Much More Than Just Cricket

What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?’--C.L.R. James

Politically, Imran Khan is a man of many identities. England knows him as an Oxfordgraduate and as a classical liberal with a Jewish wife. In Pakistan, he is a staunchcritic of "flawed" democracy. For the cricket world, he is the avowed modernistwho subverted the establishment-player power relations in Pakistan cricket during hiscaptaincy and the man who introduced the idea of neutral umpires. The Khan certainlycan’t be accused of failing the James test, and his recent utterances about thePakistan cricket team’s tour of England, one surmises, would have had more to it thanjust cricket. In an interview to BBC Sport Online, Imran castigated the Pakistan CricketBoard for choosing "a wrong time" to tour England. The 1992 World Cup-winningPakistan captain, who in 1987 captained his country to its first Test series win inEngland and India, explained his position on cricketing grounds. The first part of theseason in England would be wet and Pakistan’s inexperienced batsmen, according toImran, would struggle against Darren Gough and Co. Besides, he said that the tour was justnot worth the effort because it comprised only two Tests.

Never known to shy away from a cricketing challenge or encourage such an idea, Imranmight have been stating by implication that the unhealthy racialisation of Englishpolitics and civil society would leave its impact on the cricket grounds and stands. Theace all-rounder turned politician is no stranger to the patterns of racial politics andsettlement in England, his second home. Pakistani immigrants, who constitute one per cent ofthe three per cent South Asian diaspora in England, are concentrated in London (the East End),Birmingham, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, all of which have Test grounds. Imrancould be forgiven if he were indeed hinting that the Pakistani diaspora would be betteroff now without a Test series between their country of origin and England.

The political racialisation of multi-cultural England, as it moves towards itsParliamentary elections in June, has been a central issue of debate in the mainstreamEnglish media. Tory MP Michael Portillo’s refusal to sign the pledge drafted by theCommission of Racial Equality (CRE) about non-racial election campaigning prompted ForeignSecretary Robin Cook to come up with his famous culinary definition of Britain’smulti-culturalism. Chicken tikka masala, Cook said, could now seriously give fishand chips a run for its money in the race for England’s national dish. (Portillo, whoclaimed that his non-racist credentials were too well-defined to be subject to evaluationon the basis of ‘not signing a pledge which ordered him what not to do’, wasdescribed by former hard-line Tory MP Norman Tebbit as a ‘caring conservative’--a Tory who was too liberal on the issue of immigrations and asylum seekers.) The LiberalDemocrats, who have Lord Dholakia, a person with Indian roots, as president, pointed outLabour’s abysmal record in giving tickets to Asian candidates even for local councilelections thereby insinuating that the ruling party is no saint in matters of promotingracial equality.

In the context of the England-Pakistan Test series, however, what is more pertinent isthe racialised civil society in parts of England where there is a substantialconcentration of Pakistani diaspora. Even as the Pakistan cricket team landed in England,the area of Oldham in Greater Manchester was in a state of high tension following clashesbetween Pakistani and white working class inhabitants. Pakistani youth claimed that theyhave been getting little support from the police in tackling white racism and decided totake the law in their own hands. They cordoned off Pakistani and Bangladeshi dominatedareas and put up ‘whites not allowed’ posters. When Walter Chamberlain, a76-year-old Second World War veteran, set foot on the area while returning home afterwatching a rugby match he was savagely attacked by a group of Pakistani youngsters. A fewdays later, even as white football fans descended there to watch a match between Oldhamand Stoke City, Bangladeshi and Pakistani youth clashed with them. This prompted theright-wing British National Party, a marginal political outfit, to stage marches throughthe streets of Oldham in an attempt to rouse an embattled white majority who, according tothe party, are under siege in their own country. The clashes between the Pakistani workingclass and the white working class spread to Bradford in neighbouring West Yorkshire, anarea where segregated schools of whites and Pakistanis have been causing major concern tointegrationists during the last few years. Incidentally, grassroot cricket in WestYorkshire has also been an integrationists’ nightmare. The Pakistani community inplaces such as Bradford run their own leagues.

Pakistani alienation from the white population is the result of an intersection of thediscourses of race and class. The Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants in England haveabysmal indices of post-high school education and economic activity. In comparison, theIndian diaspora in England, which constitutes 1.8 per cent of the 3 per cent South Asiandiaspora, can boast of educational and economic indices that are almost as good as thewhite population. The Pakistani immigrants have to battle it out with the white workingclass for space in the labour market whereas the Indian diaspora have the liberal whitemiddle class as their competitors. To add to this, the Pakistani immigrants preferred tohave ghettoised lives with their own codes of dressing, diet and kinship ties which led tothem maintaining minimal contact with the white community. The socio-cultural"othering" of the Pakistani naturally found its way into the cricketing world aswell. Time and again, the English broadsheets have insinuated that the combative cricketculture embodied by the Pakistan team contravenes the English idea of what sport is allabout -- fair play, decorum and character. The tabloids have been remarkably lesssophisticated in their opprobrium --The Mirror openly called Wasim Akram and WaqarYounis "cheats" in connection with the ball tampering controversy that surfacedduring the 1992 tour.

