ICC June 29, 2012

Why would the BCCI act like Mandela?

Girish Menon
For any ICC decision to be applicable it needs a 70% vote and India, with support from other boards, has been able to thwart some of the recommendations of the erstwhile veto-wielding nations
27

At the MCC Spirit of Cricket address this year Tony Greig, cricket commentator, Kerry Packer rebel, former England captain who grew up in apartheid South Africa urged India, the current cricket superpower, to follow Nelson Mandela's approach to solve the problems of world cricket. Instead of adopting Mandela's conciliatory attitude, Greig said, "India eschews his approach by indulging in a little pay back."

In The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein has vividly captured the changes in South Africa as the erstwhile apartheid regime made way for an all-inclusive rainbow nation. As the FW De Klerk government's power began to fade, Mandela had to decide if South Africans needed political and economic equality or to settle for political equality and let the beneficiaries of the apartheid era continue with their hegemonic power over the South African economy. He chose the latter but he also set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to record the atrocities of the apartheid regime. For those who came forward, confessed to their crimes and got amnesty, the justice wasn't retributive.

Now, in this rainbow nation, the winners of the apartheid regime and a few blacks live in gated communities but are isolated from the poor black majority. Thus, in South Africa, there's a new but global form of apartheid in which money is the basis of discrimination. To understand the problems in world cricket we need a brief history of cricket's administration.

International cricket was once governed by England, Australia and South Africa under the aegis of the Imperial Cricket Conference which was later re-christened the International Cricket Conference (ICC). Until recently, cricket was run primarily by England and Australia who enjoyed veto powers on the game's decisions and which they used to advance their own interest with occasional decisions of noblesse oblige. It was only in 1996 that the ICC's constitution was rewritten and the veto powers rescinded. Today, for any ICC decision to be applicable it needs a 70% vote and India, with support from other boards, has been able to thwart some of the recommendations of the erstwhile veto-wielding nations.

The erstwhile 'imperial' powers of cricket had not reckoned with India's arrival as a global cricketing superpower. The process started in 1983 when Kapil Dev's team won the World Cup at Lord's. Along with the introduction of colour television and the increasing wealth of India's burgeoning middle class, cricket found a market hitherto unheard of. The BCCI now had its coffers overflowing, made many new friends and found itself leading the group of the Asian members of the ICC. When the BCCI's representative Jagmohan Dalmiya was elected as the President of the ICC in 1997, it was the culmination of a transfer of power within the game's governing body. Ever since, India, with its supporters, has ruled the roost in ICC matters and even Australia and South Africa support India in lure for the largesse that BCCI has to offer.

So, the most disgruntled power in the ICC is the ECB, which hasn't really welcomed the IPL with great excitement. Most media in the UK, with the exception of ITV, did not cover the cricket played in the IPL which attracted most of the leading players in the world. With this historical background, I will now discuss the validity of the Mandela-esque plea made by Greig.

Imagine a market where two firms enjoy dominant market shares for a long time and used this power to sustain their hold on the market. Imagine a hitherto small firm from this market suddenly outstripping the dominant duo with significantly larger revenues. Is it incumbent on the new monopoly to co-operate or collude with the ancien regime? Also, has the USA, the dominant hegemon, shared its power and wealth with the people of the world or at least with all of its own people? Doesn't the UN resemble the Imperial Cricket Conference with five countries wielding the veto power? Has the South African elite shared its wealth with its impoverished countrymen in the new rainbow nation? And if a wrong has been committed, should the perpetrator be punished or co-opted in the new power dispensation?

To this writer, it appears the behaviour of the BCCI, if Mr. Greig's thesis is correct, is entirely consistent with the historical behaviour of dominant powers. Is that the right way for the BCCI to behave? This will need an examination of the BCCI's position on issues that Greig claims the Indian board is using its muscle power to influence and stop 'progress' in the cricketing world. And on the subject of the DRS, where the BCCI and Indian cricketers have been portrayed as Luddites, there is more than a case for the Indian position. The Indians have consistently opposed the DRS especially on its predictive characteristics, and they have a point that technophiles ignore to their own peril.

