From the perspective of the family of Hookes, it may be entirely appropriate that SG apologizes for any distress caused to their feelings. That is a humane action and civilized. However, having said that, people should check out the volumes that have been written about the incident in which DH died. In particular, there is a book published by UNSW that places the incident in the context of alcohol imbued culture of elite Australian cricketers. Further, the bartender was acquitted by a unanimous verdict of the charges of involuntary manslaughter, on account of two versions of the events being established with equal force at the trial- one where the bar staff unjustifiably chased after Hookes and the other in which Hookes provoked the bar staff unconsionably. Now, even in the second scenario, it would be unjustifiable to claim that Hookes’ punishment should have been what happened. A man’s death in a civil society is always a tragedy. However, when civility breaks down completely, whether on the field, in the house or in a public place like a bar, it leads, more often than not, to a spiral/esclation that leads to violence. So in that sense SG’s use of Hookes’ death to highlight the problems with the behaviour of Australian cricketers was entirely warranted. The incident and its aftermath has already been played out in the public. Hence, the over the top reaction by Australian cricketers to SG’s comments are not just hypocritical, they are downright silly. If anything, Hookes’ death has already been a matter of public debate and hopefully that debate throws light on the unacceptability of behaviour by the Australian cricketers, both on field and off it. SG’s point that the consequences of such behaviour could be horrendous are both apt and necessary. That Hookes’ family may be hurt and an apology to them may be entirely necessary. But to shove the incident under the carpet and assume that it is not relevant to a public debate is silly: death of a person is a matter of public concern. That is why the bartender was charged with a crime and a trial conducted. Behaviour of cricketers is also a matter of public concern and subject to, albeit ineffective, ICC’s code of conduct. The fact that boorish behaviour that crosses boundaries and may lead to on-field violence is also a matter of public concern. The entire conspectus of factors in the culture of Australian cricketers that leads to such boorish behaviour, on-field and off the field, that could lead to violence on the cricket field, or influencing the behaviour of youngsters and potentially leading to violence on cricket fields by players much younger, is a matter of public concern. Hookes’ death is thus a matter of public concern. It cannot be removed from the public domain by assuming that it continues to hurt Hookes’ family.

Now that Mr. Tony Greg, that paragon of rectitude who threatened to make the West Indians “grovel” - which referred to the behaviour imposed on black slaves - has joined in with his myopic view about SG not using the example of David Hookes, I think the box that is David Hookes’ death, that is shut tightly closed by CA, Australian players and other white cricketers around the world, needs to be opened. There are lessons there, and SG was referring to those lessons.

Type in “David Hookes” in Google and you will see a plethora of references to his untimely and tragic death. Apparently Hookes was a well respected and loved cricketer in Australia. Fair enough. The more important bit is about him leaving a living will to donate his organs. Very creditable, and I think my estimation of the man rises up considerably. But neither respect nor love should hide the facts surrounding his death and the hard lesson that it teaches: Once the boundaries of civility are crossed, tragedy is invariably the result. The outraged reactions by Australian and other white cricketers to SG’s comments is but a facet of their denial of that lesson and their continued insistence on clinging to a lifestyle and view of humanity that is crass. Neither Alan Border nor Tony Greg apparently want to give up on their right to behave like larrikins.

For a detailed, intelligent and an objective analysis of the death of David Hookes read the book published by UNSW. The link for it is:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:6kz3PUJpLDUJ:www.unireps.com.au/itemimages/datafiles/oct06t.pdf+%22David+Hookes%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=71&gl=uk

Alan Border has apparently commented that SG’s response to Ponting, particularly about his comments about David Hooke’s, is causing strain in their personal friendship to the point of breaking. Whether David Hooke’s death and the circumstances around it ought to be a matter of public debate or not depends on whether Hooke’s behaviour contributed in any part to the wholly tragic and unfortunate early demise of a cricketer. If that is indeed true then Cricket Australia and its greats ought to really be wondering if they have in any way have taken effective steps to educate Australian cricketers from getting into unfortunate situations such as the one Hooke wittingly or unwittingly may have gotten himself into. It is one thing to say that unruly bar behaviour ought to not lead to death. That is acceptable. It is another thing to say that people can engage in bad behaviour and also simultaneously expect the legal and moral climate of respect for other human beings sustain itself. Civility in society is both fragile and essential, though not the only factor, if one expects to not face a violent society.

