The Ashes is sinking into the mire of its own bullshit

George Dobell in Cricinfo


Perhaps, on a busier day - a day when almost half the overs had not been lost to rain - the "ball tampering" narrative would have been buried by more worthwhile content.

But, on a day which featured only five boundaries and saw the run-rate crawl along at 2.34 an over, an angle had to be found. And, with Australia struggling to save a game for the first time in the series, that angle turned out to be a thinly-disguised suggestion that England had engaged in ball-tampering in an attempt to gain reverse swing.

It's hard to interpret headlines such as "England in ball-tampering furore" (wwos.nine.com.au) and "England in the spotlight over ball treatment" (cricket.com.au; the website owned by Cricket Australia) any other way. Sure, there are some caveats in the articles. But the clickbait nature of modern journalism throws the mud before those caveats satisfy the lawyers. And it's the mud that sticks.

Maybe, on first viewing, the footage of James Anderson holding the ball might have raised some eyebrows. And maybe, by some interpretations, England's tactic of throwing the ball in on the bounce to ensure one side is worn is stretching legality to the limit. It is true that they were warned not to over-do it by the umpires. It is also true that Australia were.

But anyone looking closely - or doing some research - might have seen the England bowlers were standing next to the umpires when the 'incident' occurred. They might also have noticed that any alleged scratching was to the shiny side of the ball; an action that would counter the attempts to gain reverse swing.

Furthermore, they might then have checked with the match-referee before making any allegation. Had they done so, they would have been told that no complaint had been made. An England team spokesman subsequently said they had received apologies from a couple of broadcasters, an acknowledgement that checks should have been made before publication and an understanding the relevant articles would either be amended or deleted.

Trevor Bayliss, the England coach, described the story as "a beat up" subsequently suggesting that was also the expression used by the umpires. Asked to explain what that meant he said: "it's made up."

"As soon as I saw the headlines I raced into the umpires' room and that was their words: it's a beat-up, nothing to worry about, absolutely fine," Bayliss said. "You are allowed to clean the ball. [Umpire] Kumar Dharmasena had said to our guys - well both sides - that there is no problem but he would like them to do it in front of the umpires so they can see and there is nothing untoward.

"Kumar said there is a bit of dirt and mud out there. It does get on the ball and in some of the seams. You are allowed to clean it off. Watching the footage, if he was scratching it, it was the wrong side to get it to reverse. I'm quite sure that wasn't the case.

"Kumar just said, don't worry, there is absolutely nothing in it. His words were: it was a beat up - it's made up."

Maybe England only have themselves to blame. In the days when they used to be bowled out by the likes of Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram, allegations of ball tampering were never far from the surface - both from the media and the dressing room - while in the days when they were bowled out by Muttiah Muralitharan and Saeed Ajmal, whispers of suspect actions proliferated. On both occasions, there was a failure to appreciate the skill of the players. It's not so long since a UK paper published a match-fixing expose that exposed nothing, too.

And maybe, in the longer-term, broadcasters may seek to recalibrate commentary teams that are strong on cricketing experience - which is clearly a tremendous asset - but lacking in journalistic rigour. There are times when the Channel 9 commentary, predominantly staffed as it is by cricketers who have served Australia with distinction, becomes as partial as any broadcaster anywhere in the world. And yes, that includes the North Korean channel that only shows Kim Jong-un hitting holes in one on the golf course. While sitting on a unicorn.

But this latest non-story sustained what appears to be a pretty conscious campaign of sledging against the touring team that extends beyond the pitch and into the newspapers and broadcasts. Had the boot been on the other foot, talk would have been of "whingeing Poms" (surely a pejorative expression used to describe a nationality; you wonder if it will be in circulation in 20 years) and a "doctored" pitch. Recall the reactions to England winning the Ashes in 2013 and 2015? Was it more 'well played, England' or 'doctored Pom pitches define the series'? You decide.

In the last couple of days, Michael Hussey - who was also vocal on the ball-tampering issue - had somehow misconstrued Stuart Broad's concession that he "wasn't competitive" in Perth into an admission that he hadn't tried.

Under the headline 'Amazing 'Broad didn't try'' (foxsports.com.au), Hussey said it was "unbelievable" that Broad was "almost saying he wasn't trying hard enough in Perth", which "you find amazing in an Ashes series". Hussey signed off by wondering why Broad "hadn't been working this hard in the lead-up to Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth".

What Broad actually said was this: "I thought I bowled pretty well at Brisbane, okay at Adelaide, but very poorly in Perth. I didn't find a good rhythm and that probably showed. All you can do as a top-flight sportsman is make sure your work ethic is always at the top level, that you are looking to improve and that you are competitive. I was not as competitive as I should have been in Perth. I wanted to improve that."

But why would we expect any better?

When England scored at a run-rate of 2.58 in Brisbane, they were dubbed the "Bore-me Army" but when Australia scored at a rate of 2.51 they were praised for their determination.

When Mike Atherton - a man who stood up to Allan Donald at his best in a particularly thrilling encounter - wrote a considered, nuanced piece suggesting some tailenders (whatever country they might be from) might need greater protection from the short ball to avoid serious injury, he was lampooned as a "whingeing Pom".

When Anderson suggested there wasn't a huge amount of depth in Australia's pace resources - a suggestion that has largely been vindicated by Jackson Bird's attempt to stand in for Mitchell Starc (no bird has had a worse Christmas and plenty of turkeys have had a rough time of things) - it was dismissed as abusive and disrespectful.

When the Jonny Bairstow buttgate incident was first reported, one newspaper's page lead called it a "nightclub attack" while Moeen Ali - that's the Muslim Moeen Ali - was recently asked if he was going "to be able to keep out of the pub" for a few days. It is relentless, it is cheap, it is hysterical, it is parochial and, most of all, it is really, really boring.

Cricket is sinking into the mire of its own bullshit. If the Ashes, of all contests, needs this sort of tosh to remain of interest to the general public, we are in real trouble.

Why the intellectual is on the run

Thanks to manufactured debates on TV, there is no time for irony and nuance nor are we able to distinguish between a charlatan and an academician

Harish Khare in The Hindu

Now that the Supreme Court has provided some sort of relief against harassment to Professor Ashis Nandy, it has become incumbent upon all liberal voices to ponder over the processes and arguments that combined to ensure that an eminent scholar had to slink out of Jaipur in the middle of the night because of his so-called controversial observations at a platform that was supposed to be a celebration of ideas and imagination. Sensitive souls are quite understandably dismayed; others have deplored the creeping culture of intolerance. Some see the great sociologist as a victim of overzealousness of identity politics. All this breast-beating is fine, but we do need to ask ourselves as to what illiberal impulses and habits are curdling up the intellectual’s space. We need to try to recognise how and why Professor Nandy’s nuanced observations on a complex social problem became “controversial.” Who deemed those remarks to be “controversial?” And, these questions cannot be answered without pointing out to the larger context of the current protocol of public discourse — as also to note, regretfully, that the likes of Mr. Nandy have themselves unwittingly countenanced these illiberal manners.

After all, this is not the first time — nor will it be the last — that a sentence in a complex argument has been picked up to be thrashed out into a controversy . This is now the only way we seem able to talk and argue among ourselves. And we take pride in this descent into unreasonableness. We are now fully addicted to the new culture of controversy-manufacturing. We have gloriously succumbed to the intoxicating notion that a controversy a day keeps the republic safe and sound from the corrupt and corrosive “system.”

This happens every night. Ten or 15 words are taken out of a 3,000-word essay or speech and made the basis of accusation and denunciation, as part of our right to debate. We insistently perform these rituals of denunciation and accusation as affirmation of our democratic entitlement. Every night someone must be made to burn in the Fourth Circle of Hell. In our nightly dance of aggression and snapping, touted as the finest expression of civil society and its autonomy from the ugly state and its uglier political minions, we turn our back on irony, nuance and complexity and, instead, opt for angry bashing, respecting neither office nor reputation. We are no longer able to distinguish between a charlatan and an academician. A Mr. Nandy must be subjected to the same treatment as a Suresh Kalmadi.