In the modern system of justice, for someone to be convicted of a crime the prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused actually committed the crime. In recent judicial cases here in the UK, original verdicts have been overturned because the expert testimony used to convict the accused was found to be of dubious quality. Hence, the Indian position on an lbw decision appears to be valid, for it questions the validity of replacing the opinion of an umpire with the opinion of an expensive piece of technology. Therefore, Greig is not right, at least in the case of the DRS, when he argues that India is abusing its position and in the process preventing cricket from progressing.

Of course, there is a possibility that racial undertones, schadenfreude and power politics could govern relations between the ICC members. But for India to behave like Mandela, the ICC will need its own Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Until then hegemonic power-plays, I predict, will continue.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • kannan on October 21, 2012, 12:25 GMT

    Erudite, evocative and balanced. Way to go! superbly written. I do fee that BCCI should reflect and reassess, in these times. Magnanimity in victory leads to goodwill in peace. An inclusive BCCI is important to world cricket and there is only so much to be gained from a tit for tat attitude. Having said that, i doff my hat off to you for such a well compiled piece. From one mallu to another !

  • Dilek on August 2, 2012, 5:25 GMT

    This is what we need - an isngiht to make everyone think

  • Ari Murthy on July 27, 2012, 17:01 GMT

    It is like, British courtrooms in pre-1947 India accussing freedom fighters as rebels and terrorist. Tony, if you could a statement that you were ashamed of ECB's past monopoly and atrocities, may be the cricket world would atleast think that you can make a fair statement.

  • Nampally on July 2, 2012, 19:24 GMT

    @Ramesh Joseph:Greig's speech was written by his wife (Tony thanked her at the start of his speech) who obviously failed to do a proper research with so many wrong facts. Tony appeared so frustrated that the Kerry Packer failed to make his venture a success but IPL became a hit with players earning many times more than Packer ever paid his super stars!.Also IPL has participation from all Nations except Pakistan (Safety concerns) whilst Kerry Packers circus never had a single Indian player.Why bring in Mandela Or quote Gandhi while blaming India for the cricket Woes.It was a a sorry cry for help from India whilst blackmailing India at the same time.UDRS is an unreliable technology which causes more questions than answers.Ball tracking + hot spots is unreliable even according to its its inventer, Dr. Taylor!What credibilty does UDRS have? If Australia & SA support India in voting, why should it be Indian fault? They have their own brains to think & judge as well!.

  • Nampally on July 2, 2012, 18:17 GMT

    A fine article Girish. It is the IMF & other international bodies which help out the poorer Nations - not USA. Similarly it is ICC job to help the poorer Nations financially. Tony Greig finds it an easy route to down load all the Cricketing Woes on India & even quotes Ghandiji.The fact of the matter is neither England, Australia or SA ever lifted a finger to help other developing Nations in 50's thru' 80's. When India became an economically super power thru its technocrats, it also helped BCCI developing its sound finanacial strategies. With the introduction of IPL, India now is super power in PR + cricketing skills + Business acuman.If India is supreme it is because of the brains & brawn of its organisers & players.India does not owe any Nation a dime & least of all to ICC or Tony Greig.India took a bold stand on DRS where others failed to tread. Let ICC develop it into fool proof technology first before it becomes acceptable!

  • Nampally on July 2, 2012, 18:17 GMT

    A fine article Girish. It is the IMF & other international bodies which help out the poorer Nations - not USA. Similarly it is ICC job to help the poorer Nations financially. Tony Greig finds it an easy route to down load all the Cricketing Woes on India & even quotes Ghandiji.The fact of the matter is neither England, Australia or SA ever lifted a finger to help other developing Nations in 50's thru' 80's. When India became an economically super power thru its technocrats, it also helped BCCI developing its sound finanacial strategies. With the introduction of IPL, India now is super power in PR + cricketing skills + Business acuman.If India is supreme it is because of the brains & brawn of its organisers & players.India does not owe any Nation a dime & least of all to ICC or Tony Greig.India took a bold stand on DRS where others failed to tread. Let ICC develop it into fool proof technology first before it becomes acceptable!

  • G Leroux on July 2, 2012, 10:49 GMT

    Ash, Clearly you are some disgruntled and disillusioned English provincial hiding behind a convenient pseudonym that you hope will throw everyone off the scent. I haven't stopped rolling with laughter at your hilarious suggestion that the IPL is a domestic competition! I suppose you will now claim that the English county fixtures are international competitions. 'Cricket was run primarily by England and Australia who enjoyed veto powers on the game's decisions and which they used to advance their own interest with occasional decisions of noblesse oblige'. This is not a tired old cliché but exactly what transpired. Surely you are not suggesting that the ECB is trying to advance the interests of world cricket now. England is now a third world country and a pauper on the world stage. The sooner all its institutions realise it, the better. What goes around comes around!

  • Girish Menon on July 2, 2012, 10:28 GMT

    @ Joji - Firstly, I have only questioned the DRS's predictive ability on an LBW decision. And my position remains that if the lbw decision is an opinion and not a fact. Secondly, on the moral question, I was only pointing out the real politik of the issue.

    @IG - I am not a spokesman for the BCCI and its decisions and all that you allege about the BCCI may even be true.

    @Ash - Tony Greig mentions India indulging in some payback, in it is implicit that there were ICC decision which may have been unfair. Hence why doesn't the ICC set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

    @grizzle - Whether it is a Cambs Uni don or an umpire, an lbw decision still remains an opinion and is not a fact.

  • joji on July 2, 2012, 3:15 GMT

    Girish, Can I ask a question here, does proving that the Eng / Aus, the apartheid Southafrica and the UN is wrong in wielding its powers gives India the right to do the same. What is ethically / morally wrong will always be wrong. Why does India has to follow the old odigy when we know that it would ultimately fail to achieve its goals. Why can't India carve new paths for others to follow?

    On the question of DRS, lets keep everything aside. Just let me ask this simple question: Does a game with DRS has a higher or lower probability of getting correct decisions as compared to a game without DRS? No matter how flawed DRS might be, it eventually removes the howlers from the game. And that in my dictionary should be the main aim of any technology put forth !

  • IG on July 1, 2012, 16:50 GMT

    Yeah, you're right. It's too much to ask the BCCI to act like Mandela. In all fairness, the BCCI is like a banana republic, which has suddenly struck oil, and has become rich over-night. It continues to remain a greedy, vindictive and lazy organization that it used to be, except now, it has loads of money from television rights. It's too big a leap of faith to expect a narrow-minded bunch of individuals to act Mandela-esque. However, I wouldn't gloat too much about the BCCI's riches if I were you. The world economy is changing and so are people's consumption habits. I wouldn't bet against the BCCI's banana republic mentality to come forth and kill the hen thats been laying the golden eggs. Count your blessings...

  • kannan on October 21, 2012, 12:25 GMT

    Erudite, evocative and balanced. Way to go! superbly written. I do fee that BCCI should reflect and reassess, in these times. Magnanimity in victory leads to goodwill in peace. An inclusive BCCI is important to world cricket and there is only so much to be gained from a tit for tat attitude. Having said that, i doff my hat off to you for such a well compiled piece. From one mallu to another !

  • Dilek on August 2, 2012, 5:25 GMT

    This is what we need - an isngiht to make everyone think

  • Ari Murthy on July 27, 2012, 17:01 GMT

    It is like, British courtrooms in pre-1947 India accussing freedom fighters as rebels and terrorist. Tony, if you could a statement that you were ashamed of ECB's past monopoly and atrocities, may be the cricket world would atleast think that you can make a fair statement.

  • Nampally on July 2, 2012, 19:24 GMT

    @Ramesh Joseph:Greig's speech was written by his wife (Tony thanked her at the start of his speech) who obviously failed to do a proper research with so many wrong facts. Tony appeared so frustrated that the Kerry Packer failed to make his venture a success but IPL became a hit with players earning many times more than Packer ever paid his super stars!.Also IPL has participation from all Nations except Pakistan (Safety concerns) whilst Kerry Packers circus never had a single Indian player.Why bring in Mandela Or quote Gandhi while blaming India for the cricket Woes.It was a a sorry cry for help from India whilst blackmailing India at the same time.UDRS is an unreliable technology which causes more questions than answers.Ball tracking + hot spots is unreliable even according to its its inventer, Dr. Taylor!What credibilty does UDRS have? If Australia & SA support India in voting, why should it be Indian fault? They have their own brains to think & judge as well!.

  • Nampally on July 2, 2012, 18:17 GMT

    A fine article Girish. It is the IMF & other international bodies which help out the poorer Nations - not USA. Similarly it is ICC job to help the poorer Nations financially. Tony Greig finds it an easy route to down load all the Cricketing Woes on India & even quotes Ghandiji.The fact of the matter is neither England, Australia or SA ever lifted a finger to help other developing Nations in 50's thru' 80's. When India became an economically super power thru its technocrats, it also helped BCCI developing its sound finanacial strategies. With the introduction of IPL, India now is super power in PR + cricketing skills + Business acuman.If India is supreme it is because of the brains & brawn of its organisers & players.India does not owe any Nation a dime & least of all to ICC or Tony Greig.India took a bold stand on DRS where others failed to tread. Let ICC develop it into fool proof technology first before it becomes acceptable!

  • Nampally on July 2, 2012, 18:17 GMT

    A fine article Girish. It is the IMF & other international bodies which help out the poorer Nations - not USA. Similarly it is ICC job to help the poorer Nations financially. Tony Greig finds it an easy route to down load all the Cricketing Woes on India & even quotes Ghandiji.The fact of the matter is neither England, Australia or SA ever lifted a finger to help other developing Nations in 50's thru' 80's. When India became an economically super power thru its technocrats, it also helped BCCI developing its sound finanacial strategies. With the introduction of IPL, India now is super power in PR + cricketing skills + Business acuman.If India is supreme it is because of the brains & brawn of its organisers & players.India does not owe any Nation a dime & least of all to ICC or Tony Greig.India took a bold stand on DRS where others failed to tread. Let ICC develop it into fool proof technology first before it becomes acceptable!

  • G Leroux on July 2, 2012, 10:49 GMT

    Ash, Clearly you are some disgruntled and disillusioned English provincial hiding behind a convenient pseudonym that you hope will throw everyone off the scent. I haven't stopped rolling with laughter at your hilarious suggestion that the IPL is a domestic competition! I suppose you will now claim that the English county fixtures are international competitions. 'Cricket was run primarily by England and Australia who enjoyed veto powers on the game's decisions and which they used to advance their own interest with occasional decisions of noblesse oblige'. This is not a tired old cliché but exactly what transpired. Surely you are not suggesting that the ECB is trying to advance the interests of world cricket now. England is now a third world country and a pauper on the world stage. The sooner all its institutions realise it, the better. What goes around comes around!

  • Girish Menon on July 2, 2012, 10:28 GMT

    @ Joji - Firstly, I have only questioned the DRS's predictive ability on an LBW decision. And my position remains that if the lbw decision is an opinion and not a fact. Secondly, on the moral question, I was only pointing out the real politik of the issue.

    @IG - I am not a spokesman for the BCCI and its decisions and all that you allege about the BCCI may even be true.

    @Ash - Tony Greig mentions India indulging in some payback, in it is implicit that there were ICC decision which may have been unfair. Hence why doesn't the ICC set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

    @grizzle - Whether it is a Cambs Uni don or an umpire, an lbw decision still remains an opinion and is not a fact.

  • joji on July 2, 2012, 3:15 GMT

    Girish, Can I ask a question here, does proving that the Eng / Aus, the apartheid Southafrica and the UN is wrong in wielding its powers gives India the right to do the same. What is ethically / morally wrong will always be wrong. Why does India has to follow the old odigy when we know that it would ultimately fail to achieve its goals. Why can't India carve new paths for others to follow?

    On the question of DRS, lets keep everything aside. Just let me ask this simple question: Does a game with DRS has a higher or lower probability of getting correct decisions as compared to a game without DRS? No matter how flawed DRS might be, it eventually removes the howlers from the game. And that in my dictionary should be the main aim of any technology put forth !

  • IG on July 1, 2012, 16:50 GMT

    Yeah, you're right. It's too much to ask the BCCI to act like Mandela. In all fairness, the BCCI is like a banana republic, which has suddenly struck oil, and has become rich over-night. It continues to remain a greedy, vindictive and lazy organization that it used to be, except now, it has loads of money from television rights. It's too big a leap of faith to expect a narrow-minded bunch of individuals to act Mandela-esque. However, I wouldn't gloat too much about the BCCI's riches if I were you. The world economy is changing and so are people's consumption habits. I wouldn't bet against the BCCI's banana republic mentality to come forth and kill the hen thats been laying the golden eggs. Count your blessings...

  • Hartford on July 1, 2012, 15:13 GMT

    Well said ! Couldn't agree more.

  • Indra Vikram Singh on July 1, 2012, 7:54 GMT

    I disagree with the parallels drawn in this article. But there is little doubt that the balance of power has shifted in world cricket. It did not begin with Mr. Dalmiya but with the three Ws, Sobers, Hall, Valentine and Ramadhin when they ended the hegemony of England and Australia on the field in the 1950s. The purchasing power of the huge Indian middle class and the reach of television facilitated the economic aspect, which led to Mr. Dalmiya toppling the regime of the Foundation Members. If India rules so be it. I am an ardent cricket person but not a huge IPL fan. If the British media is ignoring it, I have no issue. DRS is not perfect, as no system is, but it is better than no DRS. India benefitted from it in the 2011 World Cup that we won. DRS was meant to eliminate howlers, and that is how it must be viewed. It needs further improvement but I feel it must be used. The umpires have an impossible task, especially under the scrutiny of powerful cameras, and need the help of DRS.

  • grizzle on July 1, 2012, 1:59 GMT

    I am an Indian and I was thoroughly disappointed with the article and would be even more so if most Indians felt this way. But maybe I wouldn't be surprised. The second-most populous nation in the world, we clearly lack the ability to actually dominate any sport (including cricket) so it seems that we are getting our thrills from doing what we can: steer it in any direction we want to, including into the ground.

    As for the article, the author makes no attempt to justify any of the points he makes. How did the Imperial Cricket Conference abuse their powers? (Maybe they did. I honestly don't know.) Why is it that the BCCI is right in "question[ing] the validity of replacing the opinion of an umpire with the opinion of an expensive piece of technology"? (Aren't the guarantees of tests carried out by Cambridge U. sufficient of the quality of predictive techology? If not, what would convince them? Also, what do umpires often that predictive tech. doesn't?)

  • Ash on June 30, 2012, 22:12 GMT

    'Cricket was run primarily by England and Australia who enjoyed veto powers on the game's decisions and which they used to advance their own interest with occasional decisions of noblesse oblige'. Same tired old cliché trotted out as usual without any facts to justify it. What ICC decisions did they veto? How did these advance their own interest? How were they detrimental to other members?

    As for the BCCI 'thwarting' recommendations from the 'erstwhile veto wielding powers', Which recommendations? How did the BCCI's veto benefit cricket?

    'The most disgruntled power in the ICC is the ECB, which hasn’t really welcomed the IPL with great excitement'. So what? The BCCI understandably weren't very excited when 20/20 was first introduced in England as it was a domestic English competition and none of their concern. Why should the ECB be excited about a domestic Indian competition?

    I could go on but I'm laughing too much at the suggestion that the article is 'balanced'.

  • JerMan on June 30, 2012, 17:11 GMT

    Poor, frustrated Girish - in partial command of the facts, in partial command of logic, supporting a culture in partial command of the cricketing universe. Not on the field of course, just as Girish's "logic" does not actually lead to valid conclusions. Everything so difficult and so frustrating.

  • John Smith on June 30, 2012, 14:21 GMT

    India can hardly claim to be the dominant power on the cricket field - results do not support that. Its chances would be enhanced if it did accept DRS where finger spinners have become a far greater threat and influence on results. With all the power why does India not act in its own interests and improve its chances by maximising the threat of its talented spinners? With Viru, Gambir, Dravid and Fletcher all publicly supporting DRS the power clearly still resides with SRT. Is he is not acting in the interests if India but rather thinking of his own statistics? India has all the power and can dominate cricket but why does it not want to maximise its chances of dominating on the field by using DRS?

  • Barry Blair on June 30, 2012, 14:08 GMT

    I just wonder whether the Chris Gayle decision had any bearing on the rejection by the BCCI to not accept the DRS. I for one could not tell even with the aid of the slowmo replays whether or not the ball hit the bat ot pad first. As Sir Ian Botham rightly pointed out the umpires decision had to be upheld because there was lack of conclusive evidence to the contrary. I believe we need to add a further rider to the DRS, that of significant doubt, which should have resolved the Chris Gayle decision in the batsmans favour

  • Kamala on June 30, 2012, 13:40 GMT

    This is a fine article. Particularly on the DRS, the argument has been that the majority has implemented it, so it must be right. That logic is highly flawed. It's a disgrace that the ICC implemented the system without proper consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

  • Ramesh Joseph on June 30, 2012, 13:40 GMT

    Tony Grieg even seems to have his facts wrong. Let me quote two examples :

    1. Holding BCCI responsible for the cancellation of the Test Cricket Championship Facts : The real cancellation was due to the ECB not being able to reach an agreement with the broadcasters. I am sure Tony Greig must have been aware of it.

    2. BCCI not paying enough attention to Test cricket : Facts : India played most number of Tests among all Test Nations in 2011 India -12 Sl - 11 Pakistan -10 W.Indies - 10 Australia - 9 England - 8 Bangladesh - 5 South Africa- 5 N.Zealand -5 Zimbabwe - 3 The facts speak for themselves.

  • devesh on June 30, 2012, 7:28 GMT

    Sir Girish Menon,one things i would like to ask that u don't have any other work accept writing the articles about INDIA.I am seeing ur many articles for last one week. Where were u when ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA ruling over the cricket and whatever they want they were implementing according to their own wishes.Why u were nt writing any articles at that time,many of the decision were going against INDIAN.Because at that time they were in power,they were runnning the cricket worlds.Now its time for indian ,what we will want we will do, we will run the cricket worlds as long as we are in power.If any one getting jealous with us it does not matter Thanks n Regards DEVESH CHANDRA SINGH

  • Cool Monk on June 30, 2012, 0:58 GMT

    True. India is a dominant power (its dominance will increase even more), and it should continue to behave as a dominant power. Period.

    In cricketing terms, England is a second world country (if not third).

  • pritish on June 29, 2012, 22:56 GMT

    great article to read...

  • Suhail Chaudhry on June 29, 2012, 21:11 GMT

    This seems to be the fallacy of a proof from tradition; just because other powers may have historically acted in such a way does not mean that the BCCI should, in fact, as it seems obvious that the old "imperial" hegemony of England and South Africa was wrong, the best way to have put that right wouldn't be to move in the opposite direction, with Indian hegemony on world cricket, but rather to a more fairer and equal system. While the author outlines in the third last paragraph that he's not sure whether this is "the right way for the BCCI to behave", the preceding paragraph to this seems to be entirely a justification for such behaviour...

  • Man Singh on June 29, 2012, 20:38 GMT

    Icommend Girish Menon for his frank and true rejoinder to Tony Greig. I have been following Indian Cricket since 1946, when the MCC was the Supremo in making rules. I hate to say this but Tony has a hangover from the Raj days, and can not come to to terms, that we are now a super power in cricket. Hats off to Dalmia for having the guts to stand up to them and moving the headquarters away from London. I made David Frith eat his words after Kapil's team won the WC and now I ask Tony-shut up, and face the fact that we are now in charge, both in the field and off.

  • samson on June 29, 2012, 19:33 GMT

    well-put and excellently written

  • Rahul on June 29, 2012, 15:49 GMT

    I don't knw what the fuss is abt.It has been coming thru centuries ,the powerful is always right.BCCI was never rich when it started.They made it to this level ,with hard work and shrewdness, and so other boards shuld also try to compete instead of blaming BCCI.As far as cricket is concerned under BCCI dominance ,from 1997 ,cricket has reached to as many as 83 countries.BCCI might be wrong in some of the decision but final word will always be theres because they are powerful.

  • R Vergis on June 29, 2012, 13:07 GMT

    Congratulations on a balanced and well written article. I agree that the present situation is more a case of sour grapes on the part of the erstwhile "rulers" of the ICC and their frustration on seeing power and influence rapidly change hands. Their misguided attempt at providing a challenge to the IPL by courting Allen Stanford, a man of dubious credentials and reputation, fell flat on its face. Now they are reduced at firing occasional barbs at the BCCI in the vain hope that they may recover some of their influence on what they still continue to view as their fiefdom. The exploits of Kapil Dev and his team during the 1983 World Cup was an incredible catalyst for India's emergence as a cricketing power. Another interesting vignette springs to mind. When India qualified for the finals that year by trouncing England, the then BCCI President, NKP Salve requested the ECB for a complimentary ticket at short notice. He was refused and swore to bring the Cup to India which he did in 4 years!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • R Vergis on June 29, 2012, 13:07 GMT

    Congratulations on a balanced and well written article. I agree that the present situation is more a case of sour grapes on the part of the erstwhile "rulers" of the ICC and their frustration on seeing power and influence rapidly change hands. Their misguided attempt at providing a challenge to the IPL by courting Allen Stanford, a man of dubious credentials and reputation, fell flat on its face. Now they are reduced at firing occasional barbs at the BCCI in the vain hope that they may recover some of their influence on what they still continue to view as their fiefdom. The exploits of Kapil Dev and his team during the 1983 World Cup was an incredible catalyst for India's emergence as a cricketing power. Another interesting vignette springs to mind. When India qualified for the finals that year by trouncing England, the then BCCI President, NKP Salve requested the ECB for a complimentary ticket at short notice. He was refused and swore to bring the Cup to India which he did in 4 years!

  • Rahul on June 29, 2012, 15:49 GMT

    I don't knw what the fuss is abt.It has been coming thru centuries ,the powerful is always right.BCCI was never rich when it started.They made it to this level ,with hard work and shrewdness, and so other boards shuld also try to compete instead of blaming BCCI.As far as cricket is concerned under BCCI dominance ,from 1997 ,cricket has reached to as many as 83 countries.BCCI might be wrong in some of the decision but final word will always be theres because they are powerful.

  • samson on June 29, 2012, 19:33 GMT

    well-put and excellently written

  • Man Singh on June 29, 2012, 20:38 GMT

    Icommend Girish Menon for his frank and true rejoinder to Tony Greig. I have been following Indian Cricket since 1946, when the MCC was the Supremo in making rules. I hate to say this but Tony has a hangover from the Raj days, and can not come to to terms, that we are now a super power in cricket. Hats off to Dalmia for having the guts to stand up to them and moving the headquarters away from London. I made David Frith eat his words after Kapil's team won the WC and now I ask Tony-shut up, and face the fact that we are now in charge, both in the field and off.

  • Suhail Chaudhry on June 29, 2012, 21:11 GMT

    This seems to be the fallacy of a proof from tradition; just because other powers may have historically acted in such a way does not mean that the BCCI should, in fact, as it seems obvious that the old "imperial" hegemony of England and South Africa was wrong, the best way to have put that right wouldn't be to move in the opposite direction, with Indian hegemony on world cricket, but rather to a more fairer and equal system. While the author outlines in the third last paragraph that he's not sure whether this is "the right way for the BCCI to behave", the preceding paragraph to this seems to be entirely a justification for such behaviour...

  • pritish on June 29, 2012, 22:56 GMT

    great article to read...

  • Cool Monk on June 30, 2012, 0:58 GMT

    True. India is a dominant power (its dominance will increase even more), and it should continue to behave as a dominant power. Period.

    In cricketing terms, England is a second world country (if not third).

  • devesh on June 30, 2012, 7:28 GMT

    Sir Girish Menon,one things i would like to ask that u don't have any other work accept writing the articles about INDIA.I am seeing ur many articles for last one week. Where were u when ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA ruling over the cricket and whatever they want they were implementing according to their own wishes.Why u were nt writing any articles at that time,many of the decision were going against INDIAN.Because at that time they were in power,they were runnning the cricket worlds.Now its time for indian ,what we will want we will do, we will run the cricket worlds as long as we are in power.If any one getting jealous with us it does not matter Thanks n Regards DEVESH CHANDRA SINGH

  • Ramesh Joseph on June 30, 2012, 13:40 GMT

    Tony Grieg even seems to have his facts wrong. Let me quote two examples :

    1. Holding BCCI responsible for the cancellation of the Test Cricket Championship Facts : The real cancellation was due to the ECB not being able to reach an agreement with the broadcasters. I am sure Tony Greig must have been aware of it.

    2. BCCI not paying enough attention to Test cricket : Facts : India played most number of Tests among all Test Nations in 2011 India -12 Sl - 11 Pakistan -10 W.Indies - 10 Australia - 9 England - 8 Bangladesh - 5 South Africa- 5 N.Zealand -5 Zimbabwe - 3 The facts speak for themselves.

  • Kamala on June 30, 2012, 13:40 GMT

    This is a fine article. Particularly on the DRS, the argument has been that the majority has implemented it, so it must be right. That logic is highly flawed. It's a disgrace that the ICC implemented the system without proper consultation with all relevant stakeholders.