October 01, 2006	Sunday	Ramazan 7, 1427

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)

IT is poetic irony that the very place where the name of Pakistan was maligned by friend and foe alike, in acts of accusation and omission, and where Inzamam’s judgment was questioned by everyone, should be the venue where we were vindicated not just as a team but as a nation and that Inzamam is now being seen as a cricket martyr.

It is a geometrician’s dream: The Oval has come full circle, and the squares have been left out to dry as ICC, Hair and Cricket form an unholy triad.

Like myself there are those who believe that Act 1 Scene 2 was needless at the time; that the same battle could have been fought in ICC court by the PCB and the appointed lawyers and won in similar fashion and Pakistan should have come out after tea and won the Test match.

Today Pakistan would have been Test winners as well as moral winners, and Inzamam would have been leading the team that leans heavily on his batting, and I dare say, calmness in the middle.

But is that as true and simple as it seems? The PCB Chairman is furious that ICC allowed Hair to stand in four successive series and that it was a time bomb waiting to go off. But throughout the four series no one from the PCB objected in writing or warned they would not play if Hair came in to officiate?

Sri Lanka warded off Hair for some eight years by protesting and ICC backed off with their tail between their legs. Are we to say we have less clout than Sri Lanka? or as the former ICC President Ehsan Mani, claimed the PCB were not bothered and never wrote to him despite his offer.

So is it that if Inzamam had come out to play and Pakistan had gone on to win, PCB would have pushed not to ‘write that letter” and pursue the ICC and Darrell Hair in court? The record, at least, does not point to that for PCB past and present has been acquiescing for ever so long on every issue that matters deeply to us.

And had the protest been restricted to a diplomatically drafted letter to protest our innocence and no more, would not the English press be insinuating that it was the tampering with the ball that got the English. Shades of 1992?

This is a time for celebrating for we have become heroes as a nation and the Pakistan team in particular. But it saddens me when glory seekers ride on the shoulders of men who face the bullet, bite it but smile, and carry on.

The PCB deserve credit for reacting quickly and hiring a team of lawyers. Certainly the pressure counted and ICC and Madugalle both were afraid to err on the aggressive side against Inzy and his team as PCB were threatening to go to the public courts.

But by then the evidence had become too strong against Hair’s accusation. Billy Doctrove’s revelation also counted against Hair though his admission that he did not agree immediately to Hair’s insinuation was no doubt aimed at saving himself. But here credit also goes to Shaharyar Khan who, from the very first moment, absolved Doctrove in public and said Pakistanis had no gripe with him even thought he was, well, ‘partner in crime’ from Pakistan’s point of view. It no doubt tempted Doctrove to pay back the favour.

Looking back at the hearing it was, you can say, a politically correct decision. In matters like this everyone looks to bury the issue. It was a common sense decision too. Madugalle said that there were “marks that are as consistent with normal wear and tear of a match ball after 56 overs as they are with deliberate human intervention.”

So he did not say there were no marks that weren’t suspicious. The draft was of course written by David Pannick (strange name for a lawyer) who wanted to ward off future action by hinting that another ‘judge’ could still settle on Hair’s side. Also, this was subjective and the ball was not in full view of the millions, nor were any sponsors suffering.

At the same time, the sympathy vote had gone Pakistan’s way especially after Speed made the emails public. Most importantly the ruthless and resourceful English press had sat on the side opposite Hair.

But the other charge was in full view of the world, backed by PCB’s five man pantomime on the player’s balcony and the now famous plea: ‘We were late by a few minutes.’

And it had cost money, a million pounds it is being said. There, ICC would not take responsibility, otherwise it would have to pay up. So Pakistan have been slapped on the wrists for not coming out, thus making them responsible for the sponsors’ loss.

It is this charge that Pakistan should have pressed equally to win however. It is here that the lawyers should have earned their money by saying the second act was a consequence of the first, that the umpires should have stopped their first return when they saw the Pakistani players on the balcony about to step down, that the ICC rules were short sighted, that the match referee slept while the storm brewed, that the forfeiture threat was never communicated to the Pakistan team, and that both the umpires and the match referee’s acts (of omission) are the ICC’s responsibility.

Inzamam therefore should either have been absolved of the second charge also or PCB should have appealed. I just feel that everyone wanted to bury the issue and blame it on Hair and carry on. I think Inzamam here has rescued PCB by saying he did not want to appeal. With plenty of rumours about his future as captain and PCB not confirming him beyond the West Indies tour, he will have his pound of flesh later.