How Paes and Amritraj amplify two eras of Free India

New Delhi: Most recently, Leander Paes was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, USA. Most recently, Vijay Amritraj was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, USA. While the accolades are identical, the journeys are dramatically  different.

Amritraj was a poster boy of the ATP circuit in the 1970s, the A of the ABC including Borg and Conners. His talent was doubtlessly imperious but his successes alarmingly anecdotal. In 1973, he reached the quarter finals of Wimbledon, losing to eventual winner Jan Kodes. At the US Open he achieved a ditto verdict, this time perishing to Australian Ken Rosewall, while surpassing Rod Laver en route.

This pattern of ‘Northern Lights’ tokenism, spectacular albeit brief, continued throughout his tenure. He beat Conners five times out of eleven in the circuit, but lost in the 1981 Wimbledon Quarter Finals, when two sets ahead. His career best singles ranking was 16 in 1980, clearly much below his Kohinoor prowess. A lack of killer instinct perhaps, a gentlemanly decency overwhelming the obsession for victory. Perhaps he should have picked up a trick or two from his boss in Octopussy, James Bond, a maestro in blending the twain.

Over the years he adopted the Davis Cup as his preferred maidan, oozing zealous nationalism as stock in trade. Much before Virat Kohli and his boys took over. In 1974, the finals were thwarted by Apartheid policies while in 1987, the Swedish smorgasbord was too strong in ice cold Gothenburg. Like his solo career, there were many successful wins like Sargodha (1965 Pak war), but never quite an accession to the throne.

Leander Paes was clearly none of the above, in fact a measured contradiction. 18 Grand Slam doubles titles, career Grand Slams in men’s doubles and mixed doubles, and the elusive men’s cum mixed doubles title in Wimbledon 1999. The most doubles wins in Davis Cup history and a singles bronze medal in the Atlanta Olympics. A product of Amritraj’s tennis academy, his successes were as prolific as Britannia's. Extracting every conceivable juice from his skillset and mindset, refusing to lose neither title nor decency.

His choice of partners was clearly driven by gestalt, the weaker ‘backhand’ beautifully complemented by the double-handed Bhupathi. The nets were clearly his Kumaon, with predatory instincts that would have baffled even Jim Corbett. Perhaps his father’s Olympic bronze medal in hockey and his mother’s basketball leadership gave him a head start in winning. Process appreciation never interested him, the man dived for the metal.

Quite succinctly, the stories of Amritraj and Paes represent our evolution as a country. In the 1970s and 80’s,  we thrived on anecdotes, blessed by first-world endorsement. John Arlott’s evocative description of Sunil Gavaskar’s century in Old Trafford, 1974. Suzuki’s kindness in collaborating with Maruti to produce a half-decent automobile. The Pokhran episode, making us members of a volatile brotherhood. Best in class STEM brains being ‘accepted’ by Western thought leaders, usually not lovingly.

Foreign travel was largely out of bounds, our lenses shaped by The Hindu and The Statesman. Music and movies seemingly acted as provocative bridges, while further alienating West and East. Our technological or epicurean produce, commercial or scientific, was clearly Harappan when compared to temperate ingenuity. When folks left our shores, it was to escape, in the camouflage of discovery and fulfilment. Nehruvian India was not quite as diabolical as Stalinist Russia, but obstinately limiting.

So when an Indian showed up and got applauded on a world stage, that was a sufficiently pleasing destination. Amritraj, being deemed at par with world greats, delighted us abundantly and perhaps, him as well. The sheer act of ‘belonging’ to a genuinely diverse world stage, not quite Cricket, was a clear act of victory, under such circumstances. Just as we were taught to gratefully celebrate athlete Sriram Singh’s 7th rank at the Montreal Olympics in 1976.

Leander Paes clearly belonged to a different India, which was getting used to a ‘winning’ habit. In sport, the 1983 Cricket World Cup was a key turning point while the early winds of liberalisation were impossible to ignore. In truth, his world feats seemed to amply mirror the strides of a confident nation. Infosys leading the global charge while the middle classes ganged up to be a potent purchasing power-centre. The fields were levelling and we were addictively interested in podium outcomes.

Our attitude to the Olympics bears testimony to this changing sentiment. Reliance and JSW, active stakeholders, along with sundry corporate patrons are celebrating the champions, not just the participants. Hockey is once again interesting because of the imminence of  medals, while Badminton and Table Tennis will gain surplus TRPs due to medal intrigue. Showing up does not matter unless you are accountable, in the scorecard.

The stage at Newport was magically symbolic for lovers of Indian sport and indeed, the nation. Amritraj was a flashback to the foundational years, when we earnestly sought the green light of universal  acceptance. Paes, the current affairs story of a hungry populace, interested only in the tamasha of victory. Pleasingly, the two eras are not in conflict. In fact, merry accomplices in the deeply promising continuum of India.