the sport.

They are lawyers, nurses, sportswomen and even students who have to earn money to make it through college. They wear the tiniest dresses to excite the men and bring in more crowds. No Indian women can imitate them or take on their role without some scandal and societal problems.

The ‘white’ cheerleaders are equal to men in the sense that they can openly admit that they see sport (any sport) for the handsome men. Many Indian women would be considered shameful for expressing their sexual nature and most women in rural India would accept their desires in private or only in comfortable male company.

In addition, women in India are exposed to images of foreign women thronging football stadiums and enjoying themselves. In India, it is nearly impossible for them to enter the stadium if it is packed with men; most of them fear sexual assault.

Unlike the women in Europe who can go to stadiums with lesser fear of being attacked by men and who can wear the clothes of their liking, women in India have to take on the mantle of respect and conservatism. Men are the shouters, the aggressors; women have to be quiet and cheer or stand and clap but not as much as the man.

Not possible in Indian stadiums: It is not safe for women in India to attend packed cricket stadiums without fear of sexual assault

This may sound as an example of misogyny. If so, then women don’t seem to mind it. Actresses profess their admiration for cricketers but the journalists never ask them any tough questions. It is understood that women’s knowledge about cricket is limited and they are not to be expected to observe the sport closely.

Women are thus an accessory; they are an ornament to decorate the sport and provide it with glamour; attract men who don’t like the sport and serve as a tool to a sex starved male population. In essence, they are bought as a commodity through good money and sold as unintelligent temptresses, thereby re-enforcing the decisions of Indian men to discount the intellect of women.   

As long as the woman understands that she is masquerading as a cricket lover and walking the ramp with cricketers solely for money, there is little problem for her psyche.

Not quite 'homely': Former Indian captain Anjum Chopra will play her fourth successive World Cup this year. She is also a panelist on a cricket discussion show.

The problem here lies in the mindset of men who look at these women as show-pieces and don’t see that she is simply performing to earn money. The image of women as ‘cricket trophies’ is problematic for them in the male-dominated Indian society. It may not be a major problem for the woman if she is aware of her role in the sport and accepts it with the understanding that she has talents beyond serving as a temptress. The woman should be able to maintain her self outside the glamour of her job.

There is something for us to admire in the cricketer crazy women who watch the sport for the men alone and don’t pretend any affection for the sport. Once again, this is healthy because the woman is in control of her mind and desires. It is the woman who does not understand the gamut of their desires and the lies of advertisements that needs to be watchful.

I would like to end with a stark example of cricket consumerism that involves the nation’s heartthrob M S Dhoni. But first you should know that Sachin Tendulkar is married to a woman who is older to him and who is professionally a doctor; hardly a suitable combination for most Indian men.

The media and many Indian women went gaga over Dhoni and ignored a statement that talks about the idea of women in Indian society

“My ideal woman’ is someone who is caring, understanding and ready to compromise. Basically, I would like someone homely.”

Megha Swamy

Every time I look at the poster, I want to tell Priyanka Chopra to get a grip. Have some self-respect! The ‘hero’ (a muscled Roshan look-alike) stands tall; and the meek, red haired (?) Chopra almost clings on to him. The pink teddy (???) just completes the sappy look. She could as well have screamed, “Oh, my knight in shining leather pants! Hold me, protect me!”

Indian women should be entitled to a lot more respect. Even as our society comes of age and our women are empowered, somehow there has never been a drastic change in the notion that the woman is weaker, needs to be a certain way, quiet and docile; and yes, needs a man by her side. The scary part is that even women don’t seem to respect themselves or consider their kin as being at par with males.

It is the quintessential middle-class mentality that if a man drinks or smokes, well, that is just how men are made. If a woman does the same; comments roll out in droves. Aunties, chachis and neighbouring homemakers exclaim, “Ayyo! Look, look at that girl!”. “Shee! Must be such a loose character.” And there have been other theories, that the woman in question must be from a broken family or a lover might have spurned her, leading to the amorous state of affairs. So essentially, if a woman does exactly what a man does, she is a lesser and somehow promiscuous human.

The skimpy outfits of the cheerleaders during the IPL created a furor. Ministers objected and the girls were told to cover-up. Their dresses were deemed against ‘Indian culture’. Anybody who had attended one of the earlier matches at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai would have heard incessant vulgar chants from the crowds directed towards the cheerleaders. “Item, Item, I love you!” screamed the perverts. Was such behaviour in tune with our esteemed culture? Then why weren’t those men booked, or even told to shut up!?

It is simply because the middle-class thinks that the women called it upon themselves. They are, after all, enticing the men, aren’t they? The woman is to be blamed. And therefore, considering the larger picture, a rape victim would have in some way, called it upon herself to be raped. And in a divorce, it must have been the fault of the woman, for not listening to her man and ‘sacrificing’. Such thinking justifies rape and indeed all other crimes against women.

Men rape because they can. And divorces happen because two people are not compatible.

