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