But Alan Border’s comments begs another question. So according to Border, SG’s plausibly tasteless remarks about Hooke’s death, is straining his personal friendship to the point of breaking. But let us look at the hypocrisy of Border’s stance. Apparently SG’s remarks are offensive and cannot be put behind with a shake of hands and a beer at the end of the day, whereas the countless incidents of use of abusive language by Australian players on-field - whether it be suggesting that someone’s mother is a whore or their wife is a harlot etc., - is to be treated as just necessary gamesmanship, to be excused and forgiven with a handshake and a beer. Of course, Alan Border also does not seem to understand another thing. He talks about cultural backgrounds being different, but expects only an understanding of Australian cricketers when they call an opposing player a bastard. That is apparently the way Australians are brought up and play their cricket. But Border seems to forget that there are two people involved. What about when the cultural background of a player involves being offended by being called a bastard? It seems that according to Border’s logic that player’s cultural background and feelings ought not to count at all.

Ridiculous, plain ridiculous. Taking Border’s logic to its extreme conclusions, I think Indians should demand severing of all cricketing ties with Australia. Should not our sense of what is appropriate and not appropriate strain our cricketing relations to the breaking point? Haven’t the countless instances of abuse hurled at our cricketers by Australian’s long passed the point of forgiveness and resulted in severing of relations?

I have not written about cricket for a long time. However Ricky Ponting’s ranting seemed to demand an ex-pression of my feelings about Australian cricketers on-field behaviour.

The first thing that stands out in the ridiculous logic used by Ponting is that Sunil Gavaskar’s past is relevant to the issue of whether Australian cricketers have regularly behaved badly on-field. It is not as if it were just Gavaskar who has pointed out that the behaviour of Australians on the field and in many instances off it too has been atrocious. If Ponting believes that assertions of bad behaviour on the part of Gavaskar in the past (which in any case are ludicrous) in any way mitigates or justifies, the Australian behaviour, both in the past or the present, he seriously needs to rethink whether he will be taken as a person with something mature to say.

If Ponting believes that Australia’s dominance and undoubtedly superior skills also justifies their on-field behaviour, he is deluding himself as to what is important in life. It also points to the poverty of the debate about bad on-field behaviour that a captain of a national team asserts that winning excuses bad onfield behaviour. I would think that Ponting needs to take another look at ICC code of conduct: winning is not an excuse for bad on-field behaviour. The preamble to that document as well as the history of past debates, at least those which have been conducted by reasonable people, would educate him about the need for civilized behaviour, generally everywhere on sports fields but also particularly in the international context.

Further, Ponting is not even original in his ad-hominem attacks on Gavaskar. If I remember correctly, after Gavaskar raised the same issues in his lecture to the MCC a couple of years ago, Dennis Lillee, that paragon of rectitude, sportsmanship and all that is good about cricket (for those who may not understand sarcasm - that is being sarcastic), raised the same issues: the slow batting at Lords in the 1975 edition of the World Cup and the threatened walkout at Melbourne. Obviously Australian cricketers, or at least some, are being trained to believe that winning is everything and all means are justified in the quest for victory, including setting aside basic human qualities. If Dennis Lillee is the epitome of the ugly Australian, Ricky Ponting seems to be the present day epitome of lack of brains in broader matters of life, of which cricket is a part.

