As the Mahabharata is supposed to have been composed between 200 BC and AD 200, it is reasonable to suggest that the game of cricket in its earliest form was played in the Indian subcontinent at least 2,000 years ago. Since there is no evidence to the contrary, we may even assume that the game of cricket originated in India. There are a few additional points that substantiate my contention that cricket was certainly played in India 2,000 years ago.

Since no sport in India has ever been highlighted for its intrinsic value and quality, it stands to reason that the less popular danda-guli, the forerunner to cricket, has hardly received any special mention. Not even pasha (game of dice), archery, wrestling, fencing, spear-throwing and chariot-racing, which have been at the forefront of contests, have ever received any special attention from the great authors of yore.

The shape of the early cricket bat was club-like or the shape of truncheon. Duel with clubs was a popular sport in India, made still more famous by the valiant deeds of Jarasandha, Balaram, Ghatotkacha, Bheem and Duryodhon. The club was commonly used in ancient India as a weapon of attack as well as for defence, just the way a cricket bat would be used for both attack and defence.

Only a prosperous people could have invented a game like cricket where one requires long leisure hours. India was a prosperous civilization in ancient days and so it stands to reason that India, and not Britain, was the birthplace of cricket. The slow, leisurely movement of cricket is so typically Indian in outlook and manner that it is difficult to even think that some other nation may have beaten India to invent cricket. The British way of life was certainly faster than India?s and surely much more laborious.

In India wood was plentiful. So the making of wooden bats for cricket was no problem. If willow was the ideal wood for the bats, that too was readily available. The ball was initially made of wood. Later, it was made of leather-cork-twine. Be it wood or leather-cork-twine, both can be found in ample proportions in India.

Now for the reasons why cricket could not have possibly originated in Britain. Cricket is primarily a sport that is played outdoors in dry weather conditions. Britain, with its perpetual drizzles even in summer, could hardly be said to be the right place for cricket to take birth. Whereas in India, the long periods of dry weather, during both winter and summer would be ideal for cricket.

Cricket is primarily a sport to be played on the plains. Britain, with its undulating landscape, would be an unlikely choice for a game like cricket. The flat land of the Indian subcontinent would be much more attuned to the game.

The leisurely pace of the game of cricket again would be ill-suited to the West, unlike here. In Western sports, the grounds and courts have definite and specific dimensions. But in cricket, there is still no definite shape or size of the ground. This is exactly in keeping with the Indian sport of danda-guli, where there is no particular dimension prescribed for the playing arena.

Cricket requires supple wrists. The Britons have strong wrists but not as supple as those of Indians. Cricket requires plenty of patience. Here, too, the Indian psyche is at an advantage.

Thus climate, landscape, genetic make-up, psychology, history ? all combine to show that cricket could not have been born in Britain. It is more likely that the game of cricket was rediscovered by the Britons through the trade routes of India and Persia.

There is, however, no denying that it was the Britons who gave cricket its modern shape, its philosophy and laid down its culture. In Britain, the grand game certainly evolved out of its antiquated versions. The Britons gave the game its name, codified the laws, standardized the measurements. They gave cricket a premier status among all sports. They, probably, also altered the shape of the target to a spherical ball, thereby bringing about a revolutionary change.

Cricket became synonymous with fair-play in Britain. This meant that a cricketer would not stoop down to take advantage of the laws of the game. He would obey the laws, but, more important, he would play in keeping with the unwritten spirit of the game. Cricket stood for everything that was proper and pure. Here victory and defeat were alike. This was the British principle at its best. They coined the idiom, ?It?s not cricket?, to signify anything that was not pure. We ought to salute them for the magnificent philosophy.

Cricket probably arrived in Britain in the 12th century, along with spices from India by the sea route. Most probably, sailors and merchants first introduced the game in the south of England in the dales of Kent, Hampshire, Sussex and Surrey. From thereon, the shepherds picked it up and turned the game into a national pastime by the 17th century with the rise of the Hambledon men.

There is another way cricket could have come to the West. The trade route from India through the Asia Minor could also have brought cricket to England. Here it would be significant to note that the Persians had also learnt the game from India and evolved something similar in the region where modern Iran and Iraq exist. The game was called ?chugan?lgui? (literally bat-ball). The Parsee author, J. M. Framjee Patel, has mentioned this game in his book, Stray Thoughts on Indian Cricket.

In India, cricket probably lost its importance with the growth of Muslim rule. The sport, like many others, was not encouraged. Centuries of neglect made the people forget the game since it could not have been pursued indoors and away from prying eyes. Fortunately, cricket survived in Britain during its blackest period in India.

The Britons, most surely, revolutionized the sport and gave it worldwide acceptance. They brought in over-arm bowling, leg-guards and gloves to add more speed and risk to the game ? all of which added to its attraction. They introduced the dignified cream flannels and sight-screens to neutralize the dull English summer light.

Today, cricket is thriving in the land of its birth. But it has not been able to grasp the culture and the philosophy that the game had acquired in the land of its rediscovery. This is a great shame.

Just a few minor references to the game of cricket in the wardrobe accounts of Edward I in the 14th century, as well as in the paintings and poems of a later period, hardly give any credence to the origin of the game in England. It reveals, and justly so, that the game was played in England at the turn of the 14th century. On the other hand, the account of Dronacharya extricating a small, wooden ball from a well lends much more authenticity to the argument that the game may have existed in India 2,000 years ago.

It is time for cricket-lovers to accept that the early versions of their beloved game can now be traced back to at least 2,000 years ago. As evidence of the game has been found on Indian soil, why not acknowledge it as fact that India gave birth to cricket? There is, undoubtedly, no irrefutable proof. But at least this would help lovers of cricket all over the world to remove their blindfolds and try to see if more authentic origins of the game can be deciphered.