Any doubt that the Indian squad will leave the field and pack up for travel back to its country if any stray stone or battle-throwing incident takes place anywhere in Pakistan has been removed by a clear-cut statement by the President of the Indian cricket board while talking to newsmen in New Delhi. The crowd-trouble clause was inserted in the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by the boards on the ice-breaking tour, just a week ago.
Cricket observers were surprised how the Pakistani board signed the above part of the accord when all sorts of assurances were given to the Indian government authorities and cricket officials on the security concerns of the players.
The Indian board, besides pointing out the content and significance of the above clause, in their communication to the PCB, had also stressed that it would neither pay any compensation to the Pakistani establishment nor would go to the ICC Disputes Resolutions Committee. At any sign of an untoward incident on the field or pavilion it would rather abandon the tour instead of going round the cities, risking the lives of their cricketers.
The cricket fans in this country were really concerned over the stiff attitude of the Indian cricket board and the timid stance of their own organisation which had been agreeing to every demand that came from the neighbouring South Asian State. Master security plans have been chalked out, both the interior and external affairs ministries are making promises for iron-cost safeguards for the visiting team and its officials and yet at a time when the atmosphere appears propitious the Indians are wanting more and more and even they are giving unnecessary warnings for reasons better known to the PCB and the BCCI.
The boards were supposed to deal with matters regarding the tour with a rational and clear mind.
The very next day after the Indian note was received Shaharyar Khan tried to pacify the feelings of the cricket followers by saying that one stone won't call off the agreed tour and both the boards would go into the seriousness of the incident. Crowd reaction was common in cricket and the trip, with a full itinerary, won't be cancelled unilaterally, he said, explaining that it was a qualitative series having political implications and repercussions at the highest level of the governments. Any rowdy stir would be reviewed by the two boards, added the PCB chief.
Fearing the fans' revulsion and sense of shock in both the countries Jagmohan Dalmiya, a politician that he is, came out with remarks that any decision to cut off the tour due to rowdyism at any venue would be taken after consulting the host board. Dalmiya thought it was unlikely such a scenario would arise but he did not touch on the Pakistani board's request that the clause relating to players' return home over crowd trouble should be made a secondary issue.
The BCCI chief said the decision would neither be emotional nor it would be taken in a hurry; we would be consulting our government. However, Dalmiya hoped that the series would be played in the right spirit.
"This is a goodwill tour," he said, "we want more exchange of ideas between the cricketing people."
A day earlier PCB chief, Shaharyar Khan, had issued a tit-for-tat warning that the Pakistani side would do the same (abandoning the trip) if the Indian crowd became violent at any place on its return visit to India.
There are many instances of crowd misdemeanour at venues during Pakistan team's tour of India. On the inaugural series in 1952-53 in the third Test at Bombay's Brabourne Stadium some spectators tried to disturb the equipoise of Hanif Mohammad while he was well set by showing mirror's reflexion towards him. This was an unfair behaviour on the part of a section of the crowd which certainly was not sporting.
Then in the 1960-61 series when Fazal Mahmood led the Pakistan squad to India an enthusiast ran to the field in India with a blade between his fingers and shook hands with Hanif. The latter's right hand started bleeding but the Little Master, an organised batsman, hit a class 160, not to be overwhelmed by any bowler as he was run out.
Then Calcutta's Eden Gardens twice spoiled its image, once in the 1996 World Cup when Clive Lloyd, the match referee, awarded the tie to Sri Lanka after the crowds did not allow the proceedings of the duel to continue. India were on the point of losing the match but when rioting went on and on Lloyd had but to take a decision.
The 1999 inaugural Asian Test championship final saw the worst type of rowdyism by the crowds. This time again at Eden Gardens, Calcutta, when the whole stands were got vacated by the police and the match was completed with Pakistan coming out successful by an innings and 75 runs.
Can India refuse such happenings? Who is to blame for the two above-mentioned disturbances? Has India a clean record in organising international matches?
The crowd-trouble clause in the MoU should be struck out because riotings are aplenty everywhere, especially in the West Indies. Has any team forced the Carribean authorities to visit their islands with such a detestable condition?
Preparations are being made for the Indian tour but it seems strange that associations have been completely sidelined. With a legion of workers at their disposal they should have been assigned the major workload for staging the matches - KCCI the one-dayer, LCCI the one-dayers and the Test. Why should amateurs be inducted in this important task?
Comments
Comments are closed.