It is unclear how much power Mr. Sonn wielded as President, since the organization is generally run by Mr. Malcolm Speed, the CEO of ICC. One might wonder, in such modern times, how an organization entrusted to safeguard world cricket and given a monopoly to set the rules by which all the cricket playing nations in the world participate, can have an appointed CEO as opposed to being elected. But that is a different topic altogether.

The topic at hand is Andrew Miller's article eulogizing Percy Sonn. Cricinfo is a site I usually visit to get my daily fix of cricket news (the only sport I follow with any regularity) and I come across this article by Miller, who is the UK editor of cricinfo. The article, titled Worse to follow, is a hatchet job, not of Percy Sonn, but of the Asian Cricket playing nations in general and Indian cricket in particular. I have come across many such hatchet jobs in the past -- Andrew Miller is an expert practitioner of this craft, Martin Williamson is another, albeit not as prolific. Lest we be comforted by the fact that there are reporters of Indian origin in the company (including Anand Vasu, Dileep Premachandran and Sambit Bal) and that they can provide a couterpoint to Miller's and Williamson's blatant bias, we will be disappointed. These reporters, Indian origin or not, know how to tow the company line.

I have posted many comments on their website in the past only to be treated with rudeness and hostility. Be that as it may, my latest beef is about the article on Percy Sonn. Never mind that up until Sonn's death, he was caricatured, ridiculed and blamed for almost everything that was wrong with the ICC (and believe me there is plenty wrong with the ICC), but after his death Miller turns him into a lover of cricket, a good backroom negotiator, very forthright in his opinion and someone who commanded great respect from the people he worked with. Whether this is really true of Sonn or not, I have no way of knowing. But what is clear is that Miller's article is a whitewash. Miller may do all the washing he wants but if the ICC is rotten, a whitewashing will not help much.

That the ICC is rotten is not a hard case to make. Even Cricinfo in all its collosal lack of wisdom says so. In fact, Miller has written several articles to this effect in the past.

Aside from bemoaning the loss of Sonn, Miller now predicts that things are going to get worse at the ICC. According to Miller the problem has to do with the possibility of Sharad Pawar becoming the next President of ICC, and the corollary that the "Asian Bloc" will take over control of the ICC.

To digress for a minute, Asian Bloc is a term I hate. We don't call the bloc formed by England, Australia and New Zealand the "White Bloc" or the "European Derivatives Bloc." Miller has a term for them, "the establishment" - a nice wholesome, feed-it-to-your-kids kind of term. Whereas Asian Bloc implies some sort of conspiratorial organization, synonymous with the Mafia, which can only be talked about in adult circles with a look of concern and consternation on one's face.

Miller goes on with his usual fare - obfuscation, equivocation and outright baseless charges against India. All of a sudden, he is concerned that the ICC will start making decisions based on financial considerations instead of ones based on the good of cricket. As if this is something new and peculiarly Asian/Indian.

The implication is obvious: all this time,we have been treated to exemplary adminstration but once Pawar comes into the forray, things will change forever. The same administration headed by Malcolm Speed (a cynical, legalistic, bean-counting hypocrite to characterize him mildly) and Sonn were the ones most responsible for the WC07 debacle (a term used by observers in the non-Asian bloc countries no less). Oh, and there were other debacles under these gentlemen's watch - let's count them: Woolmer's murder, Zimbabwe cricket's disaster, Australian boycott of Zimbabwe tour, player burnout, a rogue umpire pardoned with impunity, an arrogant captain (Ponting) left unscathed after shoving the BCCI chief, unsanctioned equipment used by Gilchrist, persistent and unwarranted scrutiny of Asian players' bowling actions, racial harrasment of non-White players in Australia, and so on and on.

But here, Miller sees no evil and hears no evil. All is forgiven with the passing of Sonn - but only to the extent of the "White Bloc". This forgiveness and generosity does not extend to the "Asian bloc". He barely stresses the fact that Pawar or for that matter any other Asian was in no way responsible for WC07 debacle. This is simply another opportunity for him to take pot shots at Asian countries, specifically India and Pawar. For example, according to Miller it was India's early exit from WC07 that conveniently distanced it from the tournament's failures. What does this mean? Do we then blame Australia for the WC07's failure since they won the cup? If so, Miller doesn't say and if not Miller doesn't specify whom to blame.

