Howard rejected for a number of good reasons
Roar Guru By Vinay Verma, 2 Jul 2010 Vinay Verma is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Cricket, ICC, Indian cricket, John Howard
Politics a dirty game? Politics all about power? Consider the following quotes from Finance Minister Tanner, speaking with ABC TV on Wednesday: “I am comfortable with the Labor Party making majority decisions about its leadership. It’s a tough game. We all sign up to it knowing that sometimes things are not going to go quite as we hoped.”
“To pull out one particular example and say, ‘Oh isn’t this terrible’ … democracy is a contact sport, it always will be. The great thing is, it’s the alternative to violence for settling disputes.”
Spiro’s piece yesterday was headlined ‘Howard stabbed …’ I would suggest it was a case of Cricket Australia shooting itself in the foot.
Cricket Australia nominated the wrong man. Were they aware that as Deputy Opposition Leader in the mid 80s, he opposed sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa?
It is public record that Howard was at odds with Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser when Fraser refused a plane carrying Springboks to refuel in Australia. John Howard may have reinvented himself, but many in the Afro-Asian bloc remember him for what he was.
Australia’s engagement with India since the Menzies era in the 1950s has been one ranging from disinterest to calculated opportunism.
The following is an excerpt from a Foreign Affairs document relating to Kashmir: “In determining the line to follow [on Kashmir] the fundamental principle should be to cultivate Pakistan rather than India if we must make a choice.” (Mediansky 1971, p.61emphasis in original document)
The Cold War politics of the 1960s saw India aligned with Russia and Australia toeing the American line. Australia has consistently serenaded China and Japan, to the exclusion of India.
Another ‘hiccup’ in the Australia-India relationship also arose in the sphere of defence when in 1990 Australia sold 50 mothballed Mirage III jets to Pakistan during a period of heightened tension over Kashmir.
The emphasis shifted in the early 90s with India’s emergence as an economic power.
India has been too busy to worry about Australia in the last decade. But Australia’s reluctance to sell uranium to India has not won them many friends, especially as it has no reservations about selling it to China.
I only mention these so readers are aware this is not a simplistic black versus white debate.
Politics, trade, sport and economics are inextricably linked in this 21st Century. To think otherwise would be foolish.
The following is what I wrote in Inside Sport last November:
What is the style of management of this group of aged, extremely wealthy men at the helm of the BCCI? Ruthless is one word that comes to mind.
The BCCI has set about crushing its opposition, the Indian Cricket League (ICL) – a mainly Twenty20competition seen as a rebel league backed by a rival broadcast organisation.
For the last two years, the BCCI has cajoled and coaxed other boards, including Cricket Australia, to extend the restrictive trade practices to their constituents.
Shane Bond was ostracised from an already weak New Zealand team; South African players like Lance Klusener and Australians like Damien Martyn, Jason Gillespie and Michael Bevan were banned from associations with Australian cricket.
Gillespie was last year excluded from applying for a job at the Centre of Excellence in Brisbane.
Inderjit Singh Bindra ordered the removal of Kapil Dev’s portrait from the PCA Stadium pavilion in Mohali. Sri Lanka and the West Indies, both impoverished Boards, are effectively held to ransom by the BCCI.
Arjuna Ranatunga was removed from his executive post in Sri Lankan cricket because he called the IPL “instant noodles.”
Cricket Australia has been in Jack Clark’s words “in a close and good relationship with the BCCI.” I would say that for CA now to feign bewilderment is either naïve or disingenuous.
Peter Roebuck says that “CA may have overplayed their hand” and this is closer to the mark.
I have nothing but admiration for Roebuck’s continued rage against the Mugabe regime. Malcolm Speed is also justified in questioning the legitimacy of the Boards of Pakistan and Bangladesh.
However, this “power grab” by India is not an overnight development.
Cricket Australia and the ECB are not defenceless schoolboys. I would say they have stood by idly and not censured when they were justified in doing so.
This is unquestionably about power and very little about the race divide.
But to counteract that India’s power is evil or something just as sensational is to miss the point. It is history that the ICC, when Australia and England had veto power, was not exactly benevolent.
This is not any justification for India to “get square” for past grievances.
India is not immune to corruption and there is much that needs to be rectified. But to dismiss them as “third world” is to ignore one of the largest economies in the world. If Australia is so outraged then perhaps it should terminate all contact with India.
