'All Three To Blame'

Excerpts from the interview:

Do you believe this serious dispute between the BCCI and the ICCwould precipitate a split in the ICC on racial lines?

No, I don't think so. It is already very unfortunate that it has come to sucha sorry pass. This is bad for cricket. To me, the unique thing about thiscontroversy is that previously whenever there was a crisis, it was either theplayers (Bodyline series, ball-tampering, match-fixing) or outside forces (KerryPacker, bookmakers) who acted as catalysts. This time the situation has beenexacerbated by the establishment (ICC, BCCI, UCBSA).

Without going into who is right and who is wrong, the bad thing about thiswhole issue is that instead of devoting themselves to damage control, the ICCtried to score points. The ICC cannot act in a precipitate manner, disregardingthe facts of the case and still think that its image as a global body would notbe tarnished.

Talking about a split is rather premature at this point. Ultimately, Ibelieve, the issues would be resolved in a fair and amicable manner.

But if it does come to that pass, would the PCB sidewith the BCCI?

We will cross that bridge when we come to it. Having said that, let metell you that the boards of the two countries have been in close contact witheach other for the past two decades, they have organised two World Cups togetherand backed each other up on most issues of substance at the ICC. However, wefeel that if cricket is to prosper as a game then we must discuss such issues atthe ICC and resolve them amicably.

Do you have any idea which other countries are going to side withIndia? Would the sub-continent have a majority in the executive board?

I would not even think about it. It is not about scoring points or gatheringvotes. Cricket as a game should be promoted with more vigour and not diminishbecause of this crisis.

I don't know whether you would want to take a position on it, but whosefault was it? How did the whole thing got so terribly out of hand?

Well, I would say all three of them. The match referee for such a patentlyunfair judgement, and the ICC and BCCI for unnecessarily starting the media war.

How could the ICC or the BCCI have handled it differently to defuse thesituation?

Firstly, after the uproar, the ICC should have without any prompting deferredthe implementation of Denness' judgement, and referred it to the technicalcommittee. Sunil Gavaskar, the head of the ICC's technical committee was verymuch there in South Africa, albeit in a different capacity. Gavaskar may beIndian, but his credibility and integrity are such that nobody would haveaccused him of steering the technical committee in a certain direction.

In the world media this has been billed as amighty clash of egos, of a case of Malcolm Gray and Jagmohan Dalmiya fighting tosort out each other. What do you think?

I know both of them fairly well. Both are different personalities. Graywould never want injustice for anyone. Hence, he is not to be blamed. Perhaps,it was all because the ICC had to show that it had to try and maintain an upperhand, or it might not be taken seriously as a body.

Jaggu on the other hand is strong willed and a smart cookie. Like many he hasthis nagging feeling that cricketers from Asia were being wronged. For how longshould they continue to suffer in silence, is the question he must have askedhimself. As president of BCCI, Jaggu decided to stand up and be counted. Iwouldn't blame him for that - that's is his job.

What if I take up the case of Shoaib Akhtar, and remind the ICC that it hasfailed to take a decision on whether it should accept the most respectedauthorities in the world, which incidentally hail from Australia and not thesub-continent? The ruling of the learned Aussie medical team is unequivocal, andthe ICC's review system is flawed.

Should not there be a right of appeal against the match referee's decision? Isn't thisbasic right to information being denied to the players and the public?

It's only fair that a referee gives the reasons behind his arriving at acertain verdict. I would go one step ahead, the ICC should point out to him theinconsistency, if there has been any, in his judgements over the years.

A mechanism also needs to be evolved regarding appeals in decisions which areperceived to be unfair. I also hope that this elite panels have representationfrom almost all the Test playing nations.

Do you think with the elite panel of umpires and referees, suggested to be in place from April next, complaints against umpiresand referees would reduce significantly?

Competence is important, but so is faith. Integrity and not competence is inquestion. Unless this perception in cricketers from certain nations that theywere being targetted is redressed, the problems would remain. And perception,whether someone likes it or not, is reality.

Should important ICC decisions be taken by the president alone or throughproper consultations? As Geoff Boycott said on TV, the decision to term thethird Test unofficial is wrongly being called the ICC's decision, it is actuallyone man's decision, Malcolm Gray's. Should the ICC's technical committee been consulted?

The moment the one-sided judgements were handed out, and India responded toit in no uncertain terms, it was clear that a crisis of grave proportions was athand. It no longer was a routine decision. When the South Africans decided to goalong with India, it already looked barely salvageable. So, the wise thing wouldhave been to bring as many people as possible on board, to develop consensus anddefuse the situation. The correct option was right there, crying to be made:refer it to the technical committee. But the ICC didn't resort to that, and thesituation kept worsening.

Should  these decisions involving cricketing rules be decided by asimple majority in the ICC? If in the ICC executive board meetingon March 16, Jagmohan Dalmiya forces a vote on the third Test and gets amajority to vote to turn the match into an official one, do you think is it the correct way to do it?

The ICC is the sum total, the whole of all the boards. So what they believeis in their collective interest must prevail. As for your question, regarding aspecific event or matter, I believe the executive board has the mandate todecide whichever way it wants. What other way could there be?

What is the executive board's purpose if it is not to decide on issues ofcritical importance? Should cricket be governed by an elite bureaucracy whichcalls itself the ICC, drawing its mandate from the executive board but actingindependently and more seriously in what is deemed to be taking decisionsagainst certain boards and its cricketers and pussyfooting with others? Whatremedy is available to a board which feels wronged if it couldn't even take itscase to the executive board? Do you think such an unprecedented happening aswithdrawal of official status of a Test is so minor a issue not to be raised?

Do you see light at the end of the tunnel? Can this crisis make cricket afairer and better game?

It should. Everybody stands to learn from the mistakes which havebeen made recently, and also over the past few years. I think that the ICC andthe boards have learned from this crisis that injustice and confrontation arebad for the game. That everybody stands to lose if the image of the gamesuffers.

Also that the ICC has to evolve itself into an equitable world bodyto enjoy the respect and authority that it cherishes by commanding and notdemanding it.

In my view, the only way ICC can command respect and authority is if it hasofficials from all Test-playing nations. So far, it has been the preserve of thevery few who have excluded others from appointments and nominations to keypositions.

On too many an occasion the officials at the ICC headquarters have displayed abias against certain nations, and this is not good for the game. It is abouttime the ICC realised as to why the Asians accuse it of racial bias andvictimisation. Such feelings may no longer be passed off as misguidedperceptions.