PAKISTAN DOES NOT SPONSOR TERRORISM? WHAT A JOKE!!

Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari has said it. Pakistan's Prime Minister Gilani has said it. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Qureshi has said it. Now Pervez Musharraf has said it. Pakistan is more innocent than the just-born baby even. Pakistan does not know what terrorism is. Pakistan has nothing to do with any terrorist activity going on in this world. In fact Pakistan is an innocent victim of terrorism. Pakistan is unfairly accused of sponsoring and exporting terrorism, instead of getting appreciation for their role in the 'War On Terror' mounted by the USA.


Haven't we heard the ultimate TRUTH? What a great joke this is!! Well, Pakistan may well be justifiably banking on the USA standing by it in making such assertions. After all the Americans have had at least half a hand in the creation of such terrorist entities in Pakistan. For example, let us take a look at how the Taliban was created. This is from a "Special Report: From Cold War, Afghans Inherit Brutal New Age" by JOHN F. BURNS dated: February 14, 1996, in New York Times.(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DB1239F937A25751C0A960958260)

"The other macabre twist is that in Afghanistan this hostile force (Taliban) is a mutation of American cold war politics. For the Taliban emerged from the chaos of a war between American proxy warriors and Soviet troops, and is still supported by the arms network of American allies created to challenge Soviet power. ................. The name Taliban was taken from the Arabic word for students, a reference to the fact that the core group of Taliban came together at Muslim religious schools known as madrassahs in Kandahar and, before that, during the Soviet occupation, at similar institutions across the border in Pakistan. ................... Reinforced by defectors from the Communist Government's armed forces, and backed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- American allies -- the Taliban thrived on popular disillusionment with the war. ..................... From the outset, the Taliban have been strongly backed by Pakistan, a fact that has prompted Iranian religious leaders to denounce the Taliban as part of an American plot to encircle Iran."


Here again as brought out by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban):

"The overwhelming majority of the Taliban movement were ethnic Pashtuns from southern Afghanistan and western Pakistan, along with a smaller number of volunteers from Islamic countries or regions in North Africa, the Middle East and the former Soviet Union. The Taliban received valuable training, supplies and arms from the Pakistani government, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and many recruits from Madrasahs for Afghan refugees in Pakistan, primarily ones established by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam JUI. ....................... Although there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war."


Centre for Research on Globalisation, Montreal, Canada, has published a paper by Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, captioned "Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration? The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks" (Posted at globalresearch.ca 2 November 2001) (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html)

It says:"The existence of an "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" was a matter of public record. The links between the ISI and agencies of the US government including the CIA are also a matter of public record. The Bush Administration was fully cognizant of (ISI Chief) Lt. General (Mahmoud) Ahmad's role. In other words, rather than waging a campaign against international terrorism, the evidence would suggest that it is indirectly abetting international terrorism, using the Pakistani ISI as a 'go-between'."


Well, what does all this have to do with Pakistan's terrorism against India, or America's tacit acquiescence to it?


So far India has fought 3 wars with Pakistan. It is very significant that (1) none of them were initiated by India, and (2) Pakistan always started them by infiltrating India with irregulars, like Pathan tribals and other civilians, and then following them with its regular army. When they did not get any purchase out of these adventures, they decided to give up any frontal confrontation and instead bug India with proxy war through terrorists.


The reason for Pakistan's insane hostility toward India is quite apparent, but it is not acceptable or excusable. Even though their focus is currently on grabbing Kashmir by hook or crook, their ultimate aim is to destabilise India internally using the substantial Muslim population still in India, and grab India as a whole to 'reclaim the glory of their Mughal rule'. It was not a casual or loose statement that the Pak Foreign Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto made in the UN when he referred to Indians as 'Indian Dogs' and said that they (the Muslims) had ruled over India for a thousand years and they would do it again. But the Americans too had developed an antogonistic attitude towards India and had joined hands with the Pakistanis in playing their game against India's interests.


After India won independence from British rule, the Americans tried to enlist India as their front line partner to contain any Soviet expansion in this region. As India did not want to make such alignments with anybody and wanted to chart out its own course in such matters, like a jilted lover on rebound the Americans transferred their affection to Pakistan who welcomed them with both hands. Maybe they were also influenced by the British assessment in this regard. "Convinced by the British, Americans subscribed to the thesis that while Islam would bind Pakistan (a state carved out of India) firmly, India—with its inherent diversity of languages, culture, and religion— would not be able to keep itself united." (USAWC Strategy Research Project. From Estrangement To Engagement: Threats And Opportunities In Indo-U.S. Relations And The Roles Of Their Armed Forces ... by Brig. Anil Chait --- 2006 -- www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil303.pdf)


Even though India did procure some of its weaponry and armaments from the US also apart from other sources, it was nowhere near what the Americans poured into Pakistan, in quantity as well as sophistication, of course with the eyewash of a condition that it was all for use against the Russians and not to be used against India. But what happened in reality was something else.


Look at this report from K.Subrahmanyam, an expert commentator on Indian security aspects, in his article in Rediff.com about the 1965 war. (http://www.rediff.com///news/2005/sep/06war1.htm -- 1965 decided fate of the subcontinent -- September 06, 2005)

"The Americans were well informed about the possibility of Pakistani infiltration into Kashmir and the subsequent offensive months in advance, as has been recorded by the then Central Investigative Agency operative in India, Duane Claridge, in his book A Man for All Seasons.

"The American military and political establishment had concluded that in case of a war, Pakistan would win.

"The Pentagon and Harvard University played a war game at the Institute of Defence Analysis, Washington, DC, in March 1965. The war game and its results were available in a book, Crisis Game by Sidney Giffin, by the spring of 1965.

"The total failure of the Kashmir uprising, the complete destruction of the Pakistani Patton Armoured division at Khem Karan in Punjab and the Pakistan Army running out of ammunition and being saved from total humiliation through the UN ceasefire constitute a turning point in the history of India-Pakistan relations.

