Finally it boiled down to a case of one team’s word against another, and with the absence of clinching video evidence, James Anderson and Ravindra Jadeja were absolved of the ICC Code of Conduct violation charges that they were subjected to for their skirmish during the first Test in Trent Bridge.
The ICC’s judicial commissioner, Gordon Lewis, went by the fair principles of justice — the need for decisive proof, and since there was an obvious lack of it due to the absence of footage, he gave the benefit of doubt to both players.
India is upset, England is thrilled and a series goes on. The finality of the verdict means that if India still wants to seek redress, the appeal has to come from the ICC’s CEO Dave Richardson. It will be a long-drawn process.
Sections of the British media have continued their insinuations about India gunning for Anderson primarily because he is a threat to its batsmen. Some have admitted that England’s second-highest wicket-taker in Tests suffers from a ‘foul mouth’ in the heat of a battle.
But, largely the impression that has been painted is that India foisted a false case on Anderson just to scuttle England’s strike bowler. And motives continue to be read into M.S. Dhoni’s actions when, in the past and even during the aftermath of the incident, the Indian captain clearly said he has no problem with sledging as it adds “spice” to a contest. The skipper did add a rider, though — “it shouldn’t get personal”.
Much later in a press conference, he clearly said: “You cannot touch a person.” It then became obvious that the issue was serious and no amount of back-channel diplomacy, if there were such efforts, would solve it.
A witnessSeeing Dhoni’s stand as a tactical ploy reveals an ignorance about the Indian captain. Here is a man who walks instinctively when he is dismissed but has never been in the spotlight for it unlike Adam Gilchrist. His involvement was because he was a witness to the event at lunch on day two of the first Test, with Anderson allegedly ‘pushing’ Jadeja on the stairs leading towards the dressing rooms. It has nothing to do with the reality of Anderson being a potent bowler. And to lend perspective, Anderson has not denied the ‘push’ though he declared it as a reaction to Jadeja’s ‘aggressive stride towards him.
Dhoni felt that an offence was committed and he sought legal recourse. It was as simple as that and surely he didn’t think about the new dynamics of warmth between the BCCI and the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB). In two press conferences over the last week, Dhoni made it amply clear that he felt the incident was unjust. “I won’t lie,” he had said then. The build-up to that awkward moment between Anderson and Jadeja lay in the former’s appeal for a catch off the latter, which was turned down. The bowler had a few words and the chat continued while the teams trooped out for lunch. Unfortunately, there were no cameras in the corridor where the alleged event happened.
On Saturday morning, Derek Pringle, former England cricketer and now a journalist with The Telegraph , struck a shrill note, writing that the finding “represents clear humiliation for India and their captain M.S. Dhoni, who initiated proceedings after a spat between the two at Trent Bridge.”
Dhoni did what he felt was just but because the judicial commissioner, hamstrung by a lack of evidence, declared both parties as not guilty of breaching the ICC’s Code of Conduct, it doesn’t mean that India was fencing in the dark.
The truth lies in between and to make it a jingoistic debate of ‘us’ against ‘them’, or to even strike a triumphalist note, as some in the media here have done, is a travesty.
The Indian team, meanwhile, rested here in Manchester, venue of the fourth Test from August 7.
The city remained dark and gloomy on Saturday morning, with a steady drizzle adding a touch of melodrama to a week that witnessed India’s loss at Southampton and the subsequent judgement that has allowed Anderson and Jadeja to focus on their cricket.