But I can assure you, that would not be contemplated. It is now about saving face.
Cricket Australia’s, and Australia’s in general, engagement with India has been on a superficial level. It has not understood the cultural and historical nuances of a country both complex and simple.
The current generation of Indians is not shackled by the “gentility” of their fathers. India is largely producing for local consumption and is less reliant on exports than China.
The French, the Italians, the Germans and Japanese have assiduously cultivated and for years strengthened their cultural and economic ties with India.
The East India Company may have robbed India of its riches but not its wealth.
Corruption and power were not invented by India. Berlusconi and Bush have enough shade of grey in their pinstripes to shame India.
This is a time for Australia to engage India in a long-term and meaningful manner. Indians generally are fully aware of the corruption in India and are not proud of it. The media in India are constantly running reports of rorts and complicity.
At least they admit it. And this is the first step in eradicating it.
This is not a time for “holier than thou” homilies. It is a time to work towards a just and lasting cricket peace, where all members are treated equally and fairly.
If India is being excessive, then tell the world about it.
India, to my mind, has been open to censure in the last two years. CA and the ECB have kept quiet. This amounts to tacit endorsement. No amount of moral or political outrage will wash with a public that is both cynical and astute.
A final memo to all cricket administrators: You are merely custodians and your brief is to leave the game better than you found it.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Cricket, ICC, Indian cricket, John Howard
July 2nd 2010 @ 11:44am
betty b said | July 2nd 2010 @ 11:44am | Report comment
I really don’t like to enter a discussion such as this, but I believe your article Vinay is somewhat unbalanced in its background setting. Sure, I won’t deny its truth but in presenting past prejudices you should at least mention past generosities. Howard’s government were (and Aus still is I believe) the world’s largest provider of aid (in $) to those hurt by the Asian tsunami. That is lagest total, not per head or otherwise, total, and they were also the quickest to respond. East Timor is another case where the Howard government responded without prejudice and with basic human rights as the core, and they managed the then tricky relationship with Indonesia to the enduring good of both countries. Cambodia is another example where Australia (with Howard as a senior minister) led the world in fighting for and establishing basic human rights.
If many in the Afro-Asian bloc remember Howard for what he was (as you claim), they surely have selective memories.
As to cricket administration, if India is funding the game they probably deserve to administer it. But they must do it fairly, without prejudice. They must enforce laws on their own team and crowds as they would on others. They must insist on their team behaving not just as well as, but better than, others, and their crowds likewise.
I’d rather be talking about cricketers than justifying Howard, but I believe at least he deserves balanced argument.
July 2nd 2010 @ 12:05pm
formeropenside said | July 2nd 2010 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
betty, I agree with the principle behind your last paragraph … but they don’t have to do it fairly, or without prejudice, or anything else. Holding the purse strings means you get to behave as you like. That’s not to say that it is how things should be in a perfect world…but that is how it is.
I’m surprised CA even had the balls to put Howard up, after the rollover in 2008 to the threat of India pulling out of a tour.
As a result, I’m not really interested in watching Test (or any form) of cricket involving India, myself, including the IPL. At least its an Ashes series this summer, so thats something to enjoy for the little while left that cricket remains fun to watch.
July 2nd 2010 @ 11:58am
Vinay Verma said | July 2nd 2010 @ 11:58am | Report comment
betty b this debate is not about the inherent goodness of Australians,and please remember I am one. I had a piece in the Adelaide Advertiser today where i argued the point that the snub to John Howard is not a snub to Australia. And I am not convinced it was John Howard the person responsible for Australia’s Aid. It was the will of the Australian people. I was at the benefit match at the SCg where the average punter emptied his wallet for the Tsunami Relief. I would say that irrespective of the PM at the time of the Cambodia or Timor situation Australia would have been generous.
On the subject of cricketers,Warne and Murali may not agree with each other but Warne was there with Murali in Sri Lanka when the Tsunami Relief was going on.
I do not believe Howard’s rejection is an insult to Australia. It is a rejection of of a candidate many think unsuitable. I am ambivalent towards Howard the person but I do not accept all his policies were good for Australia.
Finally on the BCCI..they have to demonstrate,in a meaningful way,they have the good of the game at heart. I agree with everything you say in your last para and I am confident that with men like Rahul Dravid, Anil Kumble and Tendulkar there is cause for optimism. If only the administrators had the same integrity.
