by James Astill
He treated his first two balls with respect. He smashed the third straight back over the bowler on to the roof of the pavilion. As it clunked down the tiles, the crowd gave a rousing cheer. This was more like it. The English bowler, a Hampshire spinner called Stuart Boyes, wheeled in again. And Nayudu lofted him for another six, then another, as the crowd went wild, clapping, cheering and yelling his name.
Nayudu reached 33 in no time, then Astill came on at the Maidan end. He was short and no big spinner of the ball, but a clever and accurate bowler, who had already taken a lot of wickets on the tour. And sure enough, he almost did for Nayudu, who leapt out to a full-pitched ball and mishit it high into the air, presenting the bowler with an easy catch. Astill steadied himself under it but, with the sun in his eyes, poor fellow, he fluffed the chance. So Nayudu hit him for a celebratory six and reached his fifty.
There was no radio in India at this time. Yet word of Nayudu’s exploits somehow got about Bombay, and during the lunch interval thousands left their places of work and study and came flooding on to the Maidan. The crowd swelled to 25,000; thousands more loitered outside the shamianas, hoping for a peek of the action, or merely to hear the yelling of those within.
After lunch, Nayudu resumed the assault, hitting three more sixes off Astill. One of his hits – outdoing Earle’s best effort – sailed clean over the pavilion and into the tennis courts beyond. ‘The crowd was roaring like anything,’ recalled one who was there that day, Vasant Raiji. ‘There was a tremendous atmosphere, people were clapping and cheering and stamping with their feet on the wooden stands.’
Raiji, who would go on to play first-class cricket for Bombay and Baroda, was only six at the time. This was the first game of cricket he had ever seen. When I called on him at the flat he shared with his wife in Malabar Hill, a lovely coastal part of south Mumbai, as Bombay is called today, he was almost certainly the last surviving witness to Nayudu’s heroics. He was now 92, slightly deaf, and anxiously confessed to having no very good memory of the game. He had been more preoccupied at the time, he said, with his father’s promise of an ice cream and a bottle of Duke’s raspberry pop. But Raiji could still remember the excitement that Nayudu’s hitting had inspired. ‘It was wonderful entertainment,’ he said, ‘not a picnic but something like that, a great outing for everyone,’ he said. ‘People had come to enjoy themselves.’
It was a great tamasha. But it had to end. Nayudu was caught on the boundary off the bowling of Astill’s Leicestershire team-mate, George Geary. He had by then hit 153, including 11 sixes, more than anyone had previously hit in a first-class innings. As Nayudu marched back to the Gymkhana pavilion, ramrod straight, the thousands of spectators, British and Indian, stood to applaud and cheer. It was said the noise could be heard halfway across the city.
The Hindus were all out for 356 (with Astill, for consolation, taking five wickets) and the match was inevitably drawn. Yet something historic had happened. Nayudu had taken a top-class English bowling attack apart – in Bombay, the home of Indian cricket. The Englishmen must have been amazed: Indian cricketers were not generally thought capable of such feats. Under a banner headline ‘Naidu’s brilliant century against the MCC,’ the next day’s Times of India made the point as delicately as it could. ‘There can be no doubt’, it remarked, ‘that the MCC side is more than surprised by the high standard of play revealed by their first opponents in Bombay.’
In fact, the Englishmen’s view of Indian cricket was badly out-of-date. The last time Indian cricketers had faced top English opposition was 15 years before, when an All-India side had toured England, captained by the cricket-loving Maharaja of Patiala. They won only two of the 14 first-class games, thus confirming the English cricket establishment’s low opinion of the Indian game. ‘Notwithstanding their multitudes,’ opined the MCC’s president Lord Harris, ‘I doubt if they are going to turn out a team of all India as good as the best of our county clubs.’
Harris was held to be an authority on the matter. A former captain of Kent and England, he had also served a five-year stint as governor of Bombay in the 1890s. Indian cricket, he believed, would be held back by its poverty, for this would prevent regular tours to expose Indian players to English first-class standards. But Harris had also detected certain preternatural inferiorities in the ‘excitable Asiatic’ cricketer. ‘It is in the matter of patience,’ he wrote, that ‘the Indian will never be the equal of the Englishman.’
