The concept of neutral umpiring in cricket was introduced by Imran Khan in 1986. For the home series between the West Indies and Pakistan, the great all-rounder influenced the choice of a set of umpires who belonged to neither of the playing sides. Before this inspirational incident took place, the impartiality of umpiring had long been in question.
Khan’s example was soon followed by others in the cricketing world and as we witness today, in the ongoing Ashes series encounter between England and Australia, the umpires presiding over the proceedings are neither Englishmen nor Aussies. Kumar Dharmase-na from Sri Lanka and Marais Erasmus of South Africa have been assigned the responsibility of such a tremendously competitive en-counter between the forceful cricketing nations.
What is the outcome of this extraordinary change? It is that everyone seems to be happy now. Kumar Sangakkara was given out wrongly on 192 in Hobart the last time Sri Lanka visited Australia but even the veteran wicketkeeper batsman knows that it was only a case of an umpiring mistake and not a designed effort by the umpire of depriving him of a glorious double hundred.
For a person like me who is such an avid follower of the game of cricket, it is not unusual that I would be able to detect analogies between the present political situation and the phenomenon of selection of neutral umpires in a sport. There is a game to be played in the political arena of Bangladesh and one of the players, quite surprisingly, is insisting that it will be playing and umpiring at the same time!
I will use the example of the notorious Stuart Broad incident that took place the last Ashes summer. He “nicked” it to the keeper and yet refused to walk off because he was erroneously given “not out” by the umpire. So if Stuart Broad himself was the umpire, would he have declared himself out? Very unlikely indeed!
Consider the innumerable cases of a bowler appealing, knowing very well that the batsman was not out. Acting plays a principal part these days in convincing umpires. You appeal in a way that the umpire starts to doubt his own sanity and judges it out.
So in the sport of cricket, if one of the competing parties insists that it is so abnormally righteous that it should play the game, and umpire too, from a cricketing perspective, one can hardly be impressed with the suggestion. Firstly, it is completely unfair to the opposition and secondly, we all know that we are human beings and not angels free from perverse sentiments of favouritism.
What about other countries though? How do they do it? In many countries in the world the concept of a transient neutral authority is not considered a necessary one. Those are the lucky countries in which political parties have enough belief in one another.
Unfortunately, we cannot compare Bangladesh to those states, since our situation is radically different from theirs. Trust is a very rare element in not only politics, but everywhere in Bangladesh. That is probably why we are so disunited. If the trust is not there, is it not embarrassing to keep claiming you are trustworthy?
Why am I saying all this? I am sure that the reader is not a champion in asininity. In today’s Bangladesh, being dogmatic is a dangerous thing, and I would shun the glamour of having opinions. I am but a watcher, watching a farce, a farce by the people, for the people, and of the people.
