Indian cricket-followers were only too aware of this history of Australian prejudice with its own particular hues of imperial arrogance and racism. by Michael Roberts
(July 09, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) John Howard ct. Africa b. Asia for nought … reads the scorecard in the command rooms of the ICC this week. What we have seen is a motivational-mix of power, prejudice and pride marshalled by nationalist sentiment operating to reject John Howard's candidature. But a similar mix can be attributed to Cricket Australia's policy and in media responses in Australia.
Cricket Australia's power brokers made a fatal misjudgement. When John Howard, seeking another sphere of limelight and power, actively canvassed for the position representing Antipodean cricket at the ICC, Cricket Australia thought he would be just the figure to clip the wings of the contemporary cricket world's superpower, namely, India. He was thrust forward, to quote John Clarke, Chairman of Cricket Australia, as a "counter-balance."
So they snubbed and insulted New Zealand by ditching their experienced cricket administrator, Sir John Anderson, who was already pencilled in for the job. This act of treachery caused considerable heartburn in Kiwiland. But once they succumbed to the regional voting system, they were irrevocably hitched to the Australian wagon and now they are doubly punished.
The Australian power-play was misguided. If Anderson had been their candidate, he would have walked into the job of Vice-President and eventually become President according to the conventions prevailing. The protocols have been disregarded now in a measured move because John Howard was, and is, a tainted figure in many eyes, notably in many Indian eyes. It is Indian opinion that swings the balance not that of Zimbabwe, so Howard and his Australian supporters are simply fooling themselves if they try to claim the moral high ground by emphasising that his public criticism of Mugabe was a major factor in his rejection.
The hostility to Howard stems from his consistent right-wing position of issues concerned with Asian immigration from the time of the Fraser years and the manner in which, as Prime Minister, he stole Pauline Hanson's racist garments as one move in a process which ensured that the Liberal Party would be re-elected.
He further tainted his image in cricket circles by sticking his oar into the Muralitharan controversy in 2004 and calling the renowned bowler a "chucker." This was a populist move designed to garner votes, but there is little doubt that he himself was a true blue Aussie with all the prejudices of those cricket fans who were self-righteous in their efforts to cleanse the game of "chuckers".
This campaign had commenced in full measure in late 1995 when Muralitharan was no-balled by Darrell Hair. Evidence from Australian circles indicates that it was a pre-determined conspiratorial move that involved key figures in the Australian cricket camp.
Likewise, there is enough reason to suspect that several members of the Australian umpiring fraternity were behind Emerson's no-balling of Muralitharan at Adelaide in January 1998. Murali, let me stress, is an icon in the Indian world not merely Sri Lanka.
What the Asian world observed in the period 1995-2004, therefore, was an Australian witch-hunt directed against Muralitharan in circumstances where Australia was kingpin in the cricket world. This persistent chase was the vanguard of a broader campaign against "chuckers". Most chuckers were deemed to be spin-bowlers from Asia. One suspect was young Harbhajan Singh.
Indian cricket-followers were only too aware of this history of Australian prejudice with its own particular hues of imperial arrogance and racism. Howard's remarks on Muralitharan's bowling action placed him squarely within those earmarked in their books as the "circle of the prejudiced."
In discounting this background by their adoption of Howard as their nominee, Australia's cricketing power-mongers revealed how insular they were. In responding now, in July 2010, to Howard's rejection with expressions of moral disapproval and a reading of the ICC board's action as a form of racist prejudice, Australians do not seem to comprehend that these strands of xenophobia and prejudice in Asia-Africa have arisen because of a recent history of prejudice and bullying from the Australia as cricket superpower, not just 300 years of White colonialism (though that informs the scene as well).
These expressions of Asian and African nationalism, moreover, have been more than matched by the national sentiments driving Aussie reactions. The terms that loom large in the reportage are "a calculated insult" and "a snub." This terminology is the stuff of patriotism, an indication of pride pricked. It is a "snub' because Howard had been Prime Minister of Australia and, as such, a totem for the collective people as an institutionalised nation.
Thus, national sentiments are at loggerheads on this issue, carrying with them several complex strands of prejudice. In my surmise, however, Miss PREJUDICE has been second fiddle behind Mr POWER-PLAY in the wheeling and dealing that went on within ICC corridors. Cricket Australia's power-play has been checkmated by another power-play marshalled by nation India and backed by other nations, black and brown.
For commentary in Australia to cry "foul" is to forget the motes in their own eyes and their own blemished histories. For them to take a moral stance and demand verbal clarification of the reasons why Howard was rejected is as naïve as imbecile. Power-plays are not moral tales.
Dr Michael Roberts is an Adjunct Associate Professor in Anthropology at The University of Adelaide.
Post a Comment