It was a catastrophe of cataclysmic proportions at the Oval stadium last evening; an out-of-the-blue-accusation of ball tampering, penalty imposed, protest staged, drama hanging temporarily in animated suspension, and then after prolonged deliberations behind closed doors, for the first time in Test history a truncated match awarded to a team, struggling to stay afloat. Decided by stodgy, defiant umpires. End of story!

By the time you will read this, cricket analysts will have poured out encyclopedic research on Australian umpire Darrell Hair's alleged prejudices against the brown-skinned Marauders of Multan and Sultans of swing, the Pakistanis, their close cousins in the ever-affable Sri Lankans, and of course, the proverbial sacrificial goats, India. Sunil Gavaskar will be on every conceivable TV channel reminiscing his brisk walkathon at Melbourne in the sober company of Chetan Chauhan , whereby he miraculously missed stealing Inzaman-ul Haq'a dubious, debatable, and daring sobriquet of being cricket's first official "Walkman".

Without getting into a complex web of minor details, let us state the position unambiguously; Inzy was hopping mad on his team being charged with ball tampering without sufficient evidence being solidly demonstrated to him. Can an umpire's assessment be purely subjective, a capricious whim, a deliberate instigation, an act of willful intent born out of a deep-seated bias? Maybe, maybe not. Does the concerned captain have a right to inquire about the supposed indiscretion done by some member of his team, unintentionally (even good old Rahul Dravid has stopped eating lozenges of late) or with malice to all? Most certainly, yes!

Did Pakistan err in over-doing their remonstrance; most clearly, yes. Once they had registered their disgruntlement with Hair's combing operations, should they have just got on with the game? Yes, yes, yes, because chucking it all up unnecessarily (despite the humiliating provocation) didn't make an iota of sense to me. A rulebook is a rulebook, whatever your angst and agony, Inzy! Pakistan were in a winning position, and a victory notwithstanding all the unbecoming accusations would have been a fitting riposte to critics and cynics.

Already people are openly discussing the insidious element of rampant racism lurking furtively underneath, largely caused by India becoming the commercial hub of global cricket. Much as we Indians contemptuously dismiss ex-ICC boss Jagmohan Dalmiya , the fact is, that Jaggu Dada effectively altered the direction of ICC's future road map permanently playing the Asia card with the panache of a casino gambler.

The fact that Dubai is the new HQ of ICC is a manifestation of changing power equations in the now growing cash cow, which is cricket. I am sure the frenetic Asian crowd support for their teams in every cricketing country overshadowing even local populations, only further makes the Asian teams an envied lot. Somewhere these seemingly innocuous elements begin to add up and create considerable unease in some, rising disquiet in others.

It will be interesting to await the investigative findings of Mike Proctor; where was the match referee during the sordid going-on anyway? And can we have a quick turnaround here, as I do not see why it is technically improbable to conclude hearings and deliver verdict within 96 hours? The further the aimless drift, the more ICC will be damaging this once-quaint, old-fashioned, grand sport. The more the speculation, the higher and deeper will be the fissures in this game. Paradoxically enough, the biggest threat to cricket has come within miles of the famed white gates of Lord's, involving England itself in Surrey's pristine Oval stadium.

If Pakistan is found guilty, then they deserve a serious dressing down and a severe reprimand, as the game cannot be lax and lenient with louts, laggards and losers. But if not, then we might have to do an immediate Hair transplant. And do a methodical surgery of where things have gone wrong. Believe me, we are in for some interesting times.