Bengali first

Sir ? Ashok Mitra?s attempt to defend the ludicrous displays of Bengali chauvinism is quite unsupportable. In ?Chauvinism and justice? (Dec 23), Mitra tries to fool his readers into believing that there is not much difference between Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly as batsmen and condones the outrageous behaviour of the Eden Gardens crowd during the India-South Africa one-dayer. It is likely that Mitra formed his opinion on the basis of newspaper reports only. Had Mitra been present at the venue, he would have seen how the ?patriotic? and ?anti-colonial? crowd at Eden was throwing water pouches and abusing Indian cricketers like Irfan Pathan and even Tendulkar. This was indeed no anti-colonial outburst but a truly condemnable exhibition of impropriety.

While explaining the possible reasons that led to the dropping of Ganguly in the third test match against Sri Lanka, Mitra admits that Ganguly has been a lazy runner between the wickets, and this did not fit in with Greg Chappell?s scheme of things. But more importantly, Ganguly was found lacking in discipline on at least two occasions. When Greg Chappell was appointed as India?s new coach and a camp organized in Bangalore before India?s tour of Zimbabwe, Ganguly, being the captain, should have been present to apprise Chappell of his teammates. Instead, he chose to busy himself in playing a few inconsequential county matches in England. On another occasion, before the team?s departure for Zimbabwe, Ganguly played truant during a press conference in Mumbai and kept the coach and the press waiting. Such acts of indiscipline set a very bad example and brought Ganguly into Chappell?s bad books. Mitra is welcome to his opinions but he should forfeit attempts to enlist popular support by writing unacceptable things.

Yours faithfully,
Susanta Ghosh, Calcutta

Sir ? A majority of Indians would feel that Ashok Mitra?s outburst is yet another example of a Bengali?s indignation at the exclusion of a local hero. Mitra?s attempts to compare Tendulkar with Ganguly show his complete lack of understanding of the nuances of the game. There might not be much of a difference between Ganguly and Tendulkar?s career averages but unlike Ganguly, the little master?s conduct has been irreproachable. When Tendulkar felt that he was not comfortable with the burden of captaincy, he stepped down voluntarily; Ganguly, on the other hand, held on to the reins with the help of his mentor, Jagmohan Dalmiya, even when he was not contributing with the bat. People talk about the number of games that India has won under Ganguly. If Mitra were to find out what Ganguly?s contribution in those games was, he would be very disappointed.

Mitra also says how Steve Waugh was eased out from Australian captaincy; but then, no one in Australia did what Calcuttans did here ? burn effigies of Rahul Dravid and Greg Chappell, boo the home team in a one-day match and so on. As long as we let emotions decide team selection in this country, we can never hope to match the Australians in terms of success. Whether it is Tendulkar or Ganguly or anyone else for that matter, only players who are consistent should be asked to represent the country.

Yours faithfully,
R.B. Easwaran, Chennai

Sir ? A number of Bengalis went up in arms to protest against the decision to exclude Sourav Ganguly from the side. But would the same lot break into similar protests if a non-Bengali cricketer is dropped in an unfair manner in the future?

Yours faithfully,
Birkha Khadka Duvarseli, Siliguri

Sir ? According to the dictionary, the word chauvinism means ?an abundantly extravagant pride in country, with corresponding contempt for foreign nations?. It is not right to describe the reaction of Bengalis to Sourav Ganguly?s ouster as ?chauvinistic?. Rather, the protests were a manifestation of Bengali parochialism. Neither love for cricket nor the fanatical support for Ganguly can explain the vulgar agitation carried out by his fans. What knowledge of the game did schoolgirls, who blocked roads in south 24 parganas, have?

In his article, Ashok Mitra says that the Calcutta crowd had manned barricades in support of C.K. Nayudu and Mushtaq Ali in the past. I was one of the protesters when Mushtaq was dropped from the Indian cricket team in the late Forties. The protests had nothing to do with the so-called ?injustice? but it had everything to do with Mushtaq?s skills with the bat. After all, very few cricketers could sweep an off-side delivery to the leg or go halfway down the pitch to block a ball. It was this that had made Mushtaq the darling of Calcuttans. It is doubtful whether Calcuttans would take to the streets if a player outside Bengal gets dropped. Axing well-known players is not uncommon in cricket. The Sri Lankans had dropped Sanath Jayasuriya during the India tour. But there were no protests of this sort on the streets of Colombo.The Bengali media along with our netas are responsible for fomenting regional sentiment. This is deplorable. It?s not cricket.

Yours faithfully
Asoke C. Banerjee, Calcutta

Sir? Can Ashok Mitra possibly explain why defenders of Sourav Ganguly are either journalists from Calcutta or those who have a stake in Bengal cricket like Sunil Gavaskar (for obvious reasons)? Why is it that Calcuttans did not protest when V.V.S. Laxman or Anil Kumble failed to find a place in the side ? Or for that matter, why was Azharuddin, the former lord of the Eden Gardens, booed when he did not want Utpal Chatterjee to be in the team? Chauvinism, like corruption, is now an all-India phenomenon and Bengal is no exception to this malaise.

Yours faithfully,
Pramod Arikal, Mumbai

n Sir ? Sourav Ganguly?s return to the Indian team is positive in one respect; if he does badly in Pakistan, he can then be permanently discarded from the team and no one, except truly bigoted Bengalis, would protest. Unfortunately, Ganguly?s inclusion will spoil relations within the team and this may cost India the series against arch-rivals Pakistan.

Yours faithfully,
Biswapriya Purkayastha, Shillong