In 1986, I convinced my editor at Mid-Day (where I worked then) of the importance to travel across the border to cover the second and third Tests between Pakistan and West Indies. For the first time in the modern game neutral umpires were to officiate in a Test; more importantly both were from India.

Messrs V.K. Ramaswamy and Piloo Reporter, the two men in question, will vouch for the tense but high quality of cricket played in these two games. Considering that some of the biggest names in international cricket at the time were involved — Imran, Miandad, Qadir, Viv Richards, Haynes, Marshall to name just a few — this was hardly unusual. But the biggest contributory factor in making the series enjoyable was the absence of rancour.
Teams touring Pakistan then were always full of grievances about the umpiring, but this time there were none. Even poor decisions were accepted with a philosophical shrug because no reason for bias existed. I remember asking Imran why he had specially insisted on neutral umpires for this series.
“The West Indies are the world’s best team,” he said. “We wanted to beat them, but without any suspicion that home umpires had played some hand in this. The umpiring did not just have to be fair, but also seen to be fair.”
Less than four years later, Imran was to insist on neutral umpires again for the series against India. English umpires John Hampshire and John Holder were the men in charge, and this series ended in a 0-0 draw, the first time India had not lost on Pakistan soil. One of the players in this series was 16-year-old Sachin Tendulkar, making his international debut.
Not everybody was convinced, however, that neutral umpiring was the way forward. Traditionalists believed that this sullied the fair name of the game; some others highlighted that wrong decisions had not been entirely eliminated. There was also the cost factor.
But most players agreed that neutral umpires offered huge psychological relief, especially playing overseas. Spectators too approved because, as Imran Khan had argued, there was a greater perception of fairness to the proceedings. In due course, neutral umpiring — warts and all — became standard practice.
To cut a long story short, in its current vehement refusal to accept the DRS system, the BCCI is failing this ‘perception’ argument badly apart from several others. Apart from the joy of playing and the delight of spectators, modern sport is also big business. Careers can be ruined by one poor decision, teams and nations can get distraught, leading to avoidable controversies and conflicts. There is also the question of procedural and textural consistency. It must seem ludicrous to an impartial observer that all teams barring one play the sport with certain conditions. The recalcitrance of the odd team out becomes unacceptable because it creates discord and disharmony. True, Hawkeye is not foolproof. But on a cost-benefit analysis, it seems the best option available. An informal survey has shown that more than 80 per cent of players believe Hawkeye is good for them and the game. The remaining 20 per cent includes heavyweight names like Sachin Tendulkar and Mahendra Singh Dhoni, but even that cannot be reason to ignore the need for parity for all teams and players.
Roger Federer, for instance, was not in complete agreement with Hawkeye at Wimbledon, but has agreed to live by the decision of the international federation. It would be a mockery of the sport if the systems that guide cricket are applied.
In any case, Tendulkar’s clarification last week that he is not opposed to Hawkeye, but believes that Snickometer and HotSpot (both being used in England currently) would make decision-making better, delinks player opinion from administrative onus. He has his point of view, which is to be respected. But the BCCI has to make the decision.
Indeed, I would venture to say that as the richest, most influential cricket body, the BCCI should be in the vanguard to make the sport clean, fair and uniform. If it believes that the current limitations of technology are bad for the sport, it should convince all other boards to scarp UDRS. Else, it should go with the flow.