international cricket has been thru many controversies over the last decade; some substantial, like match-fixing and ball tampering, and others farcical, like chucking, bangladesh and zimbabwe. one of the biggest current controversies is sledging, or "gamesmanship", which is a word i detest, because it somehow legitimizes needless verbal abuse and intimidation. clearly, any form of sledging is against the so-called spirit of cricket. anyway, thats another debate altogether.

i actually wanted to write about the current england-india test series where all this sledging rubbish has really been overdone by both teams. england, as usual, are the team getting their butts kicked, yet if u listen to the "chatter", u would think india is the team behind. more than england's presumptuous arrogance, it is india's gullibility in being so easily provoked by a team that is mediocre at best and a team that they are quietly dominating that irritates me. sreesanth is a prime example- dancing after smashing andre nel for a six is one thing, but carrying that sort of attitude into his bowling and distracting himself and bowling so poorly against a weak-ish batting line-up is simply unacceptable. he was following thru 17-18m after every ball so he could say something to the batsman's face- what the???? ajit agarkar and irfan pathan, as all fans of indian cricket would know, have failed to fully utilize their significant talents in international cricket. it would be a shame to sreesanth go the same way, especially as he can probably be a better bowler than either of the other two.

but it would be unfair to blame only sreesanth. most of the team has gone overboard with this sledging business. england has few other options, but india should seriously work on their cricket rather than all this sledging rubbish. in fact, it would unsettle opponents more if their existence wasnt recognized....

on a side note, zaheer khan has accused england of planting jellybeans on the pitch!!! now this sounds like a pretty serious allegation. i mean imagine how much the ball would cut off a jellybean...

the terrorism case against dr. mohammed haneef has made lots of headlines over the last week or so. but this article by barkha dutt, an indian journalist with ndtv, raises an extremely important point:

---------------

But what if Haneef had been arrested in Bangalore instead of Brisbane? What if a suicide bomber had rammed his explosives-laden car into the airport at Srinagar, instead of Glasgow?

Would we have been as concerned about whether an innocent man had been locked away? Would we have demanded transparency from our judicial process on the grounds that the evidence was sketchy? Or would we have ranted about how India is a soft state and Islam a factory for fundamentalists?

We have branded Australia as racist, but would we have called ourselves communal?

The overwhelming anger at Haneef's arrest would be a lot more reassuring were it not undermined by a distinct double standard.

---------------

the article then goes onto a discussion of two cases india where innocent muslim men were imprisoned on terrorism charges without any evidence. of course, none of this excuses the AFP's incompetence or the australian government's deplorable handling of haneef's visa situation or the gross injustices of the justice system......

but then again, australia was more than happy for the usa government to treat david hicks in much the same manner over a much longer period of time. (thats not just the government but also the majority of the population) so we shouldnt really be surprised i suppose.....though in truth there is not a scrap of evidence to suggest haneef's involvement in terror plots whereas hicks clearly worked with the al-qaida organization and fought against the usa and its allies.

but i veer away from my point. i think, ironically, the indian government is the least hypocritical of all the parties involved in this affair by virtue of not demanding any reprieve for haneef. they know that if haneef had been arrested in bangalore by indian police, there is no way they would consider releasing him just because there was no evidence against him. in other words, they would react in exactly the same manner as the australian government. the principles of justice take a back seat when it comes to terrorism- something that i am sure the majority of indians would agree with......just not in this particular scenario.

segregation

i read somewhere that in the 1960's and before, cricket grounds in england had 3 dressing rooms instead of the customary 2.....1 for the visitors, 1 for the "gentleman" i.e. englishmen of upper class pedigree and 1 for "commoners", because of course, men of good breeding should not mingle with ordinary filth. i'm not sure when, but at some stage in the last 30-40 years that practice was scrapped...

but at my workplace, segregation is still the norm. during my first few weeks, when i went to the dressing rooms to change into theatre blues, i would get these strange looks from the people inside. and then, when i went into the operating theatres, i would get even more strange looks. i finally figured it out one day when i noticed that on the door thru which i entered was the sign "ancillary staff". so i decided to try the next door and found myself in another change room. after i got changed i went to grab a theatre cap, but in this room, instead of ordinary white caps, there was a selection of three colours. and here it finally clicked for me. the yellow caps were for "medical students and visitors", blue for "medical staff" i.e. doctors and nurses, and white for "ancillary staff" i.e. porters, clerks and cleaners.....

this is quite incredible because this is the only hospital at which i've seen something like this. every other operating suite has 1 dressing room with blue and green caps (which are different sizes). quite incredible.....