Cricket stands mute as death claims Peter Roebuck

Cricket is not a mute game of players, but a lively colorful game with a sea of voices articulating it making it richer in profundity. Some voices are loud, some funny, some aggressive, a few subtle and a few obliterated. But there was one voice that was massively followed, for the man who vocalized it was an erudite critique, assertive and fearless, almost a lyricist of the game whose insight and understanding produced articles and books which were rare and masterpieces by themselves. Peter Roebuck is the man in context, who a day ago left the world leaving a chasm which can never be filled, for men of his caliber are born once in a decade.

Peter Roebuck, a law student from Cambridge University, played for Somerset as an opening batsman for fifteen years. But for the generation next, this makes little sense for they never saw him play or heard of him like they heard about other former international players. He has been, for them, the paradigm of a sane voice of cricket that always stood first in bringing the most complex and sensitive issues in light. From apartheid policies to the ICC’s flawed management, from inculpating Ricky Ponting for turning players into dogs to calling Indian players lions who turned into mice, from banning alcohol at matches to addressing Zimbabwe’s troubles to get back its nation in order, Roebuck has spoken liberally, free from jingoism and brusque at times, a rare quality that till date no cricket expert has dared to even attempt. One may not always agree with his views, but his thoughts always commanded high respect.

He never talked about cricket in isolation. He considered it as a part of society and enriched it by relating it in context to other sports and the revolutions and wars of the past along with the ongoing struggles and decisive changes of today. His penchant for the game was so visible in his writing, as if he were about to start a revolution to end the cynicism that jades cricket.

“But the cause is not lost. A frustrated fruit seller set fire to himself in Tunisia and tyrants were toppled. A seer went on hunger strike in India and national leaders were forced to confront their darkness. At first protesters were patronised as ‘Facebook revolutionaries’. They have been much underestimated. Cricket needs that same determination. It’s no use talking about spirit of the game. It’s time to put words into action, time to reward the honest and hunt down the thieves, sporting and otherwise.”

Excerpt quoted above from Roebuck’s latest column in the daily ‘The Hindu’ and goes well with Tony Greig‘s words when he says that the death of Peter Roebuck leaves the grass less green and cricket without its most effective investigative journalist.

“Cricket needs to move beyond its tight little cartel of colonial and post-colonial countries. Otherwise it’ll spend the rest of its history contemplating its navel and worrying about border disputes, despots, civil wars, religious and racial disharmony, suppression, patronage, rugby, soccer and all the other complications of contemporary and future life. The only way to avoid these internal battles periodically crippling the game is to widen its appeal, to turn it from an imperial relic into a world game. To that end the ICC has with increasing vigour and growing success been seeking to take the gift of the game to every possible nook and cranny of a shrinking world torn between tradition and Twitter. That is the way to breathe life into the game.”

I have never read something like this, not even something close to it. These lines clearly show the visionary thoughts of Roebuck.

“Cricket’s 10 senior members include two constantly at odds over borders and bombs, another that has endured a long civil strife in its northern regions, another that has known profound poverty, another emerging from the dark shadow of apartheid, another reeling under the yoke of tyranny, another collection that exists only for cricketing purposes, and another two that recently fought in a war on a false premise.”

“Of course cricket has been affected by these factors. It can also play its small part in reducing the divisions. In this regard it needs to reject the timidity of its past. Hardly a squeak was heard from sportsmen about the massacres of the Tamils and Ndebele in the early 1980s, yet they occurred in prominent cricketing nations. At least 20,000 Ndebele – some observers put the figure much higher – were slaughtered by, among others, North Korean troops hired for that purpose, and their bodies stuffed down disused gold mines. Those responsible remain in power. Tamils were routinely killed in Sri Lanka. Cricket’s silence was deafening. Nor did the game speak with a single voice about apartheid, or not till it became fashionable anyhow. In some quarters little was said about Zanu – till they started attacking white farmers, a response calculated to promote cynicism about their true concerns.”

How deep and thought-provoking these lines are. It forces us to think of cricket beyond the green fields, something that can also bring about a change in the world order. I wonder if anybody else thought of addressing cricket in such a distinct and intense way.

Just like there was one Aristotle, there was one Peter Roebuck. No sooner will cricket find a man of his intellect or may be, will never find one. Harsha Bhogle said, “Peter Roebuck was meant to write about cricket in the manner Sachin Tendulkar was born to play it”. Roebuck will be put in the category of these greats, but this is no solace for his ardent followers, because the one who embraced such lush and superior writing will be deafened by the silence he has left behind.