He was a man of his time. Yet Bombay and its cricket had come a long way in the three decades since Harris had presided over them. The 1890s were tough years for Bombay, marred by bouts of Hindu–Muslim rioting inside the city and hunger in the surrounding villages. In 1896 a famine swept central India in which a million people starved. Thousands of famished fugitives were driven to Bombay, where an outbreak of bubonic plague ensued, claiming 20,000 lives, and driving many back to the countryside. In 1899 there was another famine there.
Yet better times followed. The plague spurred a major overhaul of Bombay, including heavy investment in sanitation and transport. This enabled the city to absorb a lot more people. Between 1900 and 1905 more than half a million migrants flooded in, which in turn provided labour for Bombay’s cotton-mills and textiles factories just as they were beginning a sustained boom. In 1914 the city received over 87 per cent of India’s capital investment. With the outbreak of war in Europe, demand for its cloth and thread soared. Over the course of two decades Bombay was transformed ‘from a cluster of distinct localities into an industrial megapolis’.
By the early 1920s this growth had spawned a sizeable middle class whose members enjoyed weekends off and a modicum of discretionary income. These are the basic ingredients of organised leisure: it was no coincidence that this was the decade in which the Hindi film industry became established in the city. By 1923 Bombay’s cinemas were taking so much money at the box-office the state government started taxing them. This was also when Bombay’s other great amusement, the Quadrangular (or Pentangular as it would become known in 1937, following the addition of a team of Buddhists, Jews and Indian Christians known as ‘the Rest’), began to flourish. It was ‘the climax of the cricket (and social) season,’ as the Bombay Chronicle put it.
Fuelled by a growing rivalry between India’s most populous communities, Hindus and Muslims, the tournament was hugely popular. ‘When the Pentangular was on the whole of Bombay talked about nothing else,’ the tournament’s last surviving player, Madhav Mantri, recalled. A wicketkeeper for the Hindus during the 1940s, Mantri was now aged 90. When I called on his small flat in an appropriately named Mumbai district, the Hindu Colony, he was comfortably arranged in his pyjamas, watching cricket on television. ‘People would reserve their leave for those weeks,’ he said, recalling the annual tamasha. ‘It was something people looked forward to and it made them happy. The Pentangular was a great occasion and when the Hindus played the Muslims ... phew, big crowds.’
Noisy too. Indian cricket crowds were rarely hushed like English ones. The people who gathered on the Gymkhana Ground, where Quadrangular games were played, beat drums, sang songs and flew kites in the stands. When their heroes hit a century, they rushed on to the pitch to place garlands of flowers around their necks; when they got out cheaply, the spectators booed as if they were pantomime villains. Right from the start an Indian cricket ground was as much a popular theatre as a sporting venue, with the crowd playing a part in the drama. One or two spectators became stars in their own right. For example, Charlie, a short, fat Parsi clown, whose trademark piercing whistle could be heard all around the ground, and who once scurried between the legs of the enormous Maharaja of Patiala while he was preoccupied watching the play. Happily, the cricket-loving Maharaja saw the funny side, and rewarded Charlie with a gold chain.
This was the sophisticated city and cricket culture to which the MCC cricketers had unwittingly pitched up. Bombay was taking its place as a great global commercial capital, swelling in confidence. And the Englishmen would
also play a part in this transformation. Astill would enjoy a fine, long career; he won nine Tests for England and was the first working-class professional captain of Leicestershire. Yet it is hard to think he played a more important game of cricket than on the Maidan against the Hindus. For most historians of Indian cricket, Nayudu’s onslaught was its moment of arrival.
The post-match celebrations were tremendous. The Hindu cricketers were honoured with a felicitation ceremony at the Bombay Theatre, followed by a performance from Hirabai Barodekar, a ‘world-renowned popular young songstress of gramophone name’. Another congratulatory gathering was held at the Damodar Thackersey Moolji Hall, in the suburb of Parel, at which the cricketers were entertained with a performance of The Taming of the Shrew in Marathi, and presented with medals by a local jeweller. Nayudu’s medal was made of gold.