"Islamabad's use of American arms against India was against the assurances given by President Dwight Eisenhower to Jawaharlal Nehru that in case Pakistan used US-supplied arms against India, necessary corrective action would follow.

"Though the US bureaucracy and the Pentagon were prepared to look the other way if Pakistan had won the war, they found it difficult to overlook the miserable performance of Pakistani armour at Khem Karan."


This is the sort of perfidy, treachery that the US has been practising against India all the time.


Can the UK be far behind? After all, it will be appropriate to modify a Nursery Rhyme as follows:
Mary (US) had a little lamb (UK), whose fleece was white as snow;
Wherever that (US) Mary went, the (UK) lamb was sure to go.

I was in England at the time of the 1965 skirmishes and I can very well remember the anti-Indian reporting in the UK newspapers. Particularly one Earl of Arran used to spew venom on India liberally. They were reporting with glee that Pakistan was dishing it out to India in full measure, and they were almost knocking at New Delhi's doors. I landed back in Bombay on the day the UN mediated cease-fire was to take effect. Only on reaching India I got the true picture that the Paks were on their knees, and the cease-fire rescued them from further destruction.


If this was the treachery of the Americans before and during the misadventure, what about after the war was over? The same report from K.Subrahmanyam continues:

"Pakistan drew correct lessons from the failure of Operation Gibraltar when the Kashmiris did not rise against India in consequence to large-scale infiltration of Pakistani commandos into the Kashmir valley. They bided their time and in the late 1980s trained disaffected Kashmiris, who crossed over into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, in arms and infiltrated them back.

"That this strategy too did not wholly succeed is a different story but it did begin the prolonged proxy war against India in Kashmir.

"Pakistan also discovered it was not difficult to run rings around the conditions of American arms supplies and hide things from US inspection teams. They were able to covertly raise a second armoured division in 1965. Unfortunately for them it did not give them the victory in Punjab they expected. The second armoured division met its defeat at Khem Karan.

"Pakistan used this experience of getting around US procedures in the 1980s to divert American arms -- meant for Afghans fighting Soviet forces -- to arm the various jihadi militias and to install the Taliban regime in Kabul."


Was this all done without the knowledge of the Americans? How naive should one be to believe such a thing!!


Subsequently any amount of Pakistani terrorist attacks in Kashmir and in the rest of India has not elicited any response from the Americans to pull up their protege and make them behave. For these Rip Van Winkles of America, terrorism was born in this world only when a gang of terrorists hoodwinked the Americans, hijacked some planes from American airports and flew them into the twin towers of World Trade Centre in New York. What sweet Divine justice!! These 'Christian' Americans should be aware of what their own Bible says: "For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind". Maybe the 9/11 experience was not the full whirlwind, but just a sample, an advance warning.


However, as part of their consequent 'War on Terror' they forced Pakistan to ban the Lashkar-e-Toiba and some other terrorist outfits. But the Paks made it clear that the ban applied to all of Pakistan except the Pak Occupied Kashmir where their anti-Indian activity will go on as usual. Why? Did the Americans take note of it? Did they care? India, and the Indians, can go to hell for all they care. Isn't that the message they are sending? The USA is Pakistan's accessory before, during and after the fact of every Pakistani terrorist activity against India.


Why, in the aftermath of the Mumbai terrorist attack, have they suddenly started 'acting' tough against Pakistan and getting a UN Security Council resolution passed banning the Pak terrorist units? "Elementary, my dear Watson", as Sherlock Holmes would say. The non-stop TV coverage for 3 days of the Taj Hotel burning has caused a world-wide revulsion on par with the revulsion created by similar TV presentation of the WTC collapsing. Even the Americans cannot ignore this. To compound it further for them, the list of casualties included half a dozen Americans and, more than that, half a dozen Jews. The Americans can ignore this only at their peril. Obviously it is time to jettison the Pakistanis at least temporarily, for a short time.

SHAME ON THE CONGRESS/UPA GOVERNMENT

A team of FBI officials from America have landed here to 'help' Indian intelligence units with the investigations on the recent terrorist attack on Mumbai. A team of Scotland Yard sleuths have also landed here for the same task. A team of intelligence experts from Australia also seem to have arrived. So also a team from Israel.

WHAT IS HAPPENING? Has the Government of India decided that Indian intelligence personnel are not capable of carrying out this investigation? If that is so, it is a recent development which is very worrying.

We cannot easily forget the investigation of the 1995 Purulia Arms Dropping case where the British operative Peter Bleach and 5 Latvian crew of the aircraft were successfully prosecuted and jailed. Subsequently the 5 Latvian crew were pardoned and released in 2000, and Peter Bleach himself was given a Presidential pardon and released in 2004. However one more operative, Kim Davy from Denmark, had escaped and was absconding. The latest news seems to be that he has been caught by Danish authorities, and he is likely to be extradited to India to face trial.

Then again it is the alertness and pioneering investigation of the Delhi Police who smelled a rat, which was followed by a CBI investigation, that exposed the match-fixing scandal involving players of all major cricket playing countries, leading to many of them being banned from playing.

Just take a look at this 03FEB2005 report in
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/02-03-05.asp captioned:
"Remote viewing Indian intelligence makes India withdraw from SAARC meet in Bangladesh all of a sudden to protect India’s leaders from Islamic militants" by Kiran Chaube, Special Correspondent.

"India all of a sudden decided not to attend the SAARC meeting with the seven South Asian countries next week. Expressing shock and dismay at India's decision not to attend the SAARC summit, Bangladesh on Wednesday accused New Delhi of holding the seven-nation club "hostage to bilateral onsiderations." ................ According to sources in New Delhi, field intelligence, remote viewers in India’s military intelligence RAW and satellite feed from communications channels confirmed that Islamic militants were planning a major strike against Indian leaders during the SAARC meeting. Bangladesh has harbored Islamic militants and has secret training camps to train them .................... According to field intelligence and remote viewers, militants were well positioned to strike a major blow of catastrophic nature against India in Dhaka. A team of security experts who is in Dhaka investigated the suspected breach of security and possible means by which the Islamic militants can attack the Indian leaders in Dhaka. They were surprised at the pin pointed source of problem provided by the remote viewers and field intelligence. .............. India had no plans to cancel the plan of attending the meeting. As a matter of fact some solid breakthrough in relations between India and Pakistan was expected in the meeting and India was looking forward to the same."

