What should India do?

Insulted by Australians and made a clown out of by the umpires, should India continue with the series?

My heart wants India to quit the tour and return back home, but the cricket fan in me wants them to stay back and beat Australia in the game they invented and mastered. Playing dirty!

I really hope Ponting will get out on Bhajji bowling again (on the first ball hopefully) and that umpires will get their calls right!

PS: What if Jagmohan Dalmiya was heading the board? What would he have done? I think he would offered a finger salute to Australian board and ICC and asked for a rematch (like in gully cricket) or called the team back home!

19 replies on “What should India do?”

While I won’t deny that there was some too-ing and frow-ing, it was just that: two great test teams testing each other. Neither team was particularly admirable during the test, nor in their comments post-match.

Some say the umpiring was shit, I say human.

But to abandon the tour after five days of the best contest Australian’s have faced in years says much of the BCCI’s psyche… I feel for Kumble, who I don’t doubt is ready and raring for a restart in Perth.

lets face the facts, Australians, at the moment, are too good for India. i too long to see them get thrashed by the Indians in the upcoming matches, but it is not an easy task. beating that team is a helluva deal, a few steps behind impossible. but this sort of a behavior has to be taken to task, the Indians should stay in Australia but not play till ICC apologizes and reverts the ban on Harbajan, and issue a strong statement warning Australians of severe action against them if they continue with this sort of a behavior. i think this is realistic. expecting anything from the australian players is useless, they are a bunch of racial asshol*s and wont own it up….

@ ram

ICC is worse! They are equally stuck up! thats why i wish Dalmiya was in he wud get ICC to revert decision using any nook or crook (including threatening to pull out indian money outta ICC)

Broken promises haunt Kashmir’s History
‘Pakistan Times’ Kashmir Desk

ISLAMABAD: Executive Director of Kashmir Centre, Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai has said, “If promises are made to be broken, then Kashmir may be summoned to prove the treacherous proposition. Broken promises haunt Kashmir’s history, and explain its tragedy”.

In a statement issued on Friday, Fai recalled that the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed a resolution on January 5, 1949 wherein it was agreed “the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.”.

The resolution was negotiated with both India and Pakistan and accepted by all five members of the Commission, Argentina, Belgium, Columbia, Czechoslovakia and the United States. Professor Joseph Korbel, father of Dr Madeleine Albright was the Chairman of the Commission at the time.

Dr Fai maintained that the statement made by Sir Benegal Rama Rau, the Indian delegate during the 399th meeting of the Security Council on January 13, 1949, that “On behalf of my Government, I can give the assurance that it will not only cooperate to the utmost with the Commission itself towards a settlement in Kashmir, but also with the United Nations in securing peace everywhere, because it believes that this organization offers the only hope for peace for future generations, on a secure basis”.

Sir Rau further assured the Security Council on March 1, 1951, “The people of Kashmir are not mere chattels to be disposed of according to a rigid formula; their future must be decided on their own interest and in accordance with their own desires.

India, however, was soon undeceived of its delusions over Kashmir’s political yearning. Recognizing that its people would never freely vote accession to India, it contrived excuse after excuse to frustrate a plebiscite.

The Executive Director reiterated that with the lapse of British rule on August 14, 1947, the history of broken promises over Kashmir began. Princely states enjoyed three options: accession to India, accession to Pakistan, or independence.

But the choice, according to India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, was to be made by popular referendum in cases where the creed of the ruler varied from the religion of the majority.

That fundamental democratic principle had been sternly applied by Nehru with military means in Hyderabad and Junagadh where the rulers were Muslim but their inhabitants largely Hindu.

Kashmir presented a converse case: the Maharaja was Hindu but the majority subscribed to Islam.

On November 2, 1947, Prime Minister Nehru reiterated, “We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given and the Maharaja supported it, not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it.”

Dr Fai reminded of the summit that took place between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pervez Musharraf at the United Nations on September 24, 2004 where they agreed “to explore all the possible options to settle the issue of Kashmir”.

Then exactly one year later, India primer minister said at the United Nations on September 16, 2005, “What I do believe, I have also said that borders cannot be redrawn but we must work together to make borders irrelevant”.

On September 5, 2005, Manmohan Singh promised APHC Chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq that India will have zero tolerance on the human rights violations in Kashmir.

The Executive Director warned that the train of broken promises over Kashmir might be forgiven if the consequences were innocuous or inconsequential.
But I submit the opposite is the case. India exerts an iron-fisted rule over Kashmir.

With approximately 700,000 military and paramilitary troops in the territory, gruesome human rights violations are perpetrated with immunity.

Torture, rape, plunder, abduction, arson, custodial disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and ruthless suppression of peaceful political dissent have become commonplaces.●

emotional post

if i know pawar politics he is a silent but shrewd man
someone even the madam fears
i expect sparks will fly in the next icc meeting
lets see if he has the balls to act now

Pawar may be powerful, bt he is a politician with an eye for money alone.. not for cricket.. thats wat I am concerned about

May be ‘madam’ was scared of him, but Ponting wasnt when he shooed him of the dias a while back!

Disagree on the Aussies having invented Cricket. Agree on the mastered bit.
India did win at Perth & proved you (& me!) wrong!
Agree TOTALLY on the Dalmiya bit. He would’ve kicked ICC @$$ BIGTIME!!! He would’ve thrown Proctor off the panel!
Pity he lost to Pawar-play! Up to Pawar now. Let’s see if he’s got anything in him.

I dint say aussies invented cricket.. read again.. i said they invented the game of playing dirty…

and abt proving me wrong.. am glad they proed me wrong 😀
Pawar hasnt done anything to date other than organise a big rally when India won T20 WC, promise huge salaries to cricketers and put all his chelas on the stage!
Typical politician stuff!

What do you think? Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.