M L Jaisimha was, in his time, one of the most flamboyant cricketers to represent the country at the international lev- el.

Debuting in 1959 against England, the stylish Jai went on to play 39 Tests and score 2,056 runs in 71 innings, to end his career with the respectable average of 30.68. His Test career includes three centuries, including a career-best 129. An occasional medium pacer, Jaisimha took nine wickets for 829 runs off 2,097 catches and, fielding for the most part in the slip cordon, came up with 17 hugely reflexive catches.

Playing for his native Hyderabad in the Ranji Trophy championships, Jai scored a further 5,226 runs in 125 innings (average 46.25), with 17 centuries and an individual best of 259. He also proved his all-round abilities by capturing 235 wickets and holding 90 catches.

He then went on to become a national selector, and has, through the years, kept his connections to Indian cricket alive in vari- ous ways.

Today, 'Jai' is a disillusioned man. A man deeply hurt by the increasing evidence that Indian cricket has, in recent times, developed a murky underside, as evidenced by the Navjot Singh Sidhu controversy and the non-selection for the England tour of India's most prolific Test batsman, Vinod Kambli.

Speaking to Rediff On The NeT from his posh residence in Marredapally, in Secunderabad, Jai spoke about the issues that plague Indi- an cricket today. Excerpts:

Jai, in your opinion, what plagues Indian cricket today?

Indian cricket is on the threshold of a disastrous situation and everyone, including the media and the players, are responsible for bringing this about. I am sad to say this, but it is the truth. The team is today being pulled in different directions. Adding to the confusion is the role of the team manager he could have, with some application of mind, diffused the tensions among the team members.

Look at the Sidhu episode. It boggles my mind. You see, on a tour such unsavoury incidents should have been avoided at all costs. The team management's statement on the issue is wishywashy, definitely unconvincing. And nobody seems to be bothered to get to the bottom of the issue.

On the field, the team appears to be heavily, too heavily, dependent on a few individuals like Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Saurav Ganguly, Venkatesh Prasad and Javgal Srinath. A team is made of 11 players, not five.

And worse, on the field our team looks like a bunch of stray cattle, without a proper leader. I am absolutely unhappy with this team.''

It is being alleged that Indian skipper Mohammad Azharuddin is responsible for the exit of players such as Manoj Prabhakar and Navjot Singh Sidhu. What are your reactions?

Normally, the captain does not have any say in the selection of a team. The selection committee reserves its right to choose the members - of course, the views of the manager and the captain too would be taken into consideration, but not necessarily always.

My feeling is that Azhar had probably demonstrated his unwillingness to have Prabhakar and Sidhu in the side, and the team management must have taken the cue from that.

Azhar plays for your native Hyderabad, you have known him for a long time, do you find him changed?

Yes, I can certainly say that he has changed. And I am not sure whether this change is for the better.

I cannot talk of his psychological changes, but in pure cricketing terms I notice that Azhar, whose early days mirrored his mod- est upbringing, basically on orthodox, religious and middle-class lines, has today become a sultan of sorts.

And somewhere along the way, his new found riches appear to have upset his equilibrium.

But you too were known as something of a ladies' man during your playing days, did your private life influence your cricket?

That question puts me on a spot. See, I too belong to a middle-class family. My parents gave me a free hand, though they did en- sure that I followed certain parameters. I do not want to go into details of my private life, but I must point out that nobody had any com- plaints about me. And that is because I always gave 200 per cent on the field. Maybe it is on this count that Azhar has failed - not in his per- sonal life, but in his performance.

Did the selection committee err by appointing Azhar skipper for the entire season, starting with the World Cup and continuing on to the England tour and the forthcoming home series against South Africa?

Well, this is certainly the first time that the BCCI has tak- en such a decision - why they did it is for them to say. But yes, it is true that the decision has proved disastrous.

The result has been that Azhar was allowed to lead the side at a time when his own personal form and performance was in doubt. Look, in England, he was at the bottom of the batting averages - how then could he have hoped to command respect from his colleagues? It hurts me to speak out like this against the captain of the Indian cricket team, but it is the truth and must be said.