That is how alert and effective our intelligence community has been.

Here again is another report Dated:02/03/2007 from:
http://www.thehindu.com/2007/03/02/stories/2007030204681400.htm
"Indian intelligence had warned about attack on Musharraf"Amit Baruah

"NEW DELHI: Indian intelligence had warned Pakistan about the first assassination attempt on President Pervez Musharraf in December 2003, claims a new book by a senior Pakistani journalist Zahid Hussain.

"In Frontline Pakistan, Mr. Hussain claimed that the December 14, 2003 attempt to kill Gen. Musharraf by blowing up a bridge used by his vehicle in Rawalpindi was the work of the Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM), a group formed by cleric Masood Azhar, freed by India after the IC-814 hijacking in December 1999.

""Ironically, it was Indian intelligence that had warned Musharraf of the first attempt to kill him by blowing up the bridge," the book said, stating that some two dozen Pakistan Air Force personnel were part of a clandestine JeM cell to assassinate the President."

"(Top Indian officials, familiar with the events of December 2003, confirm that Mr. Hussain's account of a warning being passed on by Indian intelligence agencies to Pakistani authorities relating to Gen. Musharraf, is accurate)."


Here is another report dated 03APR2002 on: http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=8901, captioned:
"Indian intelligence wiretap identified 9/11 hijackers"

"Washington, April 3: Indian intelligence agencies helped the US to identify the hijackers who carried out the deadly September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, a media report said here on Wednesday.

"The new probe began after US officials learned that intelligence agents in India had wiretapped the telephone of a Pakistani charity funded by the Saudi government and discovered the transfer of 100,000 dollars to Mohamed Atta, one of the 19 hijackers, the paper quoting US officials said.

"The information helped US officials identify all the 19 hijackers -- 15 of whom were Saudi nationals, the officials said."

This has basically been the calibre and pedigree of our intelligence establishments. It is such a set-up which finds itself degraded, depreciated and reviled to the extent that, in the wake of the terrorist attack on Mumbai, the Congress/UPA Government at the centre has invited, or at the least allowed, the 'experts' from the USA, the UK, Australia and Israel to investigate this terrorist action. What a shame!!

One has to wonder whether this Government will go one step further now and outsource our intelligence/security/defence activities to the Americans, Britishers, Australians and Israelis. What a shame!!

'Cowards can't run cricket, I'll return to India'

That's what Kevin Pietersen, the captain of the English cricket team, says, hiding behind the skirts of his wife in his house in England after he and his team of cowards ran away to the security of their wives' bosoms as soon as they got news of some gunshots and bombings in some part of India far away from where they were.

The press report from London, datelined NOV 30, 2008 says:

"Most of his teammates may have developed cold feet but England captain Kevin Pietersen said he would return to India for the Test series, provided security adviser Reg Dickason okays the tour. Back in the comfort of his family, Pietersen said he could not sleep since terror struck Mumbai but asserted terrorism should not be allowed to play spoilsport.

"We can't allow these cowards to run our game," Pietersen wrote in Sunday's News of the World. "It puts it all into perspective when you see blood on the streets. But if Reg gives us the OK, then I'll be back for the two Test matches and complete the tour. He has been around the block and I trust his judgement 100 per cent. If he says it is safe to go back to India for the First Test in 11 days, then you can count me in," added the England captain. 

"Pietersen, however, made it clear that he would not force any teammate to join the touring party."

Very brave words indeed!!! If KP really meant what he said -- "We can't allow these cowards to run our game" --  he and his team should have stayed put, thumbed their noses at the terrorists and carried on with the tour. Well, it is not to be. Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison have announced they will not return to India for the rest of he series. Maybe other players have also said so in private. Oh! What brave souls!! The Government of India should invite KP & Co as special guests for the Republic Day function in January 2009 and give them Bravery awards.

It looks like the ECB has said that the senior players are not ready to make the tour, and they will send a 2nd string team for the 2-Test series. Is the BCCI shameless enough to accept this, or do they have the guts to tell the ECB and the ICC that it is not acceptable?

Contrast this with the reaction and response of some people who were trapped inside the hotels during the stressful encounter, literally staring down the barrel of the gun. In TV interviews after their rescue, there were a good number of them who said they are not planning to leave India immediately because of this bad experience, They said they like India and they will continue with their tour. In fact a group of people from South Africa, who had booked for a 3-week tour of India, canceled their booking as soon as they heard about the terrorist attack. But when the crisis blew over in 3 days, they have immediately revived their plan and reinstated their bookings.

These are brave people. Not this bunch of English cricketers who are as cowardly as the terrorists whom KP calls as cowards.

Thanks, Shane Warne, For Your Candid Admission.

The caption of the article in the Indian Express says:

Aus lack the edge without aggression: Warne
(http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/264297.html)
Posted online: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 1434 hrs IST
Melbourne, January 22:

"Legendary leg-spinner Shane Warne has said Australia cared too much about their image in the Perth cricket Test and lost the edge without their trademark aggression.

"Warne said the main weapon for Australia was their aggressive body language on the field and by being careful of their conduct after the Sydney fiasco they found it difficult to curb the Indians.

"There have been some suggestions that Australia lost their edge and were too concerned about their image going into Perth. Sport is about passion and attitude and knowing yourself. Australia play best when they get in the face of the opposition and are very aggressive," Warne wrote in his column for The Daily Telegraph.

There, the cat is out of the bag. Thanks, Warne, for your admission that Australian cricket thrives not due to the cricketing skills of the players but due to their "aggressive" behaviour (read provocative, abusive, intimidatory, insulting behaviour) on the field. On the face of it, they are "aggressive" against the opposing team, but in reality, the umpires sub-consciously fall prey to this provocative, intimidatory behaviour, and tend to rule more in favour of these street bullies than the opponents. This is more so in the case of the Third (TV) Umpire who is an Australian who most often rules against the opponents; the most recent case is when Bruce Oxenford ruled Symonds not out to a stumping appeal in the second Test at Sydney when the entire commentator fraternity of the world, including Aussie commentators, were of one mind in declaring him out.

What is this "aggressive" attitude that Shane Warne is talking about? There is a very sad report in the Sydney Morning Herald about how this is poisoning the young minds of Australia.

(http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/badmouthings-best-sharpen-their-tongues-in-juniors/2008/01/11/1199988590657.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)

Badmouthing's best sharpen their tongues in junior
January 12, 2008

"If you think the on-field behaviour of Australia's Test cricketers is bad, consider the following.

"t was a Green Shield match for under 16s between Manly and Fairfield-Liverpool last weekend. Manly's ninth wicket had just fallen. As their last batsman prepared to make his way to the crease, one of the Fairfield-Liverpool players left the other fieldsmen to run over to the gate to meet him. Former Test player Peter Philpott, who happened to be Manly's coach, described what happened next.

"As the batsman walked out, this other kid walked along with him, verbalising him all the way from the gate to the wicket," he said. "The batsman was a 12-year-old kid, and the player verbalising him was a big, strong 15- or 16-year-old.The boy tried to avoid him, but the big bloke kept walking around him, so he could keep hammering in his ear."

"Philpott thought he had seen everything, but this incident broke new ground. It showed you no longer had to wait for a batsman to arrive at the crease before sledging him; you could start as soon as he set foot on the field.

"Philpott belongs to a generation of cricketers who regard sledging as the worst of evils. He played his last Test in 1966 when sledging was not an issue."

Isn't it great how the teenage Aussie cricketers are groomed first into sledging techniques!! The next thing the Aussies will device is to prepare a special training programme to be played to every Aussie pregnant woman regularly so that the foetuses in their wombs will absorb all that is needed and come out fully prepared to take on the world. How great!!

Chief of Cricket Australia, Sutherland, says this is how Australia has always played their game right from the beginning, and he defends their horrid behaviour. Don Bradman must be turning in his grave many times over on hearing this. What a shame!!

STEROIDS? SLEDGING? -- THEY ARE ALL THE SAME

Here is a short description of what steroids can do.
"Do you know that steroids can also be good for you? Doctors give them to you for rashes and allergies. Did you know that asthma is the most common kid disease in the whole world? Five million kids in the U.S. get it. Certain steroids are a safe way to treat asthma in kids, but they do have side effects ........ There are some good things about steroids and so many bad things. A good thing is it can treat asthma safely. A bad thing is that your kidneys, liver, and stomach can be destroyed. Too many steroids can destroy your mind. If people take illegal steroids, they will have mood swings. You can be very violent or depressed so much that you might kill yourself. Steroids are taken to strengthen muscles, but they can damage them, too. Steroids can cause heart disease and cancer. They can also make a young child stop growing." (http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112390/steroids.htm)

Use of steroids in sports is covered under the generic term of 'doping'. "In sports, doping refers to the use of performance-enhancing drugs, particularly those forbidden by organizations that regulate competitions. Doping is considered unethical by most international sports organizations and especially the International Olympic Committee. The reasons are mainly the health threat of performance-enhancing drugs, the equality of opportunity of the athletes and the exemplary effect of "clean" (doping-free) sports in the public." (Wikipedia)

Recent spate of doping scandals show how much this scurge of drugs has invaded the field of sports, particularly athletics. The ideal for athletes was set by Pierre de Coubertin, the father of the modern olympic movement, with his Olympic motto -- Citius, Altius, Fortius, which is Latin for "Faster, Higher, Stronger." A more informal well known motto, also introduced by De Coubertin, is "The most important thing is not to win but to take part!". The idea is that the athletes should strive to improve on their own performances from day to day, year to year and so on, in a natural way through proper nutrition and exercise, and not really compete in an aggressive way to win at any cost.. However, athletes being human beings with the attendant weaknesses, began experimenting with chemical drugs to build their muscles, improve their physique, acquire some strength artificially and so on, so that they can perform better than their competitors. Even though this went against the spirit of the atletics movement, the administrators turned a blind eye to it initially till they began understanding the deleterious effects the drugs had on the health of the athletes, as well as the unfair advantage it gave them over other athletes who were not contaminated. Since then they have started clamping down heavily on such unhealthy and illegal methods. So much so they have even altered the Olympic oath taken by athletes at every Olympic meet to include a clause against drug usage. The revised oath reads as, "In the name of all the competitors I promise that we shall take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules which govern them, committing ourselves to a sport without doping and without drugs, in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and the honour of our teams."

Well, what has all this got to do with 'sledging'. The simple fact that both sledging and doping have the same end result in view. "I must win at any cost. I must put one over the opponent, by any means, fair or foul." In doping one increases once own strength and performing ability by unfair means so that the opponent is not able to compete on an equal footing. In sledging one uses abusive and aggressive language and behaviour against the opponent so that he is mentally upset and is not able to perform normally to his true potential. It is in effect equivalent to injecting a poison in the opponent's body and mind, and so affect his ability to perform. This is in fact worse than doping.

Isn't it a pity that Steve Waugh, Ricky Ponting and the entire Aussie cricket team and their administrators are so pessimistic about their own skills, so unsure of their own ability to win, so scared of the skills of the opponents that they have decided they cannot win on the strength of their own skills without resorting to such underhand methods like sledging? Isn't it Steve Waugh who defined sledging as the art of causing "mental disorientation", "mental disintegration" of the opponent? What a glorious aim!! And what an ignominious admission that the Aussies do not have the cricketing skills to win the matches without using such base techniques!!

