The Hindu Business Line : Cricket diplomacy

Last week, an acrimonious southern summer of cricket came to an end with a dream Indian victory in the tri-series in Australia. Never before was a cricket series fought so bitterly, at least as far as India was concerned. And the media didn't really help the smooth conduct of affairs either.

Right from the moment the Indian team set its foot in Australia, the media was full of stories on what Australia threatened to do or how the Indians planned to retaliate. It did no good to anyone, except perhaps fetch more eyeballs for the satellite channels or satisfy those in search of sensationalism.

The main feature of the whole series was, no doubt, the controversy over the alleged remarks made by Indian offspinner Harbhajan Singh against Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds. The Indian and Australian media were split, with each backing their own country's players. Though it must be admitted that there were, sometimes, some sane voices from either side, such as the opinions voiced in some newspaper columns, including that of Peter Roebuck writing for a South Indian daily and a couple of other writers in Australia.

WHO WAS RIGHT?

The moot question in this whole debate is who is right, we or they? For example, the Australian media reported that an aircraft was kept ready to fly the Indian team out of Australia if the International Cricket Council found Harbhajan guilty of making racial comments. The Indian media, on the other hand, was even trying to find fault if an Australian bowler happened to trip an Indian batsman in the course of fielding the ball on his follow-through! In the name of patriotism, the media actually wasn't trying to check the facts.

Passion in the name of patriotism seemed to run higher in the media than on the cricket field. The Australian media, for instance, should have known that Indians can never be guilty of racial slur after having being subjected to colonialism. An Indian may make a communal comment against his country-man but not a racial slur.

There were a few things the media could have cross-checked to cool tempers down, or at least to bring down the blood pressure of agitated fans on either side. For example, the claim that there was video footage of Harbhajan making the racial comment.

FOREIGN RELATIONS

The footage only showed Mathew Hayden saying the Indian spinner had made the comment again. The Indian media, on its part, could have definitely not encouraged the spinner calling Symonds' mother names. In general, the remark isn't a good advertisement for the game, what with more Indian housewives hooked to the game nowadays. There were even SMSes doing rounds on what the Turbanator actually told the Australian player.

The entire episode brings us to a matter of international relations. In issues involving tricky foreign affairs, the approach is discussing right versus right. This means each side negotiates an issue on which they feel they are right. Cricket is not quite foreign affairs but with this series, maybe, it is time to think in those terms. For avid students and fans of the game, it is always better to take all these "patriotic" reports with a pinch of salt!

M. R. SUBRAMANI