In an eerie and bizarre reminder of the post-Indira Gandhi Congress culture, on Friday evening the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) unanimously decided to let its president, Sharad Pawar, take all decisions as he deems fit. This might please Mr Pawar, but will it further the cause of Indian cricket? While answering the question it is well to remember that Mr Pawar is a politician and, just as businessmen aim at profits, academics aim at publications and journalists aim at by-lines, a politician aims at votes. In the mood that India is in today, what with its economic successes and the sense of confidence this has engendered, exaggerated nationalism will be attractive to politicians as a vote-getter. Perhaps that is why Mr Pawar reportedly told an Australian newspaper that if the verdict on the Harbhajan appeal is not in his favour, India will pull out of the tour. But a few hours later in Kolkata, Mr Pawar told reporters that there was no question of pulling out. | |
| It would seem that Mr Pawar is playing a bit of nationalist politics here while also keeping the International Cricket Committee and the larger cricket community pacified, or guessing. His basic case, as that of many Indians, seems to be that no one should even charge an Indian player with making a racist comment. This is surely not a tenable position. Anyone is free to charge anyone and it is up to the authorities to decide whether to proceed further or not. Nor can Mr Pawar be right in saying that only one verdict will be good enough for him, because then it becomes: My country, right or wrong. That cannot be the basis on which to run an international sport. Under the circumstances, altogether the best thing for him would be to avoid the press until the appeal has been disposed of by the appeals commissioner "" if only to avoid being misquoted. Unless, of course, the intention is to milk the incident for what it is worth. |
| |
| Politics aside, there are other reasons that should persuade the BCCI president to keep mum. The fact is that the cricketing world has, by and large, been highly supportive of India. Whether it was the umpiring issue or the racism charge, the media and former players have mostly expressed the view that India was at the receiving end of some very poor judgment. Indeed, the ICC has acknowledged India's case and done the extraordinary thing of removing an umpire, although the rules expressly forbid it ""everyone should recognise that this is a huge bow to the fact that the Indian team was done in at Sydney. Especially with that background, it makes no sense to go on making threats "" that too threats that say there is only one way for things to go: the way we say they should. This will surely lead to public opinion in other cricketing countries turning against India as it comes to be seen as using its financial clout rather crudely and in the wrong way. If you do have the big stick, you can afford to speak softly. |
| |
| In any case, this is not a matter of clout. There is a process under way and it is only necessary for Harbhajan Singh's lawyer to point out that the evidence is nowhere near enough to "convict" someone of such a serious charge. Indeed, now that Virendra Sehwag has claimed that even Andrew Symonds has said that he didn't hear Harbhajan Singh say anything, the case could be even stronger than seemed possible last week. Nothing further needs to be said by anyone. |
| |
|
| |