There is another aspect which has not been talked about openly. What sort of effect does sledging have on the umpires, even though sledging does not target them directly? All said and done sledging is bullying and no less. When the Aussie bullies or the South African bullies (just look at Andre Nel) indulge in sledging and their respective cricket bodies or ICC do nothing to control that, the umpires will subconsciously submit to that bullying and rule in their favour rather than be fair to the victims. This is what happened in Sydney when decision after decision went against India.

How can this scourge be eliminated?

Athletics administrators have shown the way already by their strong action against the doping culprits, many of them quite high-profile athletes. The Canadian sprinter, Ben Johnson, had set a couple of world records in 100 metre sprint in 1986-87. Then he won the 100 m sprint in the 1988 Olympics ahead of Carl Lewis of USA and Linford Christie of UK. However he tested positive to some banned substance. Immediately he was stripped of his title, and Carl Lewis and Linford Christie were awarded the first and second places. Ben Johnson's earlier world records were also removed from the records.

Floyd Landis won the 2006 Tour de France cycling competition. But then his doping test showed positive. He was stripped of his title and was banned for two years.

Justin Gatlin set a world record for 100 m sprint (9.77 sec) in May 2006. He too tested positive subsequently. His world record was annulled and he has been awarded a 4-year ban.

The most high-profile athlete to get caught is Marion Jones of USA who won 5 medals (3 gold and 2 bronze) in the 2000 Olympics. She has recently faced her punishment and had to surrender all her medals and the monies she earned out of that. She is also banned for two years and has to undergo 6-months jail sentence.

That is the way to go to kill the scourge of sledging. Sledging became a high profile technique ever since Steve Waugh, the high priest of sledging, took over as the Aussie captain. So the clean-up also should begin from that time. All the test matches won by Australia, against whatever country, should be reviewed from the point of view of how sledging impacted the result, and wherever a reasonable link is seen, the result of that test match should be annulled. It will be interesting to see how many matches they really won using their skills alone. For a start, the second test at Sydney should be declared a 'No Result'.

MENTAL DISINTEGRATION, MENTAL DERANGEMENT

Steve Waugh doesn't believe Australia should apologise for their attitude in the second test match against India at Sydney (02 to 06 JAN 2008) which Australia won through unfair means. He says, "Teams playing against Australia fail to understand that banter, gamesmanship, sledging or whatever anyone would like to call it is just the way Australian kids joust and play in the schoolyard and backyards. On the other hand, Australian teams can't stomach time-wasting and perceived manipulation of the rules, including calling for runners, over-appealing and the alleged altering of the condition of the ball." (http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329710.html)

Very interesting, well-researched(!), scholarly comment, but with a rather substantial gap between his perception (and understanding), and the reality on the ground. Tim Lane has this to say in The Age of Australia:
"Apart from the fact that distinguishing "legitimate banter" from "sledging" might test the best legal minds, how do you define the spirit of a game? This is what has brought Australian cricket undone this week. It has been playing by its own book. It lays down its rules and then stretches them. The events in Sydney that sparked the week's crisis are but manifestations of an established attitude. An example is the matter of appealing. The Spirit of Australian Cricket refers to the acceptance "of all umpiring decisions as a mark of respect for our opponents, the umpires, ourselves and the game". But what of the matter of appealing for decisions players know, or at least suspect, would be unjust? Did the Aussies really believe Rahul Dravid edged the ball to Adam Gilchrist on the last day in Sydney? It might have won them a 16th straight Test but was it worth it?


"The other matter that has inflamed India is Ricky Ponting's decision to report Harbhajan Singh for using racist language. The Australian captain did as he had been encouraged to do by officialdom. ......... Presumably, Ponting failed to realise that within such a volatile environment this could have serious consequences. How the hard-nosed Aussies would look complaining against their underdog rival appears also to have escaped the skipper. Being an international cricket captain these days requires some sophisticated thinking."
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/11/1199988590209.html)

How does all this gel with Steve Waugh's position that it is the other teams that manipulate the rules, and indulge in over-appealing?

Here are some more interesting facts. The following is from Brendan McArdle a former Victorian all-rounder and club cricket stalwart, writing in The Age of Australia again.
"But, for those who have followed his (Ponting's) on-field actions closely, particularly on overseas tours, there have been terrible moments when things haven't gone Australia's way. The turning point for Ponting as captain was the loss of the Ashes in 2005. Since then he has led by his own instincts rather than by consensus, and has taken no prisoners. During that 2005 series we saw the irrational side of Ponting when he blamed England coach Duncan Fletcher for his run-out by the substitute fieldsman, rather than the terrible call of his batting partner Damien Martyn.
There have since been instances of toes being trodden on in the pursuit of success, sometimes involving the unbecoming sight of the Australian captain remonstrating with an umpire. Two seasons ago, during a one-day series in New Zealand, he had a slanging match with Billy Bowden when a no-ball was called because he had insufficient fieldsmen in the inner circle. In Bangladesh, on the way home from a wearying tour of South Africa, he badgered the umpires until he got his way. This against cricket's minnows. Like many of his teammates, he consistently pressures umpires with his aggressive appealing and he often ignores the edict that is supposed to prevent fieldsmen from charging at umpires during their appeals.


"As a batsman he has always found it difficult to accept line-ball decisions; it was no surprise last week when, despite his earlier reprieve, he showed his displeasure at wrongly being given leg before wicket. At the Headingley Test of 2001 he stood his ground after appearing to be caught in the slips for a duck. He won a reprieve based on inconclusive television evidence and went on to make a hundred.

