Cutting through the hysteria over Harbhajan

If you choose to, it is easy to visualise a diabolical conspiracy. Just look at the cast of characters. Chris Broad, the English match referee with a particular liking for reporting subcontinental offspinners. Didn't he once knock over the stumps with his bat after being bowled during his playing days? Darrell Hair, the Australian umpire, who made a name for himself by no-balling Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing and served time out for being too controversial. About Steve Bucknor, need we say more? When three such gentlemen come together to report Harbhajan Singh, who has just got himself a cleanliness certificate from an expert panel appointed by the ICC, what else can be deduced but a grand plot to systematically target bowlers from the subcontinent? What about AV Jayprakash, the Indian third umpire? Ah, the poor fellow, what can the he do but sup with the devil? Doesn't he covet an ICC job?

India is burning with indignation. On the first day of the Test, a national Indian daily had four mighty headlines on the issue, one of them twisted to make it appear that the columnist, Imran Khan in this case, was making fun of the decision. Geoffrey Boycott, who rediscovered stardom on Indian television and has a bigger following in India now than he ever had in England during his playing days, equated the situation to a student passing the exam, being given a certificate, and then being told that he had failed. Sir Geoffrey certainly knows what his constituency wants to hear. Given the mood in the country, it will be considered nothing less than treachery to take any other position than the popular one: Harbhajan has been had.

It is natural to feel sympathy for Harbhajan. Only last year he came back from a career-threatening finger injury, and only three weeks ago he returned from Australia after having undergone rigorous biomechanical tests which found his doosra to be under the permissible limits. He sat out the first Test and looked fairly innocuous for most of the second, before getting a couple of wickets towards the end with the doosra, only to be told within a few hours that his bowling action didn't make the cut. He has a right feel angry, frustrated, confused and even victimised. And he is entitled to his moment of pique.

But what about the rest? Particularly those whose job it is to make sense of the issue without falling prey to the kind of jingoism that is the preserve of the masses. By painting the matter as black and white when it is predominantly grey, not only do they do disservice to the cricket followers, who might not know better, but also to Harbhajan, who at this moment needs sensible counsel and not macho posturing.

Let's take the central premise of the argument made against the match officials' decision to report Harbhajan, which is: how can his action be questioned after it has been cleared by the ICC? Now how ridiculous is that? The ICC tests established that under conditions, Harbhajan's doosra entailed a straightening of the elbow which was within the 15-degree limit. It cannot, however, be considered a carte blanche. Were it to be so, every bowler with a suspect action would get himself cleared by bowling within the prescribed limits during the tests, with the knowledge that he can bowl outside it in match conditions.

This is of course not to say that Harbhajan's contravention was deliberate. This is not even to suggest that he did indeed go over the limit. But we need to make allowance for the possibility that he could have. It is now universally accepted that the doosra cannot be bowled without the straightening of the elbow. Is it not possible that a bowler searching for wickets in an intensely competitive environment should strain every sinew and every muscle to get that little extra? Is it implausible that while bowling the doosra, which already involves a voluntary straightening of the elbow, a bowler could go over the mark without knowing it himself?

I am in no position to say whether Harbhajan straightened his elbow more than 15 degrees in the second innings at Kolkata. It must, however, be borne in mind that one of the reasons behind setting the 15-degree limit was that anything beyond this was noticeable to the naked eye. If the umpires noticed it at Kolkata, they were duty bound to bring it to the notice of the match referee, who was duty bound to report it to the ICC.

It can be rightly argued that there are other bowlers in the world who straighten their elbows beyond 15 degrees. And Harbhajan, and India, can have a grouse if no other offenders are reported. However, the new regulations have been put into place only recently and we must wait and watch.

There is an even more compelling argument in favour of a further relaxation of regulations to accommodate the doosra, which has given a new life to the art of offspin bowling. A doosra, unlike the chuck from a fast bowler, can cause no bodily harm to the batsmen. But it does test his skill and adds a new dimension to an increasingly batsman-dominated game. Like Bob Woolmer has said, cricket needs to accommodate change.

For Harbhajan personally, there could be a brighter side to it. On the second day of the Bangalore Test, he showed to himself, and the world, that there was a life beyond the doosra for him. The over-reliance on the doosra can sometimes distract a bowler from his primary craft. Denied the doosra, Harbhajan turned in a masterful performance of offspin bowling. There was flight, there was drift, there was bounce and there was turn. His figures yesterday read, 29.1 - 7 - 80 - 6. In the overall context of the match, it might not mean a lot. But for Harbhajan, it brought new light. It could be a turning point in his life.