Punter and Martin have, to use a cricketing phrase, swung their bats a bit too wildly this time. But will they be given out or even warned, I doubt - given that the umpires (the Australian Board, Cricket Australia, who are going to investigate this incident) are very vocal supporters of all Australians and all their unsporting acts, specially when such acts are against the subcontinental teams - Darrell Hair is a prime example.
I saw the footage over television yesterday. Of how Ricky Ponting "beckoned" Sharad Pawar to hand over the Champions Trophy to him. And how, immediately thereafter, Damien Martin virtually shoved Pawar off the dias, so that the Aussies may be photographed with the trophy. Very rude behaviour and an ugly incident, to say the least, irrespective of whether it was Sharad Pawar or a completely unknown, insignificant person. Though, if one has to go purely by his stature as the BCCI Chief, Central Minister of the Government of India, and a leading, very senior & well-respected politician of the world's largest democracy, and the reverence that he should command for his sheer age, the Aussies have shown great disrespect not just to him, but to all Indians.
Pawar, in his maganimity, has dismissed this as an unnecessary debate, and as an incident which is not noteworthy given the youth of the Australian team and their excitement at winning the trophy for the first time. He has dismissed this as a unintentional mistake, at the most. I am no fan of Pawar's or his ideologies, but I am not willing to let this pass by as an accident. I do feel that these twin acts, even if unintentional, were definitely uncalled for, and extremely disgraceful.
Aussies cannot be pardoned for being so arrogant due to the excitement of winning the trophy. They are, after all, world champions in cricket, have won too many tournaments to count, and are the first team to hold both the World Cup and the Champions Trophy at the same time. This is definitely not their first win, where they can be excused for behaving like kids, though I have yet to see any kids who behave like this on a dias.
As ambassadors of not just the gentleman's game, but of their country, the Aussies should have behaved the way a champion should - gracefully. Obviously, that is a word that they have never come across in their life. It is a norm, if not a basic courtesy, to give respect to the host, specially when the guest has been treated so very nicely while visiting another country. And it is even more necessary when you are in public view of not just the stadium audience, but the entire world watching you over television, to behave in a manner befitting you. But let me give Ponting & Martin the benefit of doubt; maybe they did behave in a manner befitting them perfectly - rogues will be rogues, as they say.
Irrespective of their upbringing and their ethos, I would like to know from Punter, Martin and Cricket Australia how they would feel if the same treatment were meted out by the Indian Team to Hon. John Winston Howard, the Chief Patron of Cricket Australia, and incidentally also their Prime Minister. But which Indian Cricketer will ever give them tit for tat? Maybe, we do have a business case for Sourav Ganguly's presence in the Indian Team.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Saddam's finished, but is it time to rejoice yet?
To be hanged till death. A very dramatic sentence, indeed. Specially for a head of state. But it was coming, wasn't it?
So, Saddam Hussein is finally done in. Any surprises there - none I guess. After Bush had decided that he had to bring the Indisciplined Arab to his knees for defying America, this was bound to happen sooner or later.
When Bush went to the Congress to convince them that the war against Iraq was necessary, he talked about Saddam working day and night at developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). And that America would be under constant threat from the despot, should it not take immediate action to curb the same. The annihilation of the Butcher of Baghdad became the most pressing thought for the mighty President of the USA. Even more important than finding Osama bin Laden, who is singularly responsible for causing more bloodshed & panic in America in a single day than both the World Wars put together.
Why was it so important, one may wonder, to go after Saddam. Because Bush, along with his best ally Musharraf, has been so very unable to even figure out whether OBL is dead or alive (wasn't that the phrase that Bush used before he began carpet-bombing Afghanistan to get the man), forget locate him and bring him to justice. With public confidence in him plummeting by the day, Bush needed a saving grace, and so Saddam became the fall guy.
The fact remains that despite whatever atrocities that Saddam would have done against so many Iraqi denizens, he was nowhere close to developing WMDs. The only WMDs that the American soldiers could locate and destroy in Iraq were the common Women & Men, and the Descendants of Saddam. And they went on a systematic demolition drive of the same, till they finally found the man himself, holed up in an underground bunker, and began his retribution.
So, one despot is done in. So much better for the world, and I can probably eat my dinner more peacefully today. But what about the Big Brother attitude of America in imparting justice? They may go on claiming that the trial and judgment was a fair one, meted out by Iraqi Courts with absolutely no consideration to America's stake in the entire state of affair. But is it really so, or is it most certainly "Justice of the Victor", which for centuries bygone means awarding death penalty to the vanquished? I personally don't think this is a good precedent, and goes on to make the world a better place.
Yes, if Saddam is at fault for mistreating his citizens, he should be punished. But the whole agenda for the war by America was destruction of WMDs. So, what gives US the moral high ground to persecute him in the first place for other sins? And why do US soldiers continue to show complete disrespect for prisoners of war and the common Iraqi citizens? Wouldn't that be a sore wound that the Iraqis will have for years to come, despite having being rid of Saddam? And will they respect America for what it has done for them, or will they and the Arab & the Islamic world become even more suspicious and spiteful of America? I have no answers now, but I do believe that with this deed, America has only ended up alienating the foes, and it does need to do a lot to bring the world together.
So, Saddam Hussein is finally done in. Any surprises there - none I guess. After Bush had decided that he had to bring the Indisciplined Arab to his knees for defying America, this was bound to happen sooner or later.
When Bush went to the Congress to convince them that the war against Iraq was necessary, he talked about Saddam working day and night at developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). And that America would be under constant threat from the despot, should it not take immediate action to curb the same. The annihilation of the Butcher of Baghdad became the most pressing thought for the mighty President of the USA. Even more important than finding Osama bin Laden, who is singularly responsible for causing more bloodshed & panic in America in a single day than both the World Wars put together.
Why was it so important, one may wonder, to go after Saddam. Because Bush, along with his best ally Musharraf, has been so very unable to even figure out whether OBL is dead or alive (wasn't that the phrase that Bush used before he began carpet-bombing Afghanistan to get the man), forget locate him and bring him to justice. With public confidence in him plummeting by the day, Bush needed a saving grace, and so Saddam became the fall guy.
The fact remains that despite whatever atrocities that Saddam would have done against so many Iraqi denizens, he was nowhere close to developing WMDs. The only WMDs that the American soldiers could locate and destroy in Iraq were the common Women & Men, and the Descendants of Saddam. And they went on a systematic demolition drive of the same, till they finally found the man himself, holed up in an underground bunker, and began his retribution.
So, one despot is done in. So much better for the world, and I can probably eat my dinner more peacefully today. But what about the Big Brother attitude of America in imparting justice? They may go on claiming that the trial and judgment was a fair one, meted out by Iraqi Courts with absolutely no consideration to America's stake in the entire state of affair. But is it really so, or is it most certainly "Justice of the Victor", which for centuries bygone means awarding death penalty to the vanquished? I personally don't think this is a good precedent, and goes on to make the world a better place.
Yes, if Saddam is at fault for mistreating his citizens, he should be punished. But the whole agenda for the war by America was destruction of WMDs. So, what gives US the moral high ground to persecute him in the first place for other sins? And why do US soldiers continue to show complete disrespect for prisoners of war and the common Iraqi citizens? Wouldn't that be a sore wound that the Iraqis will have for years to come, despite having being rid of Saddam? And will they respect America for what it has done for them, or will they and the Arab & the Islamic world become even more suspicious and spiteful of America? I have no answers now, but I do believe that with this deed, America has only ended up alienating the foes, and it does need to do a lot to bring the world together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)