At 52, National Defence Fund match at Eden Gardens in 1963. Being introduced to Governor of West Bengal Padmaja Naidu, author's maternal aunt. Others are Hazare, Umrigar, Ramchand, Roy Gilchrist and Charlie Stayers.

LALA AMARNATH: exceptional talent; gone waste 

 

Over-zealous compilers of records named him Nanik (father’s name, Nanak, mis-spelt) Bharadwaj (family lineage, ‘gotra’) Amarnath. Thankfully, no one else ever did. Universally popular as Lala he always was, and that’s how he shall be remembered in future. A maverick who perpetually searched for adventures. A buccaneer in spirit, in language, in conduct. How did he drift into a meandering sport like cricket is a matter of serious conjecture.

 

Men of outstanding merit invariably raise our expectations. And the expectations keep rising. No matter how much these men achieve, we tend to feel that they should do more. Hence with expectations constantly on the rise, these outstanding individuals always seem to carry a very heavy cross on their shoulders.

 

More often than not the high and constantly rising expectations are left unfulfilled and the fans feel let down. High expectations lead to grave disappointments. Lala Amarnath belonged to this category.

 

The highly talented Amarnath was a cricketer who kept giving his innumerable fans sleepless nights. He would torment them; frustrate them, lead them to despair. Not because he was a failure. But because, no matter whatever he did achieve, his admirers invariably wanted more. The disappointment was more because the cricket followers were well aware that he had the potential to achieve greater heights.

 

What cricketing qualities did he not have? A rapier of a bat; a vicious in-dipper in tandem with a potent leg-cutter; a safe pair of hands; wings on light feet; a wily cricket brain. Added to this, a daredevil approach. If Amarnath had not become a cricketer he would most certainly have become an explorer in search of lost civilizations in the deep interiors of the Amazon. Or, perhaps an adventurer in the Antarctic in quest of the unknown.

 

But his whole life was full of contradictions. The young wicket-keeper - while a student at Lahore, Aligarh and Amritsar - was destined to come into serious cricket to play the all-rounders role forsaking the big gloves forever. Very few players have been as versatile as Lalaji was.

 

No respecter of persons or things, he confounded his own princely patrons as much as he confounded his own team mates by his words and actions. Even international opponents did not quite know how to fathom or handle him.

 

 If he was the desperado of a batsman in one series; in the next he would be seen to be a penetrative medium pacer. If he was highly individualistic on one tour; by the next he appeared to be a brilliant leader of men. He scored tons of runs in the minor games against the best of opposition, yet in the Test Matches against similar bowling he failed to score highly. What an enigma he must have been to all, including himself.

 

For all his magnificent attributes Lala Amarnath would always be regarded as a cricketer who achieved next to nothing of what he was genuinely worth. Was his technique not sound enough? Or, more precisely his temperament?

 

But how can that be when as a 20 year-old he had the full measure of men like Clark, Nicholls and the great Headley Verity not once but twice. First a century for Southern Punjab and then another hundred within weeks on his Test debut at the Bombay Gymkhana ground in the winter of 1933-34. Daredevil debutant Lala Amarnath led an assault of 118 runs, reaching his century in just above two hours, even as the tough opposing skipper Douglas Jardine was made to look helpless. His scintillating hundred was India’s first century in official Tests.

 

In 1936 on tour to England he was on a song. In only 19 innings he had 591 runs and took no less than 32 wickets. The best figures among all his mates till then. Then came the ‘fateful’ match against the weak Minor Counties team. Padded-up he was made to wait as batsman after batsman went in to bat and returned to the pavilion.

 

 By the time he went to bat there was little time left and he came back with an unbeaten 5 against his name. In anger and frustration he threw his bat down in the confines of the dressing room and gave a mouthful to skipper Vizzy and team official Hadi, who had probably come to pacify him.

 

The manager of the 1936 team was an Englishman, Brittain-Jones, who also happened to be the ADC to the Viceroy, Lord Willingdon.

Brittain-Jones was no lover of Indians and he took it upon himself to teach Lala and all the Indians that the British colonial masters would accept no indiscipline.

