Balls to tampering

Raju Korti
A favourite refrain of the Aussie cricketers -- apart from compulsive sledging and getting into on-field fracas -- is to let other cricketing nations never ever forget that they play their cricket "the hard way." At Cape Town, playing against the Proteas, they showed they are a more talented side than we all know them to be and added a new dimension to that sporting spirit.

Cameron Bancroft (File grab)

On-camera Bancroft was caught red handed tampering with the ball, using some sticky substance. At 25, Bancroft is the junior-most member and had the blessings of the bigger deities in the side including captain Steve Smith. Like most errant people, the "hard playing" Aussie cricketers admitted that what they had done was wrong, apparently with no remorse. That is not even belated wisdom because more than the regret, it was the nonchalant demeanor of the skipper that came through more clearly.
The International Cricket Council (ICC) will now go through the motions of imposing a one-match ban and docking 100 per cent of Bancroft's match fee. That, of course, is little commentary on the damage to Cricket Australia's reputation. While former players across the globe and fans have gone frenetic in branding the team as bunch of cheats, what comes to the mind immediately is what would have the cricket's apex body done if it were to be a player from the sub-continent.
Merely admitting the guilt is not enough. Bancroft has obviously been used by the team and will be the likely scapegoat. Smith is too precious to be left out unless the Australian cricket board acts tough like the West Indies Board did with the team's big shots. The contention by Cricket Australia's CEO James Sutherland that a committee will be appointed to probe the incident is ridiculous and bureaucrat-ish when it is an open and shut case -- with Bancroft and Smith confessing to their guilt before the Match Referee Andy Pycroft. Even more funny was Sutherland's refusal to admit ball tampering as cheating. So Smith continues unless his dormant conscience wakes up.
When competent players resort to dirty tricks, it reeks of low confidence. Recall how Greg Chappel, in 1981 instructed his younger brother Trevor to bowl underarm with the last bowl to deprive minnows New Zealand a well deserving victory. Chappel is still considered by many as among world's top batsmen.
The Aussie batting and bowling is not weak by any stretch of imagination. What made them resort to such unsporting tactic? To win at any cost or not to lose at any cost? Either way it is reprehensible. The reference to ball tampering invariably brings to memory Englishman John Lever's mischief during the 1976 series against India where he used Vaseline to get more shine on the ball. With that he got the ball to swing prodigiously and made the life of Indian batsmen miserable. I recall the animated debate we college-going friends had in which the focal point was why did Lever have to do that when he was troubling the batsman anyway with his normal swing.
Interestingly, all those accused of ball tampering in the past have been big names -- Imran Khan, Waqar Younis, Inzamam ul Haq, Michael Atherton, Stuart Broad, James Anderson, Chris Broad, Peter Siddle, Faf du Plessis (ironically, now skippering the current South African team), Shahid Afridi and our own Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid.
In my conversation with many cricketers, I have found out they have scrappy understanding of what is the law on ball tampering or what constitutes ball tampering. Under Law 41, the ball may be polished without the use of an artificial substance, may be dried with towel if it is wet, and have mud removed from it under supervision. All other actions which alter the condition of the ball are illegal. These are usually taken to include rubbing the ball on the ground, scuffing with fingernails or other sharp object or tinkering with the seam of the bowl.
The umpires are responsible for monitoring the condition of the ball and must inspect it regularly. When an umpire has deemed a player to be guilty of ball tampering, five penalty runs are awarded to the batting side, and the ball has to be immediately replaced with another matching the untampered previous ball. If agreements laid out before the series, a batsman can be permitted to choose from the  selection of balls in various stages of use. A bowler guilty of ball-tampering can be prohibited to bowl in that innings. Additional sanctions can be brought in as ball-tampering is considered a serious offence. The captain may be equally penalized as he is responsible for the conduct of his players on the field. Smith has compounded his guilt by being a partner in the crime.
Well, we all know by heart now that the Aussies pride themselves on bring fair and square. But I suspect Bancroft didn't scratch his thick hairline enough to come out with an unverifiable explanation. If only he had told the umpires that he was putting his hands in the pocket to scratch his own balls!

