Over the past few days I have been reading, with great annoyance, the reactions of non-Asian journalists to the fact that Sharad Pawar is lobbying strong and hard for the post of ICC President. The "white" world should know by now that us non-white people love titles, especially big titles. The bigger the better, and President (of anything, particularly the ICC) is reasonably big in this small world of cricket.
If you want to have all the power and all the big titles to yourself, then do not walk along the path of democracy. By telling non-white people that they have a chance to become something big, you can rest assured that they are going to give it a go. Naturally, it follows, that some will even succeed. Having well and truly gone down this path of majority-rules decision making (democracy) we should all have the balls to stick to it.
I fail to understand the reasons behind the trepidation we are reading about in articles such as this and another one I wrote about earlier. Why exactly are Andrew Miller and Malcolm Conn so threatened by the prospect of Sharad Pawar being elected ICC President through an open and democratic process?
Democracy is all about people power. The candidate who runs the best campaign and says things that strike a chord with voters will win. The ICC President is a democratically elected post. If that so happens to be a bloke by the name of Sharad Pawar, good luck to him.
For the record, I do not believe Pawar has shown any leadership during his time as President of the BCCI and I doubt he will do any better with the ICC. Further, I do not believe he or any current BCCI official should become ICC President because they are a callous and inept lot with nothing but greed on their minds.
However, all articles from "white" journalists have implied a horrific plot where the "white" nations will be inextricably wiped out of the game if Pawar becomes President. At the very least Miller and Conn seem to imply that the "white" nations will be brazenly bullied in a manner that will leave irreparable and lasting scars.
The only reason for this "white" line of thinking could be the fear of retribution during Pawar's tenure for the manner in which the ICC, and the MCC before it, administered the game of cricket prior to the 1990's. Indeed, if the injustices of the early days were so grave that retribution in this age is warranted, I'm all for the said revenge.
IMHO, however, I believe the ICC under Pawar's Presidency (or most other candidates for that matter) will keep rolling on its merry way. It will continue to draw the ire of every stakeholder of the game and stick its head in the sand when tough decisions are the need of the hour. Lets not forget that this very reputation has been carefully cultivated with unflinching attention to the most trivial details by the current Australian CEO, one Malcolm Speed.
It is high time that Conn and Miller, and all of their ilk, grew up. The real threat is not an Indian takeover of the game (even the BCCI realises it needs the other countries to keep its mint working), but the continuation of an incompetent and daft CEO in his current role.
Look at yourselves before you start discrediting others, gentlemen.
Subscribe and Viralize
Like what you read? Become a fan on Facebook and subscribe to The Match Referee's daily email wrap-up or our RSS feed