 

In effect he also desired to prove to the world at large that the Indians were always at each other's throat and so were not capable of ruling themselves. Remember, this was the time when the Indian nationalists were demanding self-rule and the British Viceroy had just come down very heavily on them.

 

Brittain-Jones prevailed upon skipper Vizzy to send back Lala Amarnath to India by the next ship! The best of efforts by the seniors of the team could not alter the awful decision. This was unprecedented at the time. The cricketing world was dumbfounded. Never before had such strong-arm tactics been used to punish a cricketer for misconduct. Years later, however, Roy Gilchrist of West Indies and Geoff Boycott of England also met with similar fate while touring India in 1958 and 1982 respectively.

 

However it is to Lala Amarnath's credit that the Beaumont Committee set up to inquire the misdemeanour found that the step taken was much too harsh for the alleged ‘crime’ and so young Amarnath was exonerated. It was said that the maharaja of Patiala Yadavendra Singh, BCCI official Pankaj Gupta and journalist Berry Sarbadhikari used their persuasive powers to get him reinstated. Thankfully so. He returned to international cricket in style and splendor.

 

In 1946 Amarnath went to England under Iftikar Ali Khan Pataudi and this time, true to his enigmatic self, he was an outstanding bowling success. His innocuous-looking deliveries had world-beaters like Hutton, Compton and company wending their way back to the gloom of the pavilion. But very surprisingly his batting fell away despite occasional success in the county games.

 

On the tour of Australia in 1947-48, he took over the mantle of captaincy when the captain-elect, Vijay Merchant, dropped out. Although leading a weakened side without the trio of Vijay Merchant, Mushtaq Ali and Rusi Modi, the new skipper Amarnath succeeded in uniting the team and in earning the respect of the men under him. He gave every impression that he was a born leader of men.

 

At the personal level, outside of Tests he was just magnificent with the bat. Blazed his way to centuries against Queensland, Tasmania and South Australia; made 228 not out against Victoria, an innings which earned plaudits even from the hardened, former Aussie players. But in Tests he was an abject failure as a batter. What a disappointment he was to his fans. Did his over-confidence get the better of him? Why could he not achieve what he was capable of?

 

But as a bowler he was extremely successful with 13 wickets, the highest among his team-mates. At Melbourne he accounted for 7 wickets in the match. How would you assess this man? One day he was on top as a batter and the next day his batting fell apart while his bowling-arm worked wonders. So inconsistent was he that his enormous all-round skills never quite flowered to the degree those should have.

 

A genuine leader of men he proved to be on the Australia tour. The most pragmatic Sir Donald Bradman was full of praise at the way Amarnath led his team of meagre resources as well as for the way he bowled his penetrative medium pacers. He knew his team's limitations. But rather than throw in the towel, he matched opposing skipper Bradman move for move.

 

 Lalaji would go down fighting rather than surrender. It is true that the crucial checkmate eluded him, but then at the time no cricket team in the world stood a chance against Bradman's all-conquering Australians. Lala Amarnath led India capably against West Indies just after the War and then won the inaugural series for India against Pakistan.

 

However, boisterousness continued to get the better of him. Candid to the point of being contemptuous, impetuous to the point of being indiscreet, Lala Amarnath was apparently an Aussie in Indian garb. He played tough; spoke tough, acted tough. Bradman praised him as did Hammond for his undoubted all-round skills. Even the tactless Douglas Jardine had very regard for the man.

 

But Indian officials found his aggressive nature intolerable. Particularly Anthony D'Mello, the highly pro-active administrator of Indian cricket. It was indeed a sad spectacle to find the BCCI president and the India captain were seemingly always at loggerheads.

 

The only official with whom Amarnath felt at ease was none other than Pankaj Gupta, the mercurial manager of India cricket and hockey teams between 1930s and early 1950s. Gupta, big of heart and a lover of life, knew how to handle sportspeople. He gave skipper Amarnath full authority to flower.

