A Level Playing Field

The distribution of IPL franchises is not a question of entitlement, but should be seen as a reward for good governance and economic performance.

In a peculiar piece in The Telegraph, historian Ramachandra Guha—author of some of the best Indian books on cricket—condemns the improper distribution of IPL franchises across the country:

Consider the following statistics. Uttar Pradesh has a population…of 166 million people, but it has no team represented in the Indian Premier League. Maharashtra has a population of a mere 97 million, but two of its cities, Mumbai and Pune, have IPL teams.

Now consider this second set of facts. Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar are three of the most populous states in India. Roughly one in three Indians live there. On the other hand, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh together account for less than one-fourth of the country’s population. Yet there is not one IPL team from those three large states in North India, whereas from next year, 2011, each state of South India will have its own IPL team.

The Constitution of India says that every citizen of India has equal rights…This lopsided allocation of IPL teams is thus insensitive to democracy and demography.

This maldistribution of IPL franchises undermines its claim to be ‘Indian’, and is in defiance of sporting history and achievement as well. The truth is that citizenship and cricket have been comprehensively trumped by the claims of commerce.

Why is this such an affront to Indianness or democracy? Guha himself brings up the constitutional right to equality. The IPL was designed—first and foremost—as cricket for television audiences. Today any Indian can turn on a television and watch the same cricket match, regardless of where it is taking place. Is that not equality?

But more importantly, Guha promotes a somewhat outmoded position of how we should consider egalitarianism, which is indeed enshrined in the Indian constitution. Social equality, in this view, is no different from democracy, which functions on a one-person-one-vote basis. The hazard is that it leads to a sense of entitlement. Just as a vote is each person’s birthright, each of us has the right to similar levels of material well-being (in this case, access to watching live cricket near us), with no consideration of effort exerted or quality of performance. Consequently, Kanpur, Cuttack or Gwalior deserve IPL franchises.

But frame this as the right to equal opportunity, and Guha’s argument appears a lot less compelling. Rather than focus on the individual rights of people and states—that U.P. deserves an IPL franchise by the simple fact that it has more people—why can’t he project the designation of franchises as rewarding good governance and economic performance? South India has performed well on both counts compared to the North. So have Gujarat and Maharashtra compared to Orissa or Madhya Pradesh.

That Pune has better nightlife, and Hyderabad a better airport than Kanpur, Cuttack or Gwalior is not a sign of inequality, as Guha would have it, but simply a manifestation of better performance. If Kanpur had Hyderabad’s airport and Pune’s hotels, the IPL would come knocking. Given that each city and each state has an equal opportunity to attract an IPL franchise, the distribution of cricket teams seems quite a fair one.

I have great respect for Guha’s contributions as an intellectual, but sometimes I wish he realised he lived in the 21st century.

View the original article here