More »
It's not necessary to look at any situation in which politicians are involved as a political battle. As when a group of powerful people contest for key positions in a democratic set up, irrespective of them being politicians or not & the name one assigns to the contest, it always needs garnering support. So there's no question of who stooped more (as politics obsessed Indian media and mindset wants us to believe).
The balance of cricket economics has surely shifted towards the Asian block,owing both to numbers and cricket craziness; so whenever people contest for democratic bodies, the tilt will invariably be towards the block of the Asian cricket playing nations. This has been proved time and again.
John Howard got the pasting, as Pawar has to be the ICC president; and as a consequence John Howard can't take the subordinate's post, as someone who supported Pawar has to get the honour of filling the smaller chair.
So it's not necessary to consume the usual 'the politicians playing dirty tricks on each other' debate all the time. Media, particularly the Indian media knows what Indian psyche likes to hear and see, and that's why it incorporates the 'dirty politics angle' wherever it sees politicians involved.
So the John Howard incident is just a contest where powerful and influential got involved.We better believe it like this. Rest is just for the consumption of masses.
Any contest doesn't become dirty if politicians are invloved in it
Howards End
Waqar Younis, Ijaz Ahmed and Aqib Javed are browsing through DVDs, when Waqar jumps with joy
Waqar: GotGreatStuffMate!
Ijaz: Genghis Khan?
Aqib: Sholay?
Waqar: Howards End! GonnaBuyItOnly2QuidMate! BeAbsolutelyLovelyForTheBuoys… ToGetUpToDateOnCricketPoliticsMate…
Ijaz: Oye, look at cover Waqar Bhai
Waqar: aaa that’s aaa SomeKindaPromoMate
The Three arrive at the team hotel and arrange for a movie screening of Howards End for the Team; all are seated together
Waqar: IDon’tWannaGiveNuthinAwayBuoys…JustThisMovie…YaGonnaSee…ItzAbout…Howards End
Kamran Akmal: Shahid Bhai Shahid Bhai, who this Howards End
Shahid Bhai: Oye Stupid yaar, these English have funny names naa…Howards is first name, End is second name
Waqar: SSSH PlayingDVDMate!
Shahid Bhai: As skipper I wanna say some words to the buoys…
Waqar nods…
Shahid Bhai: Enjoy film…but remember you are the STAR!
Shahid strikes his hero pose and the team cheers and starts to grope him
That’s when Ramiz Raja walks into the room…
Ramiz: Waqar wasup, movie? What movie – Sholay?
Aqib: I wanted Sholay…
Waqar: latest cricket film on John Howard…
Ramiz: Yeah, wow! Let’s watch…
(To be Contd)
A disingenious argument
Writing in the Age, Peter Roebuck makes the argument that while there is plenty to dislike about the Howard nomination for the post of ICC Vice President, once the NZC and CA proposed his name, it is incumbent on all other members of the ICC to accept this without murmur as this has been ICC convention.
To buttress this claim, Roebuck cites the examples of Ray May Mali,Percy Sonn, Peter Chingoka. To quote from the article
"A board that welcomed Percy Sonn, who declared the 2003 Zimbabwe election free and fair though he knew it was a lie, thereby condemning Zimbabweans to years of torment; a board that accepted Ray Mali, whose co-operation with the apartheid government was exposed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; a board that listens to Peter Chingoka and Ozias Bute, apologists for evil in Zimbabwe, is poorly placed to turn its back on Jack the Ripper, let alone a former PM and cricket fanatic."And this reasoning is flawed.
Because what Percy Sonn or Ray Mali did in their previous avatars ( before becoming cricket administrators) is not relevant. Neither is Peter Chingoka's being an apologist to Robert Mugabe.
Because no one is opposiing John Howard's candidature because of Tampa incident or his support for the war in Iraq. The opposition is to Howard, the incumbent ICC Vice President, not Howard, the ex Prime Minister of Australia.
And by trying to extrapolate one to the other,Peter Roebuck makes for a disingenuous argument.
Pity, because he does articulate the more logical reasons for why SA or Zimbabwe might oppose John Howard later in the piece.
