Falling in line: The ousting of Harsha Bhogle

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Mail
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • WhatsApp
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Harsha Bhogle

    Right before the Indian Premier League kicked off, grim news hit Indian cricket fans. Harsha Bhogle, arguably the face of Indian cricket broadcasting had been left out of the tournament’s commentary team.

    It cam despite him hosting the IPL player draft a few months ago, and being on the television promos of the extravaganza.

    REASONS UNKNOWN

    The explanations were few, and conjecture aplenty. There were murmurs of him upsetting an official at the BCCI president’s state association, while there was also talk that some Indian cricketers were not too happy being criticised and had therefore asked for Harsha’s removal.

    But then there was also the elephant in the room – a tweet by Indian film actor Amitabh Bachchan, who apparently didn’t like how Indian commentators refused to be, for the lack of a better word, ‘patriotic’ in their analysis. The tweet was later endorsed by MS Dhoni.

    Out of all of this, one thing stands out – a fan favourite, one of the finest cricket experts to have not played the sport and the face of Indian cricket in the 90s and early-2000s had been left out in the cold, by the very same cricket board that had been making him richer each year. By the very same board that on many occasions was defended by Harsha. But this is the BBCI that we are talking about. Friendships are short-lived here.

    BCCI AND ITS VOICES

    HARSHA BHOGLE - DID YOU KNOW?

    • Started commentating aged 19 with All India Radio
    • Hosted TV programs like Harsha Online and School Quiz Olympiad for ESPN & Star Sports.
    • Was Mumbai Indians advisor for 2008 IPL.

    This episode doesn’t come as a surprise, as in recent years the BCCI has done everything it can to shape the narrative in the Indian cricketing landscape. Be it by offering exorbitant central contracts to popular voices like Ravi Shastri and Sunil Gavaskar, or by intending to censor voices like that of Ian Chappell. The board even went a step further and sacked HD Ackerman, a commentator, for saying on air that Virat Kohli was the future Indian captain. BCCI’s notoriety in this regard remains well established.

    But the sad bit though is when reputed names such as Harsha, Gavaskar and Shastri fall for the control that the board exerts. It’s sad that they have been doing it for all these years, and now find themselves as a victim of the very same thing that they have been tacitly agreeing to. Take for example when the IPL spot-fixing case broke out in 2013, none of the three spoke out against it. Not a word. The host broadcaster remained quiet, the commentators remained quiet – it’s as if nothing had happened.

    In the scenario in which they were morally obligated to talk about an issue that had tarnished the sport they were representing, they chose to remain silent. Later on, when BCCI’s monopoly over the sport was questioned, Harsha came out and justified it, comparing BCCI to the oil cartel. Time and again, whenever anything contentious about the non-adoption of the Decision Review System has been raised, Shastri has come out all guns blazing supporting the board’s stance without evaluating arguments by their merits.

    THE AGE OF ‘YES MEN’

    So in an age where being the ‘yes man’ is rampant, such explicit and tacit acts of sycophancy by numerous people in the Indian cricketing fraternity (including Harsha) has done a great deal to validate BCCI’s handling of issues. The cash-rich board knows that by virtue of the million dollar contracts, and a strong grip over the production of telecast, it can exert total and unparalleled control over the kind of message that goes out.

    Today what has happened to Harsha is extremely unfortunate. A person of his stature and calibre does not deserve the treatment that has been meted out to him. But all these years of remaining in the BCCI good books, he never for once considered what might happen if he didn’t toe their line. While the reason for his ousting isn’t known, it can be reasonably inferred that it was because somewhere he was refusing to be the ‘yes man’ and that cost him his job.

    Harsha could very well have remained the balding guy of the 1990s on cricket shows that he truly was – the cricket lover, only seen on TV when India toured England and Australia. The rare gem in the Indian broadcasting scene who people got up early in the morning to listen to. But somewhere down the line, the magic was lost. Harsha became a BCCI-man, an ultimate optimist with soft stances on issues both on and off the field.

    So when he decided he didn’t want to be seen as the BCCI-man any longer, he paid for it with his IPL commentary contract. And now that he finds himself out of favour and with no open support from his former colleagues, the only solidarity he can expect to receive is from social media. Just like he was quiet all these years, his colleagues too, don’t want to take a stand and jeopardise their current position with the BCCI.

    One can ask how this episode would have played out had Harsha not pledged his loyalty to the Indian board so wholeheartedly in the first place? What if he hadn’t toed the line? Things could very well have turned out to be a bit differently, but that’s for another day.

    Recommended