July 2nd 2010 @ 1:13pm
Wylie said | July 2nd 2010 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
My impressions are that the BCCI is pretty much entirely driven by greed. We’ll end up with a 12 month cycle of 20/20 cricket and Tests will be increasingly marginalised. I can’t stand the sight of Howard – but at least he would have actually had the best interests of cricket in mind, rather than just maximising the profits of IPL franchises. But of course all we’ll hear from the Indian media is about how this decision represents a victory over ‘racist’ Australia.
July 2nd 2010 @ 1:46pm
Vinay Verma said | July 2nd 2010 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
Wylie,it always takes two to tango. Australian administrators have been “willing partners” in the BCCI’s “greed” Hell, they played seven meaningless ODI’s last October. They have a MOU to do this every year. Thankfully they will be playing Two Tests and only 3 ODI’s this October.
July 2nd 2010 @ 2:37pm
Wylie said | July 2nd 2010 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
Yeah fair point Vinay, although the way it is going the BCCI will be dancing solo before too long.
July 2nd 2010 @ 2:33pm
Objective said | July 2nd 2010 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
John Howard’s outrage appears to me to be the first evidence of what every former high-profile leader suffers from – relevancy deprivation symdrome. For 10 years, Howard was able to make decisions within his party without question . A largely impotent media and Federal opposition lacking any semblance of coherent leadership meant he was also able to conduct government business in a corrupt manner with absolute impunity (need I point out the examples – the farce of WMDs in Iraq, Children overboard affair, AWB scandal, the sickening disgrace that was the Tampa controversy). In a nutshell, Honest John obviously departed public life believing his own BS.
I neither praise nor criticise the Indian media and cricket authorities for their stance on his election to the ICC top job. Howard and Cricket Australia itself merely need to acknowledge that if they, as the peak body governing cricket in Australia, are prepared to nominate a man whose actions in the past have not endeared himself to large sections of the rest of the world then they must be prepared to accept that it will not be all smooth sailing. It amazes me how out of touch they must be with their counterpart governing bodies that they did not see it coming.
So Vinay, there is some truth to what you say. There absolutely are historical imperatives which have driven the Indian stance. CA’s “holier than thou” response merely indicates their limited understanding of vital cultural factors which define countries such as India, South Africa and Bangladesh. I have always said that cricket in Australia only represents the ignorant, archaic Australian attitudes of the 1950s (John Howard’s ideal decade). The Australian cricket team do not represent multicultural Australia and this affair clearly demonstrates that.
A point that needs to be made though, and one which I think has been lost in the rush of this controversy. Commentators within India branding Australia a racist country is fair enough. But it needs to be acknowleged that racism is merely the way of the world. Australia has racist elements, of course. But so does the whole world. If someone can point me towards any country with a reasonable ethnic mix that does not have racist elements then I will move their tomorrow. Racism is everywhere and, though they hate to admit it, very much alive and well in India.
July 2nd 2010 @ 3:31pm
betty b said | July 2nd 2010 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
‘The Australian cricket team do not represent multicultural Australia and this affair clearly demonstrates that’ you say.
I couldn’t agree that’s very objective Objective. This hasn’t got anything to do with the Aust cricket team – and let us hope that it never does. The Aust cricket team represents the best players list decided by the selectors – nothing to do with multi-culturalism. If we had to choose a team base on cultural representation and not playing ability then I don’t think we’d win much.
But that aside – and my apology for a cheap dig at your comments – I agree generally with your stance. My only point is that in all this branding of Howard (and don’t confuse me with a Howard supporter) I only ask that all his traits – bad and good – be presented, as any one of us would deserve if in the same position. It still seems to me that he is being rather selectively slammed when and especially, at the end of the day, there is much more to his rejection than his past persona.
If only we could just get on with the game.
July 2nd 2010 @ 7:24pm
Vinay Verma said | July 2nd 2010 @ 7:24pm | Report comment
A further point for discussion. There has been a comment that the ICC is financially incompetent. In fact the opposite is the case. They have lucrative tv deals and disburse quite a bit of money to Associate countries.
Another is that Howard would ask tough questions and the BCCI is somehow afraid of this. It is Zimbabwe that was investigated and found to be delinquent. The question is do Australians consider the outgoing President Morgan as not having done his job? Malcolm Conn’s piece in the Australian seems to suggest that all of Australia should be outraged and India is the big bad wolf? Outraged at what? What is this due process that picks Howard over John Anderson. And why should the ICC accept someone they want no part of.