 

 On that Australia tour the Indians under Lala Amarnath and Pankaj Gupta were a fighting and happy unit, something quite unusual in Indian sides; unfortunately so even today. Later, too, Lala led India with elan and was a great source of inspiration to youngsters who came under his stewardship.

 

His tenure as a national selector lasted 7 years beginning from 1953, with 5 seasons as chairman. As his was the dominant voice in the selection committee meetings all the criticisms at the committee were directed at him.

 

The disastrous performance and approach against West Indies in 1958-59 and the following tour of England caused confusion in the minds of serious cricket followers: just 2 pace bowlers for a full 4-month England tour! Four captains for five Tests in one series! Omission of a successful captain and batsman from the following tour! Selection of a tour captain without adequate credentials!

 

Most unfortunately Lala Amarnath was often too dictatorial in his dealings as a national selector. Some of his choices raised eyebrows; others appeared to be highly inconsistent. At times he appeared irrational and over-bearing. Despite doing well, no player was certain of his place in the following matches!

 

This attitude did not quite earn him support from any quarter, not even from people who were supposedly close to him. Peer-players and board officials were not always complimentary in their assessment of him. He always seemed to give the impression that he was in a hurry and he must have the ‘last word’. Many people thought that he had no patience for discussions or for careful analysis.

 

However we should not forget that it was none other than Lala Amarnath’s inspired choice of Jasu Patel at Kanpur in 1959 that had Richie Benaud’s Aussies in doldrums. Lalaji pitchforked the dare-devil Budhi Kunderan into the Test XI even before he had played a single first-class match. In a masterstroke, he chose Hemu Adhikari to lead India at Delhi against Alexander’s marauding army. Adhikari was an immediate success as batsman and captain.  But in a strange move the same committee omitted him from the tour of England that followed!

 

Lala Amarnath’s impatience probably was reflected in his over-all personal statistics in black and white. Why did his skills not get more runs, more wickets when players of far less ability were making merry? What did he not have: strength, stamina, skill? Moreover, he had grey matter where it mattered most. But he conspired to keep everyone grey in his under-achievement. Was he too vocal, too vitriolic?  

 

His impetuosity got the better of him even off-the-field. He had the tendency to get his way about, whatever be the means. He left behind a trail that was not always above reproach. Even his ‘partners-in-dealings’ accused him of high-handedness. All these issues left him with very few admirers among his peer-players, administrators and media personnel. I dare say that his highly volatile approach towards others did affect the cricket careers of his talented sons.

 

He was a law unto himself. In the inaugural Irani Trophy match in 1961, Amarnath had the 12^th man batting in the 2^nd innings (without applying the replacement law)! True or not, serious charges of gamesmanship and worse were directed at him. But why did he give people the scope to criticize him? He was too good a player to resort to any kind of underhand tactics. Unnecessarily he got involved with issues he could have easily stayed away from.

 

All his sterling qualities as a cricketer were enshrouded by one controversy after another. The magnificent all-rounder and the cerebral captain did not do justice to his own self. He shattered his own image by his autocratic approach on and off the field.

 

 If only he had taken the lessons of restraint and composure of his ancestral lineage, the great sage Rishi Bharadwaj, he would have been rated among the top-quality all-rounders in world cricket.    

 

But Lalaji could not overcome his impetuosity. As an amateur sports psychologist, I feel that his was most certainly a case of ‘persecution complex’. He thought everybody was against him; everybody was jealous of him; everybody was suspicious of him.

 

I personally feel that the most unfair banishment from England in 1936 left a permanent scar in the young impressionable man’s psyche. Here was a sensitive soul in his early 20s.  To be sent back from a tour, where he was representing his nation, must have shattered him. The stigma perhaps left him a disillusioned man.

 

But one issue is certain: the maverick in Lala Amarnath never could fathom that his greatest enemy was he himself. He remained a prisoner in a restricted orbit of his own making. A magnificent talent was laid low because he was unable to evaluate himself.

 

The ultimate realization in Vedanta “Know Thyself ” – later popularized by philosophers Socrates and Confucius –  ring true in Lalaji’s case. He never could really judge himself. His personal loss was no more than India’s national loss as well.

s as well.