Nayan Mongia, a revolting omission

not many will quarrel with the national cricket selectors on the composition of the 16-member squad for the west indies except that some might have a difference of opinion at the most on the inclusion of one player. but that one selection conveys a lot on the power structure in the selection committee. for the last ten years or so the selector from the east has been more than merely assertive, and he derives power from you know who.it was on his insistence and as part of some sort of a barter deal that saw deep dasgupta in the squad when others in the committee, for a change, were inclined to give nayan mongia a chance, at last. for long, the selectors kept saying, without elaborating, that mongia had attitudinal problems. the only explanation one could get was that he was not a ‘desirable’ man to be around. again, no instances to justify such a serious charge. but, to reinforce the argument, it’s being whispered that even the juniormost baroda player is wary of sharing a room with him, let alone his indian team-mates. it’s shocking, and the cricket board owes an explanation for keeping by far the best wicketkeeper in the land out of the national side. mongia himself is on record saying that sachin tendulkar promised to speak to his senior colleagues and the selectors. by inference, mongia sought to convey that sachin had no problems with him, though he was not in the side when the great man was the captain. then who has reservations about him? is it the captain or the vice-captain? when the vice-captain himself is facing a villification campaign, orchestrated by some of his best friends, how can he be doing the same against another player. the captain is an enigma. he says it’s for the selectors to answer the question, though he would speak up in defence of all those blue-eyed boys of his even if they are not up to it. the selectors keep saying that the senior players are against his inclusion. the so-called senior players took the same posture when mohammad azharuddin was dumped for the tour of australia, though they now have the you-know-why look. come to think of it, some of the dropped catches, run-outs and dismissals playing horrendous strokes in the recent two series would have invited public wrath not so long ago with an expression of disbelief and the cynical remark that so-and-so was sold out. how does it matter if bookies tell you after the first match that it was going to be two-all in the india-zimbabwe series. bizarre things happen in life and you wouldn’t know whether to believe them or not. if mongia’s omission is revolting then the inclusion of dasgupta is equally baffling. it’s no reflection on the youngster’s gritty batting performance, but when it is said he is india’s second best wicketkeeper then there’s something seriously wrong with the selection process. during the zimbabwe tour coach john wright, himself an opening bat, rued the absence of a third opener when sadagopan ramesh was injured. what would he be saying now that he has four players ready to open just to get into the eleven. then what’s the guarantee that the team management wouldn’t prefer to include dasgupta to get another middle-order batsman in at the expense of ajay ratra? strange things happen on tours with the team management trying to teach a lesson to the selectors. for the record, the last time we took a second wicketkeeper was for the 1996-97 series against west indies and then south africa and it’s too much of a coincidence that the second wicket-keeper then also happened to be from bengal. one selector apparently wanted connor williams as the third genuine opener, but another argued for dasgupta saying he’s two-in-one! the two had cleared the way by saying a third spinner would be a luxury as in zimbabwe we did with only one spinner, harbhajan. that might have made them not to worry over anil kumbles fitness. sarandeep singh and murali kartik were judged on their performane in the one-dayers without seeing when they were brought on and what kind of field they got. the case of mongia is scandalous because if he is accused of misdemeanour then he should be issued a show-cause notice and, if proved guilty, sack him. if he has nothing to look forward to, he might as well hang up his gloves.