In the 1990s, English peer Lord Norman Tebbit set as a test a question that many Asian friends and colleagues suggested was an insult as well as racist slur.
First coined in 1990 when still a Conservative Party MP, and two years before elevation to peerage, his ‘cricket test’ suggestion was designed to show how England’s ethnic minorities were integrated into their new country and should support England than the country from which their family migrated.
During the 1999 World Cup, a young woman of Indian descent but with a distinctive Birmingham accent, smilingly helped visitors at Edgbaston the day South Africa played New Zealand. Question: was she happy that India had made it into the Super Six stage?
Answer: No, my team is England and I am upset. We are all upset at home that they didn’t make it.
Did this mean her family supported the Tebbit doctrine? There was a vigorous shake of her head. Most certainly not. They were British because they were born in England and were proud to be patriotic. So please stop asking naff questions. Fair enough.
Take though former England captain Nasser Hussain, whose plaintive view in 2001 was how he could not understand how (Asians) born in England or arrived at a young age, as he did, could not find it within themselves to support England.
‘When we played India at Edgbaston in the World Cup in 1999, it was like an away game because so many people supported their side,’ he wrote.
It is an understandable complaint that fortunately Monty Panesar did not face when playing for England in India.
But fast forward to New Year 2002 and Sydney, Australia when a taxi driver new to the job, had to ask his office radio control staff for directions to the Sydney Cricket Ground. He was a Serb and on being questioned admitted knowing nothing about cricket and didn’t really care.
He had lived in Australia since the Balkan conflict of the mid-1990s but his message was clear enough.
This is how cricket is an Australia sport and they don’t like foreigners mixing in with their sport. His two sons and daughter had, through friends, become interested, but found they weren’t accepted as they were from a migrant family and had stopped watching games.
‘You have to be an Australian to earn recognition,’ was his critical comment. ‘My grandchildren will be . . . It is a great country, too, but they have a problem if you cannot speak decent Australian. They don’t like the way we talk.’
And how interesting is that comment made five years ago.
Now, if you page through the pile of Sydney telephone books, you find it is littered with Balkan, Asian and Greek names and from communication, most have similar views to my taxi driver. It means that there are a lot of foreigners who say that being accepted as an Australian takes a while; maybe a decade or longer.
Add to this are the thoughtful comments by Pakistan coach and Australian fast bowler Geoff Lawson in his autobiography Henry. Here he describes how Len Pascoe, a fellow Test player and originally known as Durtanovich was baited about his Yugoslav background, by among others, the Chappell brothers
It is why such immigrants will tell you that they are not too bothered by the fuss over the so-called racist remark alleged to be made by Harbhajan Singh, whether it was in Hindi, English or Telegu. Immigrants of all creeds and race get enough thrown at them in English.
In sport there are always flashpoint moments when whatever langue is spoken can become garbled. This was discovered all too quickly as an umpire at first-class level. Some years ago, learning the crude Afrikaans phrase suggesting my mother, sister or wife was a whore, became a matter of seconds when turning down an lbw appeal.
The problem is how would have Ricky Ponting responded had a Serb taxi driver told him that he was a Bhajji’s bunny and it’s time to naff off. Ponting admitted he shouldn’t have stuck around so long after losing his wicket.
And who did the International Cricket Council wisely select as an arbitrator to become the cavalry to clean up the mess? It was another Asian, Sri Lanka’s Ranjan Mudagalle, who is highly acceptable to both sides.
Why he wasn’t doing this difficult series in the first place is a question that needs asking. A former Sri Lanka captain and ICC match referee since 1993, his views are clear enough.
‘I believe firmly in dialogue between players . . . between teams,’ he said two years ago when commenting on his role. ‘To me, it is dealing in dialogue that is the most important function. It keeps open the lines of communication. Without communication and trust you have problems and difficulties between teams.’
He knows well enough how the language between both sides is capable of boiling over; that players are all too quick to react and become culpable through such intolerant behaviour: quickly forgotten in such heated verbal jousting moments is how the spirit of the game is thrust aside to become a secondary issue.
It is certain that players don’t want to be reminded they are bad sports in a game outsiders see as Australian because of the way immigrants are treated.
Adding to the combustion area in this issue when calm is needed is the careless Adam Gilchrist remark about an eagerness for the 17 th successive victory. A draw (as did loom in Sydney) would have spoilt that record.
Is this what it is about? Victory at any cost with both teams hoping the umpires don’t get their decisions wrong? Or will sanity prevail?
Unfortunately, most in the Indian media are not as streetwise as the Australians, and fall into the error of rant and rhetoric, which is damaging as it comes from a lack of understanding of the subtleties of the game and its laws and thus the dignity that Madugalle brought back to the off-field discussions in Perth.
Filed under: Faltoo Cricket
