Tony Becca

A FEW months ago, after he had defended his countryman Harbhajan Singh and his country, India's master batsman, Sunil Gavaskar, was asked to choose between serving the ICC and the media.

He was given until May 5 or 6 - until the ICC's cricket committee meeting in Dubai - to decide, and he was dead on time.

A few days ago, Gavaskar resigned from the ICC's cricket committee.

Chairman of the ICC's cricket committee, a newspaper columnist and a television commentator, Gavaskar criticised match referee Mike Proctor for banning Harbhajan for his alleged racial abuse during the recent series between India and Australia. He also criticised the English and Australian boards after that and, although he had been a member of the ICC's cricket committee long before those two incidents, even though he had been involved in the media long before that, the ICC suddenly decided, quite rightly, that the two things formed a conflict of interest.

Nicest cricketer

Gavaskar was a great batsman. Like fellow committee member, Michael Holding of the West Indies, he knows the game inside out and, on top of that, he remains one of the nicest cricketers I have ever known - one who I am pleased, and happy, to call my friend.

Gavaskar was also a proud Indian, he knows the history of the game, he loves to speak the truth and maybe he was forced to make a choice, not only because of the conflict of interest but also because of the words he wrote back in March during the troubled series between India and Australia. That was when India, the richest country in the world of cricket by a country mile, were accused of flexing their muscles.

"Gone are the days when two countries, England and Australia, had the veto power in international cricket, even though the dinosaurs may not open their eyes and see the reality," wrote the man who was once refused entry into the Lord's pavilion. "The cricketing world has found that India no longer has a diffident voice but a confident one that knows what is good for its cricket and will strive to get it."

A strange lot

The members of the ICC are a strange lot, and maybe, just maybe, the fact that Holding, the straight-talking former fast bowler - sits on the committee as a representative of the journalism fraternity and not, ostensibly, as a former great cricketer, has saved him from the wrath of the ICC - from suffering the fate of Gavaskar, who was not on the committee as a journalist but as a great cricketer.

Although one may need to get answers as to when is a great cricketer a journalist and when is a great cricketer not a journalist, there is no question about it: there can be a conflict of interest in administering, in writing professionally, and in talking professionally about the game. In many respects the ICC was correct in asking Gavaskar to make a choice.

Although one pays him and one does not, it must have been a tough choice to make, however, and for the simple reason that he loved the sport so much. He enjoyed being involved as an administrator, as a writer and as a talker.

Sunil and his committee have done a lot for the improvement of the game during his six years as a member of the committee and during his eight years as chairman.

One such improvement, or rather one suggestion towards improvement, is that, upon the request of the batting team, the on-field umpires be allowed to seek the assistance of the third umpire before making a final decision.