Patriotic Gavaskar tells it like it is

Okay, just who are the paranoid ones here? Is it the Western media or the International Cricket Council and its non-South Asian minions? Or is it the many brown sahibs still living in reflected glory of the days of the Raj?

Just maybe, had anyone else other than did Sunil Gavaskar in this case – such as Kapil Dev or fellow columnist Sandeep Patil - called a spade a shovel and referred to those former ICC masters England and Australia as dinosaurs, the episode would have been brushed over.

Gavaskar has long been known as a erudite and skilled author and comments man behind the mike or on television. Sure he has a sharp tongue and makes his points known.

Anyone who has read, as an example, his first book 'Sunny Days,' would have quickly picked up this trend. He was as prolific and challenging as a batsman as he now is as a writer.

But this does not suggest in anyway that his media work influences his role as chairman of the ICC's cricket committee. That as he sees it, his media role is to point out the anomalies of what he sees and feels about the game. The position on the cricket committee is different as it is designed to improve the way the game is played and work within those parameters.

In the case of Harbhajan Singh and the charges he faced he was thinking too of his own patriotism; there is nothing wrong with being loyal at a time when in general the Australian media were, in a sense, gunning for Bhajji.

This is where Gavaskar felt there was a need to show his support for the player in this case and if the charge is one of nationalism, there are many at which fingers can be pointed. There is also the fine line of balance between comment and criticism and outright condemnation.

In the article referring to Mike Procter and his handling of the Harbhajan issue over charges of referring to another player as a 'monkey', Gavaskar is critical of the decision, but doesn't refer to Procter in racist terms. He also denies the charge.

To be honest, the ICC is still hidebound as well as haunted at times by a legacy that is on the verge of turning 100 years old. For this you cannot blame the present council's officials but the umbilical cord from which it was given life.

Millionaire and a former Transvaal bowler Sir Abe Bailey, whose idea it was to form an international body, did so in 1908 when England, Australia and South Africa were the only constituent nations playing the game at international level. The ICC was formed a year later.

What is not well known is how on enquiry the United States were refused membership. They were still a force in the game through their Philadelphia links and refusal was a deliberate slap in the face as the old imperial (Raj) forces were at work here, not the genuine benefactors.

Granting membership to the USA would have meant a non-British Commonwealth nation being involved and admitted to this collection of nations.

Now, as England and South Africa were financially wealthier at the time than the more upfront Australians, the terms imperial and conference sounded far better than international and council. There was a misguided feeling too that the Yanks would act in such an iconoclastic way they would take over the running of the game.

This wouldn't have been a bad idea either as commercialism and sponsors would have come a lot sooner than they did.

Under the pompous imperial cricket conference charter, England and Australia had the veto. It is how South Africa avoided being kicked out long before they should have. If these thoughts seem sacrilegious to some, why is it the United States and Fiji, welcomed as associate members of the reconstituted ICC in 1965 not advanced beyond this status, while Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) were not even accorded recognition at that time.

From 1909 to 1993, the sport was run by an MCC/ICC oligarchic hierarchy that was quite happy to switch one hat for another. Instead of making it a game for all, the Raj held control. Why did it take only the threat of the Oxford educated and Pakistan's first captain, Abdul Hafeez Kardar, to challenge Lord's and the ICC was there reaction about furthering the game in Asia?

He may have been a touch eccentric and thorny on some subjects, but Kardar was at least a visionary. He attributed some of this to his Oxford tutors as well as a Warwickshire teammate and New Zealand player Martin Donnelly whose quiet Kiwi honesty he appreciated.

Gavaskar has similar views, but writes and talks from experience. In his annoyance at what he feels is still post-Lord's influence, there are times he may seem too critical. But what is wrong with justified criticism?

In his book 'Sunny Days' there are strong criticisms of the Sabina Park crowd and the way they reacted. In a chapter titled 'Barbarism in Kingston' it may border on racism, but here he joins others, Jeremy Coney, the lanky New Zealand captain is one, who expresses similar thoughts.

There are also his reactions to the callow Sri Lanka media and spectators as well as umpires. Welcome to the club Sunny. Four tours of the island and now living in the country tells you a lot about an ingrown inferiority complex.

Letters in the Colombo papers about 'brave little' Sri Lanka taking on the big bullies are to smile at. New Zealand, who draw on a cricket population the size of a New Delhi suburb, are smaller but don't suffer from such inferiority.

If anything, as is his patriotic right, Gavaskar is only explaining how Indians feel at being accused of acting the big bully on the international stage.

He is right to suggest that when Malcolm Gray and Malcolm Speed ran the ICC in 2002 and 2003 there was no suggestion of an Aussie takeover.

It is all a matter of perception. There is also no gainsaying that while many non-Asian media are quick to offer their opinions, they should also be mature enough to accept his point of view.

This comes from a man who has been a great Test player and good captain, and knows the struggle to achieve the level India have reached. Otherwise, such thoughts would not have been written.