The best illustration of white working class anger against Pakistanis is the incidentin which Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate, players of Leeds United Football Club, attackedand injured British Pakistani brothers Sarfraz and Shahzad Najeib outside a Leeds nightclub on January 11 last year. The incident, however, is more symbolic (than real) of whiteworking class anger in that Bowyer and Woodgate, though from the London and Yorkshireworking classes respectively, have moved up the class ladder because of their footballcareer. The Najeib brothers, who are from a middle class family, are hardlyrepresentatives of the working class Pakistani community in Yorkshire. The highlypublicised £8 million trial of the footballers collapsed on April 9 this year followingpublication of an interview with the brothers’ father, Mohammed Najeib, in thetabloid Sunday Mirror, in which he alleged that the footballers had assaulted hissons with a clear racial motive. During the course of the hearings, Justice Poole hadruled that racial undertones could not be read into the attack and that it had to beconsidered as just an act of crime. Justice Poole stopped the case temporarily statingthat publication of the interview at the time of jury deliberations sabotaged the processof fair trial as it had influenced the jury.

Mohammed Najeib later cried foul against the tabloid, alleging that he had beenpromised that the interview would be published only after the trial. Najeib stopped shortof saying that newspaper had conspired to scuttle the case. The editor of the SundayMirror, Colin Myler, later resigned admitting that the publication of the interviewwas a "gross misjudgment" on his part. The most far-reaching outcome of thecase, however, was the criticism of the Macpherson Report of 1999 by Justice Poole incourse of the trial. The report, which looked into the murder of black teenager StephenLawrence, had empowered the victim of an attack or any other person related to either thevictim or the scene of the attack to define its nature. Justice Poole rapped Macphersonstating that the report, which was universally adopted in good faith by police and otheragencies, was subject to possible mischief.

From Botham to ‘ball tampering’

It could be argued, especially in the light of past experiences, that there is alikelihood of tension in the civil society finding an outlet in the stands. In the lastdecade, cricket between England and Pakistan in England has been fraught with clashes inthe stands, the most famous of them being the Edgbaston clashes of 1987. DuringPakistan’s infamous 1992 tour, there were clashes in Edgbaston and Headingley. Andduring the country’s last tour in 1996, there was much verbal heckling betweenPakistani and white spectators at the Oval. By and large, Pakistani cricket spectatorshipin England mirrors the community’s class composition in civil society. Passionateabout cricket and at the wrong end of the racial power relations in civil society, theyconsider Pakistan’s victory against England on the field as nothing short of anaffirmation of their rights and even existence. In contrast, the white working classesusually spend the summer months waiting for the football leagues to begin in September.Though they have been priced out of the Premiership League to a great extent, the Firstand Second Division league tickets are still within their reach. In normal circumstances,they would not even dream of watching international cricket, the tickets of which arepriced higher than tickets for a Premiership game. However, in the wake of a racialisedcivil society and a Pakistan tour, they are known to descend in small numbers to thestands in Edgbaston, Headingley, Old Trafford, Lord’s and the Oval.

Many politicised people, and most certainly Imran, would identify a pattern in thetenuous racial relations existing between the two communities now and in the periodpreceding the acrimonious 1992 tour. In the summer of 1990, Norman Tebbit, in an interviewwith the Los Angeles Times, came up with his famous ‘cricket test’ tomeasure the loyalties of immigrants. ‘When England played Pakistan or India whom didthey cheer for?’ he asked. ‘Are you still harking back to where you came from orwhere you are?’ Tebbit was being interviewed about the backbench Tory rebellion hespearheaded against his own government’s Hong Kong Bill, which proposed to admit50,000 heads of Hong Kong households into the United Kingdom after the 1997 take over ofHong Kong by China. There was little doubt that Tebbit’s attack was levelledprimarily at the Pakistani immigrants and that his reference to the Indian diaspora wasmeant more for the sake of completion. In 1989, many members of the Pakistani community inBritain had openly vowed to flout British law and administrative machinery so as toimplement the fatwa ordered by Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini on author SalmanRushdie, then a resident of London. The Tory government had stated quite resolutely andindignantly that they would ensure full protection to Rushdie. The Hong Kong Bill and theRushdie fatwa meant that the political atmosphere was charged with theissues of race and immigration even as Britain approached its May 1992 Parliamentaryelections.

