‘In giving advice, seek to help, not please, your friend’

- Solon (638 BC-559 BC), Greek lawgiver and politician

When Adoor Gopalakrishnan, the internationally acclaimed Indian film director spoke to ‘The Island’ in an interview last December in Colombo, he reiterated that commercialism has destroyed man’s sensitivity. Gopalakrishnan, who is known for his services to develop (serious) cinema in the state of Kerala since the mid 1960s, always aired his strong views on the ever growing popularity of Bollywood cinema.

"I’ve no connections with it (Bollywood). The Mumbai cinema has a bad effect on our sensitivity. It’s a cinema of underdevelopment. It reflects the emergence of the Lumpen social class. They’re the ones who decide on our tastes these days," emphasised Gopalakrishnan, who was honoured with the prestigious Indian presidential award Padma Vibhushan in 2006, two year before the Maharashtra batting prodigy Sachin Tendulkar received it.

When compared to cinema, literature or any other arts or a cultural form, sports –here, it is cricket — hardly goes under critics’ microscope quite often.

Some people panicked when Sri Lankan cricketers were criticised in the media for appearing in various advertisements, sometimes switching from one rival company to another, in their hectic bid to promote various commodities.

- George Santayana (1863-1952) - Spanish-born US philosopher

Cricket too is an industry like cinema. Cinema has a vast literature in the world. It has a tradition of criticism which continuously nourishes great cinematographers. And, most importantly, this effective cinematic culture defines what is really good and what is bad.

But there is no such useful tradition that has developed to enrich sports, in this case cricket, especially in a country like Sri Lanka. No rich or effective sports culture, nor there is any tradition of useful criticism –but for the one that is available now and restricted only to the game’s technicalities and political interferences in a state context — that will help nourish great cricketers who are socially responsible and morally dignified.

As a result, there is no demarcation between what is good and what is bad in cricket. Therefore, all our big cricket names do whatever they want, since there is no criterion to measure them when they are outside the playing field.

In such a backdrop emerge some mock heroes who will fall an easy prey to the commercial world, which Adoors condemn. They could easily forget their social responsibilities. They sadly shed their national level recognition and reputation for the perks they would receive after appearing in all kinds of ‘fakish’ ads while promoting any kind of commodity daring all set moralities.

When the legendary Cuban boxer Teófilo Stevenson said he’d never get sold in the international professional circuit at the expense of national representation famously uttering, "What’s the use of millions of dollars when compared to the love of millions of Cubans," we don’t know what such statements would imply in the minds of our cricketers.

There are Gopalakrishnans in the field of regional arts and they are valued in those countries. But where are the ’krishnans who’d take on commercialism head-on in sport, in cricket, in the nations like ours? Then the Mahelas, Sangas and Sanas, will be tested to the core.