Sports

On The Darwin Ladder

Bhajji's antics apart, is a muscle-flexing India the new bully of the cricket world?

Advertisement

On The Darwin Ladder
info_icon

"India Is The Most Powerful Now...It Can No Longer Conduct Itself Like A Protester."

info_icon

"India acted like a bully, like the US in the international scene. They were willing to circumvent the legal process, which is really regrettable." Peter Roebuck, Cricket Writer  

info_icon

"As a player, I would only wish the game to go on... there should not be the slightest doubt that they were not going to play." Kapil Dev, Ex-India Captain

info_icon

"Some 90 per cent of the world’s cricket fans live in South Asia. It’s natural for the boards to wield power in the international game." Mike Marqusee, Cricket Writer/Activist

Advertisement

info_icon

"There may have been some brinkmanship, but I don’t believe there was any serious contemplation on bringing the team back." M.A.K. Pataudi, Ex-India Captain

info_icon

"It wasn’t the BCCI but the Indian team that flexed its muscles.... This could be the dawn of a new age of civility on the ground." Mukul Kesavan, Writer

info_icon

"This, to an extent, is a post-imperial reaction. India was offended, rightly I think, by the way it had been treated for so long." Mike Coward, Columnist

info_icon

"I don’t agree with these pressure tactics, it’s all rubbish. Pull out? Don’t even suggest it, for then you’re harming the game." Bishen Singh Bedi, Ex-India Captain

Advertisement

***

Scenes straight out of reality TV were playing out at Adelaide's Angas Street on the day Harbhajan Singh's fate was being decided at the Federal Court. The Australian media, more daring than their Indian brethren, were seen chasing cars on foot as star witnesses arrived and departed. Angas Street was a veritable Babel as unconfirmed news of events inside the building were feverishly transmitted, and leaks from Cricket House in Mumbai received. When it all ended, there was still ambiguity on whether there were any victors in the sorry saga—replete with unedifying insults—that followed India's defeat in the second Test at Sydney.

Nominally, Harbhajan came up trumps, the charge that he called Andrew Symonds a monkey was dropped due to lack of evidence, the three-Test ban imposed by South African match referee Mike Procter revoked. He got off with a fine of 50 per cent of his match fee for using abusive language.

Ricky Ponting and his men, after going the distance in this street scrap-turned-legal drama, had to swallow the bitter pill. Justice John Hansen of the New Zealand high court, the appeals commissioner, believed Symonds had set up the confrontation by provoking Harbhajan, and that Michael Clarke was not a trustworthy witness. Interestingly, the International Cricket Council (ICC), due to a "human error", failed to provide the judge instances of Harbhajan's previous transgressions. Hansen said if he had been aware of the most serious of them—intimidating the umpire and showing dissent—he would have imposed a more serious penalty on the Indian spinner.

But there were those who suggested that the "human error" wasn't so innocent, that it may have been effected by the pressure the Board of Control for Cricket in India and the Indian team brought to bear. And yes, there was pressure, unremitting and uncompromising. India's ODI players, who had reached Melbourne earlier on the morning of the Bhajji hearing, were summoned to Adelaide. "It was important that we stood together, were perceived as united in this cause," a senior Indian player told Outlook. "If anyone thinks it was a pressure tactic, so be it." The players were willing to fight to the bitter end. Though BCCI officials denied it, there were reports that a chartered plane was ready to fly back the team in the event of the verdict going against India.

There was more. Arjuna Ranatunga, Sri Lanka Cricket chairman and an old Aussie bete noire, suggested that their decision to join India and Australia for the triangular ODI series would depend on the outcome of the Bhajji hearing. The danger before Cricket Australia (CA) was real and immense—the possibility of being sued by TV network ESPN for A$60 million lost revenue if the series took a hit. The Australians were outraged that the CA, fearing debilitating financial setbacks, pressed a lesser charge against Harbhajan. An ICC official, not wishing to be named, told Outlook that if litigation had happened, "other process would have started", subtly implying that the BCCI would have been put in the dock.

Clearly, the issue is too complex to be solved by the brute force of law. The waters are far from still now. It is more than a tale of foul-mouthed men who are excellent with the bat and ball; it's about cultural, ethnic and financial issues which may just carry the germs of a great divide. Until 1993, Australia and England had the power of veto at the ICC, an absurdity that galled the lesser powers for years. India perhaps still retains the rage of the dispossessed.

Peter Roebuck, the cricketer-writer who asked for Ponting's head for his deeds at Sydney, believes India had no right to assert its power to the degree it did. "Like the US in the international scene, India acted like a bully. The case was being heard by an independent, professional judge," he told this magazine. "It seems India was willing to circumvent the legal process, which is a matter of great regret from a nation that loves the game so dearly."

Roebuck believes that India, bereft of power not long ago, must exercise it with care now that it possesses it all. "What happened 20 years ago should not be allowed to dictate our current conduct; India is now the most influential power in the game and cannot any longer conduct itself like a protester, it cannot be a dissenting voice." Agrees former Indian captain Bishen Singh Bedi, "I don't agree with these pressure tactics, it's all rubbish. You've gone there to play cricket, you've got to play cricket. There were other issues, you deal with them. But for heaven's sake, don't even suggest that you'll pull out, for then you're harming the game." With power comes great responsibility, and India must understand that.

Respected cricket writer Mike Coward sees the still greater danger of a black and white divide seeping into cricket. "This, to an extent, is a post-imperial reaction. India was offended, rightly I think, by the way it had been treated for so long," he says. "The worry is that because there is tremendous solidarity between India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and because of India's very strong relations with South Africa, there could be a divide. England, Australia and New Zealand could be isolated."

However, writer and political activist Mike Marqusee thinks the growing clout of the so-called Asian bloc (in reality, an India-centred and not entirely reliable bloc) is "much resented, and sometimes wildly exaggerated". Marqusee argues, "The bulk of the global cricket apparatus is still in the hands of their Anglo-Australian rivals, and they all sway to the tune of Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp dominates cricket broadcasting on several continents. Some 90 per cent of the world's cricket fans live in South Asia and it is only natural and democratic that their cricket boards wield power in the international game." His only grouse is that the BCCI and other South Asian boards, preoccupied with their own privileges and ambitions, have failed to translate "demographic superiority into meaningful influence".

One man who's not overly concerned by the BCCI's posturing is former Indian captain Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi. "There may have been some brinkmanship, but I don't believe there was any serious contemplation of bringing the team back," he says. "And once they realised that there was no hard evidence against Harbhajan, they were confident that the racial slur would not stand against him. So I don't think there would have been any question of putting pressure on anyone, certainly not on the judge, who gave a sound and completely acceptable judgement."

Ironically, it's the BCCI that is being praised or blamed for resolving the issue, despite a history of letting players down in the past. Mukul Kesavan, historian and columnist, remembers how the board had sacrificed Bedi over the 'Vaseline affair' decades ago. "And in this case, it wasn't the BCCI that flexed its muscles, it was the Indian team," Kesavan says. "Anil Kumble and Sachin Tendulkar made it clear to the board that the team was unwilling to go on with the tour if Procter's decision wasn't reversed." Kesavan also doesn't see doomsday descending on us anytime soon. In fact, he sees in this crisis hope, even the "dawn of a new age of civility on the ground and a possible end to sledging".

The last word must go to Kapil Dev, the former Indian captain and arguably India's greatest cricketer. "As a player, I would only wish the game to go on...there shouldn't have been even the slightest doubt that they were not going to play. " In short, be a cricketing powerhouse, not a bully off the field.

Advertisement

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement