Bharti statement seems singularly irrelevant
The Indian Sports Minister Uma Bharti has once again confirmed India's determination not to play cricket against Pakistan
Omar Kureishi
23-Jan-2002
The Indian Sports Minister Uma Bharti has once again confirmed India's
determination not to play cricket against Pakistan. This time the
reason given is that cross-border terrorism should cease before the
Indian cricketers will put bat to ball against the Pakistanis. In the
present climate of great tension between the two countries, Bharti's
statement seemed singularly irrelevant.
With the armies of both countries massed on the borders and the skies
overcast with war clouds, cricket would be the last thing that would
come to mind. Yet, imagine simply the impact of the two countries
deciding to resume cricket relations. The tension would evaporate and
the war clouds would have rolled by.
The Chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board Lt.-General Tauqir Zia has
been quick to reiterate Pakistan's stand; it is ready to play against
India at any time and at any place. Clearly, the Indian government
attaches a great deal of importance to cricket and has made it a
foreign policy plank. This is because there is a cricket madness in
India. By not playing cricket against Pakistan, it is being
demonstrated how serious are the differences between the two
countries!
Both India and Pakistan are members of the ICC and also of the Asian
Cricket Council. One would have thought that cricket matters would
have been settled at this level and the governments had their hands
full in dealing with more urgent problems like food, shelter,
clothing, health and education that people of both countries so
desperately need.
India's refusal to play against Pakistan is not hurting Pakistan
cricket but is proving to be a major obstacle in the development of
Asian cricket. There are four Test playing countries in South East
Asia, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. If these countries
were to stand together, South Asia could become a power-house in
international cricket. Alas, it is not to be.
There is no system of relegation, no way in which the Test status of a
cricket nation can be withdrawn. So there seems to be no point in
questioning the Test credentials of Bangladesh. That it is at the
lowest rung of the ladder cannot be denied. But it is not always going
to stay there. There is bound to be improvement but this improvement
will not come overnight nor will it come by sacking the coach or the
captain.
Bangladesh has been losing to teams that are vastly superior to it and
I think it is cruel to make fun of it. I remember that Pakistan,
despite having beaten India, England, New Zealand, Australia and the
West Indies in the fifties were still considered the babes of cricket.
When Pakistan toured England in 1962, it was outclassed much the way
that Bangladesh is being outclassed.
Led by the late Jim Swanton, there was a campaign that Pakistan should
not get five-day Test matches on the ground that it was not good
enough. Luckily wiser counsels prevailed otherwise a very dangerous
precedent would have been set.
I think what Bangladesh should do is to send promising players to play
in the domestic tournaments of other South Asian countries. I know
that Pakistan would be happy to help.
The players should be inducted in various teams as a 'guest player'.
These 'guest players' could also spend some time at the Cricket
Academies.
Pakistan won the two-match Test series without raising a sweat and
well inside the allotted five days. The quality of the bowling should
not detract from the quality of Yousuf Youhana's double century. This
is his second double century in Test cricket and it establishes
without doubt that he has the hunger and the stamina to play long
innings. So many batsmen throw it away after getting a hundred.
I don't think the selectors learnt anything new from the Test series.
They had it right and they should have no problems in picking the team
for the series against the West Indies. There remains a question mark
against Wasim Akram. The suggestion is being floated that he should
confine his cricket to the One-day Internationals. I do not agree with
this.
We can afford to rest him for the Test matches against the West Indies
but if New Zealand is coming to Pakistan, we will need our best team.
Far from being a push-over, New Zealand in its present form will start
as favourites.
I think the time has come for umpires from third countries standing in
the One-day Internationals. Far too many mistakes are being made in
the triangular in Australia. One of the most glaring was when Mark
Boucher drove a full toss straight to Chris Cairns who caught it kneehigh, as straight forward a caught and bowled as is imaginable but the
umpire gave him not out, probably because Boucher stood his ground.
Boucher should not only have been given his marching orders but the
match-referee should have fined him. Apparently no batsman 'walks'
these days, taking a chance that the umpire may get it wrong. I think
too that Trescothick was distinctly unlucky to be given out at
Kolkata.
It was a crucial wicket and since it was an Indian umpire who gave him
out. England's supporters are likely to put a "patriotic" construction
on it. This is wholly unnecessary for it can sour the rest of the
series.
If we can get one ICC umpire for the Test matches, I see no reason why
we can't follow the same principle in the one-day internationals,
which in some respects, is considered more important than the Test.
This is typical ICC thinking, inconsistent and devoid of logic.