The row of gloves MS Dhoni: It's time for ICC to open its eyes, see what's wrong with its rules

The row of gloves MS Dhoni: It's time for ICC to open its eyes, see what's wrong with its rules
The rules of the ICC tell cricketers that they can not use their platforms to take a stand even if they feel that something is totally wrong in the world, be it genocide, mass murder, terrorist attacks, peace efforts, etc.

Disputes, such as actions, do not always have immediate consequences. Sometimes it can also happen that the controversy has died in public memory for a long time, but the magnitude of its effect has yet to be realized. Of the innumerable waves that bind our society, who knows which one will go out in a few moments and whose forces can cast an irrevocable shadow on us and the time to come?

The actions speak. But sometimes, the reactions speak louder.

It is in this context that it is myopic to limit the ongoing controversy involving MS Dhoni and the International Cricket Council (ICC) to only one issue of Dhoni wearing a pair of gloves with a badge attached to the Indian Army, something that is not is allowed. under the rules of the ICC.

To move forward, this reductionist tendency is unintelligible, not liberal and undemocratic.

Since the controversy broke out, cricket fans in India and the media have been jealously debating the issue, which has resulted in great support for MS Dhoni. But as the ICC refuses to give up its position, it is likely that Dhoni will change gloves on Sunday, when India plays against Australia.

The three dimensions

In India, the debate has largely focused on the tangent of nationalism and patriotism, that is, questions such as: How can the ICC ask Dhoni not to wear gloves with the insignia of the Special Forces?

The other line of argument is that the logo is apolitical and the controversy totally unwarranted because it was simply a humble gesture by Dhoni to honor the sacrifices made by the Indian soldiers.

A third dimension that exists, but has received little attention, is to see the controversy from the approach based on individual rights and see this in the broader prism of freedom of expression and expression.

This is what this article will explore.

The ICC and its political conflict

The rules framed by the ICC say that during a game a player can not use anything that has a political, racial or religious message. This is to ensure that the platform remains a space for cricket and does not become a stage for politics and activism.

These rules were not framed during the night. They have been there for years, clearly established and all the players, including MS Dhoni, agreed to meet them when signing their contracts. In addition, ICC is not the only sports organization that has such rules. Athletes participating in the Olympic Games must also comply with a similar set of rules.

Of course, the ICC is an intelligent human body: an intellect that arms it with the ability to connect with human identities and understandings where individuals can be a bit political, exclusively political and exclusively apolitical.

While ICC can do this, political scientists and theorists have not been able to agree on whether humans can behave exclusively apolitical.

Aristotle considered the father of political science, argued that humans, by nature, are political animals. Everything they do is political (it does not have to be about elections, government, and government).

Others have debated (and are still debating) that what is social is also political, and what is political by default is social. The question "what is politics" remains one of the most controversial concepts in political science.

One wonders if ICC ever took cognizance of these complexities. While it frames its rules and its zeal to defend and defend them, the ICC forgets that cricketers are also rational beings. They have mental faculty and conscience. They are affected by good and evil, freedom and oppression, rights and their absence.

In its effort to be apolitical, the ICC is telling players that they can not use their platforms even if they feel that something is totally wrong in the world, be it genocides, mass murders, terrorist attacks, peace efforts, etc.

A cricket stadium is the largest platform for a cricketer to express himself. If the occasion is a World Cup match, the platform becomes more gigantic. Any message communicated by a player at this stage has the power to travel far and wide and make changes.