And why should Howard’s rejection be an insult to Australia. It is a rebuff to CA for nominating John Howard.They picked the wrong man.Why did they have to go outside the Cricket fraternity? Is there no one else of merit in Australia?
People like Steve Waugh and Alan Border are heores and respected in India. Someone of their ilk would have been more than acceptable. I can think of many others. Like Ian Davis who was CEO of Slazengers and an International cricketer to boot. When Howard was first nominated there was criticism from the mainstream media. Now suddenly he is the Knight in Shining armour. Can’t have it both ways.
July 2nd 2010 @ 8:19pm
betty b said | July 2nd 2010 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
Chappell I. maybe, though not sure he is respected in India (let alone by CA).
But you make a good point Vinay – the ICC has more income than ever before, but then there are more games than before, and what about the outgoing president? We also don’t know what occurred in the final Aust/NZ meeting that selected Howard – was NZ overridden by numbers or did they agree to Howard?
I think the outrage, though I don’t detect much of it (most Australians seem to simply want to slam Howard) is more about their nomination not being automatically accepted as, apparently, all previous nominations have been.
NZ seems to be sticking with CA for the present, but my hope is that common sense will prevail and an alternate name will be submitted. Otherwise, there could be some unwanted dirty business ahead.
July 2nd 2010 @ 9:46pm
Vinay Verma said | July 2nd 2010 @ 9:46pm | Report comment
betty b, Ian Chappell is hugely respected in India but I dont think the ICC is his cup of tea. Betty i am not sure of this but I believe this automatic acceptance thing was only agreed in 2009 and I am not sure if this is part of their constitution. But I would expect that if a majority objected to anything it would not get carried.
It is quite absurd that Howard is refusing to withdraw. He is putting unnecessary pressure on CA and CNZ. I personally believe NZ was overridden by Australia but I have no basis for fact. It would be helpful if this veil of secrecy was lifted from these meetings..it just leads to speculation..
July 2nd 2010 @ 8:22pm
Kersi Meher-Homji said | July 2nd 2010 @ 8:22pm | Report comment
Vinay,
I dislike the word racist and racism. I would like to know a person before I’d label him as a racist. Racism is more rife in India and practically absent in Sydney by my own experience. I don’t know about other cities and country area.
India should learn from Australia as to how happy migrants are in Australia.
Howard (and Costello) Years brought us prosperity thanks to their wise and no-nonsense administration. [I am neither a Labour or Liberal supporter.] Howard was a strong leader.
He loves his cricket and knows its finer points. He has the courage to call a spade a spade.
How many Tests or first-class matches has Pawar played? Or the other past ICC Presidents? Howard would not resign like the weak Holding did when he did not get what he wanted.
Howard has faults but weakness is not one of them. He would fight till the end. We need someone like him.
I am a proud Indian but am ashamed of their administrators’ hypocricy. Imagine indirectly supporting Mugagbe!
July 3rd 2010 @ 7:17am
Vinay Verma said | July 3rd 2010 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Kersi,Howard was not acceptable to Australians in the last election so it is not as if he was universally acclaimed. In the opinion of many he divided the country. The satement that “Racism is more rife in India than Australia” that you make should be reconsidered especially in the light of the opposition Howard has in Australia and especially from the Aboriginal community. I am glad you have not faced racism but in your goodness you may not even be aware of it. There are many people of good intentions in Australia but there are still outdated and non-inclusive practices. This forum is primarily about perceptions of power and notions of “due process”
You talk of Indian administrators “indirectly” supporting Mugabe and yet Howard sought a meeting with Zimbabwe in an effort to get his nomination through. Zimbabwe is not India’s creation and India should not be in any way held responsible for what happens there.
Have you seen any Australian leader criticise the Chinese for their treatment of the Tibetans and ostracisation of the Dalai Lama? India has given refuge to this great man. So I find there is a hypocrisy in this stance. Criticse and sanction Zimbabwe because there is nothing to lose. But do not criticise China because it is our largest trading partner.
Sorry Kersi, I cannot accept your reasoning.
