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.

Sacred Attire

Correspondent
Jan 29, 2025
2 min read

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments

bottom of page