Click to play videoTeam India’s tour in Down Under has plunged into crisis. Spurred by nationwide anger over umpiring in the Sydney Test and a three-match ban on spinner Harbhajan Singh for allegedly racially abusing Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds, the team says it will not travel to Canberra for the practice match unless ICC fails to meet two demands – Harbhajan is spared and declared innocent of charges of racism and umpires Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson are removed from the series.
With the tour in doubt and cricketing relations between the two countries almost on the verge of breaking down, CNN-IBN show Face the Nation discussed whether the Indian team should come back from Australia.
On the panel of experts to debate the issue were BCCI’s Chief Administrative Officer Ratnakar Shetty, Associate Editor of DNA Ayaz Memon, ex-captain Krishnamachari Srikkanth, sports anchor Mandira Bedi, Sydney Morning Herald India correspondent Matt Wade, CNN-IBN’s Chief Cricket Correspondent Nishant Arora and a young audience. CNN-IBN’s Editor-in-Chief Rajdeep Sardesai moderated the discussion.
Passions were running high when the discussion began with the young audience saying that the matter now is not only about cricket but it has also become an issue of national honour.
“It has become a national issue and a matter of honour. There were seven decisions that went against us. They have treated us badly and so we should come back. Unless the ban against Harbhajan is lifted we should come back and Mr Bucknor has to go,” a young participant said.
However, Srikkanth cautioned that pulling out was not the right thing to do.
“We are getting too emotional. Frankly speaking it is not the best thing to do. The best thing would be to play the next two matches, thrash the Aussies and make it two-all and square the series. If I were the captain, I would have done that. I think everything has gone against India. Harbhajan Singh has been given a very harsh decision and probably an unfair decision. But that does not mean we come back. We should play in the right spirit and then come back,” a spirited Srikkanth said.
Towing Srikkanth’s line Ayaz also said, “I think it is an extreme position to take. To disrupt the tour and come back on an issue which I think can be resolved through diplomacy. If you look back in the history of the game, there has been the Bodyline series when diplomatic relations between Australia and England almost fell through. But they went on with the tour and what happened is a part of cricket history. I think we should insist on lifting the ban on Harbhajan. Obviously, there has been a miscarriage of justice. Nobody is condoning racism. But there is no evidence. So on what grounds was this taken?”
Meanwhile, BCCI representative Ratnakar Shetty said the Board would explore all the options available.
“The first option with the BCCI is to follow the rules. We have already appealed against the match referee’s decision. Momentarily the decision that Mike Proctor has given would be stayed till the final decision of the Appeals Commissioner comes. Definitely Harbhajan can play till then,” Shetty explained.
As the debate gathered steam, an agitated Mandira said, “I share the anger. What happened with Harbhajan is unfair as there is no evidence. There is no stump microphone, no recording at all. You are going on hearsay. You are going by Matthew Hayden, Andrew Symonds and Michael Clarke’s word against Sachin Tendulkar’s word. But then I don’t think the answer is to come back.”
“The accusation of racism is something very strong and one has to think before calling somebody a racist. I am angry that someone has called an Indian racist when there is no proof. India must play the rest of the series wearing black armbands of protest. This series will always be remembered as a tainted series,” Mandira added.
Sydney Morning Herald correspondent Matt Wade did not see the issue having snowballed into something with racist overtones.
“A lot of people would identify with Indian reactions. I don’t think a lot of Australian fans would be happy with how things have panned out. There will be sympathy for India. There is also a little bit of misunderstanding in Australia. They would be wondering why this reaction is so strong,” Wade said.
But Nishant Arora explained how the entire team is supporting Harbhajan on the issue
“The entire team minus coach and support staff had a meeting. The 16 players looked into Harbhajan’s eyes and said if you are branded a racist then we are not going to stay here. It was a meeting only attended by the cricketers. No officials, no support staffs were there. So that is the kind of support that we have seen in the Indian cricket team. Everyone is behind Harbhajan and they are angry that if Mike Proctor can listen to Hayden then why not Tendulkar who has played this game with dignity for 18 years,” Arora said.
Srikkanth reasoned that the match referee did not give a fair hearing.
