Why 'role model' debate cannot be parameter in deciding Pandya-Rahul’s punishment

There’s no doubt that the Pandya-Rahul fiasco has now stretched into frivolous proportions with every passing week, which has more than anything led to every other person allowed enough time to form opinions and speculate. And it is time we looked at it from an objective scope evaluating the extent of their mistake, the nature in which their punishment is heading and the situations inducing the Committee of Administrators (COA) to execute it that way.

With the duo now missing the New Zealand series, after being called back during the Australia ODI series, which now means pretty hefty suspension for an off-field incident, the extent already looks harsher for someone making derogatory comments. However, more importantly, while Pandya and Rahul did have their share of mistakes, it wouldn’t be unfair to state that COA’s indecisiveness and the extensive public feud between Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji have made life for the youngsters more difficult than it already was.

While Rai wanted to get the issue sorted out within India’s second ODI against Australia, Edulji has been adamant that the investigation didn’t pan out to be a “cover up” like BCCI CEO Rahul Johri’s inquiry seemed. Eventually, a longer route was taken as it stands now, the Supreme Court had to adjourn the hearing as Gopal Subramanium withdrew from the position of amicus curiae leaving them to wait for a new appointment. The next date has been tentatively listed on February 5 by the Supreme Court.

However, the impasse surely helps one to reflect on the kind of punishment COA were foreseeing for the duo. And as BCCI treasurer, Anirudh Choudhary had previously pointed out immediately after the incident, the function of the punishment meted out to the duo was of prime importance for it had to serve both as a lesson to the duo and at the same time, ensure such incidents didn’t repeat itself in the future. 

With Cricket Australia successfully making an example out of the Steve Smith and David Warner’s involvement in Sandpapergate by imposing year-long bans on them less than a year ago, the temptation or obligation, whichever way one wants to see it, is huge for the COA. However, the issue has nothing to do with cricket made such a move over-exaggerated and with BCCI President CK Khanna and Mumbai Indians nudging COA to get it over with as soon as possible, it was difficult to pull off such an example. And one cannot deny the fact that the slowly fading “me too” movement that had encapsulated the whole country a few months back also effected COA’s half willingness to make the outcome trendy.

In fact, the three-year ban that the Mumbai Cricket Association has imposed on U-16 player Musheer Khan, which is largely seen as a prototype of what is to come for Pandya and Rahul, was undeniably excessive. And an investigative report by Scroll a few days later had unearthed that the MCA had a long-running conflict with Musheer’s father Naushad Khan. In fact, his brother Sarfaraz has also been known as an undisciplined chap on that circuit.

Sarfaraz’s match fees were held for the 2015 season after he was found making an inappropriate gesture during a Cooch Behar Trophy (under-19) game. In 2011, Naushad was also banned from entering the association’s premises for an altercation with the then joint secretary, Lalchand Rajput. If the punishment for the first time dope offenders at the international level is four years, how could one justify a three-year ban for showing obscene gestures? It definitely looks a judgement keeping an eye on Musheer's family's history, something not possible with KL Rahul and Hardik Pandya.

For, as far as the Indian cricketers being role models of the country is concerned, which the board has always cited in such circumstances, BCCI has never been so uptight about an issue despite their history being littered with incidents that have shown Indian cricket in a bad light. When KL Rahul was seen having alcohol during India’s tour of West Indies back in 2016 just at the start of the series, which was surely a very bad example for the upcoming youngsters, BCCI had just shot off a warning and KL Rahul had deleted the picture instantly. Sourav Ganguly’s famous celebration at the balcony of the Lord's by removing his shirt also didn’t show India in a better light to the world, but it was excused. 

Most importantly, Ravi Shastri has still been the national coach of team India despite him admitting in an interview three years back that he used to be drunk before and after matches during his U-19 days. “Those days I was at night club in Oberoi hotel. Up till 2 o’ clock. Next day hundred. Then back at Oberoi,” would say a Shastri trying to make it as cool possible. Pandya doing the same for matters off-field has been lynched mercilessly. Everything above has brought disrepute to the game than Pandya did speaking about women in the talk show and definitely didn't put the players in the club of ideal role models.

Furthermore, the popular belief endorsed by the likes of Harbhajan Singh and Sandeep Patil that their comments had brought a bad name to the entire team didn’t seem very apt either. The three biggest stars of team Virat Kohli, Rohit Sharma, and MS Dhoni, all of whom share the dressing room with Hardik Pandya and KL Rahul, have kept their image intact regardless of the noise by the media. In fact, Indian cricket dressing room has always had controversial figures like Shastri, Sreesanth, Navjot Singh Sindhu and others, and all of them could never form a summed up perception of the Indian team as a whole.

Hence, when Sourav Ganguly states that both Pandya and Rahul would come out as better persons at the other end of it, he meant that the duo would be needing more mentoring than punishment. Given the freakish pace at which the sport has commercialized in the last decade making teenagers millionaires overnight, understanding how media and stardom works are the single biggest lessons for stars. While Pandya has faced all the brunt for his comments, Rahul also needs to be taught that maintaining neutrality in times of moral crisis is equally sinful.