Mankading, the saga of a hidden racism

Mankading. As soon as the word pops up, most of the Bangladeshi cricket fan perhaps remember the incident took place at Multan Test in 2003, when Bangladesh bowler Mohammad Rafique chose not to run non-striker Umar Gul, standing way in front of the crease, out. Had the wicket fell in that crucial juncture of the game, Bangladesh, who were yet to win a Test match by then, would have in all likelihood clinched the match. Perhaps the history of Bangladesh’s Test cricket, which does not have much chapters illuminating with pride, altered.

Even greater consequences might have occured had Courtney Walsh decided to ‘Mankad’ Selim Yousuf in 1987 World Cup. West Indies, who failed to reach the semifinal as they lost that match, could never reach the final in the tournament till date and their cricket went only in one direction, south, since then.

Rafique and Walsh, however, received myriad of plaudits, innumerable lyrical waxes made them the angel of ‘Spirit of Cricket’, a vogue term, most often or not used to eulogise hidden racism.

But the new generation, as always, is smarter as shown by Walsh’s predecessor Keemo Paul, who preferred winning over vague eulogy, and that in Rafique’s homeland. Paul Mankad the last Zimbabwe batter to clinch a crucial three-run victory, saved his side from elimination, and as they say- guess what? They became the ultimate champions of that tournament.

There are numerous incidents of Mankading, which has been prevalent since the antiquity of the game, but every time such incident happens, there is an uproar. The recent incident is the run out of English batter Charlie Dean by Indian bowler Deepti Sharma in their third ODI. Like always, the incident, which ensured India winning the series 3-0 away from home, created furor among many corners. However, the term run out is used here, as it will be by book from next month according ICC rules and after many years “Mankading’ will be out of the ignominious bracket of ‘unfair play’.

According to the MCC law 41.16.1, it is stated that, “If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be run out."

ICC has decided to normalise, rightly so, the issue but British media like always has been involved in debate. It can be said, the debate is not merely about ‘spirit’, underneath it lies profound racism. 

On December 13, 1947, Indian bowler Vinoo Mankad ran the non-striking batter Bill Brown, opener of Australia, during their second Test of the series in Sydney. There was absolutely no ‘shame’ in it as the erstwhile numero uno Indian all-rounder did not breach cricketing rules. But, somehow, Mankad’s attitude was villainised and so much so, incident is given the name ‘Mankading.” By doing so, the attempt was there to perpetuate the fact that a ‘black Indian’ marred the game with ‘savagery.”

Why so? Let us see some facts pointed by cricket historian and author Abhishek Mukherjee, who has co-authored the book titled Sachin and Azhar at Cape Town, to check the claim.

First of all, Mankad was not the first ever person doing the ‘Mankading”. Almost about 200 years ago, in 1835, Thomas Barker, the Nottinghamshire bowler ran Sussex batter George Baigent out in that fashion. He did it at least thrice in next eight years including once while playing for MCC at Lord’s. None cried out that the so-called ‘spirit’ is tainted and the cricket lost its aura and did not term the act of the Englishman tantamount to heresy. Rather, most of the people, rightly, opined, if the bowler while bowling realises that the batter is out of the crease and he runs the latter out, it is the fault of batter not the bowler. There were many references about it.

Not only Barkar, the so called “father of Indian cricket, the man who was regarded as the champion of Victorian morality and credited for enlightenment of the ‘savage’ Indian, Lord Harris, ran Conrad Walruth of Harrow College out while he was playing for Eaton in 1970. It is worth mentioning those two colleges are regarded as the epitome of learning Victorian etiquette. None on that termed Harris as unsporting, rather Spencer Gore, the first ever tennis player to win Wimbledon, commented in his book that Harris was right and the fault was batter’s.

Secondly- It is said Mankad did not warn Brown prior to the incident. This is a lie. Mankad had warned Brown earlier. Even in the next innings, when he got the chance to dismiss him in similar fashion, he did not take the chance.

Bill O’Reilly, one of the greatest leg-spinners of all time, said about the matter that according to cricket law the bowler need not warn batter but Mankad kept his decency by doing so. Later, when the dismissal occurred it was all Brown’s fault. 

The Australian added a quip after that, “However, it will never happen while I bowl, because no non-striker in the world will be keen to take a run and face my deliveries."

Even Don Bradman, the Australian captain of that series, in his book farewell of cricket, mentioned that Mankad showed his decency by warning, and after the dismissal, none of us actually thought it as an anomaly, it was a quotidian affair.

In the next day Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, readers were asked about their dismissal regarding the mode of dismissal. Most of them opined, Browon got out foolishly and not only that he also showed dissent by throwing his bat following the dismissal. This sort of behaviour is not accepted even from school boy. This sort of bloke is not fit to play for Australia.

Now, the question is, why Mankad has been tacitly tarnished? Why his apparently normal behaviour has been terming as “unfair play” for years? 

Watch out the year! 1947. India got their freedom just about months ago. The colonial masters were aggrieved losing their crown jewel aka India. On that epoch, a White man being “outfoxed” by a black person is a matter of disgrace and discomfort. 

What to do now? let’s manipulate explanation. Let us manufacture consent. Prove that the coloured people are inferior by tainting their acts with the paintbrush of morality. By doing so, the former masters are not only keeping their moral superiority but also putting the newly independent people at the backfoot. The colony might be lost but the status que of white and non-white is maintained, segregation, albeit not very distinctly, preserved. 

Way the perception about a ‘normal’ incident is turned into an unholy matter, teaches us a lesson how public consent can be manufactured. The dominant class over always tries to keep their hegemony by altering the explanation in public imagination and by doing so they rule the roost, materialistically and ethically. 

Perhaps it can be best understood by the words of eminent philosopher C LR James “What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?”