Vada Pav Gleanings

Let me get straight to the point. Does he divide world cricket? Yes and no. I’ll get to the rationale in a bit, with a few explanations and interpretations of the whole John Howard aka the “little desiccated coconut ” (Paul Keating referring to Howard in 2007) saga. Firstly, Australia must stand up and admit to nominating someone whose name draws reactions in Australia not too different from what Diego Maradona’s does in England. Again, there are reasons, pretty valid and logical that most right-minded (not right-wing) Australians hate John Howard. So, the first blunder. Secondly, was John Howard’s candidature worth fighting tooth and nail for? I don’t think so. Australia, who previously got Malcolm Gray to head the ICC should have handed over the candidature to Sir John Anderson, a leading businessman in New Zealand and most importantly, someone with previous cricket administrating experience. That said, New Zealand was party to an agreement, and pretty much went with what Australia had in mind. 

Now, as we know from the events of the past two days, we still don’t have a valid explanation from those member nations, 6 or 7, as conflicting reports suggest, about why they snubbed Howard. The common diplomatese among this so-called Afro-Asian clique was that “John Howard didn’t have previous administrative experience.” Again – a valid point. But, as we know, John Howard has a past he cannot deny, and at some point of time, as the theory of Karma suggests – your past comes back to haunt you. It did in this case. If you wonder why South Africa voted against Howard’s candidature, here it is.

“Even before Howard got into trouble over his Asian immigration remarks of 1988 and beyond, there was South Africa.

In 1985, as deputy leader of the opposition Howard was fighting the softies in the Liberal Party who wanted to support economic sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa. Ian Macphee was the opposition’s foreign affairs spokesman at the time and he gave an interview to The Age published on July 30, 1985 which left the way open for the opposition to support economic sanctions. Howard fought the move, declaring: “Sanctions will inevitably hurt the poor blacks in South Africa more than any other section of the South African population.”

They would also hurt the large corporate interests that Howard has made a life long habit of enthusiastically stroking.”

And of course, that not-so-occasional foot-in-mouthitis, that most Australians had gotten used to over his three previous terms as Prime Minister. While, the other two of Australia’s staunchest cricketing allies, New Zealand and England might support Howard for his anti-Zimbabwe remarks in 2003, which perhaps struck the first hammer punch to his presidency, what came through all of this, was that Howard was a man with zilch credibility, given his last-ditch trip to Zimbabwe (a country *still* ruled by his one-time hate-figure Robert Mugabe) to secure a vote which never came. No apology to Zimbabweans, but pretty much the carrot of speedboating their return to Test cricket. Done, again. Next, the Sri Lankans. If the man thought he could call (excellent piece by Cricinfo’s Christian Ryan) perhaps one of the greatest cricketers of this generation, Muttiah Muralitharan a “chucker” and get away with it, sorry Johnny. That seemingly casual statement in a press conference before a series in 2004, stung him hard. Plus, the tolerance or rather inaction over racist taunts and antics by the larger Aussie cricket crowd whenever the Lankans were in the country. Pat, goes another vote. And if Johnny thought he could get Pakistan and Bangladesh to vote for him, with his deep association with anything George Bush – sorry, two more votes gone. And then, the elephant in the house, India – who I think had their sub-plot of their own to boot, went against the resolution. Of course, all hell breaks loose. Race comes in as a major factor, so much so that an Indian news channel called Australia, England and NZ, the “White lobby.” Anyway, the case for John Howard was weak and Australia should have thought better. BUT…

…here comes the riddle and pretty much where this piece by Gideon Haigh becomes increasingly relevant. Haigh makes a compelling case for Howard, essentially saying that every cricket board in the member nations is headed by clowns, and one more doesn’t and shouldn’t matter. Which in a way is true, like it or not. You have a Union Minister for Agriculture, Sharad Pawar now leading the ICC, when his full-time job, as Malcolm Speed bluntly put it was “to feed the people”. In other Asian countries, you have examples of strong political interference in the running of the game – where the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the respective nations – manage the cricket boards through proxies and cronies of their own.

So, in the same vein, we should have asked the same questions of a man like Sharad Pawar – who at his best is a disappointing minister in the Government of India and at his worst, a politician who doesn’t mind playing dirty – when he was nominated for the top job. Instead, we chose to pompously celebrate the fact that he got the subcontinent a World Cup, wresting it away from Australia/NZ – perhaps with an intent of leaving his last impression on the game – a final at Mumbai, an association he still presides over. Did we examine him close enough? No. The shift in the balance of power et al, is a different argument altogether. India, as the focal point of the game deserves every right to call the shots. It’s earned the power to do so. But question to ask here, is it doing in the best interests of the game? Not. The other argument regarding Howard, which I am unsure about is that he could have exposed the malaise within the ICC, indirectly reads as the clout of the sub-continental bloc. Possible, equally not possible – given the willingness of the very board that nominated him to bow down before India.

What this game needs is a figure, predominantly a leader who is just more than a fan of cricket, as Howard would have come through as, or like Sharad Pawar, who’s in it to make it. Cricket is battling an identity crisis, for sure. And not so much because of the Indian/Asian bloc. Because cricket has chosen to dig it’s own small holes, which have drilled themselves into deeper ones. Which is precisely why the game needs a figure who brings in an impeccable resume of credibility, strong leadership and of course in typical terms, a visionary – someone who dares to think beyond. Unfortunately, as the events of the past two days have shown, it has none.

Also read: Harsha Bhogle’s piece in Cricinfo about how India can lead governance in world cricket. Doubt if that’d happen. We like playing the bully, but not the leader, unfortunately.