“The point is that it is the voice of Matthew Hayden and Michael Clarke against Sachin Tendulkar’s words. Take Tendulkar’s stature as a cricketer. He is the only cricketer without any controversy. But he is not believed but Hayden and Clarke are, which is very unfair. Sachin says Bhajji did not say but Hayden and Clarke say he did. So where is the concrete evidence? How can he be punished without concrete evidence? Mike Proctor should come out and say he punished Harbhajan because of such and such reason,” Srikkanth said.
Monkey business
According to Wade many Australians would find it difficult to understand the way Indians interpret certain words. “They have certain perceptions. Given Andrew Symonds’ background, he has every right to feel offended if the word “money” was used. However, there are a lot of cultural differences here,” he said.
“There is no case that if someone makes a racist taunt he should not be punished. The issue is was that taunt made and who is to establish that? Assuming calling some a monkey in Australia is highly racist but did he make that call. There are two people who claim they heard it. There is a third person - Sachin Tendulkar - who says he never says it,” Ayaz said.
Should the system of match referees be changed?
“That is the moot point of this problem. Mike Proctor probably crossed all limits in giving his judgement by accusing a player of racist remarks. It is very humiliating in India as we have fought against racism,” Shetty said.
Arora took a trip down memory lane and spoke about Harbhajan’s history with the Australians.
“I have known Harbhajan for 15 years now and he is the sort of player who doesn’t take things lying down. When he came in to the Indian team at the age of 17, Ricky Ponting abused him in Sharjah and Harbhajan got him stumped and gave him a royal send off. That was the day this rivalry was formed. They wanted to ruffle him and they couldn’t find a better way other than this,” he said.
Are Australian cricketers sore winners?
Agreeing with the view, Srikkanth said, “Definitely. They are the guys who introduced sledging in cricket. The West Indies never sledged; they only stared at you whereas the Aussies are very abusive and vocal. So I don’t think Aussies have any right to talk about sledging.”
Wade also added that many Australians themselves do not like Australia’s ‘win at all cost attitude’.
“With the success of the Australian team, there is this uncomfortable feeling among many cricket fans in Australia that somehow the team has developed an attitude of winning at all cost no matter what. I do think this feeling has been for a while and this team has sort of crossed the line that it shouldn’t have. So I would say Peter Roebuck represents or exemplifies that many Australians are uncomfortable with this behaviour and want to stop it,” he said.
Mandira Bedi, on the other hand, argued that the Aussie players are “nice guys off the field.”
“I have dealt a lot with Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist and Brett Lee and believe that they have a good heart. Unfortunately this last match has been more about equalling the record of Steve Waugh’s 16 consecutive wins and winning at all cost. That killer instinct that is there in the Australians shouldn’t translate to win at any cost regardless of what happens to people around you. So that’s the difference I have seen in the last match and I am disappointed,” she said.
“I don’t know what goes on in the field. I can’t get over the fact that these guys who created the term mental disintegration and sledging are complaining about sledging,” she added.
Meanwhile, Ayaz said that success has made the Australians arrogant.
“Success breeds its own behaviour pattern. It is arrogance. Barring the 20-year period when the West Indies ruled the cricket world; the Aussies have been the dominant force. Greg Chappell asked his brother to bowl underarm to win a match. Ian Chappell started sledging and Steve Waugh, otherwise a very reticent personality off the field, began mental disintegration. Ricky Ponting is also a nice guy off the field. When Harold Larwood unleashed his bodyline stuff on Don Bradman, Bill Woodfull says one team is playing cricket, but the other is not,” Ayaz explained.
He also agreed with Indian skipper Anil Kumble’s statement at the post-match press conference that only one team played the Sydney Test in the right spirit.
Can ICC be counted upon?
The ICC has often been accused of being a spineless body. But whenever it has acted, it has often been against the teams from the subcontinent. The ICC doesn't have a spotless track record and this has prompted the Asian bloc to virtually try and take over the game. But the fact is when it comes to crucial decisions, it's the White countries that seem to get the better of it.
Sri Lankan off-spinner Muttiah Muralitharan went through harrowing times for years, trying to prove that his art was that of a genius though he was in the dock for long. In 1995, he was no-balled seven times in three overs by umpire Darrel Hair. He even faced a life ban if he bowled the doosra again.
