top of page

By:

Kiran D. Tare

21 August 2024 at 11:23:13 am

The Lady of Lord’s

Yastika Bhatia’s maiden Test century at Lord’s crowns the rise of an elegant wicketkeeper-batter who has quietly become indispensable to India’s new generation. Critics may say that there are flashier cricketers than Yastika Bhatia. She does not possess the raw power of a Smriti Mandhana or the aura of a Harmanpreet Kaur. She rarely dominates highlight reels or social media clips. Instead, she has built her reputation through reliability – a quality far more vital. At a time when white-ball...

The Lady of Lord’s

Yastika Bhatia’s maiden Test century at Lord’s crowns the rise of an elegant wicketkeeper-batter who has quietly become indispensable to India’s new generation. Critics may say that there are flashier cricketers than Yastika Bhatia. She does not possess the raw power of a Smriti Mandhana or the aura of a Harmanpreet Kaur. She rarely dominates highlight reels or social media clips. Instead, she has built her reputation through reliability – a quality far more vital. At a time when white-ball cricket prizes spectacle, the 24-year-old wicketkeeper-batter has become one of India’s finest practitioners of the understated virtues of timing, patience and composure. Bhatia’s 113 against England which powered the Indian women’s side to a historic win at Lord’s was not merely her maiden Test century but the first ever scored by a woman at cricket’s most celebrated venue. The innings helped India seal a comprehensive 270-run victory in the first women’s Test ever staged at Lord’s. Her hundred earned her a place on the Lord’s honours board, where generations of the game’s greatest names have been immortalised. Few entries have carried quite the same symbolism. Until now, no woman’s name had appeared there for a Test century because no women’s Test had ever been played at the ground. Bhatia’s career has mirrored the evolution of Indian women’s cricket itself. Born in Vadodara, she emerged through Gujarat’s domestic circuit at a time when opportunities for young women were expanding but remained far from abundant. A naturally gifted left-hander, she impressed selectors with a technique that appeared more classical than contemporary. Where modern batting often relies on innovation and improvisation, Bhatia’s game is rooted in balance. She plays late, favours placement over power and rarely appears rushed. Such attributes explain why coaches have long regarded her as especially suited to the demands of Test cricket, even though women are offered precious few opportunities to play the format. Modern wicketkeepers are expected to contribute almost as specialist batters while maintaining relentless concentration over long periods. Bhatia has embraced both responsibilities, becoming an important cog in an Indian side that has steadily shed its dependence on a handful of senior stars. That transformation has accelerated dramatically over the past year. India’s maiden Women’s ODI World Cup triumph marked a watershed for the sport, confirming that the country's women could finally translate promise into silverware. Although Bhatia missed that campaign after suffering an anterior cruciate ligament injury shortly before the tournament, her absence perhaps underscored her growing importance. Months of rehabilitation restored her confidence. If the World Cup represented the one that got away, Lord’s offered redemption. Returning to international cricket only recently, Bhatia produced an innings of remarkable maturity against England’s experienced attack. Her 113 came from 158 balls, balancing restraint with authority as India tightened their grip on the match. She admitted that six months earlier, while beginning rehabilitation, the idea of seeing her name on the Lord’s honours board would have seemed implausible. Those who know her were scarcely surprised. Former Indian wicketkeeper Kiran More, who has mentored Bhatia, has long spoken of her temperament rather than merely her talent. Scoring a century at Lord’s, he observed, is an ambition shared by virtually every cricketer. Achieving it after months away from the game simply reflected the resilience that had always underpinned her cricket. But hers was not a sentimental century assembled through fortune. It was a technically accomplished performance built on judgement outside off stump, crisp drives through the covers and the patience required by the longest format. It showcased precisely why Test cricket continues to matter. Unlike Twenty20, where brilliance can be compressed into a handful of overs, the five-day game rewards concentration accumulated over hours. For Indian women’s cricket, Bhatia’s century represents something larger than an individual milestone. It demonstrates the increasing depth of a side that is no longer defined solely by its biggest names. New heroes are emerging, backed by stronger domestic structures, better coaching and a professionalism unimaginable a decade ago. The honours board at Lord’s records statistics with characteristic restraint. It simply notes that Yastika Bhatia scored a century. Future generations may glance at the name without appreciating the path that led there. But Indian cricket will remember that the first woman to reach three figures at Lord’s was not merely making history. She was announcing that a new generation has arrived.