 

Nandy, a collateral victim

Mr. Nandy’s discomfort is only a minor manifestation of this cultivated bullishness. And let it be said that there is nothing personal against him. He is simply a collateral victim of the new narrative genre in which a “controversy” is to be contrived as a ‘grab-the-eyeballs’ game, a game which is played out cynically and conceitedly for its own sake, with no particular regard for any democratic fairness or intellectual integrity. By now the narrative technique is very well-defined: a “story” will not go off the air till an “apology” has been extracted on camera and an “impact” is then flaunted. In this controversy-stoking culture of bogus democratic ‘debate’, Mr. Nandy just happened to be around on a slow day. Indeed it would be instructive to find out how certain individuals were instigated to invoke the law against Mr. Nandy. Perhaps the Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association needs to be applauded for having the courage to call the Nandy controversy an instance of “media violence.”

At any given time, it is the task of the intellectual to steer a society and a nation away from moral uncertainties and cultural anxieties; it is his mandate to discipline the mob, moderate its passions, disabuse it of its prejudices, instil reasonableness, argue for sobriety and inject enlightenment. It is not the intellectual’s job to give in to the mob’s clamouring.

 

‘Middle class fundamentalism’

But, unfortunately, that is what our self-designated intellectuals have reduced themselves to doing: getting overawed by television studio warriors, allowing them to set the tone and tenor of dialogue. There is now a new kind of fundamentalism — that of what is touted as the “media-enabled middle class.” For this class of society, the heroes and villains are well defined. Hence, the idea of debate is not to promote understanding nor to seek middle ground nor to reason together, but to bludgeon the reluctant into conformity. Mary McCarthy had once observed that “to be continually on the attack is to run the risk of monotony … and a greater risk is that of mechanical intolerance.”

When intellectuals and academicians like Ashis Nandy allow themselves to be recruited to these “debates,” even if they are seen to be articulating a dissenting point of view, their very presence and participation lends credibility to the kangaroo courts of intimidation.

 

Manipulated voices

The so-called debate is controlled and manipulated and manufactured by voices and groups without any democratic credentials or public accountability. It would require an extraordinary leap of faith to forget that powerful corporate interests have captured the sites of freedom of speech and expressions; it would be a great public betrayal to trust them as the sole custodians of abiding democratic values and sentiments or promoters of public interest.

Intellectuals have connived with a culture of intolerance, accusation and controversy-stoking that creates hysteria as an extreme form of conformity. Every night with metronomic regularity our discourse-overlords slap people with parking tickets.

And a controversy itself becomes a rationale for political response. Let us recall how L.K. Advani was hounded out of the BJP leadership portals because a “controversy” was created over his Jinnah speech. And, that “controversy” was manufactured even before the text of the former deputy prime minister’s Karachi remarks were available in India. Nor should we forget how Jaswant Singh’s book on Jinnah was banned by the Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, even before it was published because our newly designated national saviour had anticipated that a “controversy” would get created.

The Nandy ordeal should also caution against the current itch to demand “stringent” laws as a magical solution to all our complex social and political ills like corruption. It would be sobering to keep in mind that Mr. Nandy has been sought to be prosecuted under a stringent law based on the formula of instant complaint, instant cognisance and instant arrest. Mr. Nandy is lucky enough to have respected scholars give him certificates of good conduct, testify that he is not a “casteist” and that he is not against “reservation.” Lesser intellectuals may not be that fortunate. We must learn to be a little wary of our own good intentions and guard against righteous preachers.

If we insist on manufacturing controversy every day, all in the name of giving vent to “anger”, it is only a matter of time before some sections of society will be upset, angry and resort to violence. If we find nothing wrong in manufacturing hysteria against Pakistan, or making wild allegations against this or that public functionary, how can we object to some group accusing Mr. Nandy of bias? When we do not invoke our power of disapproval over Sushma Swaraj’s chillingly brutal demand for “10 heads” of Pakistani soldiers, who will listen to us when we seek to disapprove Mayawati’s demand for action against Mr. Nandy?

Just as the Delhi gang rape forced us to question and contest the traditional complacency and conventions, the Ashis Nandy business will be worth the trouble if it helps us wise up to the danger of culture of bullishness and accusation. Unless we set out to reclaim the idea of civilised dialogue, the intellectuals will continue to find themselves on the run.

 

(Harish Khare is a veteran commentator and political analyst, and former media adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh)