It has become evident that the franchisees actually wanted several players from Pakistan; it’s also become clear that the Indian government didn’t play a role in the exclusion—on the contrary, the government had given 17 Pakistani players visas in December. All along, the Board for Control of Cricket in India and the IPL have insisted that the franchisees were and are free to buy players of their choice. So who prevented the franchisees from choosing players from across the border? It wasn’t the IPL governing council, as Rajeev Shukla, BCCI vice-president, says: “There were no instructions to the teams from the IPL governing council not to pick Pakistani players.”
But sources say instructions were indeed given. And the man giving the instructions, according to sources at IPL franchisees, was IPL commissioner Lalit Modi himself. “It was he who personally advised franchisees to not buy Pakistani players at the auction,” a source with an IPL team told Outlook.
Thus, 54 of the 66 players would have remained unsold in any event. But the odds favoured players from Pakistan, the T20 world champion, especially Shahid Afridi, Umar Gul, Sohail Tanvir, Abdul Razzaq, Kamran Akmal, Rana Naved-ul-Hasan and Misbah-ul-Haq. Then, the two hottest young players in world cricket, Mohammad Aamer and Umar Akmal, were also available.
Several people, from Rajasthan Royals co-owner Shilpa Shetty to BCCI secretary N. Srinivasan, tried to explain that some other top players from other countries were unsold too. And yet, no cricketing logic can possibly exclude all the Pakistanis from Twenty20 strategy; they were not picked up because Modi, sources said, advised against it. Modi, it’s learnt, explained that there could be “problems associated with these players, especially relating to law and order”. These, the source said, were not ideal for a tournament where the main purpose is marketing. Modi, when contacted by Outlook, said in an sms text that he would offer no comment.
Publicly, Modi and the BCCI have maintained that the teams were completely free to pick up any player. Modi told a TV channel: “There was no pre-decision. They (franchisees) were all worried about availability and that’s why the Australians weren’t picked along with many other players.”
That’s a bit disingenuous, for while the Australians are indeed playing an international series during the IPL, the Pakistanis are not. Salman Ahmed of Portfolio World Sports Management, who manages several Pakistani players, says he appreciates that the sponsors could have been wary about the presence of the Pakistanis due to the 26/11 Mumbai attack, but adds: “The right thing to do is to sit down with the players, explain to them the situation and hand them their money for terminating their contracts. A little tact and honesty would have helped...Modi has played a dirty game by putting them up for auction and then ensuring nobody bought them.”
Until three days before the auction, Tanvir, Misbah, Umar Gul and Kamran Akmal were not up for auction—they believed that they were still contracted with the teams they played for in IPL-1. They had been sent letters by their teams in December, stating they’d play for their respective IPL teams. This was confirmed by a senior official with the Kolkata Knight Riders franchise. There was no talk of them being on the auction list at that stage.
Tanvir, who played a key role in the Rajasthan Royals win in 2008, says it was a bolt from the blue when their names were added to the auction list. “I was certain I was going to play for my team!” he told Outlook. “I’d got a letter from Rajasthan Royals saying I’d be playing this season for them, to help me get the visa. Then, three days before the auction, I was told I was going to be put on auction. And then came the humiliation at the auction—there was no need to do this!”
After the initial lies, some truths have been spoken by several principals of the drama. Shahrukh Khan said it was “humiliating to me as a KKR owner that this happened”; Rajasthan coaching director Darren Berry wrote: “I do know—due to my coaching role with the Rajasthan Royals—that a few weeks ago, Umar Akmal was No. 1 priority on the Royals’ shopping list. As the auction unfolded live on TV in India, it became evident that it wasn’t just Umar Akmal who was in the no-go zone, but all of the Pakistan players.”
The heat has gotten too much for Modi, and he is beating a retreat. He declared a few Pakistanis could still play in IPL-3 if some players in the teams pull out. There’s a possibility that Razzaq may play for a team in IPL-3. But Pakistan’s anger against Modi’s style of functioning persists. “When the player is bought by a franchisee, it’s for the player and the franchisee to work out things,” Salman Ahmed says. “Why is the IPL commissioner interacting on every small issue with the franchisees? Why can’t the franchisees or the IPL be professional enough and inform the players what’s happening?”
Ahmed intends to do something about it. He plans to hold a press conference in Mumbai in the near future to put the “facts” before people. “Let the people decide, because it doesn’t make sense at all,” he says. “Even the franchisees are not happy, but no one can do anything.” They can’t do anything because Modi has been strutting around, barking orders and making rules, like an absolute monarch.
It’s Pakistan that’s to blame for the embarrassment faced by its cricketers, who were invited for but not chosen in the ipl auction (Underarm Bowling, Feb 8). If the Pakistan government had cooperated in the 26/11 case, it would have been different. Zubin Verma, Delhi
Keeping out Pakistani players has nothing to do with patriotism or religion. From a purely rational point of view, it’s good they’ve been kept out. The 26/11 attack on Mumbai is an inflexion point in the attitude of Indians towards Pakistan—and I’m not talking of the rabid ‘patriots’ stirred by a hatred of all things Islamic. After 26/11, lots of people who wouldn’t have minded being accommodative of Pakistan want nothing to do with that country. Vivek Sharan, Bangalore
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