January 31, 2008

Shock and Awe

Mukul Kesavan
Anil Kumble and Sachin Tendulkar gear up for a bowl, Eden Gardens, Kolkata, February 7, 2007
 © GNNphoto
Enlarge

The two greatest Test series India has played in recent times have been against Australia: 2001 at home and 2008, Down Under. There's a curious symmetry to these two contests: India won the first one, 2-1 and lost the second one 1-2. Harbhajan was the pivot on which both turned: as a hero in the first (he took an astonishing 32 wickets in three Tests) and as a villain in the second, after his run-in with Symonds. If the 2001 series saw the beginning of Tendulkar's transformation into an attritional player, the one just ended saw that master-craftsman persona discarded as Tendulkar went back to being the Master. And in both series India stopped a great Australian team's astonishing winning run: Waugh's team and Ponting's, were looking for a seventeenth consecutive victory and both were thwarted by unlikely defeats.

In the seven years between these two 21st century contests, international cricket was dominated by two developing narratives.

One was driven by the strength of the Indian economy, the purchasing power of its consuming middle class and the consequent and massive increase in the television revenues controlled by the BCCI. The Indian board became the paymaster of world cricket and cricket's calendar became India-centric. This made other countries understandably uneasy and when incidents like the Sehwag controversy in South Africa provoked the BCCI to flex its muscles, Anglo-Australian commentators saw not an evolutionary shift in cricket's centre of gravity, but a thuggish take over, while south Asian fans and journalists saw a western unwillingness to acknowledge the end of empire.

The second story was a growing South Asian unease with the successful Australian attempt to claim the moral high ground in world cricket. Australians don't like it but the country's cricketers are widely seen as potty-mouthed bullies who manage to get away with murder partly because they sledge strategically and partly because the Australian definition of 'hard but fair'—filth on the field and a beer off it—seemed to have been swallowed whole by the umpires and match referees who supervise international cricket. Every time Ponting tells television cameras that after 2003 the Australian team cleaned up its act and then cites figures to show that Australian players have been brought before the match referee much less often than any other major Test side, aggrieved Indian supporters put this down to Australian hegemony. They remain convinced that umpires are willing to sanction shrill petulance (jack-in-box appeals, visible disappointment) but not manly truculence (obscenity, lewdness and intimidation) because the first is directed at umpires while the second stays between players. This sense of being hard done by is reinforced by the pattern of bad decisions suffered by touring teams in Australia, Kumar Sangakkara's appalling decision being perhaps the worst in recent times.

Australian cricket is hegemonic for the best possible reasons. Australia has had the best cricket team by miles for more than ten years, its coaches have, at one time or another, have tried to drill Australian skills into other national squads, its sports science and its training methods are cutting edge and Channel 9's cricket telecast has taught the world how to cover cricket. But because its players fetishize a hardnosed take on the game, they, unlike the West Indies in their pomp, are universally unloved and in recent years the Ugly Australian stereotype has been rendered uglier by Ponting's charmless leadership.

Indians don't think much of Ponting for several reasons. His first tour was dogged by rumours of bad behaviour, his second tour was an embarrassment (he scored less than a dozen runs in three Test matches), his onfield aggression struck Indians as offensive, his unlovely habit of spitting into his palms and rubbing them together left desis wondering how he got people to shake hands with him and not only did he look remarkably like George Bush, he behaved like him too.

Bush invaded Iraq and then managed to get the invasion ratified by the United Nations after the fact. Anglo-American rhetoric about the legitimacy of pre-emptive war is similar to Australian cricket's argument that bullying (so long as it wins matches) can be justified as robustness. 'Hard and Fair' in the world defined by Bush, begins to read like 'Shock and Awe'.

It is in this charged context that the just concluded Test series between India and Australia unfolded, and in the second Test at Sydney, the two grand narratives of 21st century cricket, India's growing economic clout and Australia's cricketing hegemony, met like unsheathed live wires. It didn't help that the tension between the two teams had been personified. Sreesanth and Harbhajan Singh took it upon themselves in the recent one-day series between the two countries to answer sledging with fevered aggression. Harbhajan went on record to say that Australian behaviour was 'vulgar' and that they were bad losers. We are now told that he had a run-in with Symonds in Baroda, so when Sreesanth didn't make the squad to Australia, he was, for the Australian team, the Ugly Indian.

From the Indian point of view, the Sydney Test was a textbook illustration of the way in which an Australian series is loaded against the opposition. The Indian team got a slew of awful umpiring decisions, the Australians did their tiresome all-in-the-game-mate routine, Clarke exploited a gentleman's agreement to claim a dodgy catch, Ponting disclaimed a catch and then unsuccessfully appealed for another that he had obviously grounded (and, post-match, barked at an Indian reporter who questioned him about it), then reported Harbhajan for racially abusing Symonds.