"The issue for Ponting is not how he reacts to Tony Greig's comments, whether he gives some lip to Duncan Fletcher as he leaves the field, or what he did at the Bourbon and Beefsteak bar in his younger days. It's about how he and his team interact with umpires and opposition players — whether it's in the true spirit of the game."
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/11/1199988590215.html)

Can there be a worse indictment than this about the behaviour of the Aussie captain Ponting and his players? Does any of this description gel with Steve Waugh's perception that the Aussie players are paragons of virtue and it is the others, particularly the sub-continent players, who are the scum of the earth? If and when Steve Waugh hears or reads such indictment of his Aussie team, does he rush to the Bondi Beach in Sydney and do what their national bird, the ostrich, is said to do?

Is it possible that, far from achieving the "mental disintegration", "mental disorientation" of the Indians, Steve Waugh and his proteges have themselves got "mental disintegration" and "mental degeneration" to the extent they are living in a state of illusion, deluding themselves that there is nothing wrong with them and they are behaving perfectly alright, even though the bulk of the world is faulting them?

On the other hand, while the match officials are ready to shoot from the hip whenever they think some player, particularly from the Indian sub-continent, has "misbehaved", they have again and again and again kept quiet and submitted to such rowdy behaviour of the Aussies. Why?


Maybe we have to express our grudging admiration for something else Steve Waugh, his successor captain Ponting and their team appear to have achieved. Rather than the Indians suffering "mental disintegration", it is the arbitrators who have fallen for it and become mentally disoriented and doing the bidding of the Aussies, as can be seen by the plethora of perverse decisions given by Steve Bucknor, Mark Benson, the third umpire and the match referee Mike Procter. As Steve Waugh and his proteges are influencing and altering the condition of the minds of the arbitrators, why should he bother about "the alleged altering of the condition of the ball" by others?

RACISM -- ALIVE AND KICKING IN AUSTRALIA

Racism in cricket has been brought alive in the second cricket test between India and Australia (02 to 06 JAN 2008) with Andrew Symonds alleging that Harbhajan Singh made a racist comment about him, and match referee Mike Procter passing judgement against Harbhajan based only on the words of the accuser Symonds and a couple of his team-mates, without any concrete evidence.


This is not the first time India has had to face non-white cricketers. Apart from playing against the West Indies for a long time, we have had non-whites in the England team such as Dean Hadley, Devon Malcolm, Phil DeFrietas, and in the Souh African Team like Makhaya Ntini, Paul Adams, Nicky Boje, as well as players in the Kenya and Zimbabwe teams. Never in all these years has there been the slightest whiff of racist comment from the Indians against any of these non-whites, or even against anyone else for that matter. If Australia suddenly puts up a cry against Harbhajan and gets a three-test ban passed by Mike Procter in a Kangaroo Court fashion, there is something perverse and sinister about it.

Andrew Symonds happens to be the first, and one and only, non-white player in a team of pure-white Australians in whom the "White Australia" blood still is in full flow. Apart from Evonne Goolagong Cawley in tennis and Cathy Freeman in athletics, not much is known about other original inhabitants, the Aborigines, in Australian sports. One wonders what sort of equation or relationship Symonds has with the "whites" in the team. Having moved from the Caribeans to Australia, he has to constantly prove himself to be more loyal to Australia than the Australians themselves. He is in a very vulnerable position to be 'used' by the racist elements in the team for their own benefit.

Indians have been some sort of a thorn in recent times in the path of the 'all-conquering' Australians and they have to be stopped in their track by hook or crook. Isn't it the easiest thing in the world for the racist Australians to 'use' Symonds to plant a racism charge against India and "mentally disintegrate" them, in the words of their great master-mind Steve Waugh who shaped their sledging practice in this direction?

As a result, we see the 'white racism' of the Australian players (and English umpire Mark Benson) along with the 'black racism' of the West Indies umpire Steve Bucknor, who seems to have taken a visceral dislike for the Indians as seen by his many recent bad decisions against them, aided and abetted by the 'apartheid racism' of South African Mike Procter in his totally one-sided judgement against Harbhajan throwing into the winds any semblance of natural justice, coming together like a ton of bricks on the Indians. And this is what Ricky Ponting and his brand of fellow-Australians call playing "HARD AND FAIR".

Looks like we have to fall back on good old friend Mark Anthony to describe the situation. "Andrew Symonds says he is not overly sensitive about racism but considers comments unacceptable when they come from opposition players with whom he has no friendship," says a report from Cricinfo. So there it is in black and white; Harbhajan is no friend of Symonds, so whatever he says becomes racist.
(http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/330663.html)
So this wound to Harbhajan and India was caused by Symonds. But Symonds is an honourable man. When Harbhajan said something to Symonds in response to a provocation from him, Ponting runs to his mothers, Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson, and complains, "My Mummies, this fellow hit me back first", which finally leads to a three match ban. This wound to Harbhajan and India was caused by Ponting. But Ponting is an honourable man. Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson did not see any of this evil, and did not hear any of this evil directly, but still they carried the complaint to Mike Procter the referee, which resulted in the three-match ban on Harbhajan. But Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson are honourable men. Mike Procter admitted in a TV interview that the umpires did not hear Harbhajan uttering any racist comments, but he still accepted Symonds' complaint at face value and dumped Harbhajan's defense into the sea in the Sydney beach, and slapped a three-match ban on him. This wound to Harbhajan and India was caused by Mike Procter. But Mike Procter is an honourable man.

Yes, all these racists are honourable men indeed.

WINNING AT ANY COST

In spite of being severely criticised and castigated by various people for the very bad behaviour and attitude displayed by the Aussie team in the second cricket test at Sydney, Ponting and his men seem to be blissfully unaware of having done anything wrong. Here is a sampling of their resposnes.

Ponting believed there was nothing wrong with Australia's on-field conduct during the match. "I have absolutely no doubt about this match being played in the right spirit," he said.

Ricky Ponting still believes his team does not need to alter its behaviour, but has admitted he would do some things "a little differently" if he could return to the Test in Sydney.

However, Ponting does not believe the team is arrogant. "I don't think anyone wants the way Australia plays cricket to change," he said. "Everyone likes to see a tough, uncompromising brand of cricket ..."