Miller does gratuitously mention that financial considerations have been playing a role in ICC's decision making process but a reality check will be forced upon the game which presumably will clean it up and all will be better. Where will this reality check come from? Miller doesn't specify. Apparently one of the issues confronting world cricket is the fact that $1.1 billion that is slated from ESPN Star Sports may not be coming since ESPN has been required to share its broadcasting with Doordarshan. Regardless of the merits or demerits of this issue, wouldn't an Indian at the helm of ICC be better able to deal with this issue particularly given that Speed (and Sonn) have done such a poor job of it? Miller doesn't think so or at least doesn't say so.

The second issue that Miller raises has to do with player dissatisfaction with ICC scheduling too many events - particularly too many farcical events. Miller quotes Richard Bevan the CEO of the English players' body who merely reiterates the age-old complaint of countries voting based on financial considerations. Again, no names are specified leaving the reader to wonder who these countries are and what their agendas are. But the implication is clear: Asian countries don't love cricket - they are motivated by financial considerations whereas English, Aussie and Kiwi (and we can throw in the Proteas and West Indies for good measure since they often side with the "establishment") all love cricket and their actions are noble and beyond reproach. Such cockamamie may boost the egos of the parties involved but can only go so far.

To say that financial considerations should play no part in any decision is ludicrous. Does Miller or Bevan work for free? What is this, some sort of Communist dictatorship? Does Speed not get paid? I don't know how much Speed makes but a figure close to half a million dollars comes to mind. It is well known that over 70% of the money in world cricket comes from India. Would this not indicate a country that loves its cricket? How does one measure love of the game? May be roses and diamonds work when one is trying to woo a member of the opposite sex but would not the fact that I am willing to pay to watch a game indicate that I like the sport?

Miller ends the article by stating that people may have criticized Sonn but now that he is gone, the ICC will have to choose someone else and that the alternative is even less palatable. He thinks Pawar's election to the Presidency is very feasible - all it needs is an African country to vote for Pawar. I am not well versed with the politics of world cricket but reading between the Miller's lines, it is clear that a lot of people in the establishment will be unhappy about this. The motivations for apprehension among Miller, his cohorts and the establishment is unclear. What is clear is this: more than 70% of the revenue comes from India.

Until the Ashes of 2006, cricket in England was losing popularity. It is a well accepted fact in Australia that the subcontinent is the place to be if you want to make money (particularly after retirement). All these are further indications that Asians take their cricket seriously and are willing to put their money where their mouth is. But Miller's mouth (and pen) moves automatically, out of some idealistic pursuit called love of cricket, which ironically, he fails to define. Change is inevitable in every field of human endevour. The horse-and-buggy manufacturer gave way to the automobile manufacturer and so on. Industry, commerce and institutions change and yes even cricket changes. People need to adapt to change regardless of the apprehension and tentativeness it may entail.

One can never be sure what motivates Miller and his cohorts, or what agenda Cricinfo is trying to muster, but if one were to analyze for a minute, one may conclude that all this must derive from a deap seated fear or insecurity - a fear that the brown man may be calling some of the shots. What other conclusion is possible given that there is a consistent attack against anything Asian or Indian, from Miller's pen when it comes to the ICC or cricketing policies? Someone should enlighten Miller that when (and if) Pawar becomes the President, he will still have a job raking muck at Pawar and his beloved "Asian bloc" and at least he may then have some justification to do so.

For the record and to be perfectly clear, I know little about Pawar. Whether Pawar will make a good ICC President or not is hard to tell. From what I have seen of Indian cricket since his rise to the helm as BCCI President, I would say he has been a disaster (as has Malcolm Speed). But that is besides the point. To say that the next President should be chosen based on his qualifications is stating the obvious but for him to be disqualified because he is Indian/Asian is downright racist.

And such cynicism should not be excused - after all a man has just died and this is supposed to be an eulogy - for what it's worth.

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

• Digg
• Delicious
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Stumbleupon