Michael Clarke catches Harbhajan Singh off Brad Hogg, Australia v India, 1st Test, Melbourne, 2nd day, December 27, 2007
The most satisfying part of Hansen's judgment is his characterisation of Michael Clarke as an unreliable witness  © Getty Images
Enlarge

When Mike Procter upheld the Australian charge and banned Harbhajan for three matches he brought the two live wires into contact and the lights nearly went out on the game. Indian players have been on the receiving end of the match referee's kangaroo court before and know it to be dysfunctional. Procter is a notably inept match referee who presided over the shambles created by Darrell Hair and the Pakistan cricket team last year. For him to have taken the word of the likes of Michael Clarke, who as a batsman had stood his ground after being caught off a massive edge at slip and who as a fielder had confidently claimed a bump ball catch, over the testimony of Tendulkar who insisted he hadn't heard 'monkey' being said, was the final straw. The most satisfying part of Hansen's judgment is his characterisation of the slippery Clarke as an unreliable witness.

I think it's likely that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey, but judgment can't be based on what I or anyone else thinks: it rests on what can be proven. There was no corroborative evidence in the Harbhajan affair and the hostilities of the Sydney Test had destroyed any trust between the two sides, leaving the Indian team in a state of thin-skinned rage at being robbed. Procter managed to compound this mess by unequivocally finding for the Australians without explaining how he had come to his conclusions.

This is when India flexed its muscle, but the 'India' in question wasn't the BCCI, it was the Indian team. Anil Kumble and Sachin Tendulkar, the two most senior players in the Indian side, one its best bowler and the other its best batsman for nearly twenty years, put the BCCI on notice. They insisted that the Board stand by Harbhajan and made it clear that the team was unwilling to go on with the tour if Procter's decision wasn't reversed.

Journalists who think the BCCI used the occasion to assert itself are just plain wrong. The Indian board has no interest in cricket as such: witness the absurd schedule it framed for the Indian team. Left to itself, the Board would have hung Harbhajan up to dry (as it had sacrificed Bishan Bedi over the 'Vaseline' affair decades ago) and gone on with the tour: it was Tendulkar's ultimatum that goosed them into action. Press criticism of the BCCI's brinkmanship in chartering a plane to fly the team home from Adelaide if the appeal went against Harbhajan, could just as well be directed at the Indian team, because I'm certain that the old firm, Kumble & Tendulkar, had something to do with the arriving one-day specialists being quartered in Adelaide in solidarity with Harbhajan.

I suspect the reason for this last flourish was the report that Judge Hansen was likely to consider new audio evidence that had not been made available to Procter. The tapes didn't have Harbhajan saying 'monkey' but they had Hayden telling Harbhajan that a word he had used amounted to racism. My guess is that the possibility that the Australians would spin this as clinching evidence, drove Kumble and Tendulkar to circle the wagons in Adelaide. And here's the thing: it worked. The Australians agreed to press the lesser charge. Having set up this eyeballing contest, they blinked.

Is this the end of the rule of law as we know it and the onset of anarchy? No. On the evidence of the third and fourth Tests, it feels more like the dawn of a new age of civility on the ground and a possible end to sledging. There was a time in Test cricket (a very long time) when Australia and England were more equal than the rest and the game survived that asymmetry. It'll survive this one.

A shorter version of this post appeared earlier in the Telegraph, which can be read here

Mukul Kesavan is a writer based in New Delhi

RSS Feeds: Mukul Kesavan

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Anoop on (March 8, 2008, 9:17 GMT)

Mark Taylor said it was one of best summers of cricket he has seen in a long time. Others have been claiming that Australia V India is the new Australia V England, which isn’t saying much given those weren’t ever in the vicinity of being contests barring 2005. The long-drawn Commonwealth Bank Series is over and apparently India have had their best overseas tours in history. A 1-2 loss in the test series and winning the ODI series (which is how the marketers would prefer it anyway). Creditable results, those of a dramatic bent of mind can even see signs of an inflection point in the dynamic of the cricket world that is no longer dominated by default by Australia. For me however, the cynical yet idealistic observer, things don’t seem quite right...