Hussey said the players had "never stepped outside the rules or the laws of the game". "We have a great pride in playing for the baggy green cap and for playing for each other," he said in the Australian. "We know how hard it is to get an opportunity to play for Australia and we want to play as hard as we possibly can."

McGrath, who till recently was part of the team and who is himself a master of the art of foul-mouthing, backed the integrity of Ricky Ponting while supporting Australia for their "hard and fair" attitude. "From an Australian point of view, I know the way the guys play and I have total respect for every guy that pulls on a baggy green. The Australians play it hard and fair."

Cricket Australia (CA) threw its weight behind Ricky Ponting and his team-mates against accusations of unsporting behaviour and said sparks are bound to fly when the game is Test cricket and not "tiddlywinks". "Test cricket is what is being played here. It's not tiddlywinks," said Sutherland, asserting Australia always played the game hard but fair.

CA chief executive James Sutherland looked unperturbed by the barrage of criticism that has been hurled at Ricky Ponting and his team-mates for their behaviour during the Sydney Test against India. "The Australian cricket team plays the game tough, tough and uncompromising. It's the way Australian cricket teams have played the game since 1877 under all sorts of different captains. That is the way Australians have expected their teams to play."

Not to be outdone, Allen Border and Steve Waugh too pitched in with their own support for Ricky Ponting and his men. Border said that while he thought Australia had no need to apologise for their on-field behaviour, which has attracted widespread criticism, it was time for international sides to start understanding each other more. "What we think is just routine banter they take offence at - it is straight-out cultural stuff," he told the Courier Mail.

Steve Waugh added his bit by saying,"Teams playing against Australia fail to understand that banter, gamesmanship, sledging or whatever anyone would like to call it is just the way Australian kids joust and play in the schoolyard and backyards."


It is intriguing the way these guys keep throwing out this crumb about their hard and fair attitude. One can easily see that their approach is hard, but where does the fairness come. It takes some time to realise it is just a smoke-screen which masks the reality. It is the CA chief Sutherland who lets the cat out of the bag when he says, "The Australian cricket team plays the game tough, tough and uncompromising." It is there for all to see that they play hard with a Win At Any Cost, Fairness Be Damned outlook. Obviously they have realised that cricket playing technique alone won't carry them far with any consistency. They will just be one among all the other countries, more or less sharing the win-loss statistics on an equitable basis with them. To achieve their goal of Winning At Any Cost they must resort to extra-constitutional methods. This is where sledging comes into play. As Steve Waugh says above, "banter, gamesmanship, sledging or whatever anyone would like to call it is just the way Australian kids joust and play in the schoolyard and backyards." Every Aussie kid is initiated into this technique from the play-school level itself and trained to perfection by the time they come out of school. As Steve Waugh or somebody else explained, these are mind-games designed to cause mental disintegration or disorientation of the victim. When opposing teams are pelted with abusive language which the ICC for some strange reason has not found fit to ban, they don't know how to counter that and they go mad with helpless anger, and lose the match. What a simple technique!!


The problem with such methods is that such Frankensteins have an ugly habit of turning back on the creators. The Aussies happily enjoy their wins as long as the other teams meekly surrender to them. For example, they just loved the way India capitulated at Melbourne. But in Sydney when India matched them in cricketing performance (in spite of a strong pro-Australia show by umpires Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson) as well as in sledging performance with public accusations of their misdeeds, they are unable to take it. It is not only Ponting and his team but the CA Chief Sutherland as well as Allan Border and Steve Waugh seem to be suffering from severe mental derangement. When the whole world has come down on them for their bad behaviour, these worthies are deluding themselves that the poor Aussies have done nothing wrong, and it is only the bad, bad wolf that is the world which is pouncing on the sweet innocent Little Red Riding Hood. How pathetic!


Luckily for Australia they still seem to have some sane people who realise that the Aussie cricket team as well as the cricket establishment need some talking to. One report says: "Ponting has been backed by Cricket Australia and his team-mates, but there has been severe criticism from former cricketing and sporting greats about the team's attitude." John Bertrand, a sailor who won the America's Cup in 1983, is the chairman of the Sport Australia Hall of Fame and he wants a meeting with Cricket Australia to let it know its sides should be showing more respect to opponents. "We have a lot of clout in the sporting community and we will be saying to Cricket Australia that people need to step back and reassess what is happening here with a cool head," Bertrand said in the Herald Sun. "The pressure to win out on the field has become too hot, and that pressure is all about winning at all costs.... That is not what sport is about ... The fallout that we are seeing at the moment is not acceptable. It's clearly damaging international relations and clearly a lot of people are upset." Bertrand has joined the respected athletes Herb Elliott and Robert de Castella in believing the players are too arrogant. "Sport is only sport," he said, "it's not war."


Neil Harvey, an Invincible from 1948, disagreed with Hussey and said Ponting "needs to look at himself". "Certainly the captain needs to be stronger and keep his guys in line," Harvey said. Harvey was also concerned by Australia's failure to shake Anil Kumble's hand at the end of the Test. "I don't think they are very sporting." So there still seems to be some hope for Australia as long as such sane heads are around.


All that the Aussie team and establishment, including retired players and captains, need may be some psychiatric evaluation.

Ricky Ponting's Integrity

During the post-match press conference at the end of the second Test match in Sydney (Jan 2008), Ricky Ponting lost his cool when he was questioned by an Indian reporter about his questionable appeals for catches, and said, "If you are actually questioning my integrity in the game, you should not even be standing....". (The full report may be seen in the blog of G.Rajaraman, the Delhi based reporter. http://rajreflects.blogspot.com/2008/01/losing-respect-and-getting-under.html)

Well, His Royal Highness Ricky Ponting, sitting in regal splendour in his royal Durbar has decreed that only sycophantic Aussie media reporters, who will swallow gleefully whatever juicy tidbits he will hand them, are welcome in his press conferences and any pesky outsiders who put him in a spot have no business to be there. The supreme arrogance for which the Aussies have earned some notoriety is very much on view in this simple statement. And considering the fact that it was aimed at a reporter from India, a certain colonial racist mind-set may also be seen in this behaviour.


