Why Lahore could be full circle for Dada

Rewind then to the beginnings of India’s Lahore 2006 predicament. In April 2004, India, captained then as now by Rahul Dravid in the absence of an injured Ganguly, had rolled into Lahore on that memorable friendship series off a spectacular victory in the first Test at Multan. Team India, it seemed, had finally arrived. They had won their first Test in Pakistan, but more than that they had revealed a professionalism and determination to belong to modern sport.

Sehwag had triumphed against his most flamboyant instincts, giving India their first triple centurion and a platform for Anil Kumble to work his skills. They had, even more spectacularly and controversially, announced that professionalism by declaring 675, stranding Sachin Tendulkar six runs short of a double century, to give their bowlers an evening spell. Team India would now, the word was carried by Multan’s blistering winds, be above individual.

The resolve fragmented in this exuberant city of 13 gates. It started off audaciously enough. On a green and bouncy track, Dravid chose to bat first. Even as wickets fell, there was a sense of self-satisfaction. India, even if the decision had not worked, had played to mature self-belief, to their stated strengths, an in-form batting line-up and a world-class spinner. It was difficult for India to win from here, from this day when India folded for just 287, but all had to be well for this team of unsentimental decisions.

But that 287 held a pride-salvaging innings from Yuvraj, the man substituting for Ganguly. He had walked in in the 21st over with his team faltering at 94 for four, his 112 gave the innings spine.

And India came apart in an outpouring of emotion. It was said that Yuvraj, already then as he is now, a deserving contender for a regular Test slot, had to remain in the team. Even before the Lahore Test closed to a Pakistan victory, Yuvraj, the opinion went, had to be assured of a slot in the next and deciding match at Rawalpindi. Ganguly too would be back then, ready to take the captaincy, and his batting slot. Which of the two would play? Some called it “the clash of civilizations”. The Indian way would be keep both, and as had already seemed imminent, to drop an opener (in that instance, the unfortunate victim: Akash Chopra). It was reckoned that Australia, the team India aspired to trail in the rankings and a team they had beaten that winter in that magnificent Adelaide Test earlier that season) would have made a hard choice between the two, leaving the rest of the order settled. Settled in the confidence that there was a rational way to these selections.

Today, word is that, in Lahore’s cold January rendezvous, Ganguly will open, that the team will not shuffle the pack to send in the keeper to face the opening wrath of Shoaib Akhtar.But there are striking differences between India then and now—and even more between Ganguly then and now. Ganguly then was still India’s captain of choice, taking India to more successes than any of his predecessors. Today, he’s a man who separates his detractors from his fans on arguments that have little to do with his performance on the field.

India too, after the home series against Sri Lanka, are only just recovering the rhythms of victory. Contenders amongst their ranks are demanding other questions now. Like which of the openers should don their pads, Wasim Jaffer or Gautam Gambhir? Sunil Gavaskar set the cat among the pigeons by suggesting that India play three openers—Jaffer, Gambhir and Sehwag—to blunt the pace of Pakistan’s recharged bowling attack. India replied by opting for only one! But then, perhaps, old questions must first be settled. Like that of Pakistan 2004. At Lahore, no matter what the result on this placid track, there is a feeling that India’s batting scorecard will resolve that Ganguly or Yuvraj or second opener impasse.