Say it again, Sunny

The International Cricket Council is believed to harbour reservations about Sunil Gavaskar8217;s continuance as head of its cricket committee. In question are his persistent remarks 8212;in televised commentary and in newspaper columns 8212; on the conduct of match officials and on perceived Anglo-Australian resentment at losing control of the sport. The ICC has been particularly impatient since the Sydney Test this January, when Gavaskar questioned the actions of match referee Mike Procter in deciding an on-field exchange between Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds. ICC officials went on record to say as much. Gavaskar, however, has kept at it and this week repeated his observation that England and Australia are loath to see India8217;s dominance in international cricket. Word is consequently around that the ICC is taking a tough view of his chairmanship of the cricket committee and possible conflicts of interest given his prominence as a commentator and columnist.

Conflicts of interests do occur in the sport 8212; for instance, the recent standoff between the BCCI and India8217;s chief selector Dilip Vengsarkar. But the insinuations against Gavaskar 8212; and they have been made by both ICC officials and other commentators 8212; are a bit suspect. Take the ICC cricket committee8217;s remit: it is to discuss matters related to how cricket is played and to make recommendations to the Council8217;s chief executive committee. These recommendations are in no way binding. On the committee are men like Mark Taylor who are also popular commentators. In fact, Gavaskar has been commentating for so long that they who appointed him to head the committee could not have overlooked the possibility of conflicting roles. They must know such conflicts are inconsequential.

The reason for the discomfort is evident: Gavaskar8217;s utterances make it impossible for certain controversies to die down as fast as the ICC would like. If, as is speculated, Gavaskar is called upon to choose between his outspokenness and his continuance on an ICC panel, we are pretty sure he will take the right option. But by being made to make the choice, he will prove what he has been hinting: that the ICC is a fit case for reform.