Nasser Needlessly Tainted by India

By Fredrick Franklin

India takes its off-field duels to absurd levels while not understanding matters in their entirety


So India struggles on in this one-day series. In the midst of the main action, one must take cognizance of some off-field, rather commentator’s box developments where the ESPN STAR channel seems to have overreacted. Indeed it might be a case of the whole Indian nation doing so.

Nasser: A good man hunted by India's cricket samurai

Nasser Hussain was banned from commentating for “calling some Indian fielders donkeys,” as was reported. However we must look at the other view. Here was a pragmatic commentator merely referring to some questionable fielders as standing in the field. In other words, about fielders merely carrying a load and not being mobile or fast.

While it’s hard to qualify the referred pack animal as distinguished either through the popular representation of Shrek the ogre’s companion and that distinguished star Eddie Murphy lent his voice to it, it’s unlikely that the candid Nasser will defend his statement. Simply because it would seem like an act of defence where of course none is necessary.

After all, if you’re not guilty of saying anything really wrong, why would you defend and invite more criticism? This is a good time to evaluate if in our country, we’re really prone to taking literal meanings of words whereas at other times we love to hear English or American humour. Where is our sense of understanding the real meaning, no doubt it’s a language we’ve acquired (and learned) from the English people?

The future of good camaradiere between Indian commentators and their particularly good English ones seems bleak because by a strange quirk of fate, it was Nasser Hussain who entered into an argument with Ravi Shastri about DRS whereas he was only stating an opinion. Again, we have a looming case of Rahul Dravid’s caught-behind not being detected by the DRS, therefore furthering Ravi and the BCCI’s cause that the DRS is not a 100 percent technology.

However, the percentage of correct dismissals has gone up to 98 percent with DRS (95 percent without DRS) therefore there is ample proof that the DRS should be good for the game. Undoubtedly, one bad DRS decision where one’s favourite batsman is involved and at a crucial time may put the technology out of favour especially when the unipolar cricket power like India is involved. The knives come out almost immediately after. The paper press too goes about home support with no real care about being a ‘guardian angel of democracy,’ meaning without looking at all angles.

We must broaden our vision and as the question “Are we really considering everything or just settling old scores?” Even if we need to, do we really pick on blameless individuals? What do we ourselves become after all this?

India’s a great country, with a proud cricketing heritage. Let’s not toe the line too far by using our clout. And let’s reserve judgement until we’re sure we’ve understood things in their correct context. Hope to get back to the on-field action soon anyway!