The more important issue though, and at once far removed from the specific context of insults traded between Gavaskar and Australian cricketers, is about ICC’s role in promoting acceptable conduct on cricket fields. Most reasonable people would come to the conclusion that ICC has not just been ineffective, but also dcownright inconsistent in implementation of its laws. It is that inconsistency, which invariably seems to go against cricketers of colour, that has led to some serious and entirely believable allegations of racism in the way ICC handles good conduct issues.

The silly part is this. ICC obviously believes that gaining unfair advantage, through chucking or tampering with the ball, shames the game and that it would also undercut its future progress. That is the right attitude. Every sport, while it is the conduct of war through other means, has to have rules and norms that make the sport possible at all levels. However, ICC does not seem to recognize that application of the laws, rules and norms even handedly against all international teams is vital in terms of allowing the sport to continue at an international level. The vital importance of enacting and implementing rules and norms of minimally acceptable on-field behaviour - of being half-way civilzed - cannot be overstressed. Different international teams come from different cultural contexts. Overstepping those contexts in the name of gamesmanship, repeatedly and by a large margin, cannot be conducive towards promoting mutual respect. Expecting a shaking of hands with the opponent at the end of the day, after being taunted by that opponent that one’s wife is being “stuffed” while the player is on the ground, is certainly not indicative of good health of the game. Rather, it is indicative of insensitivity to the different cultural backgrounds that players come from, and continutaion of the imperial culture of international cricket. Would it be acceptable then, if a Muslim batsman were to be taunted by a white player of his religious beliefs? Of being a terrorist? Would the expectation that the Pakistani player shake hands with that player at the end of the day then assuage the climate? Would that then be an indication of good health in international cricket?

Take the Ramnaresh Sarwan and Glenn McGrath incident from a couple of years ago. Was it not indicative of the supreme disrespect that players hold for women in general, let alone one woman, wife of Glenn McGrath, who was battling cancer? And you expect international cricket to become an inclusive sport?

Look at it from another angle. South Africa was banned from international cricket for over two decades because of the broader political regime in South Africa. Now to the best of my recollections, I have never heard of a past South African great, whether it be Barry Richards or a Graeme Pollock, using racist abuse against a coloured player when they played against them in county cricket. If those greats had to suffer on account of being denied the international stage because of a political situation that was certainly not within their control, then why is it that individual cricketers who hurl racist and culturally insensitive abuse at opposing players not be subject to similar punishment? Isn’t personal behaviour within the control of the individual? How is it that players are not held responsible for unacceptable behaviour that is well within their own control? Yes, yes. I recognize that there are major differences between the two situations. However, when individual behaviour begins to transgress boundaries repeatedly, one would be led to question the logic underlying banning players for situations out of their control, and what it is meant to achieve and the damage to the same notion of achieving racial parity in all walks of life that individual’s racial and culturally insensitive behaviour inflicts and the logic of its tolerance.

I think that the stage has come where the South Asian countries, along with the West Indies, take a decisive stand against the bad behaviour by white teams. This needs to proceed in two directions. They need to clamp down on their own players. What Pakistan did with Shoaib Akhtar is simply unacceptable. They need to curb the wrongs on the field by their own players. The notion that their players should also be allowed to misbehave on the field because the Australians do that is ridiculous, and will lead to degeneration of the spirit of the game. The second track that they should take is simply this: refuse to play with teams which transgress the limits of decency. Period. They certainly have the monetary clout to be able to do this.

The alternative may be this: the next time a bowler hurls the ball at a batsman, when reasonable people can agree that the chances of a run out were non-existent or remote, lock him up for the crime of intending to maim a player and attempting to prevent that player from pursuing his vocation. The next time racist abuse is hurled at the opposing players, lock up the offender for abusing the human rights of those players. If I am not mistaken, cricket is a part of the larger socio-legal framework. Human rights have come to inform substantial chunks of conduct of human relations, particularly at the international level.

