“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.
Veritas
Guest
Vinay Howard's treatment of asylum seekers was shameful but his government was the only one in recent times to really address the wellbeing of Aboriginal children in a meaningful way. The "intervention" was a long way overdue. Perhaps India could address the staggering inequality and caste system that cripples most of its population?
Veritas
Guest
What a strange article and muddied stream of thought. What on Earth does any of this have to do with cricket in the modern era? Get the chip off your shoulder!
zhenry
Guest
I don't enter into cricket disputes usually but hypocrisy is rampant here. Just about every comment here is overflowing and dripping with politics. There is general agreement here that the bodies in question are highly political. I don’t accept for one moment that Howard was the administrator from heaven but even if he was you don't administer in a vacuum. The so called flourishing Australia that Howard presided over? To the contrary things got worse for most people except, no doubt, for people commenting here. Howard clearly made public statements that were racist and most conservatives (not all) would have been very happy with his attitude and his convenient racist framing of Aboriginal Society. All documented. I disagree with previous Vinay racist comments about New Zealand AB supporters camping on his front lawn but as far as this issue goes I think he has the measure of it. The vote has been cast on Howard! What Oh! I join your political ruckus; lets all shed a tear for the lying rodent!!!
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Hi Mark, the comparison of the leaders was to highlight the longevity of their tenures and not a commentary on their ethics. Something has to give and perhaps we do see a clean-up. best vinay
Mark
Guest
Vinay, You make some good points. However, lumping Howard in with Castro of Socialist Cuba and Mass murdering Mao of communist China, does not lend very much weight to any argument, let alone anything to do with cricket. I too would love to see a large broom taken to the ICC. Let us hope we see it in our lifetimes. I look forward to your next article. Kind regards Mark
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Mark, I think the reasons why John Howard lost his seat and the last election are important but that opens a whole can of worms irrelevant to our debate but some of these reasons are the same reasons for his rejection now. Bush served America for many years, Mao served china for many years and Castro many years in Cuba..these were generally loved at home and reviled outside. Granted Howard served Australia for a long time. He has his detractors at home too. As far as skills go and cleaning up the ICC, firstly let me state that the ICC needs a broom and Chingoka, Butt(so aptly named)the faceless Sri Lankan and Pawar are not exactly or universally loved even at home.Pawar himself is the subject of speculation and innuendo in a range of issues. All unproven but there is grey there. And when you are a powerful minister it is hard to prove. Yet,Morgan worked with this man for 2 years and I have no doubt that Morgan was above board. I am convinced Howard would not have been able to change anything in the ICC. In fact it would have achieved nothing because the incumbents would simply shut him out. The way forward has to have dialogue and I have another piece today which I hope can lead to concrete suggestions for a way forward. Because I do not wish to see cricket dragged through this mud.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Tom, I will grant you that the ICC in its various avatars, has not been a paragon of virtue. And the point about the Trade is that Australia could have had a more meaningful relation with India if they had engaged deeper. India,too, has not sent a PM here till 1986. These two countries have a lot more in common than say China or Indonesia. They also share a common ocean. I would have thought they could do more with each other. Tom, in the end talking something through leaves less scars then throwing grenades.It was good to engage with you even though we disagree on many fronts.
Mark
Guest
With all due respect Vinay, at no point in my comment did I argue that the members of the ICC MUST accept John Howard. My point was that they should have legitimate reasons to reject a candidate, not a bunch of specious, illegitimate reasons sown together. The fact that Australians voted him out of power should not factor into anything Vinay. You seem to forget that he was the second longest serving Prime Minister that this country has known. Why do you think that is? It was not for no reason - it has been widely acknowledged that the skills he would bring to the job would be extraordinary. Probably better that any present serving member on the ICC.
betty b
Guest
the girls in my indoor team blame it on Julia. Not sure of their logic but think it shows the widespread lack of interest out there.
The Way It Is
Guest
Agree totally Howard should live out his life in complete retirement. Go away Howard
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Mark,you are trying to argue that 7 Members who are all Afro-Asian MUST accept John Howard when I dare say the majority of Australians would not ? And then for 4 years to HAVE to put up with him. I would think not. His was a poor choice..Are there no other candidates? This was a provocative nominee and it has divided the game like never before. And the fault for this lies with CA. The reality is that no amount of outrage,genuine or feigned,changes the power equation and it would be dangerous to argue precedence in this case. The ICC has a long history of not delivering what you call natural justice. It is now about saving face. The rules of engagement have changed with the shift in power. This may take some getting used to.
Mark
Guest
On your line of thinking Vinay, let us bar every Australian that has been part of an Australian government or opposition since federation because they have not delivered everything on the wish list of every aboriginal group or pro-sanction apartheid group. Its extremely naive to hold the line that any nominee (former politician or administrator) should be held, hypocritically might I add, to the standard of Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi, Mother Theresa etc The fact a few very powerful cricket countries do not like a candidate should never be enough to justify a blackballing. There has to be legitimate and acceptable reasons. Having a go at Mugabe or not delivering to the aborigines or not wanting to sanction South Africa 40 years ago or calling Murali a chucker is truly grasping at straws and should be condemned if that is the best these boards can come up with. It lessens them and their stature to throw these sorts of stones from their very fragile glass house. If the supporting nations for the nominee, Mr Howard, can not glean answers via due process and natural justice rules as the above poster suggests, there must be an open, independent and transparent investigation into this serious prejudicial breach of a purported professional organisation such as the ICC.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
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.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
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.
Michael Simon
Guest
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.
Michael Simon
Guest
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.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
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..
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
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!
betty b
Guest
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.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
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.