The final chapter in the unedifying spectacle that was the second Australia-India Test match in Sydney has now been played out and we can go back to actually playing the game to which everyone professes their undying love. The ban against Harbhajan Singh has been lifted and the fiery off-spinner is clear to play.

We will never know what was said on the day, but the reaction of the Australians was immediate and genuine. That Harbhajan said something offensive is not in question; indeed Justice John Hansen was satisfied that this was the case and fined Harbhajan 50% of his match fee. Harbhajan also pleaded guilty, which helped. Justice has been served and that, as they say, is that.

Or is it? There was clearly not sufficient corroborative evidence to allow the charge to stand and one would hope that someone with the legal standing of a High Court Justice would have the legal acumen to figure that out – as proved to be the case. That’s not to say that Harbhajan was innocent, just that the charge could not be proven.

Why then, did the BCCI go to the lengths of chartering a plane to immediately return the team to India should the appeal fail? Why was the one-day squad uprooted from its training in Melbourne to come to Adelaide to “show solidarity”? In short, why did the BCCI feel it needed to hold a gun to the head of Cricket Australia, the ICC and Justice Hansen? Is blackmail a racist term?

'Why did the BCCI go to the lengths of chartering a plane to immediately return the team to India should the appeal fail?


Also,what of the commitment by Sharad Pawar that there was no question of a pull-out. He told the Hindustan Times on January 12: “The series will not be affected. We are focused on fighting Harbhajan's case, but it all should be within the game.” Perhaps he had his fingers crossed when he said it.

This is not the Wild West; this is a matter of legal process in a developed nation. The ICC had, for once, done everything right. They had found someone of unimpeachable character and legal standing to preside over the hearing. Justice Hansen is a High Court Judge; one of the finest legal minds his country has to offer, and still the BCCI did not trust him.

There is no doubt that Justice Hansen did not succumb to the pressure applied by the BCCI. The right decision was reached on the basis of the evidence presented. Harbhajan may well have dodged a bullet, but that’s the price you pay for a fair and balanced judicial system. So, where to from here?

Peter Roebuck, who lashed out at the Aussies in the wake of the Sydney Test, has equally condemned the actions of the BCCI. In his Sydney Morning Herald column Roebuck wrote: “Brinkmanship or not, threatening to take their bat and ball home in the event of a resented verdict being allowed to stand was an abomination. It sets a dreadful precedent. What price justice now?”

Of course, it is difficult to imagine anything coming of it. The collection of invertebrates masquerading as the International Cricket Council has long since been taught its place and will sit by like chastened schoolboys while the BCCI does what it will – but that doesn’t make it right.

The mantra of “cricket is the winner” every time the BCCI gets its way is difficult to swallow and to proclaim that “the truth has prevailed” in this case is disingenuous in the extreme. Justice prevailed? Absolutely. Truth? Not so much. Truth and justice are uncomfortable bedfellows – in fact, each is more likely to prevail if the other is absent. I’ll let you figure out what happened in this case.