International

When a single Hair got Pakistan in a bind
European Notebook by Neville de Silva

No excuse is offered for this column writing about cricket. Nor is one needed.
Admittedly, Europe is not a cricket playing continent unlike Asia and even Africa. In Europe, England plays cricket and probably invented the game though some might claim it derives from another sport first played elsewhere. It is certainly played in Scotland and Ireland.

In continental Europe, the Dutch play the game and so too, in a way, do the Danes. Others are too busy with football to have time for a more leisurely sport like a five-day test match.

Still Europe has millions of avid followers of the game, particularly those from South Asia, the Caribbean and Africa who have settled down in Europe making it their home.

Here in the UK, home to many from cricket playing nations, the interest in the game is undeniable. Especially so when visiting teams from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies and Bangladesh play here and many of those who were originally from those countries still feel the tug of nationalism and cheer their respective land of their birth or cultural affinity.

This is what makes the present controversy over alleged ball tampering by the Pakistan team and its refusal initially to take the field after the tea break give the issue that extra dimension and turns this into more than just a history-making event.

This is not just an unfortunate occasion where some 25,000 spectators at the Oval and millions watching or listening to the game on TV and radio were denied what might have been an exciting finish or that cricket administrators here could lose financially.

What it amounts to is a mishmash of patriotism, pride, racism, crime and punishment, intransigence, hurt and anger. Add to that pent-up feelings of religious and racial discrimination and one is left with a dangerously explosive mix that could damage much more than the game of cricket.

At the centre of all this is that man many cricket lovers around the world love to hate --Australian umpire Darrell Hair. His 14-years as an umpire have been dogged by controversy. There are those who say he is a stickler for the rules of the game and that he is a stern disciplinarian.

The flip side of the coin is that he is seen as a racist, one who discriminates against non-white teams especially those from Asia, and that it is not so much that he lives by the rules but that he courts controversy and the resultant publicity that thrusts him onto centrestage.

It is not surprising that he has been painted over several times with the brush of racism for over the years he has done some hair-raising acts that even some cricket writers believe have warranted such epithets.

Most Sri Lankan lovers of the game will remember the 1995 test match between Sri Lanka and Australia at Melbourne when Darrell Hair no-balled Muttiah Muralitharan seven times in three overs for what Hair called an illegal action.

This continuous harassment of Muralitharan led the then Sri Lanka captain Arjuna Ranatunge to take his team off the field in protest. Curiously enough when Sri Lanka was eventually persuaded to continue the game Muralitharan bowled from the other end where umpire Steven Dunne stood and was not once no-balled by the New Zealander.

Writing in last Wednesday's London Times, Martin Samuel, introduced as the Sports Writer of the Year, tries to justify Hair's no-balling of Muralitharan. Samuel says that Hair was called a "hothead" and "trouble maker" by some "except that the laws of cricket were subsequently changed to make Muralitharan's action legal."

That of course is rubbish. The rules were not changed specifically for Murali's benefit but for spin bowlers in general because the existing law gave fast bowlers an advantage of several percentage points over spinners. Moreover almost every bowler seems to break the rule to some degree. Australians Glen McGrath and Brett Lee are said to do so when they bowl a fast off break.

What the great Martin Samuel conveniently ignores is that in no-balling Murali, Hair had himself violated the rules at the time. It seems to escape Samuel, the sports writer of the year (it must have been a bad year for sports writers) that Hair was head umpire when he called Murali. How on earth the umpire at the bowler's end could detect an illegal action is not explained. More importantly, as Steve Dunne himself was to point out later, the then rules were that any suspect action had to be reported to the match referee and should not be called immediately.

It was then for the match referee to invoke further action such as filming the bowler's action. It was for the ICC to then decide on the legitimacy of the action. If as Hair's defenders say he was an umpire who adhered to the letter of the law and would not tolerate deviation, how is that he ignored the rules on this particular occasion? Not just once but seven times.

This incident has come at a time when the Muslim world feels aggrieved not merely by what they perceive as the foreign policy bias of powerful western nations that target Muslim countries but also by the deep suspicions that western security agencies and even sections of the public harbour against them.

This perception of bias and suspicion is seen in public life. But this could well spread to the field of sport if the Pakistani captain Inzamam-ul-Haq is found guilty of one or both of the allegations levelled against him.

I was watching the match on TV. Those who know about present TV coverage know that at least 26 cameras cover the entire grounds. Modern technology such as stump microphones and snick-o-meters help commentators and even spectators to view the game better through replays.

Today's players know this and it would indeed be a brash player who tries to fiddle with the ball knowing all too well that he could be caught on camera.
That afternoon we saw nothing untoward until the cameras suddenly focused on the umpires and their examination of the ball. Sky TV does not appear to have any footage of any hanky-panky and does not appear to back Hair's allegations.

If that is so Darrell Hair and his partner who instituted this action would have to have incontrovertible proof that the ball had been tampered with by one or more Pakistani players. Mere suspicion or pretence of suspicion will certainly not suffice.

Given the current atmosphere that has soured relations and could get worse, claims of suspicion will not be enough to assuage the feelings of those who believe that they are the victims of racist/religious prejudice.

If like Caesar's wife the ICC itself is to be above suspicion of bias it would have to make available the ball for inspection at the forthcoming inquiry and any forensic tests demanded should be permitted. Cricket authorities who have come in for much criticism by cricket writers here can no longer prevaricate or procrastinate.