Look, an inspirational captain can still lead the side to victory despite his own poor form. Douglas Jardine against Don Bradman's Australians is one example. England captain Mike Brearley is another. These captains were not as good as the other players in their side, but they could inspire their players to great deeds - as Brear- ley, for instance, time and again inspired Ian Botham.

It is obvious that Azhar does not have this quality. Honest- ly, I never rated Azhar as a great captain!

What about Azhar's predecessors - Gavaskar, Srikkanth, Kapil Dev... how do you rate their captaincy?

Gavaskar is essentially a one-man army, a very strong-willed person who never allowed anybody else, whether his wife or whoever, to influence him. Kapil too was strong-willed, but he was not single- minded. Vengsarkar I would not put in the same league as Kapil and Gavaskar, those two were legends. Only Tendulkar, among today's players, can be placed in that class. As for Srikkanth, what can I say? As a batsman, he was an entertainer. I don't want to say anything about his captaincy, though.

You have been a national selector. Could you cast some light on the process, about how regional considerations are satisfied while picking a team?

Okay, this is a pertinent question, let me share my sincere views with you.

I remember once, chairing a meeting to pick the zonal youth team. At that time, the selection committee members sat and bickered, till I lost my temper and had to give them a piece of my mind, I had to tell them we were not picking a state side, that zonal interests needed to be kept in mind. And let me tell you, it is worse when pick- ing the national team - the regional pulls and pressures take priori- ty, selection on the basis of talent goes by the board.

I have no hesitation in going on record that Saurav Ganguly has come into the team only on regional considerations. This is a fact, no one can deny it. That Saurav, with his brilliant batting, has seized the opportunity and come good is commendable, I salute him for that. But then, let us look at the other side of that coin - at other players who have been picked on the basis of regional con- siderations, and whose presence in the side has weakened it. Does the suc- cess of one Saurav Ganguly compensate for the many many failures?

I had spoken against this while I was a selector, I had argued that it was stupid to have five selectors, one each from each region. If the BCCI wants five selectors, fine, but let them be selected on merit, irrespective of where they come from.

See, what happens is that even if the selector himself is impartial, he does face pressure from his own region. Like, when I was a national selector, someone from my region insisted that I should sup- port the inclusion of Roger Binny, Shivlal Yadav in the side. I told them bluntly that I was entrusted with the job of chosing the na- tional team, not the state side. But it is not always easy for selectors to be as blunt, so the various pulls and pressures ultimately end up dictating the composition of the side.

There is the issue of selection of captain - what do you think of the prevalent view that the selectors ruined the careers of Ka- pil, Srikkanth, Vengsarkar and such by giving them the mantle when they were not ready for it?

Honestly, I don't think any of the names you mentioned had captaincy qualities - so why they were given the job is a question that cannot be answered in cricketing terms.

On one occasion, Vengsarkar was made the captain because the Bombay lobby wanted one of their boys to be captain. Vengsarkar was reluctant, but he was asked to do the job. Funnily enough, the Bombay- ites did not back Ravi Shashtri, who by then had fallen out with the peo- ple who matter in the selection committee and the state cricket asso- ciation despite being India's vice-captain and leading the national team on occasion when the captain was not on the field.

Again, in the case of Azhar, he got the job because Raj Singh Dungarpur wanted a docile captain, one who would listen to the board and do what was expected of him.

So what should we do to get Indian cricket back on the rails?

Let us begin with the basics - and the basic in cricket, as in all sports, is youth. We should concentrate on the under-13 team, ensure that there is a steady flow of promising youngsters coming up for the national selectors to choose from.And that can be done only when the junior teams are looked after, given the benefit of coaching and constant exposure - like the Aussies do, with their cricket academy.

The attitude of players should change, at the same time. Playing for the country should be their main ambition - not getting to wear Armani suits or drive around in Mercedes cars. Sadly, the national spirit is lacking today.

Cricket administrators should think in terms of improving the infrastructure to promote the game. Today, the Hyderabad Cricket Association boasts of having 200 affiliates - but how many of these have grounds to practise on?

So how then can the game improve, if there is no infrastructure for the youngsters? That is why the game is on the decline and to arrest this, all concerned have to pay attention to the development of the game, rather than concentrate on finding ways to make more money.