July 3rd 2010 @ 1:06am
Michael Simon said | July 3rd 2010 @ 1:06am | Report comment
Your arguments Vinay from the very outset are completely non-sequiturs. They do not follow whatsoever. I have never read an article so full of half truths, fallacies in composition and historical facts so loosely tied together that it beggars belief. With the reasoning and arguments provided by you here, you could surely sell the Sydney Harbour Bridge to a Japanese tourist. or teach my toddler that 2+2=7. A judge would throw your arguments out of any court based on irrelivencies and complete lack of any solid/admissable evidence whatsoever.
Before you ask me to spell out exactly what of your diatribe I disagree an with, please don’t. The whole piece was just one big meaningless and muddled rant. I found it to be, well..humouress. It can not be anything else. I could spend weeks tearing your piece and subsequent comments to shreds. You cherry pick facts to support the flimsiest case imaginable. Again, very funny, because it just can’t be taken as anything meaningful in the debate.
As far as the ICC, goes, what are their Natural Justice Procedures in Administrative Law. You can bet that Cricket Australia and NZ Cricket have them…and transparency. Where and what are the real reasons here for the rejection – will we ever see them? Surely JH should be allowed to appeal such a decision and have access to written reasons for the rejection.
This has got to be one of the most outrageous and darkest hours in the ICC’s history.
Time for England, Australia and NZ to bail on these bunch of losers.
July 3rd 2010 @ 1:19am
Michael Simon said | July 3rd 2010 @ 1:19am | Report comment
Your arguments Vinay from the very outset are completely non-sequiturs. They do not follow whatsoever. I have never read an article so full of half truths, fallacies in composition and historical facts so loosely tied together that it beggars belief. With the reasoning and arguments provided by you here, you could surely sell the Sydney Harbour Bridge to a Japanese tourist. or teach my toddler that 2+2=7. A judge would throw your arguments out of any court based on irrelevancies and complete lack of any solid/admissible evidence whatsoever.
Before you ask me to spell out exactly what of your diatribe I disagree with, please don’t. The whole piece was just one big meaningless and muddled rant. I found it to be, well, humorous. It can not be anything else. I could spend weeks tearing your piece and subsequent comments to shreds. You cherry pick facts to support the flimsiest case imaginable. Again, very funny, because it just can’t be taken as anything meaningful in the debate.
As far as the ICC, goes, what are their Natural Justice Procedures in Administrative Law. You can bet that Cricket Australia and NZ Cricket have them…and transparency and a rule of respectable law. Where and what are the real reasons here for the rejection – will we ever see them? Surely JH should be allowed to appeal such a decision and have access to written reasons for the rejection.
This has got to be one of the most outrageous and darkest hours in the ICC’s history.
Time for England, Australia and NZ to bail on these bunch of losers.
July 3rd 2010 @ 7:41am
Vinay Verma said | July 3rd 2010 @ 7:41am | Report comment
Michael Simon,I will give you the courtesy and reply to your comments and preface by saying you are entitled to your opinion. I am not seeking agreement from you.
Firstly, I am not on “trial” here and neither are you. You are hanging your shingle on Natural Justice Procedures and Transparency. You are of the opinion that Natural Justice has been denied to John Howard. There is an overwhelming majority of Aboriginal people who are of the opinion that Natural Justice was denied to them not only by Howard but by governments since Federation. Don’t take my word for it. You can contact Neil Gillespie the CEO of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement. The details are in the body of the comments above.
As far as the transparency of Cricket NZ and CA we have never been told of the reasons why John Howard was chosen over John Anderson. Transparecy is trotted out when it is convenient. A few years ago when CA was pushing for a Test Championship a meeting was held on the Gold Coast with BCCI representatives and subsequently there was no great push for this Test Championship. Cricket Boards like CA and NZ are certainly more transparent than the BCCI but it is selective transparency.I can only speculate because these meetings are not made public.
Mainstream papers like the Australian have been harping about “rigorous procedures” in selecting John Howard. I believe it was rigorous arm-twisting. And of course you would expect Anzac partners to show solidarity. Following the same logic it is not unreasonable to expect that the Asian Bloc would show the same solidarity
I have mentioned in a reply to another comment that there is a hypocrisy in Australia’s treatment of Zimbabwe and China. I do not make this point to excuse anything in Zimbabwe because Mugabe is in the same league as Idi Amin. I make the point that Australia has nothing material to lose in criticising Mugabe. But when it comes to China and their treatment of dissent and the continued bad mouthing of the Dalai Lama Australia has been loath to criticise their largest export market. What sort of diplomacy is this?
Somehow I doubt that England,Australia and NZ will “bail out” any time soon.