'Australia, England scared of India's rise'--Gavaskar

[CC1981]

But if you think that uneducated people can become IAS officers, then you are just a laughing stock.

I disagree....govt. services in India has no standards by and large.

That, and then you think that barrister is much more educated than an IAS officer is!!!

Most definitely.

have you EVER lived in India?

Yes...and yes to the next question too.

[Chandan]

I disagree....govt. services in India has no standards by and large. Most definitely. Yes...and yes to the next question too.

Then perhaps you've not faced good officers or unforunately knew just the corrupt ones. But your perception doesn't mean that that you don't require high class education for even competing to be an IAS officer. Just goes on to show that you have very shallow knowledge of such service and its officers. But no word on your highly educated CEO's enlisted failures?

[suraj]

This thread is a great example of how facts can be used to disrobe the idiocity of some Chandan you rock !!!!! Just to clarify I am referring to those who keep making all arguments based on one theory that anything Indians do is inferior, anything white people do is superior. My sarcasm is not directed at those who are arguing that Sunny did something wrong.

[Lurker]

I cannot see any fallacy here. He is targetting the western (mainly Australian and the English) media here. Why cannot he do that? Obviously he is paid for writing columns and can write about western media and their way of thinking. What on earth is wrong there? Can you point out?

That basically gives me an insight on your line of thinking rather than anything else. A columnist is paid money to give insights on the game, not for targetting Western media. Gavaskar is no different. He should limit himself to thoughts on cricket, specially since he belongs to the ICC cricket committee. How often do you read an article where Gavaskar criticizes Australia and the article will go on to mention something like - Gavaskar, the former Indian great who now head ICC's cricket committee?? Do you see how his stature is brought into all the time?

Please show where in the present column, Gavaskar has critisized the way ICC work. This column is directly attacking the western media, yet some people see conflict of interest. How? Where? And where is Gavaskar indulding in reverse racism here? Will be quite glad if you substantiate your claims about his present column!!

Not only me, even the ICC saw the conflict of interest and Gavaskar has been asked to step down. Game, set and match. End of this ridiculous psedu-patriotism. xxxx

[suraj]

That basically gives me an insight on your line of thinking rather than anything else. A columnist is paid money to give insights on the game, not for targetting Western media. Gavaskar is no different. He should limit himself to thoughts on cricket, specially since he belongs to the ICC cricket committee. How often do you read an article where Gavaskar criticizes Australia and the article will go on to mention something like - Gavaskar, the former Indian great who now head ICC's cricket committee?? Do you see how his stature is brought into all the time?

Not only me, even the ICC saw the conflict of interest and Gavaskar has been asked to step down. Game, set and match. End of this ridiculous psedu-patriotism.

Hold one yet : BCCI denies Gavaskar's sacking report Indo-Asian News Service Chennai, March 25, 2008 First Published: 21:34 IST(25/3/2008) Last Updated: 22:02 IST(25/3/2008) The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCC) on Tuesday denied reports of Sunil Gavaskar being removed as chairman of the International Cricket Council (ICC)'s cricket committee. Replying to a query on Gavaskar's removal, BCCI treasurer N Srinivasan said: "As far as we know, the ICC has not taken any action against Gavaskar and so, there is no question of commenting on these reports." He was speaking to the media after the meetings of BCCI's finance and working committees categorically said the reports were "not correct". The news regarding Gavaskar's sacking emerged out of a report in the London daily The Times, which reported that at last week's ICC executive committee meeting in Dubai it was decided in an unanimous vote that Gavaskar should be asked to resign because of a conflict of interest between his honorary ICC position and his paid role as a columnist and commentator. Apparently the ICC is incensed with Gavaskar's reaction in his syndicated column where the legendary batsman described England and Australia as "dinosaurs" who cannot "open their eyes and see the reality". Gavaskar wrote: "The cricketing world has found that India has no longer a diffident voice but a confident one that knows what is good for its cricket, and will strive to get it." Gavaskar was defending his criticism of Mike Procter, the ICC Match Referee, in January after he had ruled against Harbhajan Singh for an allegedly racist aside to Andrew Symonds during the second Test match between Australia and India in Sydney. There were reports that ICC were not happy with Gavaskar's strong statements as it amounted to "clash of interests" in view of his position as the chairman of the cricket committee and also a television commentator.

[The Outsider]

Whatever Bindra could or could not have been done, I am sure he would not have presided over the farce of the WC final last year and let all guilty parties walk scot free. That in itself would have been a huge jump over the trashy standards of ICC.

[Bumper]

As inflammatory and acrimonious, as he may sound, Gavaskar is correct. I'm in complete agreement with him. This is where Gavaskar's history hurts him. He has the credibility of 'the boy who cried wolf' time after time, that even when is making genuinely truthful comments, people dismiss them as comments from a bitter old man. But if you pay attention to what he says, forgetting his history or his tone, you can see some hard truths in it. Aussies & the English are hypocrites. They've had their way all these years. ICC has been a 'for the whites', 'by the whites', 'of the whites' organization, thus far. You could see it in the way the game has been run. ->Why are the Aussies & the English concerned about two Indians at the helm ? Why wasnt this an issue when Gray & Speedo were ruling the ICC ? ->Why was Chris Broad reinstated as an official after he was kicked out ? ->Why is Darrell Hair reinstated after being shown to target the Asians ? ->Why have the Aussies repeatedly gotten away with day light murders, while the Asians dinged at every possible opportunity ? I for one, detested the bias the Asian teams had to put up with, for a no. of years. I wouldnt mind, seeing the Asians dominate the sport in the forthcoming years. Its only fair that we have our way for sometime, afterall!

