That’s a prospect many member-nations in the ICC detest—Howard’s past is coming back to bite him. Of the ten members who would vote to ratify (or not) Howard, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and South Africa have registered their objections to the man; the Pakistan Cricket Board has referred the matter to their government; the Indian board members are mulling it and, according to sources, shaking their heads in disapproval at Howard’s resume. Four dissenting votes would make the candidature untenable.
More serious are the concerns of South Africa and Pakistan. Howard, through the 1980s, opposed sanctions against the then white supremacist regime in South Africa. Right through the end, he was a critic of the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela. For the Pakistanis, his enthusiastic support for George Bush’s unilateral action in Iraq and Afghanistan is a big negative.
India’s position is curious—politically, it has been sympathetic to the regime in Zimbabwe and the two countries work together to boost trade. President Robert Mugabe is an old friend of India and blame for the turmoil in that country is laid at England’s door, though Mugabe’s recent record is alarming enough. On South Africa, there’s no room for ambiguity—India and South Africa are friends. This bonhomie is reflected in cricketing relations.
Pawar with ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat
Politically, thus, Pawar would be expected to align with the two African countries. However, he must tread with some caution; he doesn’t have a formal position in the BCCI, though he continues to hold great sway. For the moment, Pawar has endorsed the process behind the nomination of Howard, not wanting to commit himself, for he wouldn’t be unaware of the BCCI’s views. “We are unlikely to support Howard’s candidature,” a senior BCCI source told Outlook. “Two main reasons—we have very good relations with the countries that are opposing him, and Howard’s record as a politician is alarming, with reasons to suspect him of being a racist.”
Cricket Australia (CA) believes the ICC is in a sickly state, largely irrelevant and subservient to commercial might. It can be made robust by a strong leader such as Howard. It’s no doubt a salutary thought, but critics say his intransigence and inability to accept a contrary opinion could be problematic. Says Australian historian Heather Goodall, “Right through, he’s displayed a stubborn refusal to see the other person’s side of any argument, especially when they were non-Anglo.” She says he alienated the Aboriginals and whipped “up racial hysteria to win cheap votes”, and fostered Islamophobia.
Howard’s shortcomings overshadow his deep love for the game. His critics say his convictions are antiquated. “I don’t think that, for him, the world has moved beyond when there was a British Empire,” says Dr Meredith Burgmann, former president of the NSW legislative council and a leader in the anti-apartheid sporting boycott campaigns. “When everyone else in Australia regarded Mandela as a hero, Howard was still saying he was a terrorist—right up to just before Mandela became president!”
Perhaps Howard only reflected the dominant opinion in Australia. Former Australian rugby player and commentator Peter FitzSimons confirms this: “I personally did not agree with much of what he did—moving us away from being a republic, taking us into the Iraq war, his policy on refugees, etc. But I was in the minority. He was, generally, a quite popular prime minister who won four elections.” It was also his belief, says Haigh, that every country is entitled to run its affairs without interference, and sporting contact should not be disrupted.
But there are others in Australia who feel Howard is incapable of evolving in any real sense. “He’s not a modern thinker in terms of the world and political and racial issues,” Burgmann insists. And Goodall believes Howard’s legacy is injurious to Australia: “His legacy has been very long-lasting, and very divisive. He failed to oppose racism and social injustice in principle. His ruthless crushing of any dissent within the Liberals has left a lasting legacy of a whole polity shifting far to the right—with continuing and very bitter divisions.”
Should such a man be trusted with supervising an international body? With his past, many cricketing nations fear—with reasons real or imagined—the cricketing world could be wracked with divisions and ruined if he’s allowed to take charge of the ICC. Pawar, despite the position of neutrality he must maintain as the ICC’s top boss, will have to respect the government’s and the BCCI’s kinship with those opposing Howard. The BCCI seems ready to join the dissenters—the world awaits its formal decision.
The ICC is about to self-destruct. Those who may wish to vote for ex-PM John Howard probably don’t realise how divisive a man he has been. If Cricket Australia wants a politician like him to head the ICC, they really want to weaken and destroy the institution.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT