Why the IPL shouldn't suffer our censure

So, the IPL rolls on again, ready, as every year, to be hailed and derided in equal measure. I must confess I am a huge fan of the IPL for creating a league system where we are given the freedom to choose the team we support based on the style of cricket we enjoy, and am quite surprised to see so many condemning it with such alarming ferocity.

I find little reason to denounce either the IPL or the people involved in it. What the IPL has done is give us more choice in our loyalties. Earlier, there was only India, and though I am young, and have seen strong Indian sides play, for decades on end, India dragged its feet through one loss after another, and cricket fans in India had to support them with pessimism and reluctance.

Now, we have eight teams (soon to be ten) and one has a range of teams to pick from, to pin one’s loyalties to. Unlike in the past, we can pick teams we can identify with, whose style of cricket we enjoy (and to be sure, in two short years, each of the eight teams has evolved its distinct identity), and not face the guilt of betraying one’s country.

Of course, people from Mumbai are more likely to support their home team, as I do, but they suffer no censure for supporting Bangalore (some mock supporters of Kolkata for being in either the “Dada cult” or the “Shah Rukh cult”).

The IPL also provides an invaluable platform for youngsters to showcase their talent. Earlier, players would scratch away in second-tier Ranji teams, ignored by even the proverbial three men and a dog (and most importantly, the selectors, who would sit with a languorous eye hovering between Mumbai and Delhi), in the hopes of being a part of the lucky eleven to live a comfortable life playing the game they love.

It was harder than any competitive exam [11 “seats” for more than a million aspirants? Can the Indian Institute of Technology entrance exam even compare?], and yet we now begrudge these players for receiving “obscene” sums of money, now that their value has been recognised. It is a trifling sum compared to the salaries of film stars and bigshot corporate honchos, and yet no one criticises them on such a regular basis.

The truth is, we are overwhelmed by our desire for wealth and fame, and so despise anyone achieving them, like the proverbial crabs in a bucket. Desire resides in every breast, yet, hypocritically, its acknowledgment is taboo. Let he who sinneth most cast the first stone. Thus, in our frenzy to denounce, we heap abuse on players and commentators, on those who believe what they are saying and on those who don’t indiscriminately.

The commentator too is possessed by desire; two desires, in fact. One is the desire for purity, the other for the assurance of his job, and different commentators possess these in different measure. Thus, each tries to circumvent the system; avoid saying cringe-worthy terms like “DLF Maximum” and “Citi Moment of Success”, while resigned in the knowledge that he has to, sooner or later. Don’t we all make small allowances in our jobs for tasks we find distasteful?

As an aside, I don’t know how much this branding of cricket terms is actually benefiting companies; there exists such a vehement and unanimous dislike for it that I imagine it can do only harm to their public perception. Or is there no such thing as bad publicity? We all hate this commercialisation of cricket, to lesser or greater degree, but it is not a perfect world. One wishes one could do away with ads constantly blaring at us, but we cannot, and without the ads, cricket cannot run at the high standards we have come to expect from it.

For a cricket tournament to be successful, it has to be popular and reach out to a wide audience. But, a TV channel will not feature it unless it is popular, or has potential, and it will not be popular unless it is broadcast and promoted well. This is a vicious cycle, and can only be broken with money being produced by one or the other side. We, as viewers, are not loth to part with our money if we are receiving quality entertainment, but this entertainment’s quality is supported by its sponsorship by XYZ. As long as certain basics are maintained, like not sacrificing the precious first ball of an over on the altar of the commercial break, commercialisation can be tolerated.