Gilligan was also impressed. Before leaving the city, the MCC’s captain gave a speech in praise of Nayudu’s ‘polished batting’ and the general quality of cricket his team had encountered in Bombay. Later in the tour he also gave the Maharaja of Patiala some historic advice. Over drinks at the shady Roshanara cricket ground in Delhi, he urged him and a group of local businessmen to form a governing body for the Indian game. This would be the first step towards India getting membership of the Imperial Cricket Conference, and thereby Test-playing status. The Board of Control for Cricket in India was duly formed in 1928 and plans were drawn up for another MCC tour of India, in 1930–31. This, it was expected, would include an inaugural India–England Test match in Bombay.
The tour had to be cancelled, however, because of another milestone in India’s progress. In March 1930 Mohandas Gandhi emerged from his ashram in Ahmedabad with 78 apostles and began trekking 241 miles to the Arabian Sea to make salt. In defiance of the British salt laws, which gave India’s rulers a monopoly on its production, this act of civil disobedience and the Raj’s iron-fisted response to it triggered protests across India’s main cities. By the end of the year 80,000 protesters had been jailed and there was no question of Test cricket being played in Bombay.
But India’s cricketing baptism was not long postponed. The following year an Indian party toured England and, in June 1932, played a Test match at Lord’s. Nayudu was India’s captain for the match, as he should have been for the tour. That honour went to a prince, Natwarsinhji Bhavsinhji, maharaja of the tiny western state of Porbandar. He was a ‘keen cricketer’, in the words of one of his biographers, though ‘handicapped by being almost useless’. Porbandar, a specialist batsman, scored 42 runs in his entire first-class career, and only two on the 1932 tour. His biggest contribution to Indian cricket was having the decency not to pick himself for India’s first Test match.
Yet the tour was a triumph. England won the Test with ease, despite some fine fast bowling from the Indian opening pair, Mohammad Nissar and Amar Singh. Yet nothing, not undeserving princes or even defeat, could dim the glory of the occasion. India, while still a colony, had joined England, Australia, New Zealand and the West Indies as the fifth fully fledged international cricket team. In cricket, if not yet politics, India was its own dominion.
There was no guiding hand behind India’s adoption of cricket. It was not part of a grand colonial design. Though many British administrators, schoolmasters and missionaries worked hard to spread cricket in India, their efforts were ad hoc and only really significant from the late-19th century, by which time many Indians had already embraced the game on their own initiative. The lead was taken by members of the Indian elite, in business and politics, who were impressed by the lofty prestige that the British reserved for cricket. In time, Indians found other reasons to play, watch and support the game, which had nothing to do with the British. Yet the original Indian regard for British values and favour was the main reason for cricket’s early growth in India. Without this, the game would not have spread as it did.
Cricket was brought to India by British soldiers and sailors: there is a record of British Jack Tars playing the game in Gujarat in 1721. But it was not organised on the subcontinent until the late-18th century when the Calcutta Cricket Club was formed by officers of the East India Company. This was the first cricket club established outside Britain. It played on a grassy plain outside the walls of Fort William, Calcutta’s great stone citadel, which had been kept free of native dwellings to ensure a clear line of fire for its cannon. The oldest surviving Indian scorecard records a ‘Grand Match of Cricket’ played on this ground between Old Etonians and the Rest of Calcutta. This was also the occasion of the first recorded century on Indian soil – by one Robert Vansittart, an OE and son of a former governor of Bengal.
This was the prototype for the games of colonial cricket that were increasingly played across India during the 19th century, as the British extended their grip. ‘Wherever they may be, north, south, east or west, sooner or later, provided a sufficient number are gathered together, there is certain to be a cricket match,’ wrote a 19th-century British traveller through India, A.G. Bagot. ‘And climate has little or no effect on their ardour, for you will find them playing on the burning sand of the desert with as much zest as if it was the best possible pitch in the Old Country.’
