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.

Influencer Immunity

Correspondent
Feb 18, 2025
2 min read

Updated: Feb 19, 2025

The law, as the old maxim goes, must apply equally to all. Yet, in India’s increasingly stratified political and social order, the principle of equality before the law appears to be in tatters. Social media influencer Ranveer Allahbadia and comedian Samay Raina, in the eye of a raging controversy, have both defied police summonses, offering flimsy excuses for their non-compliance.


The Mumbai and Guwahati Police, in a joint statement, have highlighted Allahbadia’s continuous absence, noting that he has yet to respond to FIRs filed by the Maharashtra Cyber Department, the Guwahati and the Jaipur Police in connection with making crass remarks he made on Raina’s controversial ‘India’s Got Latent’ show.


Allahbadia, better known as ‘BeerBiceps’ to his millions of followers, has curried favour in high places. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had exchanged pleasantries with him at an awards ceremony last year. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has been a guest on his show, lending credibility to his growing influence. These associations, it seems, have insulated him from the very institutions meant to uphold the law.


The police’s inconsistent enforcement further exacerbates concerns. While opposition figures, activists and journalists often face swift action, Allahbadia and Raina’s non-compliance has been met with delays and accommodations. This selective application of the law not only erodes the credibility of law enforcement agencies but also raises questions about impartiality and commitment to justice.


Had an average citizen attempted such defiance, they would have likely been dragged out of their homes or, at the very least, been made to appear in court under duress. But in the case of these social media darlings, the response has been curiously muted. The indulgence afforded to Allahbadia and Raina speaks to a broader cultural shift in governance. Influencers, rather than seasoned journalists or public intellectuals, are increasingly the preferred interlocutors of India’s top leadership. Modi has made a point of engaging with social media personalities, recognising their ability to shape public opinion. This is savvy politics, but it also distorts accountability. Does this highlight a concerning trend where political utility and social influence can overshadow legal accountability?


If the police cannot act without fear or favour, then they cease to function as an impartial authority and instead become an instrument of political convenience. The law cannot be seen as a tool to be wielded against critics while those within the ruling establishment’s orbit enjoy impunity. Modi’s government, which claims to stand for transparency and good governance, must ensure that all citizens, no matter their status or connections, are held to the same standard. When those with access to power receive implicit protections from legal repercussions, it signals to the rest of the country that justice is selective.


The point is who do Allahbadia and Raina think they are to defy police orders with impunity? And why is the law letting them get away with it? The answer may well lie in their political utility rather than any legal rationale. That, more than anything, should concern every Indian who still believes in the promise of equality before the law.

Comments

bottom of page