KEY POINTS:
Possibly the hardest task for a powerful entity is to respect and cater for the interests of those who lack its might. Disproportionate strength provides the status and the muscle to ride roughshod over the views of others. Equally, that entity may be disinclined to cede any of that might by acting in other than its own interests. Any other course could, after all, be perceived as a weakness.
President George W. Bush's tenure in the White House has been blighted by his failure to see past the United States. Clashes with the international community have been an inevitable and regular consequence. Now, in the sporting arena, the Board of Control for Cricket in India finds itself in similar territory.
India is the new power broker of world cricket thanks to the fact that it generates, largely through its television rights industry, about 70 per cent of the game's income. Previously, it has shown a growing appreciation of its new muscle when issues such as the International Cricket Council's tours programme and the hosting of the World Cup cropped up. But this week the gloves really came off. In the wake of the spiteful second test between Australia and India in Sydney, the Indian board quickly secured the sacking of senior West Indian umpire Steve Bucknor from the third test and had Harbhajan Singh's three-test ban for calling Australian player Andrew Symonds a monkey deferred while an appeal was mounted.
The game's international governors have been keen to portray this kowtowing to the Indians as a pragmatic response to a particularly tense circumstance. It was nothing of the sort. They have set aside their own rules, creating an unfortunate precedent in the process. India must think that it can get rid of any umpire who does not deliver verdicts to its liking - and that outrageous breaches of normal practice can be achieved at its whim.
The ICC has also placed New Zealand High Court judge Justice John Hansen, who will hear Harbhajan's appeal, in an invidious position. India has already come close to abandoning the tour of Australia. If he upholds the ruling against the spinner, India's state of mind makes some sort of reprisal probable. The expression of that displeasure will not have cricket's best interests as its dominant concern. If, however, Justice Hansen finds in favour of Harbhajan, it will make future action against crude sledging far more difficult. It will, in fact, encourage the assertiveness of players such as Harbhajan, whose deteriorating behaviour offers an insight into the flipside of Indian cricket's escalating financial clout.
The Australian players are not, of course, lily-white. Some would say the Indian players have been meeting fire with fire. It is, however, their board of control that has escalated the matter in the most unseemly manner. It has forced the ICC into action that would surely not be contemplateed for any other cricket-playing nation. Those countries can take only a gloomy view of this display of might, and the failure of the game's governors to discover how much was bluff.
India has created an effective divide between itself and the rest of the cricketing world. It now faces a critical choice. It can carry on down the same road, flaunting its power and earning the enmity of its rivals. In the process, it is likely to undermine the credibility of the game.
Alternatively, India could take heed of the wider interests of cricket, acknowledge that its power should be used wisely for the benefit of all, and pull back. The latter course could be the more onerous, but it is the one that will earn international respect. This being cricket, it is also the one that puts fair play above all else.