[Laaloo]

Patriotic Gavaskar tells it like it is Okay, just who are the paranoid ones here? Is it the Western media or the International Cricket Council and its non-South Asian minions? Or is it the many brown sahibs still living in reflected glory of the days of the Raj? Just maybe, had anyone else other than Sunil Gavaskar in this case - say Kapil Dev or fellow columnist Sandeep Patil - called a spade a shovel and referred to those former ICC masters England and Australia as dinosaurs, the episode would have been brushed over. Gavaskar has long been known as a erudite and skilled author and comments man behind the mike or on television. Sure he has a sharp tongue and makes his points known. Anyone who has read, as an example, his first book Sunny Days, would have quickly picked up this trend. He was as prolific and challenging as a batsman and he now is as a writer. But this does not suggest in anyway that his media work influences his role as chairman of the ICC's cricket committee. That as he sees it: his media role is to point out the anomalies of what he sees and feels about the game. The position on the cricket committee is to improve the way the game is played and work within those parameters. In the case of Harbhajan Singh and the charges he faced he was thinking of his own patriotism; there is nothing wrong with being loyal at a time when in general the Australian media were, in a sense, gunning for Bhajji. This is where Gavaskar felt there was a need to show his support for the player in this case and if the charge is one of nationalism, there are many at where fingers can be pointed. There is also the fine line of balance between comment, criticism and outright condemnation. In the article referring to Mike Procter and his handling of the Harbhajan issue over charges of referring to another player as a 'monkey', Gavaskar is critical of the decision, but doesn't refer to Procter in racist terms. He also denies the charge. To be honest, the ICC is still hidebound as well as haunted at times by a legacy that is on the verge of turning 100 years old. For this you cannot blame the present council's officials but the umbilical cord from which it was given life. Millionaire and a former Transvaal bowler Sir Abe Bailey, whose idea it was to form an international body, did so in 1908 when England, Australia and South Africa were the constituent nations playing the game at international level. The ICC was formed a year later. What is not well known is how on enquiry the United States were refused membership. They were still a force in the game through their Philadelphia links and refusal was a deliberate slap in the face as the old imperial (Raj) forces were at work here, not the genuine benefactors. Granting membership to the USA would have meant a non-British Commonwealth nation being involved admitted to this collection of nations. Now, as England and South Africa were financially wealthier at the time than the more upfront Australians, the terms imperial and conference sounded better than international and council. There was a misguided feeling too that the Yanks would act in such an iconoclastic way they would take over the running of the game. This wouldn't have been a bad idea either as commercialism and sponsors would have come a lot sooner than they did. Under the pompous imperial cricket conference charter, England and Australia had the veto. It is how South Africa escaped being kicked out long before they should have. If these thoughts seem sacrilegious to some, why is it the United States and Fiji, welcomed as associate members of the reconstituted ICC in 1965 not advanced beyond this status while Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) were not even accorded any recognition at that time. From 1909 to 1993, the sport was run by an MCC/ICC hierarchy that was quite happy to switch one hat for another. Instead of making it a game for all, the Raj held control. Why did it take only the threat of the Oxford educated and Pakistan's first captain, Abdul Hafeez Kardar, to challenge Lord's and the ICC was there reaction about furthering the game in Asia? He may have been a touch eccentric and thorny on some subjects, but Kardar was at least a visionary. He attributed some of this to his Oxford tutors as well as Warwickshire and New Zealand player Martin Donnelly whose quiet Kiwi honesty he enjoyed more than anything. Gavaskar has similar views, but writes and talks from experience. In his annoyance at what he feels is still post-Lord's influence, there are times he may seem too critical. But what is wrong with justified criticism? In his book 'Sunny Days' there are strong criticisms of the Sabina Park crowd and the way they reacted. In a chapter titled 'Barbarism in Kingston' it may border on racism, but here he joins others, Jeremy Coney, the lanky New Zealand captain is one, who expresses similar thoughts. There are also his reactions to the Sri Lanka media and spectators as well as umpires. Welcome to the club Sunny. Four tours of the island and now living in the country tells you a lot about an ingrown inferiority complex. Letters in the Colombo papers about 'brave little' Sri Lanka taking on the big bullies are to smile at. New Zealand, who draw on a cricket population the size of a New Delhi suburb, are smaller but don't suffer from such inferiority. If anything, as is his patriotic right, Gavaskar is only explaining how Indians feel at being accused of acting the big bully on the international stage. He is right to suggest that when Malcolm Gray and Malcolm Speed ran the ICC in 2002 and 2003 there was no suggestion of an Aussie takeover. It is all a matter of perception. There is no gainsaying that while many non-Asian media are quick to offer their opinions, they should also be mature enough to accept his point of view. This comes from a man who has been a great Test player and good captain, and knows the struggle to achieve the level India has reached. Otherwise, such thoughts would not have been written. http://www.cricketnext.com/columns/trevorchesterfield/696/30572/patriotic-gavaskar-tells-it-like-it-is.html

[Laaloo]

btw just wondering what is chesterfields credibility

[suraj]

GO SUNNY!!!! WE support you