The International Cricket Council (ICC) did not take easy certain comments by the legendary cricketer Sunil Gavaskar. What provoked the world governing body at its working committee meet in Dubai last week was Gavaskar's criticism of certain decisions during the Sydney Test between India and Australia in January.
ICC argues one man cannot hold two posts - that of a journalist to earn his bread and butter and an honorary post in ICC. The top bosses feel both do not jell well.
Is it because they are scared of the truth being revealed to the world by none less than an ICC official who is in-charge of modifying rules for better governance of the game? Or is anyone in such a position not allowed to vent his ire publicly?
If an honest commentator cannot become an ICC administrator, how can a public leader or lawyer, or for that matter, any honest dignitary who is supposed to tell the truth to the public, hold another position in the ICC or any other governing body, at the same time? The 'one-person-cannot-hold-two-posts' rule should apply to all. Does the ICC want only people who will toe their line, or else put them in the line of fire?
Did not the BCCI and the Indian team management complain for the same after the match? If back home, one billion people and even a majority of Australians viewed the same, how did hell break loose when Sunny opened his mouth?
One school of thought believes occupying a position in the ICC and speaking against officials of the same organization is deplorable. Should responsible people keep mum for the lust of power? A judge cannot criticise a system he is part of? Malcom Speed and IS Bindra can speak their heart out only in the in-house meetings?
When Mr Benson consulted opposition captain Ricky Ponting if Michael Clarke had cleanly taken the catch, Sunny asked should the umpire consult the batsman too? Is the same person honest if he fields and he turns a liar when he comes to bat?
Mike Proctor, the match referee of the series, could believe the words of certain Aussie cricketers in the absence of any evidence, who happen to be whites. But the same official refused to believe the Indian cricketers who are revered globally.
Gavaskar criticized the conduct alleging bias towards the Whites in article in a newspaper. The ICC officials did not approve of it. The learned members of the ICC executive committee must go through the entire article before drawing any opinion about the author, instead of reading the headline only. Being a professional journalist, I know headlines are finalized by the editorial staff, not by the author of the article.
Gavaskar is the head of a committee which is supposed to look into the current practice of officiating the matches. Who knows better than him the rules? And if it is raised by a commentator on a TV channel who holds a position in ICC, how does it harm the image of the organisation? If an official's criticising an umpire harms the body, does not it damage when an official is reprimanded or gagged to tell the truth?
Rather, in the emerging cricket world which turns to be more competitive day by day, transparency will earn trust of the people for the ICC. After all they may not be legally liable to the people but morally, at least.
-- Soumitra Mishra