At the outset Ponting should understand that a person's honesty and integrity are not recognised by others based on one's own assertion or command. These traits are recognised when a person displays them regularly in his behaviour over a period of time. For example Adam Gilchrist has earned a reputation for walking when he snicks a catch behind even when the umpire is somewhat unsighted and is not so sure about it. In his case, if he is not so sure himself about whether he has snicked or not, and so waits for the umpire to adjudicate, nobody will find a flaw in it or accuse him of lack of integrity. But in this one single match itself, Ponting as well as Symonds and Clarke have compromised themselves on their honesty and integrity scale by not walking, and capitalising on the incompetence of the umpire who spared them, or waited for the umpire's decision even though he knew he was out, as in the case of Clarke.


One is reminded of a very juicy story in this context. A multi-millionaire was dancing with a stunning blonde and he whispered in her ears whether she would agree to sleep with him for one night for one million dollars. She gleefully accepted the proposition. A minute later he said, how about a hundred thousand dollars. She frowned a bit and said, ok, if you are so hard up. Then he scaled it down to one thousand dollars. She flared up and asked, "Do you think I am a whore?" He coolly replied, "Is there any doubt about it. I am only trying to fix the price." Ponting and his men have compromised their honesty and integrity in public in front of a stadium full of people and millions of fans around the world watching TV. What is the worth of fretting and fuming and saying, how dare you question my integrity?

Some scribes, including Indians, have tried to be too smart by half in saying that Sachin and Laxman also have escaped some doubtful lbw calls and then gone on to their centuries. What a comparison!! It is like chalk and cheese. In the case of lbw the batsman cannot judge whether the ball would have hit the stumps from where it hit his leg, except when he has played back so much to be very close to rhe stumps. Whereas in the case of snicking behind, the batsman knows he has touched the ball and it has been taken cleanly, and still dishonestly stands there for the umpire to decide.

Ponting's and his team-mates' honesty and integrity are in tatters indeed.

Solution For Poor Umpiring Decisions.

As Sunil Gavaskar points out again and again in his commentaries and writings, in spite of the induction of 'neutral' umpires, the umpiring decisions seem to go more against India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka than against the other cricket playing nations. Gavaskar is surely the most qualified to talk on this subject as it was his act in trying to walk out of a Test match in Australia, dragging Chetan Chauhan with him, which shook up the cricketing world to the fact that the colonial 'white skin' umpires were just as bad as the 'brown skins' of the Indian subcontinent. Till then they used to point a finger at the poor umpiring standards in India and Pakistan while conveniently being blind to their own failures.


Now after the first day's play in Sydney with umpteen wrong decisions by 'neutral' umpires Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson, more against India than Australia, Steve Waugh wants to scrap the neutral umpire system and have only umpires from host countries, so that they can go back to their own cosy habit of favouring the host team. (Indian umpires unfortunately seem to have imbibed the Hindu dharma of 'Athithi Devo Bhava' and tend to be generous to visiting teams.)


However, it looks like the umpires, whether neutral or local, will continue to make mistakes, often quite unfair and costly to one team or the other. So there has to be some other way of countering this problem. I propose the following solution.


The only factor which governs the match is the number of runs. So the solution also should be in terms of runs. When a wrong decision is given in favour of the batsman, 50 runs should be debited from his side's total. And if a wrong decision is given against a batsman, 50 runs should be credited to his side's total. For example, in the current India vs Australia match in Sydney, so far Ponting was wrongly given 'Not Out' twice and was then given 'Out' also wrongly. So the Australain score should be reduced by 100 runs for the two wrong 'Not outs' and increased by 50 for the one wrong 'Out'. Then Symonds was given two 'Not outs' wrongly. So they should be penalised by 100 runs. That means Australia's first innings score should be reduced by 150 runs. That will make it 463 - 150 = 313. Looks like that will make the game fair for all.


Thanks very much for your applause for this solution.

Can Team India Win Against Cricket Umpires.

In the second cricket Test at Sydney which started on 02JAN2008, after rocking the mighty Australians to 134 for 6, India allowed them to score 463 runs with a huge 162 not out to Symonds. But the following report from the portal Cricinfo says it all. I quote:

"Ishant Sharma, just 19, made an early impression and could have easily had his first wicket when Symonds was on 30. A whole stadium might have heard the edge but that's not what matters. Some teams think Steve Bucknor needs a hearing-aid; India might be more intent on a hearing.

"It's rumoured (wrongly) that the 555-run stand between Herbert Sutcliffe and Percy Holmes prompted a businessman to start the cigarette company. Someone here would be tempted to start Benson and Edges. Ponting edged twice but Mark Benson heard neither. Where is the technology, screamed a billion people. But that also didn't make a difference for the third umpire, with all the assistance he receives, managed to get one wrong again. Symonds was on 48. The rest, as they say, was savagery.

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan is an assistant editor at Cricinfo

© Cricinfo"


The entire Australian media will make a big fuss about Ponting being given out lbw to Harbhajan off a thick edge, but will quietly bury the fact that he had already enjoyed the generosity of umpire Mark Benson twice.

Then, "A whole stadium might have heard the edge but that's not what matters. Some teams think Steve Bucknor needs a hearing-aid; India might be more intent on a hearing," followed by "Where is the technology, screamed a billion people. But that also didn't make a difference for the third umpire, with all the assistance he receives, managed to get one wrong again. Symonds was on 48." So at 30 Symonds gets a "life" from Steve Bucknor, and then at 48 he gets another "life" courtesy the Australian 3rd umpire against a stumping appeal. Symonds goes on to make 162 not out and takes Australia to 463.


Are we playing Australia or the Umpires?