By
Syed Ibrahim Rizvi
The metaphorical phrase ‘Jungle Rule’ is used to describe a system where the strongest survive, and where civilized rules, laws, and ethics are absent, replaced by brute force and self-interest.
By human standards, this is taken in a negative sense because humans are expected to show rational behavior. As the phrase itself suggests, ‘Jungle Rule’ is perhaps an instinct present in animals.
In the evolutionary history, humans are a recent creation on this earth and owe their existence to their distant cousins belonging to a class of animals that belong to the group classified as ‘primates’ and include within their fold the chimpanzees, gorillas, and apes.
It was just around 2.5 to 3 million years ago that a divergence appeared and animals with hhuman-likefeatures evolved. This was the beginning of humankind. Humans, which resembled us and belong to the biological classification of Homo sapiens evolved just two lac years back.
The evolution of humans was accompanied by large changes not only in body contours but also in nature and understanding. Humans developed a sense of rational thought and developed their own rules, which were at variance with the animal instinct of ‘jungle rule’.
A major human rule, in every ancient civilization, has been to desist from the instinct of survival by brute force.
As humans, with their evolved cognitive abilities, created narratives that became defining characteristics for each civilization. It was during the clash nof arratives of different civilizations that wars became an integral part of human existence.
To prepare for imminent wars, every civilization evolved mechanisms whereby its youth must remain healthy and strong.
It was therefore the need of every society to create conditions for friendly drills within its members so that a force of healthy men may be available for exigencies.
The genesis of sports owes its existence in every part of the world and every civilization to the need of evolving societies.
The earliest documented evidence of oan rganized sporting event dates back to 776 B.C in Greece, wherethe Olympic Games were held, and the winner of the foot race was given a highly exalted position in society.
It is another story how the Olympic Games were abolished in 393 AD but were revived in 1896 CE in Athens by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, marking the start of the modern Olympic Games.
Other than the Olympic Games, where traditionally the major competitions tested the physical strength of the participants, other sports took birth in different parts of the world, their diversity mirroring the geography, culture, and prosperity of the region.
Among all documented human sports, Cricket is perhaps one of its kind.
Having originated in a purely English setting sometime in the sixteenth century, Cricket was an amalgamation of leisure and a sporting event which could cater to the affluent society during the English summer.
Amongst the novelties of the game of Cricket, one cannot be left awestruck by the intricacies of its laws that govern the game.
A game played on lush green grounds of English meadows, on a pitch of twenty-two yards and with the game interspersed into overs, all testify to its royalty and leisurely approach.
Perhaps the game was a perfect retreat for the upper-class Britishers who wanted to spend some time in the sun. No wonder Cricket was given the name of the ‘Gentleman’s game’.
As the British Empire spread its tentacles across the globe, the game of Cricket travelled to distant places. It is a matter of further debate how different cultures adapted the game, but the game of Cricket retained its royal approach.
It is indeed this royal soul of cricket that attracted erstwhile Maharajas and Nawabs to take up this game in India. Duleepsinhji, Ranjitsinhji, and Nawab Iftikhar Ali Khan are examples of how the Indian royalty was attracted to this game.
As time passed, the game of cricket spread far and wide and percolated to the general populace, where it gaineda foothold. There was something in this lazy sport that captured the imagination of players and spectators across different continents.
However, in a major deviation from other sports, the game of Cricket retained its royal approach where the single game, christened as a Test, extended for a full five days.
A striking feature of this royal game was the emphasis on the art of play rather than on brute force or strength. The West Indians, by their inherent strong build, did bring a glimpse of strength, but still the art of the game ruled supreme.
Sir Garfield Sobers, Rohan Kanhai, Brian Lar,a and Viv Richards were artists when they hit the ball on the twenty-two-yard pitch.
Over the years, Cricket became more of a spectator sport. Spectators also displayed a rare display of acknowledgement for the art of Cricket.
A five-day game ending in a draw was still highly entertaining. And there was no reason why spectators would be unhappy after a drawn game.
Every person who came to watch a Test match came to see cover drives, square cut, pull, on drive, and an exquisite late cut. Cricket to its spectators mimicked the beauty of a musical Orchestra. The audienceknewe to understand each note of the symphony.
Thus, the spectators never came to the ground to see the runs getting scored, they came to see how the runs were being scored.
It was in this setting of the game that the world of Cricket saw the brilliance of Sir Don Bradman, the poetry of Michael Holding’s bowling action, Peter May’s onside play, the lazy elegance of David Gower, the precision of Sachin Tendulkar’s cover drive, and the guile of Bishan Singh Bedi.
As the saying goes,’ all good things come to an end’, so it was with the royal exquisiteness of the game of Cricket. After Kerry Packer transformed cricket into a one-day sport, the game of Cricket lost its ‘innocence’.
The game became a battle of winning or losing. The art of the game started to recede.
The final nail in the coffin came with the advent of thetwenty-firstt century when a new style of Cricket emerged, the T20 cricket. Cricket was no longer a game where a cover drive was worth a million claps.
The crowds came to see gladiators fighting in an arena where there was only glitz and glamour, but no ‘cricket’.
The media, the sponsors, and the event managers captured the game and built a recipe that was very different from the sport that started in England some four centuries back. The chest thumping players, the animated send offs, and the blatant overdose of sponsorshiphaves now created a situation where the game of cricket has started to resemble a WWE wrestling match.
While it is true that in a democracy the numbers decide what is acceptable. Surely the sheer number of spectators testifies that T T20 format of Cricket is a successful venture, but there is still a silent minority that yearns for the Cricket that bbringsmemories of Sunil Gavaskar, Dilip Vengsarkar, G R Vishwanath, and Vinoo Mankad.
Watching T20, one gets the feeling that we have moved to the era of ‘Slam Bam, thank you mma’am.
(The author is a Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Allahabad)
