It's not racism; plain and simple bullying!
Ashok Hegde
Ever since the Denness episode exploded on the international cricket world,
I have received numerous emails from friends, colleagues and cousins --
passionate cricket lovers all, and to a man and woman, reasonable people.
They are unanimous in their conclusion: that Denness's decisions are
extremely harsh and unfair; and that it smacks of racism.
While I agree in part with the first of their contentions, what worries me
is the second bit of reasoning. This line of thinking is both naive and
dangerous. It is perhaps as naive as the 'foreign hand' bogey raised by our
political leaders.
To view every unfair decision we receive through the prism of race is
missing the entire point. The problem is we, as a people, are just not
aggressive enough. To the world, we are pushovers. Punish us, fairly or
unfairly, and we will probably make a little noise and then forget all about
it and get on with our lives.
What did we do when Sourav Ganguly was punished for so much as showing his
bat when an umpire ruled him out LBW? What did we do when Venkatesh Prasad
was punished for showing his happiness after he had claimed a wicket? What
did Sachin Tendulkar do, as Prem Panicker rightly pointed out, immediately
after Nantie Hayward had abused him? What did we do when Alan Donald got
away with abusing Rahul Dravid? What did we do when Pat Symcox accused
Indians of fixing a match, based on nothing more than dressing room
water-cooler gossip? What did we do when Michael Slater and Glenn McGrath
gave Indian players more than a mouthful?
Nothing.
Neither the BCCI, nor the players, nor the millions of cricket lovers were
outraged enough by these incidents.
So is it then a surprise that we are being pushed around.
According to me, gentlemen, this is not racism. It's plain and simple
bullying. And if you allow yourself to be bullied long enough, everybody
begins to take you for granted.
Yes, we have our limits. Those were breached by Mike Denness. And, then,
what do we do? We blame it on the colour of our skins.
Let me digress a bit. When Mutaiah Muralitharan was called for chucking by
Darrell Hair, what did the Sri Lankan board do? They backed their player to
the hilt. They continued playing him in the side. Then they demanded, and
succeeded, in having Darrell Hair replaced as the umpire in matches which
Sri Lanka played. Did they send him for correcting his action? No. They
produced medical evidence to prove that Muralitharan's action was not
illegal.
When Shoaib Akhtar was called for chucking, what happened? The ICC called
his action illegal and banned him. But in a surprising volte face, the ICC
said he could play the one-day matches since bouncers were not allowed
(that's the stupidest excuse I have heard). Why? Obviously the PCB turned
the heat on the ICC and got the decision revoked.
What did India do when Harbhajan Singh was accused of chucking? We dropped
him tamely and promptly sent him for a course in correcting his action to
Fred Titmus. Wasn't that an admission of guilt? Couldn't we have had his
action examined by our own experts (EAS Prasanna comes to mind) first? If
indeed his action was illegal, couldn't we have got the likes of Prasanna to
talk to the young man? If it was not, shouldn't we have persisted with him,
and challenged any call of chucking? By the by, what did we do when Pat
Symcox, during the first test, hinted, by saying he would like to see
Harbhajan Singh bowl without his full sleeves, that not all was kosher with
the offie? Nothing. But when
David Lloyd, in 1998, hinted at Muralitharan's odd action, the Sri Lankan
board immediately swung into action, and received assurances from the
English cricket board.
I could go on and on about the instances where we have taken things lying
down. But the issue now is, racism or not, what can we do about the whole
unsavoury episode?
For once, our cricket board has shown some spine. Whatever the outcome, this
is a good beginning.
And it augurs well for Indian cricket.
However, I have one point of disagreement with the board. We shouldn't have
demanded a revoking of Denness's decision, since the playing conditions are
very clear about there being no scope for an appeal against a match refree's
decision. But I am sure there are no conditions about adding a few penalties
to ones already handed out.
What we should have insisted on is parity. We should have demanded that
Shaun Pollock be banned for a match for excessive appealing, and, futher, be
handed out another suspended ban for not controlling his players. We should
have demanded a ban on Jacques Kallis, Lance Klusener and Nantie Hayward. I
doubt whether the ICC could have hidden behind the law and playing
conditions on that one.
From now on, the BCCI, the team management and the players have to be on
constant vigil, as Prem once again rightly pointed out, and report any abuse
or sledging to the authorities. And the authorities need to act on it
decisively.
Show some guts, for god's sake. And forget about the colour of your skin.
If you are strong enough inside, nobody can push you around!
The ball tampering issue - Complete coverage
Editor's note: Rediff believes that like its own editorial staffers, readers too have points of view on the many issues relating to cricket as it is played.
Therefore, Rediff provides in its editorial section space for readers to write in, with their views. The views expressed by the readers are carried as written, in order to preserve the original voice.
However, it needs mentioning that guest columns are opinion pieces, and reflect only the feelings of the individual concerned -- the fact that they are published on Rediff's cricket site does not amount to an endorsement by the editorial staff of the opinions expressed in these columns.
Mail Ashok Hegde