JOIN USShame that even Ganguly cannot change BCCI's ways
Anyone looking for small mercies can seek solace from the fact that Virat Kohli came to know of his removal as India's ODI skipper first-hand from the chairman of the national selection panel. Chetan Sharma might have conveyed his committee's decision off-handedly and as an afterthought ahead of a selection meeting to pick the Test squad for South Africa, but Kohli was at least accorded a privilege two of his predecessors weren't.
In 1979, as India were flying back from England after a long tour that involved a winless World Cup campaign and a 0-1 Test series loss to the hosts, S Venkataraghavan came to know of his sacking when the captain of the Air India aircraft congratulated Sunil Gavaskar over the in-flight public address system on his appointment as the skipper. Eighteen years on, Sachin Tendulkar was out with his friends when a journalist called him with the news of his ouster from the helm of the Indian team. Neither man had been done the courtesy by the Board of Control for Cricket in India of so much as a 'thank-you-very-much-but-we-
Also Read | Ganguly-Kohli row: BCCI ponders its next move
One would have expected, given how much professionalism the BCCI has embraced in the intervening 24 years since the end of Tendulkar's first term as national skipper, that there would be a greater streamlining of the processes that iron out the potential creases when it comes to captaincy swaps. On the evidence of what's transpired in the last week, that is quite clearly not the case.
It can be argued that the BCCI/selection panel chairman is under no obligation to inform the incumbent captain that he is being replaced. But isn't that the decent thing to do, obligation or not? Should not a man who has been at the top of the leadership charts in Test cricket since 2015 and the limited-overs formats since 2017 have been taken into confidence, the roadmap of the future outlined so that even in a non-captaincy role, he would still be as heavily invested in taking the team forward? What would the Board have stood to lose in that instance?
Kohli should have seen the writing on the wall as early as September when he announced his intention to quit the T20I captaincy at the end of the World Cup in the UAE in October-November. International men's cricket isn't replete with examples of one person leading the T20I side and another handling the reins of the Test and ODI teams. However, that's precisely the case currently with India Women, where Mithali Raj is the Test, and ODI captain and Harmanpreet Kaur heads the T20I side of which Raj is no longer a member.
The two white-ball versions largely necessitate the same leader both to define the brand of play and to ensure that different voices, however much in resonance, don't clutter the minds of the players. Kohli ought to have realised that when while quitting the T20I leadership role, he expressed his desire to focus on Test and ODI captaincy. If he didn't, that's still alright. After all, that's what the selectors are there for.
Not too many have an issue with Rohit Sharma supplanting Kohli as the 50-over captain – not even Kohli, going by what he said at Wednesday's press conference. It is the manner in which the entire issue has been handled that has left a bitter taste in the mouth. This wasn't unavoidable. All it needed was a channel of communication to be open. Why that wasn't the case is the big question.
Even assuming that the selection panel head was justified in his throwaway line to Kohli about looking beyond him when it came to the 50-over captaincy, where was the need for Sourav Ganguly, the BCCI president, to queer the pitch with his assertions that Kohli has subsequently contradicted? Even in his first week in charge, Ganguly had spoken more to the media than perhaps all his predecessors combined. In keeping with that tradition, he chose to inform the world that he had requested Kohli not to relinquish the T20I captaincy. Kohli denies such a request was ever made. Ganguly also let it be known that he and Chetan Sharma had informed Kohli that Rohit Sharma would be elevated as the ODI captain too. Again, Kohli has no recollection of these conversations. Clearly, only one of them is being truthful, and Ganguly's studied unnatural silence in the aftermath of the Kohli presser hasn't helped matters any.
For reasons best known to it, the BCCI has made it a habit of keeping the rationale behind even its most far-reaching decisions wrapped in cotton wool. It is convinced there is no need to justify its calls to the largest stakeholder, the cricket-invested fan who has helped the sport reach dizzying heights with his unstinted patronage. And when statements do emanate, they are either addled or confusing – such as treasurer Arun Dhumal's insistence that Kohli had sought leave of absence from the ODI series in South Africa even before Rohit Sharma's appointment, which too Kohli has shot down – and not from the men whose responsibility it is to throw knowing light on subjects.
One would have expected greater empathy from the current BCCI president, not only because he is a 100-Test veteran but also owing to his unceremonious ouster from the captaincy in 2005. Instead, Ganguly has reiterated the truism that in Indian cricket, the more things change, the more they remain the same. Now, that's a real shame, no matter if one is sympathetically inclined towards Kohli or not.
(R Kaushik is a Bengaluru-based senior cricket writer)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.