I have not written about cricket for a long time. However Ricky Ponting's ranting seemed to demand an ex-pression of my feelings about Australian cricketers on-field behaviour.

The first thing that stands out in the ridiculous logic used by Ponting is that Sunil Gavaskar's past is relevant to the issue of whether Australian cricketers have regularly behaved badly on-field. It is not as if it were just Gavaskar who has pointed out that the behaviour of Australians on the field and in many instances off it too has been atrocious. If Ponting believes that assertions of bad behaviour on the part of Gavaskar in the past (which in any case are ludicrous) in any way mitigates or justifies, the Australian behaviour, both in the past or the present, he seriously needs to rethink whether he will be taken as a person with something mature to say.

If Ponting believes that Australia's dominance and undoubtedly superior skills also justifies their on-field behaviour, he is deluding himself as to what is important in life. It also points to the poverty of the debate about bad on-field behaviour that a captain of a national team asserts that winning excuses bad onfield behaviour. I would think that Ponting needs to take another look at ICC code of conduct: winning is not an excuse for bad on-field behaviour. The preamble to that document as well as the history of past debates, at least those which have been conducted by reasonable people, would educate him about the need for civilized behaviour, generally everywhere on sports fields but also particularly in the international context.

Further, Ponting is not even original in his ad-hominem attacks on Gavaskar. If I remember correctly, after Gavaskar raised the same issues in his lecture to the MCC a couple of years ago, Dennis Lillee, that paragon of rectitude, sportsmanship and all that is good about cricket (for those who may not understand sarcasm - that is being sarcastic), raised the same issues: the slow batting at Lords in the 1975 edition of the World Cup and the threatened walkout at Melbourne. Obviously Australian cricketers, or at least some, are being trained to believe that winning is everything and all means are justified in the quest for victory, including setting aside basic human qualities. If Dennis Lillee is the epitome of the ugly Australian, Ricky Ponting seems to be the present day epitome of lack of brains in broader matters of life, of which cricket is a part.

The more important issue though, and at once far removed from the specific context of insults traded between Gavaskar and Australian cricketers, is about ICC's role in promoting acceptable conduct on cricket fields. Most reasonable people would come to the conclusion that ICC has not just been ineffective, but also dcownright inconsistent in implementation of its laws. It is that inconsistency, which invariably seems to go against cricketers of colour, that has led to some serious and entirely believable allegations of racism in the way ICC handles good conduct issues.

The silly part is this. ICC obviously believes that gaining unfair advantage, through chucking or tampering with the ball, shames the game and that it would also undercut its future progress. That is the right attitude. Every sport, while it is the conduct of war through other means, has to have rules and norms that make the sport possible at all levels. However, ICC does not seem to recognize that application of the laws, rules and norms even handedly against all international teams is vital in terms of allowing the sport to continue at an international level. The vital importance of enacting and implementing rules and norms of minimally acceptable on-field behaviour - of being half-way civilzed - cannot be overstressed. Different international teams come from different cultural contexts. Overstepping those contexts in the name of gamesmanship, repeatedly and by a large margin, cannot be conducive towards promoting mutual respect. Expecting a shaking of hands with the opponent at the end of the day, after being taunted by that opponent that one's wife is being "stuffed" while the player is on the ground, is certainly not indicative of good health of the game. Rather, it is indicative of insensitivity to the different cultural backgrounds that players come from, and continutaion of the imperial culture of international cricket. Would it be acceptable then, if a Muslim batsman were to be taunted by a white player of his religious beliefs? Of being a terrorist? Would the expectation that the Pakistani player shake hands with that player at the end of the day then assuage the climate? Would that then be an indication of good health in international cricket?

Take the Ramnaresh Sarwan and Glenn McGrath incident from a couple of years ago. Was it not indicative of the supreme disrespect that players hold for women in general, let alone one woman, wife of Glenn McGrath, who was battling cancer? And you expect international cricket to become an inclusive sport?

Look at it from another angle. South Africa was banned from international cricket for over two decades because of the broader political regime in South Africa. Now to the best of my recollections, I have never heard of a past South African great, whether it be Barry Richards or a Graeme Pollock, using racist abuse against a coloured player when they played against them in county cricket. If those greats had to suffer on account of being denied the international stage because of a political situation that was certainly not within their control, then why is it that individual cricketers who hurl racist and culturally insensitive abuse at opposing players not be subject to similar punishment? Isn't personal behaviour within the control of the individual? How is it that players are not held responsible for unacceptable behaviour that is well within their own control? Yes, yes. I recognize that there are major differences between the two situations. However, when individual behaviour begins to transgress boundaries repeatedly, one would be led to question the logic underlying banning players for situations out of their control, and what it is meant to achieve and the damage to the same notion of achieving racial parity in all walks of life that individual's racial and culturally insensitive behaviour inflicts and the logic of its tolerance.

I think that the stage has come where the South Asian countries, along with the West Indies, take a decisive stand against the bad behaviour by white teams. This needs to proceed in two directions. They need to clamp down on their own players. What Pakistan did with Shoaib Akhtar is simply unacceptable. They need to curb the wrongs on the field by their own players. The notion that their players should also be allowed to misbehave on the field because the Australians do that is ridiculous, and will lead to degeneration of the spirit of the game. The second track that they should take is simply this: refuse to play with teams which transgress the limits of decency. Period. They certainly have the monetary clout to be able to do this.

The alternative may be this: the next time a bowler hurls the ball at a batsman, when reasonable people can agree that the chances of a run out were non-existent or remote, lock him up for the crime of intending to maim a player and attempting to prevent that player from pursuing his vocation. The next time racist abuse is hurled at the opposing players, lock up the offender for abusing the human rights of those players. If I am not mistaken, cricket is a part of the larger socio-legal framework. Human rights have come to inform substantial chunks of conduct of human relations, particularly at the international level.

Most South Asian fams believe that they and their teams have been getting the short end of the stick, whether it be in terms of biased umpiring, refereeing or handing out of disciplinary penalties by the ICC. Sooner or later, on one of the trips by the Australians to India, one of their players is going to get out of hand and provoke a riot. The Indian government, if it were to implement the laws strictly, may also need to lock that player up for a long time. A very long time. Before something like that happens, the ICC needs to be pressured into taking some hard decisions and have in place a very strict set of norms that are even handedly and firmly applied. I think that the BCCI, with its current clout, needs to start throwing its weight around with respect to the more serious issues confronting cricket. And as Gavaskar said it: one of the most serious issues is bad behaviour by players on the field.

Otherwise, some cricket fan in India may actually take the matter to the courts and see whether the Indian police ought to look the other way when the law of the land is broken by on-field behaviour. Now whether the courts will entertain that action or not, and how the courts may take such a petition will in all probability be subject to many factors. But neglect of the laws of the land - including such laws as abuse of communities, abusing women in general etc., are crimes in India - is a cause for Public Interest Litigation. Further, the BCCI and the ICC should also remember that airwaves, for TV and radio are treated as state owned in India. Behaviour that violates criminal code of India and its transmission across state owned airwaves and non-action by the state authorities could imply action under Article 13 and other fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution. Having the state implement its laws is a part of the conspectus of rights that the Indian constitution provides. So the next time Aussies are in India, they had better be very careful. It does not matter whether the Indian player files a complaint or not - if there is evidence of a wrong doing, a private criminal complaint can be filed by a cricket fan. The Aussies also ought to remember another thing: crimes that also involve hatred and are likely to offend religious and cultural sentiments may be treated as non-bailable!