'India’s refusal to play in UAE is arrogant'

India’s refusal to play ball with Pakistan in the UAE is becoming a bit too much now. Shashank Manohar, president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), has stated categorically that India have their own reasons for not playing Pakistan’s home series in the UAE. It’s hard to see the ‘reasons’ as anything but the arrogance of a cash-rich cricket board.

Ever since the match-fixing scandal rocked world cricket in the late Nineties, the Indian team has been reluctant to play in the UAE. These allegations seem like an excuse that India use at their convenience. It should be recalled that India played a one-day series in Abu Dhabi in 2006 with nothing untoward happening on or off the field. Similarly, when India wanted to host the Indian Premier League (IPL) owing to elections in their country last year, BCCI opted for the UAE as the best alternative country to host the event.

Was it then UAE’s mistake in agreeing to host the IPL, a tournament which has been tainted by corruption? It’s the UAE fans who made the IPL here a financial success.

One fails to comprehend the logic used by BCCI officials in deciding against playing here — when the allegations are that it is in India that the illegal betting market thrives. Even the third One Day International of the ongoing England-Pakistan series in Sharjah, which according to a British daily is apparently being investigated by the ICC, is also reportedly directed by India’s illegal betting market that wanted Pakistan to under-perform.

All three UAE cricket stadia have been designed in such a way that players are unapproachable during matches. Also, other cricketing nations, except India, have been playing Pakistan here and without any scandal for five years now.

The BCCI is a cricket body that entertained N. Srinivasan as the president of their board despite his relative being involved in the betting scandals. They even allowed Srinivasan to remain as the head of world cricket body for a long time despite him being asked to step down as their cricket board’s president by the court. Under such circumstances, are they qualified enough to say that a country is not worthy playing when their own house is mired in corruption?

The height of the BCCI’s arrogance was Manohar’s recent statement that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Pakistan to play the series was signed by Srinivasan and hence is not valid. The BCCI has thus given a new meaning to the concept of MOUs, making it clear to all cricketing nations that India’s decisions will be based purely on their convenience, like their decision of not playing Pakistan in the UAE!