Most South Asian fams believe that they and their teams have been getting the short end of the stick, whether it be in terms of biased umpiring, refereeing or handing out of disciplinary penalties by the ICC. Sooner or later, on one of the trips by the Australians to India, one of their players is going to get out of hand and provoke a riot. The Indian government, if it were to implement the laws strictly, may also need to lock that player up for a long time. A very long time. Before something like that happens, the ICC needs to be pressured into taking some hard decisions and have in place a very strict set of norms that are even handedly and firmly applied. I think that the BCCI, with its current clout, needs to start throwing its weight around with respect to the more serious issues confronting cricket. And as Gavaskar said it: one of the most serious issues is bad behaviour by players on the field.

Otherwise, some cricket fan in India may actually take the matter to the courts and see whether the Indian police ought to look the other way when the law of the land is broken by on-field behaviour. Now whether the courts will entertain that action or not, and how the courts may take such a petition will in all probability be subject to many factors. But neglect of the laws of the land - including such laws as abuse of communities, abusing women in general etc., are crimes in India - is a cause for Public Interest Litigation. Further, the BCCI and the ICC should also remember that airwaves, for TV and radio are treated as state owned in India. Behaviour that violates criminal code of India and its transmission across state owned airwaves and non-action by the state authorities could imply action under Article 13 and other fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution. Having the state implement its laws is a part of the conspectus of rights that the Indian constitution provides. So the next time Aussies are in India, they had better be very careful. It does not matter whether the Indian player files a complaint or not - if there is evidence of a wrong doing, a private criminal complaint can be filed by a cricket fan. The Aussies also ought to remember another thing: crimes that also involve hatred and are likely to offend religious and cultural sentiments may be treated as non-bailable!

Just checked out the report on India’s practice match in the Windies. Overall it seems like a good performance - dominating actually. The Jamaica side had a good number of current and former international players; and I believe a few aspiring ones. Also, more importantly they also fielded a reasonably good pace attack, including J Lawson. India’s batting performance, from the report, seems to have been good. I would say that Rahul Dravid opening surprised me. Why not Robin Uthapa? Is Dravid going to open in the one dayers? Maybe not a bad idea, given the depth in the one day batting that we have. Probably will allow another all rounder or more than a part time bowler to be worked in to the order. But, it is also worrying on other counts. What happens when Sachin returns? And if Sehwag continues to fail? Is Dravid setting himself up as a possible opener in the World Cup down the road? I am not sure that this is the right way to go though. Dravid lends tremendous solidity in the middle, almost at any position. Sacrificing him as an opener (though he might come good many times, given that he is quite technically equipped) might not be the right move. Look at the number of times he has anchored run chases in recent times in one dayers. Though with Dravid/Chappell brain trust, I am sure there is some deeper thought. Could it have been that, with this the first match, they probably did not want any panic at the top, given Sehwag’s predictable struggle for big innings. Defensive thinking or wise? As they say, when you apply a binary code of right/wrong to a decision based on a binary code Dravid Opens/Dravid should not open, we come to a pardox that is unresolvable! This brings me to Sehwag. Another cameo? The report did not say much about how he got out, though he seemed to have been comfortable while there. I hope the guy strikes form and soon. It is good to see Munaf Patel amongst the wickets. 3/30 in 9 is not bad, even if two wixkets were of the tail enders. Apparently he worked up some good pace. And that R.P. Singh got disconcerting bounce!!!!! Finally, we seem to have a pace attack on a trip to the Windies. I can never forget the cricket commentary on the radio during the final test (yes at Kingston, Jamaica) when Bedi had to declare with a few batsmen left and pretty much concede the test. That was the test when Holding and other Windies pace bowlers deliberately targetted the bodies of our batsmen. Gavaskar once wrote that he never saw Vishwanath run away from a ball, even on bad wickets against fast bowlers. But that day he had to. Was it Mohinder or Gaekwad who had to be carried off the field? Finally, we have an attack that cam probably give at least some back to their batsmen if their fast bowlers try to intimidate our batsmen. Finally. And how? The writer reports that one Indian bowler worked up good pace and the another Indian bowler got disconcerting bounce, with nothing about how the Jamaican fast bowlers working up pace or disconcerting bounce. That for me was an icing on a small cake right at the beginning of tout of the Windies.