Silence! This Court is not in Session

The 71st National Film Awards will be remembered for the silence that buried a four-decade prize for cinema’s writers.


“Silence is Golden” goes the famous saying. But silence cuts both ways. “Silence is the unbearable repartee,” said G. K. Chesterton.  But in case of the 71st National Film Awards announced in August this year, silence has come like deadly arrows shooting out of a massive quill to attack 27 innocent authors who had entered their books on cinema for the Best Book on Cinema Award.

 

These authors, dedicated and committed in writing significant books shedding light on different aspects of Indian cinema, had entered their books for the coveted award. The wait stretched on to eleven months as entries closed in September 2024. But the three-member jury for the Best Critic Award and the Best Book on Cinema award was conspicuous by its absence at the PIB’s August 2 briefing while the press conference organized by the PIB blithely skipped over why the award had been dropped.

 

This award for the Best Book on Cinema was instituted 40 years ago but was never met with such complete silence. No one said that none of the books was deserving of the award. Or, that the jury had been disbanded and the Chairman had fallen very sick. This came from an insider.

 

Every author not only spent hours, research and dedication in the writing of the book, leaving aside (a) the struggle to get a publisher ready to publish a book on cinema which has a narrow market in terms of sales, (b) read the proofs and okay them, (c) organize the documents to go with the entry, (d) pay an entrance fee of Rs.5000+ besides (d) parcelling five copies of the book entered for the award which will never be returned. What happens to these entrants now? Will the five copies of their book entered along with the entrance fee be refunded by the National Awards organizers? Ethically, it is the entrants’ right to get back the books and the money because the award has been withheld without forwarding any reason for the same.

 

Among past winners of the same award have been graced by celebrity names like Vijaya Mulay, B.D. Garga, S. Jayachandran Nayar, Madhu Eravankara and many others including late actor Gopi. Books could be entered in any Indian language recognized by the Indian constitution. For regional languages a jury member did not know, he/she was asked to find out a master in the said language with a love for cinema in the city where he/she lived, and then vest on him the responsibility of going through the book with a tooth-comb and then decide on the quality of the book. This writer was once a jury member for this award so she knows.

 

What happened remains a mystery. Unless the committee deigns to reply to her emails, silence will have to stand in for explanation. If the award was to be scrapped, why invite entries? And if none of 27 books was deemed worthy, why not say so? (a claim hard to credit given the range and quality submitted)

 

Two entries, I can attest, were more than worthy: one a meticulous study of Sridevi’s work across four southern languages that doubled as a history of cinema in those states; the other a sweeping volume of 75 reviews charting Indian film over 75 years of independence.

 

Isn’t it really strange that Shahrukh Khan with his 32-year-long track record in Hindi cinema should have to share the Best Actor Award with a rank newcomer like Vikrant Massey never mind the latter’s excellent performance in Twelfth Fail? Equally strange that Shahrukh bagged the award for ‘Jawan’ - a film that raises strong questions not only about its qualitative elements but also about Khan’s performance as compared to his superb turns in ‘Swadesh’ or ‘Chak De India.’ I genuinely think Shahrukh Khan was more surprised for bagging Best Actor for a film whose sole aim was to rake in several crores within the first week of its release. Or did (as the yellow press would have it) Ashutosh Gowarikar, the main jury chairperson, try to compensate for his Swadesh actor not having won the award for his film? Think about this. As the late Ghatak kept on saying, “Learn to think. Practice thinking.”

 

(The author is a noted film scholar and a double-winner for the National Award for Best Writing on Cinema. Views personal)

 

 

Comments

bottom of page