That Slapgate occurred so soon after Monkeygate (a.k.a. Maa Ki Gate) that it speaks volumes for the fact that it is a free-for-all out there. One would have expected Harbhajan to lie low for some time, getting off the racism charge by projecting himself as an uncouth, mealy-mouthed vagrant instead and that in itself is an advertisement in favor of this article's title.

The Harbhajans of the world have come up in an era where the meaning of aggression has changed. Earlier the perfume ball would be accompanied by a glare and a promise of reduction in the teeth count by the end of the day's play; today bouncers half that pace are accompanied by a volley of invective that is more indicative of the level to which the current day cricketer has sunk than any specific cricketing talent the player might have. The fielding team's chit chat to upset the batsman at the crease has been replaced with gutter talk backed by brawn rather than brain.

Today they call all this as cricket played with aggression, where no quarter is given or asked for!

I remember writing an article some time back where I suggested that it was but a matter of time before there were fist cuffs on the field of play. While we are not totally there yet, the directions in which cricket is moving will sooner or later take us there. Then we can enjoy the spectacle of the soccer match type of action where players, support staff and the crowd show off their talents in pushing, kicking and punching whoever is at arm's reach.

This article is not really about Harbhajan; he is just the guy who was dumb enough to get caught with the chits during the examination. There are many others who got off because they were smart enough to hide the chits under the table or even eat it before the flying squad (a term used during my Delhi University days) patted them down - McGrath, Ponting, Andre Nel, Andrew Symonds, and Sreesanth among many others.

This article is about who is responsible for events being in the state they are in, and who can do something about it. The easiest answer is to name the ICC but while I would endorse that nomination, they shouldn't be alone in the blame list. The various boards, and the players themselves many of who are today bigger than the game are equally responsible, and so are the millions who follow the game and blindly support their teams and favorites irrespective of right or wrong.

The way the BCCI always handles these things, the Indian players definitely don't need to care. All said and done, irrespective of crime, based on who the player is - his seniority, his popularity and crowd pulling capability - any follower of Indian cricket can take a guess on what the quantum of punishment would be for a given player. Harbhajan gets a ban of 5 ODIs besides being out of this edition of the IPL; financially it pinches but for a man who age wise is no-where near his sell-by date, it doesn't really mean anything else except ensuring he takes on a few more products to endorse, and makes up the loss in the next IPL edition.

The newspapers reported a loss of some crores of rupees to Harbhajan because of Slapgate, but that is like telling me I lost a million dollars because my ticket didn't win the lottery. He lost money he might have made, true, but if the BCCI had to hit him monetarily, they should have fined him from what he had already earned. That would be a loss, nay, a dent which might have knocked some sense into him and others who might someday emulate him. Money is probably the only language any Indian cricketer (and with the advent of the IPL, maybe the international cricketer also) understands, and it is important to talk the language which the players can relate to. When one rolls around in money, as the BCCI does and as a consequence, the Indian players do, normal language doesn't really get understood.

The BCCI are not the only culprits, though we all like to see them as the bad guys in every movie. Another example is the very efficient Australian board who time and again fail to rein in their players, and without whose background support the concept of sledging might have died a natural death a long time back. When recently questioned about the spirit of the game as followed by his country's team, the CEO of Australian cricket countered by replying that cricket was not a game of tiddlywinks and their players play it hard. Here he is not saying something very different from the BCCI officials, though the words are different. The bottom line is that they won't really do anything to handle the situation and they will back their own players come what may.

And what to say of the various boards who roll over and play dead when the BCCI shows them the lure of the green; the ICC specifically calls the IPL a domestic tournament and yet international calendars are examined to ensure the smooth sailing of this "domestic" tournament. Players playing for the rebel ICL are banned (with overwhelming agreement by the various boards and the ICC) from having anything to do with official cricket because otherwise the BCCI will take its bat and ball and walk away without throwing a couple of (million) dollars in their direction.

The solution is not going to be provided by the players either, most of whom don't have the grey matter required to think things on a higher level. I have seen senior cricketers like Ponting, Kumble, Dhoni, Gilchrist, Laxman and Ganguly talk about "sledging and banter is ok as long as the line is not crossed" without ever defining this mythical line and without considering that these kind of arguments are what have kept sledging alive all these years. Is this 'line' same for Lou Vincent, Sreesanth and Symonds; do they even have a mutual agreement on where the line is? Do even the greats like the Pontings, Tendulkars and Muralitharans have a mutual understanding of this line; forget the newbie's like the Ishant Sharmas and Rohit Sharmas?

So if the spirit of cricket is dying, then someone else has to provide the antidote. Someone who can define that mythical line that should not be crossed; more importantly, in this game spanning multiple countries, cultures and languages, someone in charge who everyone agrees is responsible for defining that line! It is not as easy as the Gilchrists, Pontings and Kumbles seem to think it to be.

The ICC first has to decide if it is running cricket or not, before someone else decides the question for them. To run cricket, they have to be decisive and more importantly, be seen as fair. To that extent where they are seen as fair, it won't be easy for the individual boards to put pressure, and correspondingly for players to push the envelope, safe in the knowledge that their board would have to back them in a "us vs. them" debate irrespective of who was in the wrong.

The way the ICC is running the show, no one in world cricket is really scared of disrespecting the spirit of cricket, as some term it, or trying to push the (un-drawn) borders of acceptable behavior to go where no man... no one... has ever gone before. The fact that Indians top the list of registered offences in the ICC book shows that there are different rules for different people. I have nothing against the Indians being fined for issues that might come up, but definitely when others get away with much more, the issue of being biased comes up. That has been the ICC's biggest failing, which prevents it from even correcting things that have been wrong in the past.

The moment the ICC starts handing out equal punishments for offences, regardless of who commits the crime the case for the ever-sensitive issue of bias becomes weaker. Here it becomes even more important for the ICC to wipe its offence books clean before shouting out the equality slogan. A new system to replace an acknowledged failure of a system must have a new scorebook; one doesn't add 20-20 runs to the test score of the player and declare him either a success or a failure on that basis.

Recently, when Judge Hansen gave out the judgment in the Monkeygate, he mentioned the fact that had the player's past record been in front of him, the punishment for Harbhajan might have been harsher. That argument has too many loopholes to ever be considered a fair hearing by the equality-seekers. It is the past that everyone is complaining about, and if that debatable past is considered relevant while giving judgments, then the future cannot be fair either. The only way is to start with a clean slate where Rahul Dravid and Glenn McGrath are equal, and to see how it goes from there. One cannot shout bias on Harbhajan or Sreesanth getting a 2-match ban for abusing a fellow player when Andre Nel gets the same and McGrath cops it too.

For a body running world cricket or any governing body in general, a most important and necessary commodity namely "dignity" seems to be startling by its very absence. Dignity is a natural accompaniment to those who are seen as fair, decisive, pragmatic and goal-oriented and till there is a universal opinion of the ICC being a snobbish fat-headed body headed by old fogies, to expect dignity from the body is a tall ask. Defining a clear and well marked out boundary (as opposed to a broad guideline) for acceptable behavior and responsibility by the cricketers, the boards and the ICC itself would be a good start. To enforce it uniformly over a period of 5 years would be exceptional. At the end of that time, the ICC would have credibility and the game might once again be one associated with gentlemen, albeit who play it hard the way James Sutherland likes it.