Events that unfolded on the field that summer alienated the Pakistani community fromtheir white counterparts even more. It all started one March evening in Melbourne, the dayof the 1992 World Cup final between England and Pakistan. England openers Graham Gooch andIan Botham, who was promoted to take advantage of the field restrictions in the first 15overs, had just begun their reply to Pakistan’s total of 260-plus. A late Wasim Akramoutswinger had Botham all at sea and the Pakistan fielders appealed for a catch behind thewicket. Up went the umpire’s finger and Botham lingered at the crease for a moment,shook his head to convey his dissent at the verdict, and began his long walk back to theMCG pavilion. Five yards into his walk, he crossed a saucy Aamir Sohail who shouted athim, ‘Your mother-in-law will bat better than you.’ Sohail was giving it back toBotham who had said in the 1980s that Pakistan was the right place for packing offone’s mother-in-law. Botham went to town with Sohail’s remark and the story wassplashed all over the British tabloid press. Two months later, when the Pakistan team wasabout to play their first Test in Edgbaston, the Pakistani diaspora in Birminghamannounced a £500 award to any Pakistani bowler who got Botham’s wicket and a cashaward of £100 to any batsmen who hit the great English all-rounder for six. The whiteworking class, who considered Botham as their only cricketing hero, was incensed and theyturned up in large numbers in Edgbaston to lock horns with the Pakistani community. Theclash that took place outside the ground at close of play on one of the days left a fewwhites and Pakistanis injured.

Pakistan beat England at Lord’s in the second Test thanks to inspired bowling byWasim and Waqar. The action moved to Old Trafford in Manchester for the third Test.Pakistani medium pacer Aaqib Javed bowled a series of bouncers at England tailender DevonMalcolm in retaliation to the liberal dose of bouncers that Malcolm had sent down toWaqar. English umpire Ken Palmer no-balled Aaqib when he bowled the second bouncer atMalcolm and then after two more bouncers, at the end of the over, Palmer handed back thebowler’s sweater in a manner Aaqib found insulting. Immediately, Palmer wassurrounded by a horde of gesticulating Pakistani fielders led by captain Javed Miandad.The fielders were joined by a couple of angry Pakistani spectators who flung rolled-upnewspapers on the ground. After the match, Pakistan manager Intikhab Alam criticised theumpires for inspecting the ball frequently when Pakistan bowled and not doing it whenEngland were in the field. The first inkling of the ball-tampering controversy had come --not from the English but ironically from Intikhab!

Benefiting from umpiring controversies and in the midst of clashes in the stands,England won the fourth Test in Headingley. The series moved to the decider, which Pakistanwon at the Oval thanks to Wasim and Waqar again. At the end of the Oval Test and theseries, England manager Micky Stewart mysteriously remarked he knew why Wasim and Waqarwere able to swing the old ball prodigiously. Gooch gruffly remarked ‘I am sure thatthe Pakistani bowlers will be keeping the method to themselves.’ The statements cameas grist to the tabloid mills. Photographs of Waqar and Wasim holding the ball at thesides were splashed on the back pages of The Sun and The Mirror withcaptions such as ‘Nailed -- Waqar appears to pick at the seam with his finger andthumbnail’. The Sun also published pictures of a cricket ball in variousstages of decay under the headline: ‘Revealed! Secrets of Waqar the wrecker’.

The ball tampering controversy became official during the one-day international seriesbetween the two countries, which followed the Tests. During the rain-affected secondone-day international at Lord’s, batsman Allan Lamb complained to umpires Ken Palmerand John Hampshire about the state of the ball. After consultation with match refereeDeryck Murray and senior Test umpire Don Oslear during the break, they decided to changethe ball. Murray told Intikhab about the decision and the Pakistani manager selected areplacement ball whereas in normal circumstances it was Gooch’s right to select theball. The umpires and Murray insisted on doing the entire thing secretly. Oslear, however,informed the matter to Micky Stewart who passed on the information to the England players.Play resumed, and Wasim and Waqar took five wickets and helped Pakistan win the match. Afew minutes after the match, a tabloid reporter was tipped off by a phone call from theEngland dressing room about the hushed-up change of ball during the interval. The umpiresand the ICC officials skipped that evening’s Press conference but an anonymousLord’s official informed the media that the ball had been changed under Law 42.5 --the section dealing with unfair play and specifically ball tampering. The English mediagrilled not only the Pakistani team but also the ICC for trying to cover up the incident.Intikhab, however, stated that the ball had been replaced with one in similar condition,under Law 5, whereas it should have been replaced with an inferior one if Law 42.5 hadbeen applied. Intikhab requested Murray to come out with a statement, but Murray insistedthat he wouldn’t issue a public statement on the subject but would present hisversion in his secret report to the ICC.