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.

The ‘Triumph’ of Panipat: Why Jitendra Awhad Gets It Wrong?

Writer: Kiran D. Tare
Kiran D. Tare
Mar 27, 2025
4 min read

Updated: Mar 31, 2025

The Third Battle of Panipat was no lamentable defeat but a testament to Maratha courage that shaped India’s history.

It takes a spectacular degree of historical myopia to argue that the Third Battle of Panipat of 1761, in which the Marathas clashed with the forces of Afghan invader Ahmed Shah Durrani, was not a symbol of Maratha valour. Yet, in a season where historical distortions are running rampant, this is precisely the claim made by legislator Jitendra Awhad of the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar).


Awhad’s remarks made in the Assembly were a response to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’s statement that land was being acquired in Haryana for a proposed Panipat memorial meant to commemorate the sacrifice of the Marathas. While the battle was undoubtedly a calamity for the Marathas in which a generation of statesmen and soldiers perished, Abdali’s victory turned out to be a pyrrhic one. Awhad’s assertion that Panipat was “neither a reminder of valour nor defeat but merely of loss” is an exercise in selective amnesia that betrays either monumental ignorance or political opportunism.


The 19th century British writer and soldier, Maj. Evans Bell described Panipat not as a defeat but as a “triumph and a glory” for the Marathas because even though they lost the battle, they ensured that Abdali, the foreign interloper, could never again interfere in India’s affairs.


“The battle of Panipat was a triumph and a glory for the Marathas. They fought in the cause of ‘India for the Indians’ while the great Muhammadan Princes of Delhi, of Oudh and the Deccan stood aside, intriguing and trimming. And though the Marathas were defeated, the victorious Afghans retired and never again interfered in the affairs of India,” says Maj. Bell.


In his foreword to Marathas and Panipat, edited by historian Hari Ram Gupta on the occasion of the bicentenary of the battle in 1961, stalwart Congressman KakasahebGadgil, the then Governor of Punjab, writes: “There is evidence to show that every call from imperial Delhi [the tottering Mughal empire] to come to its protection was helpfully responded by the Marathas from the south. It will be wrong to conclude that the Marathas came to north every time for the pleasure of loot or for the collection of Chauth.”


As historian G.S. Sardesai notes in his classic New History of the Marathas (1946-48), even after their devastating losses, the Marathas did not see themselves as vanquished. Sardesai writes that “[Sadashivrao] Bhau’s courage inspired every soul to supreme exertion, and even after the final rout, people wrote and spoke of the event as if they were heroes.”


It is a popular mistake of long standing to suppose that the third battle of Panipat destroyed the Maratha power in the north. The geopolitical aftermath of the battle speaks volumes. Abdali, despite his victory, did not consolidate his rule in India. Delhi remained vulnerable, and it was the Marathas, not Abdali, who would soon take charge of its destiny. Abdali’s attention was soon consumed by the growing power of the Sikhs in Punjab, who resisted his authority at every turn.


Equally, Awhad’s contention that “there is no memorial of defeat in the world” is not just historically inaccurate but philosophically hollow. The world is filled with monuments that commemorate battles lost but courage demonstrated - Thermopylae, the Alamo and Gallipoli to name but a few. A memorial at Panipat would not celebrate defeat but honour the unbreakable spirit of those who fought against overwhelming odds.


The battlefield itself tells a tale of extraordinary endurance. The Marathas - exhausted and mounted on half-starved horses - faced an army with the finest cavalry in Asia, equipped with superior artillery. Yet, they fought with such ferocity that Abdali himself, despite his victory, was compelled to send letters of reconciliation to the Peshwa, recognizing the Marathas’ strength and seeking peace.


Abdali himself thus wrote to the Peshwa, “There is no real reason why there should exist any ill-feeling between you and us. True, you have lost your son and brother in the unfortunate fight…However, we are deeply sorry for these losses. We readily leave to you the subject of the imperial management of Delhi, provided you allow us to hold the Punjab up to the river Sutlej... You must forget the regrettable events that have taken place and entertain a lasting friendship towards us, which we are anxiously soliciting.”


This is not the space to dissect the battle itself, but just read Sir Jadunath Sarkar’s admiring description of Sadashivrao’s bravery in the fatal hour after Vishwasrao’s death in vol. 2 of his classic Fall of the Mughal Empire (1932-50). Sarkar writes how, despite the battlefield collapsing around him, Bhau fought on, leading three counter-charges in face of lethal musket fire rained by Abdali’s ‘slave squadrons.’


“Bhau refused to acknowledge defeat He fought on for over an hour more, regardless of the tremendous odds now arrayed against him, and delivered three counter-charges with his rapidly thinning band of personal followers and himself headed the attack.”


This is not the behaviour of an army broken by defeat but of one that refused to accept it.


By dismissing the battle’s significance, Awhad’s statements are an affront to the remarkable courage displayed by the countless men of Panipat including Ibrahim Khan Gardi, the 18-year-old Vishwasrao, JankojiScindia, Shamsher Bahadur in one of the most consequential battles in Indian history. Nations do not build memorials to gloat over defeat but build them to honour sacrifice, to inspire future generations with stories of courage and to remind themselves of the price of freedom. Panipat is not a tragedy. It is a lesson. And that is why it deserves to be remembered, not dismissed by those who find history inconvenient.

Comments

bottom of page