The Prince Aga Khan that I saw

Prince Aga Khan (Pic courtesy www.adkn.org)

Raju Korti
If spirituality is uncovering the best in you, His Highness Karim Aga Khan would be the right mascot for the thought. In Mumbai yesterday, the 81-year-old fourth Imam of Shia Ismailia sect (called Khojas) attended several religious congregations. But that's a very constricted description of the man who has been working close to sixty years with a credo that is refreshingly different from the other dogmatic sects of his religion.
As someone who has catalyzed institutions and programmes that have responded to the challenges of social, economic and cultural change, Aga Khan presides over a progressive global, multi-ethnic community whose members comprise an astonishingly wide diversity of cultures, languages and nationalities in Central Asia, Middle East, South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and North America.When I first met him in 1979 and later in 1983, Aga Khan was a Prince first and His Highness later. In my two audiences with him and his charming wife Sarah, the Prince -- a British-French business magnate once billed as among the world's ten riches royals by the Forbes -- showed no signs of a religious legacy inherited from his father. He seemed to have the knack of striking a spontaneous conversation with even strangers and I was one of those. What struck me, of course given my perennially depleted finances, here was a royal who ran a $800 million empire but did not rule over any geographical territory. What also struck me was although believed to be a direct lineal descendant of Prophet Mohammed, the Prince and the spiritual leader chose to tread a liberal line that doesn't in the bit appears compatible with the dogmatic Sharia-swearing Wahabis and Deobandis.
As a newbie journalist sent to cover a mass marriage meet under his aegis, I saw my chance to get to know him. The Prince had set up a precedent which by even modern standards then was revolutionary. In a religion where women are covered from head to foot to protect them from needless gaze, here was a Harward-educated man who even with his religious seasoning, passionately subscribed to the philosophy of openness.
I recall at the venue beautiful young women, all decked up and ready to choose their life partners in an open forum and with no duress. As a bachelor who stood on the altar of a sacrifice called marriage, I forgot my assignment and instead kept looking at the young ladies who were dressed and made up to kill. A gentle pat on my shoulder from the gracious host brought me out of my infatuated reverie. Dressed in an immaculate suit, looking handsome with a disarming style, stood Prince Aga Khan.
There was a reason why Aga Khan was more than hospitable to me. He had been spoken to about me by Dadi Balsara who is better known to the mosquito-harassed Indians as Odomos Man. Balsara himself was an enterprising Parsee who could be a true definition of a liberal. Little wonder, the two were friends.
His wife in tow, I accompanied Aga Khan to the stage from where he blessed the couples. After exchanging a couple of pleasantries, he asked me if I was married. When I said I wasn't, he winked mischievously and said "look at the bevy of beauties there. If you like anyone, I will espouse your case, stressing the word "espouse". There was no question of saying "yes" even in joke.
For one who institutionalized social and cultural transformation, Aga Khan seemed to jealously guard his privacy. "I am very careful who I hang around with. I do not believe in showing my emotions in public and avoid sitting with women if I realize the Press is trying to link me with them. Even here in Paris, I do not prefer crowded places like theaters. In the past, my mail has been stolen and my servants bribed. Even some of the close friends I trusted, took private snapshots of me in my home and sold them to magazines. I have been threatened with blackmail on the telephone. I guess that's a price one pays with my kind of status but I it has also made me realize the sanctity of privacy."
It is remarkable that unlike Imran Khan whose marriages have become public fodder, few tongues wagged when Aga Khan married the second time (and divorced), somewhere in the late nineties. It was easy to understand that his ascension to Nizari Ismaili Imamat was not just on the basis of his religious inheritance.
His face lit up when I asked him about his affection with the horses."I operate the largest horse-racing and breeding in the country (France). Buying and maintaining a stud farm is an abiding hobby."
"You don't drink because you are a Muslim, how come you are comfortable with horse-racing which is patently gambling," I probed him. "My belief is that the thing which distinguishes man from animals is his ability to think. Anything that impedes this faculty is wrong. That's why I have never touched alcohol, not because that's a religious diktat." I believe it is this rationalism that has won him numerous decorations, honorary degrees and awards from institutions and nations across the world for his exceptional efforts and contributions to human development and improving social conditions.
Aga Khan was His Highness because of Queen Elizabeth II. He became His Royal Highness courtesy Mohammed Reza Pehelvi, the Shah of Iran. The Shah was thrown out in the Iranian revolution in 1979. The Prince in various denominations remains very much in the saddle.