In 2001, it was Cricket South Africa that called for match referee Mike Denness to be replaced after he had slapped bans on more than half the Indian team. Sachin Tendulkar, too, faced a one-match ban for alleged ball tampering.
Asian players top the list of the number of bowlers who were put under the scanner by the ICC for doubtful action. They include Kumara Dharmasena (1999); Shabbir Ahmed (2006); Shoaib Malik (2004) and Harbhajan Singh (2005) among others.
Now, the BCCI is not ready to take things lying down. "The unfair allegation of racism against our player is wholly unacceptable," Shukla had said on Monday.
ICC biased against the Indian cricket team?
India has all the financial clout in the world of cricket. But the BCCI has little clout in the decision-making bodies. For instance, there is not a single umpire from India in the Elite Panel.
"It's true to some extent. If you take umpiring, after the retirement of Venkataraghavan, we are not being able to find a place in the Elite Umpires Panel of the ICC. For some reason the umpires were not found to be up to the standard to be promoted to that level," Shetty said.
But does the BCCI fight for these causes? BCCI chief Sharad Pawar wants to be ICC President, but when it comes to these technical issues, India seem to have no voice whatsoever.
However, Shetty begged to disagree. "In the Mike Denness case, for instance, when India took a tough stand, it made the ICC bend. It showed the authority that the BCCI has in the decisions of the ICC. We do make ourselves heard whenever there is a wrong decision," Shetty claimed.
However, Srikkanth said the charges of bias against ICC is valid and the current situation is in no way the result of an over-reaction.
"In 2003, Rashid Latif was banned for five matches against Bangladesh for appealing unnecessarily and match referee Mike Procter called it unfair play. In this particular match, why isn't it the same?" he asked.
Ayaz also said that there is indeed some sub-conscious bias in the way the world governing body is run.
“Clearly, there are different strokes for different teams. The harshness of the punishment in case of Latif and what's happened in this match when so many contentious decisions were asked for and appeals were made shows it all. There must be some kind of holistic system which looks at justice for everybody," he said.
So shouldn't the BCCI have reacted much before against Bucknor, who made a mess of the World Cup final and who is still in the Elite Panel? Why was there no protest? Why is Bucknor haunting the Indian cricket team for the last 10 years?
Agreeing with the points, Ayaz said that the BCCI should have acted in time when they know that he is going to officiate in this series. "They should have raised the red flag then itself. You have a history with Bucknor. Why not wave a red flag in front of a bull?" he said.
However, Shetty assured that the BCCI would look into the Bucknor issue at the meeting on Tuesday. "This is one of the issues that the players have raised seriously that they don't want to play if Bucknor is to officiate in the third Test," he revealed.
“It would be unprofessional to abandon the tour at this stage. Worse things have happened in cricket before. In spite of the Bodyline and the Mike Denness controversies, tours have gone on in the past. And it would be unfair to the people queuing up to watch the third and four Tests, both Australians and Indian public. Remember, the Australian public stood up and applauded Sachin Tendulkar's century. The Australian public wants to see good cricket, that means good players, that means Harbhajan Singh," a participant in the audience pointed out.
Agreeing Srikkanth said that the game of cricket must triumph over everything else. "The game is bigger than any individual or any particular team. We should play the game and try and win the next two Test matches. Don't forget last time we went to Australia we beat Australians in Adelaide," the former Indian captain said hopefully.
"Australia and India have something really fantastically common, and that is the love of cricket. We need to keep this in mind as we debate this whole issue. We need each other. Australians love playing against India and I think the same applies the other way," Wade said.
Shetty said all demands for calling off the tour are based on emotions. "When an institution takes a decision it has to justify the same. There are various forums, which are available to the BCCI to raise its grievances. We will like to try out all these options before taking this kind of a decision," he asserted.
Wrapping the heated debate Ayaz, too, called for patience. "Calling off the tour or disrupting the schedule is no solution because the larger interest is that the game has to survive. I think we should try and negotiate and get the ban on Harbhajan removed because that will alleviate a lot of our frustration, disappointment and anger. The umpiring issue will linger and there will be another forum to address that," he suggested.
Final SMS poll result:
Yes: 95 per cent
No: Five per cent
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Pinterest)
More on IBNLive Right Now
TOP NEWS
MOST SHARED
PHOTOGALLERY