I am not endorsing smoking, drinking and skimpy outfits among women which is a personal choice. But a woman should be able to do what she wants. Wear what she wants and not be stared, leered at or taped by some pervert on his mobile phone.

We need to assert that even if a woman walks naked on a street, a man cannot–just cannot–touch her. Simply because it is a crime. And women, in whatever state they may be, are not commodities to be vandalized.

Once while waiting at a bus-stop, a man stared incessantly and blatantly at me. I asked him why he was doing so. “Well, it’s your fault, you’re in the middle of my sight”, he leered, showing a sick smile. I replied, “Well, why don’t I slap you and pretend your face was in the way of my hand.” He seemed dumbstruck for a second and simply walked away. It seemed that the new-to-the-big-city pervert had never encountered a woman who could stand up to a man.

Women need to stand up and start respecting themselves as equal to men. The men will follow accordingly.

And hence, contrary to what the Priyanka Chopra poster might suggest, we are not crystal show pieces to be taken care of by the ‘all powerful’ male.

Kartikey Sehgal

The young waves thrash and splash but it’s the bigger old waves of the sea that steer boats, rouse storms and carry the force and thunder of experience.

Sourav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar have played masterful innings in the ongoing IPL tournament. They have, yet again, awakened the masses to the nuances of timing and stroke-play. Their batting may not have always led the team to victory, but it’s their character and dogged persistence that adds colour to the game that is monotonously unpredictable.

Most cricket lovers should agree that Saurav Ganguly has played one of the best innings of IPL when he led Kolkota to a win over Punjab. It was an innings of strife and struggle. Sourav found it very hard to connect the bat to the ball and was lucky to get away a few times. He misses several chances of scoring boundaries and had to be content with singles. His victory over this struggle makes his batting special.

Sourav didn’t lose concentration or composure. He didn’t play rash shots like his team mates. In the crucial final overs, he took complete charge of the field and the game. None of his shots were struggles. Calm and confident; he was the hero of the day.

Compare Sourav to the ‘young’ Yuvraj Singh. Yuvraj is brash as a captain and a player. He looks frustrated and never short of ill words for his team mates. Importantly, he lacks the cricketing spirit that Sourav possesses. Unlike Sourav, Yuvraj has not improved his batting. He is a misfit in Test matches and survives in the one-day team due to his occasional match winning runs and his good fielding.

Yuvraj’s team, Punjab, beat the Mumbai team in their recent match. He yelled at his players for every mistake and glowered and huffed. Mumbai’s captain Sachin Tendulkar was calm under pressure and dignified in his conduct. He chided the players for their performance off the field and inside the dressing room. He also played an innings of splendour. Avoiding the rash shots, he improvised on the regular cover drives and glances. It was the calmest innings of IPL and made Mumbai’s loss look pitiful.

Another victim of ‘olden duck’ philosophy of Indian cricket is Rahul Dravid, who plays better cricket than Dhoni and Yuvraj Singh. His craftsmanship is a treat for the senses. He played magnificently against the tough Jaipur team and announced his talent that was surprisingly, very surprisingly, under the scanner. Dravid may not be the best captain and may be reserved in his decisions and planning, but he deserves to be playing every form of cricket.

And why not?

What is so special and different about the young (below 30 in Indian parlance) players? Their talents do not supersede the talents of the three finest players of Indian cricket. Dhoni is struggling despite some quick runs. Yuvraj is tense and out of focus. This must be a temporary phase for them. But it as temporary as Rahul’s and Sourav’s form for which they were dropped from the national team.

Kartikey Sehgal

Sachin Tendulkar and Kumara Sangakkara have recited the success for 20-20 cricket. Imagination and innovation.

20-20 cricket is not conducive for young players. It is a game for players who can innovate upon proper cricketing shots. It is advantageous to Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne and Sachin Tendulkar and tough for Parthiv Patel and Rohan Raje. The younger lot has every reason to feel disillusioned with the pace and practice of this game.

Experienced cricketers like Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Jacques Kallis are facing the problem of motivation and adjustment. Otherwise, they should easily deal with the pressures of the game and perform better than the ‘young guns’. Rahul Dravid recently scored big runs against the Rajasthan Royals at a strike rate that crossed the 200 mark.

Players are short of peace and confidence in this version. The mantra is to dispatch the ball to any place of the ground and garner runs. Bad shots are lauded by the crowd and the players, if they result in some runs for the team. However, in the process, the player feels upset. His disappointment is overcome by the cheers. Thus, after every bad shot, he seeks approval his team and the boisterous crowd.

This process has a shelf life. The player yearns for a forward defensive shot and a proper hook shot. He starts playing with dexterity and elegance. If he fails to score runs this way, he is conveniently replaced by another who is hungry for team and crowd support. Our player then sits in the balcony and watches his replacement play bad shots. After some matches he becomes disillusioned and confused. He can either play cricket as he knows it, or he can play bat and ball and earn some cheers.

Who then, is the winner in 20-20? It is the player who has committed umpteen mistakes in Test cricket and One Day Internationals and can expertly avoid them while playing innovative cricket.