If Hair did not see any player tampering with the ball but had genuine suspicions then the diplomatic, and indeed the commonsense, approach would have been to have had a word before hand with Inzamam about his suspicions ahead of any disciplinary action.

But instead Hair adopted the imperious attitude he is accustomed to, the I-know-it-all approach of a primary schoolmaster. Now that he has led cricket into a labyrinth of racial and religious prejudice it is much more than the game that would be affected. That is a dangerous divide, one that we could do without.

If the previous fissures now made wider by this abrasive Australian's highhanded and arbitrary conduct are to be repaired then cricket's governing authorities must put this unruly Hair in a place where he cannot do more damage.

A disappointing judgement and challenge to democracy
By Kuldip Nayar

It is a disappointing judgement, although the Supreme Court has taken five months to finalise it. Probably, the word 'perverse' is more apt because the five-judge bench has opposed what is wanted, reasonable or required.

True, the court has upheld the parliament law which has done away with the residential qualification for a member of the Rajya Sabha (the upper house) and which has introduced open ballot in place of secrecy in voting. But in the process, the court has changed the very complexion of the Rajya Sabha.

The house does not have to have members who ordinarily reside in particular states. The Rajya Sabha is no more the Council of States but the council of freelancers, from anywhere with little link with the state returning them through its assembly.

The constitution framers were particular about the link, a meaningful tie. Former President R. Venkataraman, who was a member of the constituent assembly, recalled that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who piloted the constitution, clarified that a candidate to the council of states should be the resident of the state concerned but a candidate to the House of People need to reside only in any parliamentary constituency.

The Supreme Court sees no merit in the elected member to be from the state "because the electorate that is electing him is required by law to do so." It is a strange argument to justify the election of an outsider. The point at issue is not who can be elected but who can represent the state. Obviously, a person who normally lives in the state should be preferred to a freelancer. The first is familiar with the state's culture, problems and its aspirations. The second has an address in the state and may not know even its language.

Take the case of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The two states have a running dispute over water. Will a person who is a resident of Karnataka represent the state's interest better or the one who belongs to Tamil Nadu but has been sent by Karnataka to the Rajya Sabha?

That is the reason why the National Commission appointed to review the working of the constitution recommended "that in order to maintain basic federal character of the Rajya Sabha, the domiciliary requirement for eligibility to contest elections to the Rajya Sabha from the states concerned is essential." The commission was sitting when the bill to change the residential qualification was initiated in parliament.

The Supreme Court's argument that federation is not territory-related takes the cake. A federation is a formation of a political unity out of a number of separate states or districts which retains control of its own internal affairs.
The key words are: separate states controlling their own internal interests. The entire justification of a state goes if it does not have to its own people, sons of the soil, their own ethos. How do freelancers constitute a state?

Agreed that "the residence is neither a constitutional factor nor a constitutional requirement," but who embodies the state, definitely not those who are not even ordinary residents?

The Supreme Court feels satisfied as long as the representatives to the council of states are "citizens of the country." If there is no residential qualification, logically all the 250 Rajya Saha members, excluding the 12 nominated ones, cannot only be from one state but from one city. Surely, the Supreme Court would not want that. There is no option to the domicile requirement.

The Supreme Court's new title of "revising house" for the Rajya Sabha brings down its status and stature. The Rajya Sabha is an independent house, with its own duties and obligations. Its role is not secondary to that of the Lok Sabha. All bills, except the one relating to money, can be introduced in the Rajya Sabha. In that case, the Lok Sabha becomes a revising house. In matters concerning the state, the Rajya Sabha comes first. All questions relating to the central services and the like are initiated in the Rajya Sabha. It is second to none.

I express my inability to make out what the Supreme Court means when it says that right to elect "is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right, but pure and simple, a statutory right and not a constitutional right." At the same time, the court says that right to elect is fundamental to democracy.

I find the two contentions contradictory. How does a country stay democratic if right to elect is not something basic or fundamental? That right differentiates democracy from dictatorship. It cannot be anything else except fundamental if the society is to function freely.

The Supreme Court is the weakest in its argument when it defends open ballot in place of the right of secrecy of voters. It says that "the right to vote in secrecy is not correct since the constitution has itself provided for elections by secret ballot where it thought it fit to do so…"

In a democratic structure, the constitution does not have to spell out where the ballot will be secret. It is understood that the voting to the elected positions will be secret. Open ballot offends the conduct of free and fair election, a basic feature of democracy. Even the constitution provides under Article 19(1) (a) the freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court has depended on the argument that political parties find it difficult to stop corruption in secret ballot. The open ballot will change the mode. Money will go to the leader, not to a member. How the open ballot is more transparent when a political boss has ordered who will vote for whom? But then the court is more concerned with the discipline within a political party than the norms of a free and fair voting. The Supreme Court's plea for open ballot system has made a mockery of guarantees given in all the international covenants that the voting will be through secret ballot.

It is sad that the Supreme Court judgement has opened the doors to the Rajya Sabha to money bags, the mafia or the unwanted. The house will be a hunting ground for those who have clout or deep pockets. Political bosses are now free to bring their favourites from any nook and corner of India.

The constitution had laid down that only 12 members will be nominated to the Rajya Sabha. Now the whole house will be nominated by political masters. True, the Supreme Court has dismissed my petition but my point has many takers. My view is a challenge to the intelligentsia and future generations which, I believe, will correct the error which the court has committed. The Supreme Court is final but not fallible.