BCCI and Warnings to Sehwag: Hitlers in Disguise - Disgusting

I do not really care whether one believes that Ganguly should have been left out of the team or not. There will always be diverging opinions about dropping a person who was previously deemed successful at the game to be dropped. In a certain sense, this will always be a part of your own interpretative framework. Nevertheless, there ought to be at least two ideals that one should up hold: (a) the dignity of a human being, whatever else his mistakes might have been, let alone failures in a gloriously uncertain game, needs to be recognized, affirmed and celebrated; and (b) that one should not prevent a person, irrespective of the particular contractual obligations, from affirming (a). Indeed our human quality is at stake, if we were to forsake either of the ideals. Forget about being human, we would not even be affirming our animal selves if we were to deny those two ideals.

If we were to take the above framework into perspective, then the warning of BCCI to Sehwag for his comments about Ganguly also comes into perspective. That probably ought to serve as a warning about a Board that has run amok on its own power and has lost all perspective and sense of values.

What did Sehwag do? He, if I am not mistaken (and my information comes from what I have read in the news), said that on occasions Ganguly is missed in the dressing room. He acknowledged that Ganguly's selection is a matter left to the discretion of the selection committee. And moreover, he expressed a yearning that Ganguly makes a come back and that Ganguly supported many players who have now come good. If that is the summum bonum of the comments made by Sehwag and the interpretative twist that one could put to this, what is the pin prick that caused the BCCI to admonish Sehwag? I am really at a loss here.

Was it wrong for Sehwag to acknowledge that Ganguly could be missed by some or all of a team? Is it so wrong to miss a former team mate, in whatever capacity? Isn't the whole team spirit also supposed to come from personal bonding? Isn't it human to express a sense of vacuum when a member of the team is missing, for whatever reason? Could the notion of team building ever overcome the human dimension of bonding at a personal level? Or is the bonding to be mechanical, such that when a person is dropped, one should not even feel a sense of loss? Can such a bonding ever lead to the right kind of team spirit? The last time when I heard that the team and the cause can be higher than even the human dimension of bonding was when I read the rhetoric of the Nazis. What was BCCI admonishing Sehwag for? For expressing a sense of binding with a former team mate? For missing another human being?

Now, one could at least exonerate the BCCI warning, if Sehwag were guilty of trying to instigate unrest. Unless there is something going on that we do not know of, then there is no reason for BCCI to have reacted in this high handed a manner. If there is indeed something going on, then, please let us know. Is the very name of Ganguly now a cause for distress in the team (or at least some of its members)? Should such a situation be tolerated? Is that really a basis for building a good team? That we allow negative feelings to overcome the most sublime of human feelings: a sense of loss and pity for a former team mate? Is that what a team is about? The issue is not about whether you can reveal those things or not. The issue is about whether issues that cannot be revealed are supposed to be in the interests of the team. Should we be justifying suppression of some very fundamental values of human life, of the desirability of expression of solidarity with another human being, on grounds that cannot be revealed? Would pragmatism permit this. I am not sure about that.

For the sake of argument let us even assume that Sehwag, for whatever unspeakable reason deserved to be rebuked. This can only be if Sehwag had used the cover of a fundamental human sensibility to foment trouble. Then air it out and punish him. If pragmatism were indeed the foundation of this BCCI outburst, I would at least have hoped that BCCI would not talk about it to the public. The very act of revealing such discourse is chilling: the revelations were intend to chill any human feelings, irrespective of whether they could be justified or not. STOP IT.