> Aussie media...complete idiots!

Even today, with the game reaching further and further into the countryside, and the so-called lower orders, the Indian team has a decided flavour with Anil Kumble, Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman, Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, R.P. Singh and Ishant Sharma all Brahmins. Wasim Jaffer is a Muslim, Harbhajan Singh a Sikh, while, of the Hindu players, only Mahendra Dhoni and Yuvraj Singh come from "lower" castes.

Originally Posted by Wraith

Just have a look at this article by Andrew Stevenson in the Sydney Morning Herald...

A class act? Opinions differ - Cricket - Sport - smh.com.au

I just cant comprehend the stupidity in this article!!

CASTE IN FOCUS INDIA TOUR DOWN UNDER
Aussies talk about Brahmin dominance in Team India!
Avijit Ghosh | TNN

New Delhi: Both on and off the field, Team India’s tour of Australia is generating heat, creating controversies. First, there was the allegedly racist remark made by Harbhajan Singh. Now a widely-circulated Australian newspaper has attempted a slipshod caste-based analysis of Indian cricket and about the Brahmin dominance in the team.
Here’s what Andrew Stevenson wrote in Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herald. “Even today, with the game reaching further and further into the countryside, and the socalled lower orders,the Indian team has a decided flavour with Anil Kumble, Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman, Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly,RP Singh and Ishant Sharma all Brahmins. Wasim Jaffer is a Muslim,Harbhajan Singh a Sikh, while, of the Hindu players, only Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Yuvraj Singh come from “lower” castes.”
True, the composition of Team Indian reflects caste imbalance due to historical as well as socio-economic factors. But Stevenson doesn’t seem to be qualified enough to deal with the complex subject; especially since he cannot differentiate his kurmi from kayastha. At one point he writes that M S Dhoni comes from a “lower” caste.
However, in the box at the end of the story, he categorises Dhoni as a Rajput. A Rajput and a “lower” caste at the same time? Or does he mean that anyone who is not a Brahmin is a “lower caste”?
He errs on facts too. Uttar Pradesh paceman Rudra Pratap Singh has been categorised as a Brahmin; he is a Thakur/Rajput.
Elsewhere in the same article, Stevenson writes: “Despite his talents, Vinod Kambli was always booed and mocked at his home ground, Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai. Observers believed it was because of the dark colour of his skin.” He further quotes Kambli himself as saying, “I think it’s because of my caste.”
Despite repeated attempts, Kambli couldn’t be reached on phone for his comments. But to say that the Mumbai left-hander was “always booed and mocked” itself is questionable. Incidentally, the most booed cricketer in Indian history is Ravi Shastri, a Brahmin. Even Sourav Ganguly, who was booed for a brief period across the country, is a Brahmin.
For his story, Stevenson spoke to cricketers (Ravi Shastri), commentators (Harsha Bhogle), journalists (Siddhartha Vaidyanathan).
But he also extensively quotes from an insightful article by S. Anand, The Retreat of the Brahmin’, published by the Outlook magazine in 2003. Stevenson, however, errs in calling Anand a Dalit; he is a Tamil Brahmin. Perhaps, the Australian felt that only a Dalit could be so critical of Brahminism.
Unlike Anand, though, Stevenson seems to lack any kind of historical perspective on caste. The one-dimensional article also overlooks the complex divides of class, region and urban-rural — all that have gone into the making of Indian cricket as it stands today. Caste is tricky terrain that requires a certain degree of understanding and reading before being written about. This clearly seems to be a case of “fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.”