top of page

By:

Bhalchandra Chorghade

11 August 2025 at 7:24:18 pm

Domestic Cricket: The Road to Team India

India needs a clear selection policy that establishes consistent standards for newcomers and established stars alike. Indian cricket’s domestic circuit has often been described as the foundation on which the national team is built. Yet, there is a need to reinforce a fundamental principle: a place in Team India must be earned through performance, not protected by reputation. Domestic cricket must remain the most credible proving ground for aspiring players, established stars, dropped...

Domestic Cricket: The Road to Team India

India needs a clear selection policy that establishes consistent standards for newcomers and established stars alike. Indian cricket’s domestic circuit has often been described as the foundation on which the national team is built. Yet, there is a need to reinforce a fundamental principle: a place in Team India must be earned through performance, not protected by reputation. Domestic cricket must remain the most credible proving ground for aspiring players, established stars, dropped cricketers and those returning after a break. For an aspiring cricketer, scoring runs in the Ranji Trophy or taking wickets in the Duleep Trophy should carry considerable weight in the selection process. Talent may open the door, but sustained performance in competitive conditions should determine whether a player deserves to walk through it. Reputation and potential cannot become permanent substitutes for runs, wickets and match-winning contributions. The same principle must apply to established international players. India needs a transparent selection policy that clearly establishes when a player is expected to return to domestic cricket, what performance benchmarks will be considered and under what circumstances an exemption may be granted. Without such consistency, selection risks appearing subjective. Different standards could be applied to established stars and those waiting for their first international opportunity. When a Test cricketer is dropped for poor form, returning to domestic cricket should be the natural next step. A few net sessions cannot replicate the pressure of a four-day or five-day contest. A batter needs to spend hours at the crease and negotiate different bowling spells. The player must also convert starts into substantial scores. A bowler needs to demonstrate rhythm, control and stamina, as well as the ability to sustain pressure across long spells. Domestic cricket provides evidence of improvement rather than merely an assurance that a player has been working on his game. Selection should therefore be linked to demonstrated form and readiness, rather than an automatic recall based on past achievements. There is an equally strong case for regular Test players to represent their state teams whenever the international calendar permits. Those who are rested or have a break between two Test series should consider domestic matches an opportunity, not an inconvenience. Red-ball cricket demands a temperament different from that required in shorter formats. The ability to leave deliveries, bat through difficult sessions and negotiate reverse swing cannot be developed entirely in the nets. Players must also learn to maintain concentration over several hours. The selection policy must distinguish between a player who is rested for workload management and one who is dropped for poor performance. A rested player should follow an appropriate preparation and match-readiness plan, while a dropped player should have a clear route back through competitive cricket. Injury-related exemptions must be based on medical advice. International commitments should also be accommodated through sensible scheduling. Most importantly, exemptions should not become privileges reserved for marquee players. If a young cricketer must score consistently in domestic cricket to earn a place, an established international should not be assured selection merely because he has delivered in the past. Seniority deserves respect, but it cannot guarantee a place in the playing XI. The Board of Control for Cricket in India and the selectors should establish clear expectations for participation in domestic red-ball competitions. Workload management, injury rehabilitation and national duty should be recognised as legitimate grounds for exemption. Such a policy would improve accountability, strengthen the Ranji Trophy and give selectors a more reliable basis for assessing form. Domestic cricket also benefits from the participation of international players. It allows younger cricketers to test themselves against experienced opponents and learn the demands of elite competition. Ultimately, domestic cricket should be neither a punishment for failure nor a ceremonial obligation. It must be an integral part of a cricketer’s professional life. Team India selection must be a merit-based process, not a privilege earned through reputation. For newcomers, domestic cricket is the route to recognition; for dropped players, it is the path to redemption; and for established stars, it is an opportunity to demonstrate that they remain worthy of the national colours.

Bigoted Modernity

Correspondent
Aug 6, 2025
2 min read

In their quest to appear radical, politicians like Makkal Needhi Maiyam leader and MP Kamal Haasan and NCP (SP) legislator Jitendra Awhad have shown a disdain for Hinduism and Sanatan dharma that borders on fanaticism. At a time when India’s democracy is tested daily by cheap populism and religious sectarianism, the two men - one a fading film star in Tamil Nadu’s political circus, the other a foot soldier in Maharashtra’s ideological skirmishes - have chosen to indulge in what can only be called fashionable Hinduphobia.

 

Their target has long been the Sanatan Dharma itself - an ancient, evolving philosophy that has for millennia offered space for debate, introspection and pluralism. But in the eyes of Haasan and Awhad, it is a monolith of ‘tyranny’ and a convenient scapegoat for every historical wrong and contemporary grievance.

 

Haasan’s latest outburst came during an event hosted by the Agaram Foundation, where he declared that education was the only weapon that can break the chains of dictatorship and Sanatan. The casual conflation of Sanatan Dharma (which literally means ‘the eternal path’) with dictatorship, betrays a staggering ignorance of both religion and history. Sanatan is not a dogma but a civilizational ethos. To reduce it to a chain of oppression is not only absurd, but wantonly malicious.

 

It is telling that Haasan, an avowed atheist who once expressed admiration for the message of Christ, does not direct his polemics against Abrahamic faiths that admit no dissent. One wonders if he would have the courage to call the Vatican a dictatorship, or to characterise the Prophet Mohammad’s revelations as chains in need of breaking. The answer, of course, is no. Haasan knows Sanatan will not behead him for his insolence. It will merely ignore him, as it has countless charlatans before.

 

But what makes Haasan’s remarks particularly loathsome is the dishonesty behind them. In Tamil Nadu’s Dravidian polity, bashing Brahmins and bashing Hinduism are rites of passage. That Haasan has indulged in both is hardly surprising. What is galling is his pretence that it is done in the name of ‘progress.’ There is nothing progressive about caricaturing a complex tradition with 5,000 years of intellectual and spiritual ferment as a dictatorship.

 

Jitendra Awhad is a lesser figure but no less toxic. His recent declaration after the court’s acquittal of the accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast that Sanatan Dharma had ruined India is a gross insult. His claims that it denied Shivaji a coronation, defamed Sambhaji, or conspired to assassinate Phule are historical fictions of the worst kind.

 

Haasan and Awhad ought to realize that the Hinduism they rail against so insouciantly will never retaliate against them. That is both the strength and tragedy of Sanatan Dharma that it tolerates such detractors even when they cross the line from criticism to calumny.

 

Yet tolerance must not be confused with timidity. It is time Hindu society, in all its diversity, called out such venom for what it is.

 

Comments

bottom of page