More on my blog: http://outsideedge.wordpress.com

Posted by Kunal on (March 2, 2008, 10:06 GMT)

Nick, we all know Brett Lee also did throw in his initial days. He only didnt get the stick bcos it was the ICC (should be say A-ICC) headed by two Australian Gentlement. Seems Australians show like to shower such hospitality at throwing eggs at visitors

Posted by Kunal on (March 2, 2008, 10:05 GMT)

All those who are debating about the Harbhajan racist charges. Let ICC and Australians decide what the Australian team should decided what they like to hear and what not. Any other remarks should be considered Racist. Symonds, Hayden, Ponting are Noble gentlemently players, so their mouths can only speak pearls of wisdom. No country should dare to beat Australia (leave England) because these are the only 2 countries playing cricket fairly. Rest of all the countries should only be content playing Australia and England.

Posted by Kunal on (March 2, 2008, 9:51 GMT)

All those who are debating about the Harbhajan racist charges. Let ICC and Australians decide what the Australian team should decided what they like to hear and what not. Any other remarks should be considered Racist. Symonds, Hayden, Ponting are Noble gentlemently players, so their mouths can only speak pearls of wisdom. No country should dare to beat Australia (leave England) because these are the only 2 countries playing cricket fairly. Rest of all the countries should only be content playing Australia and England.

Posted by Kunal on (March 2, 2008, 9:45 GMT)

Nick, we all know Brett Lee also did throw in his initial days. He only didnt get the stick bcos it was the ICC (should be say A-ICC) headed by two Australian Gentlement. Seems Australians show like to shower such hospitality at throwing eggs at visitors

Posted by Philip John Joseph on (February 17, 2008, 2:36 GMT)

Sergio you are WRONG. The use of the word monkey is not the same in all languages. If a white man refers to the theory of evolution by using the word "monkey", then forcing that definition upon a brown man makes YOU a racist. Your idea that Symonds should decide how the word monkey was used makes YOU a racist, because you are trying to decide how people of a different skin colour use language. Indians don't care about the theory of evolution or the idea of the subhuman human being, so your racist idea that Indians must accept Andy Symonds' definition of the word "monkey" as a racist term is just utter rubbish. No white man will ever be allowed to define what words are racist for a brown man, so fie upon you for typing such nonsense about Symonds deciding what the meaning of the word "monkey" should be. Symonds is an uneducated thug who probably doesn't even know which member of the animal kingdom "monkey" refers to. Your theory of how racist words shall be defined is racist garbage.

Posted by Amit again on (February 9, 2008, 7:46 GMT)

Whatever could not be done in more than a decade was accomplished by a SARDAR called Harbhajan Singh. It takes men of true martial tradition (to which Bhajji and Dhoni belong) to tame the pack of wild dogs.

Posted by Amit on (February 9, 2008, 7:41 GMT)

The Aussie way is to bend the law, if not break it. They have no sense of justice. Look at the turnout of Aussies in the court of Justice Hansen. Sport is something to be toyed around and celebration means pouring beer on cricket pitch after winning the world cup. If this is cricket, then monkeys are superior to humans.

Posted by David on (February 9, 2008, 6:19 GMT)

Nick,

You said, "PS - I was expecting to wake up on Saturday to read how the umpiring cost India the game and they'd flown out of Melbourne back to Bombay on their broomsticks."

So, did you see any of that in the Indian media? Well, our media is probably not as jingostic as the Aussie media. All Aussie commenters on this are judicious enough to notice Indian media being biased. But how could they miss their own media's biased tripe? I guess it's the case of you ignoring the beam in your eye and noticing the speck in mine.

As regards the T20 champs being beaten -- one loss means as much as Australia losing a couple of one dayers in the very next series they played after the world cup. So calm down, take a chill pill. We're still the T20 world champs.

And enough of that 'Murali's a chucker' already. So you're saying if Brett Lee was in his position, he'd be 'bowling' a yorker at the speeding car with a stone? To heck with your irony.

Posted by Chuckermansinghe on (February 8, 2008, 11:17 GMT)

Calling Symonds a " big monkey" as Harbajan is alleged to have said is really an insult to a an intelligent animal. Harbajan should have in fact called him a "big donkey",as Symonds is nothing but a "big ass". My apologies to the donkey, and not to Symonds. You and your band of thieves have got away with murder. Your time has come. Face the music.

Comments have now been closed for this article

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mukul Kesavan
Mukul Kesavan teaches social history for a living and writes fiction when he can - he is the author of a novel, Looking Through Glass. He's keen on the game but in a non-playing way. With a top score of 14 in neighbourhood cricket and a lively distaste for fast bowling, his credentials for writing about the game are founded on a spectatorial axiom: distance brings perspective. Kesavan's book of cricket - Men in Whitewas published in 2007.

All articles by this writer