More often, the British played in the pleasant sports clubs they founded in every Indian city, garrison town or railway junction where more than a handful of white sahibs were posted. Havens from heat, dust and bothersome natives, these establishments were sacred terrain for the British in India. Here, within the privacy of a smartly-painted picket fence, they acted out a caricature of British upper-class life, modelled on the English public schools that most had attended. Club-life included such indelible idioms of Britishness as sticky puddings, The Times (two months old and respectfully ironed), in-house slang and an unforgiving club committee to enforce idiosyncratic house rules and, despite much heavy drinking, a certain decorum.
Ostensibly, the clubs were dedicated to playing sport, to which, like most public-schooled Victorians, the 19th-century British in India were addicted. The gymkhanas – a word derived from the Urdu gend-khana, meaning ball-house – often had superb facilities for golf, tennis, football, rugby, hockey and badminton, all British inventions, which their members played avidly. Yet no game was half so dear to them as cricket, for it was a caricature of Englishness even before it left England.
Cricket had emerged, in something like its present form, in the 16th century, among the peasants of south-west England. Its popularity grew rapidly in the 17th century, after it was taken up by the British aristocracy. Upper-class bucks loved to bet on the game. They also patronised talented players, artisans and peasants, to play for the teams that many raised. In cricket, almost uniquely, commoners and gentry mingled, if not as equals then as team-mates.
Another strain of aristocratic cricket was more exclusive. Games of country house cricket, played by gentlemen wearing parti-coloured blazers and caps, were designed to suggest aristocratic virtues, such as duelling, decorum and languor. Cricket’s varied rhythms were naturally suited to this interpretation. With its moments of intense jousting between bat and ball, followed by a pause for the ball to be returned by the fielders, cricket can be staged as a chivalric game. This was the character of the colonial cricket played in India.
Such class-based oddities gave English cricket a somewhat paradoxical reputation. It was at once popular and elite. It was exclusive yet, as a rare forum for gentry and commoners to interact, a source of social cohesion. Hence the historian G.M. Trevelyan’s famous claim that the French aristocrats would have spared themselves the guillotine if they had only played cricket with their serfs. But it was not the case that in cricket class distinctions were forgotten. Rather cricket, having its own hierarchy – of batsman, bowler and fielder, of captains and team-players – accommodated them. Where the upper and lower orders met to play cricket, gentlemen batted and working men bowled.
As cricket’s popularity increased, it became fashionable to see the game as uniquely representative of English so
ciety. By the early years of Victoria’s reign, this once playful notion had become a cardinal English belief. Cricket was not merely held to reflect the tastes of English society. It was considered to contain within its form certain intrinsic qualities of Englishness. ‘The game of cricket, philosophically considered, is a standing panegyric on the English character,’ wrote James Pycroft, an Anglican parson and early cricket theorist, in 1851. ‘None but an orderly and sensible race of people would so amuse themselves ... cricket is essentially Anglo-Saxon.’ Almost a century later, Lord Harris would find nothing to disagree with in that. Cricket, he wrote, was ‘English you know, quite English.’ This made it both great and, because patriotism, sport and moral standing were intertwined for the Victorians, also good. Cricket, wrote Harris, was ‘more free from anything sordid, anything dishonourable, than any game in the world. To play it keenly, honourably, generously, self-sacrificingly is a moral lesson in itself, and the class-room is God’s air and sunshine.’
It was no wonder the British did not, by and large, set out to proselytise cricket in India. It was, alone among all their games, a treasured badge of national identity. For the self-aggrandising Britisher in India, playing cricket was what separated him from the natives outside the club gates. Only the English played cricket; Indians could hardly be expected to master the game if they tried. And that is precisely why they did try.
The first Indian cricketers were Parsi Zoroastrians, members of a fire-worshipping community whose ancestors had fled the onrush of Islam into Persia in medieval times. They landed in Gujarat where, their legend has it, they were given refuge by a local raja on an understanding that they must not attempt to spread their faith. The Parsis kept that promise, assimilating some aspects of Gujarati culture, including its language and cuisine, but maintaining a proud and exclusive identity. In the way of nomadic minorities, this helped them thrive in business. And when Bombay emerged under the East India Company as an important trading port, many Parsis migrated to the city, seeking the security and opportunities provided by British rule.
