——————————————————————————————————
The PCB-spurned ICL-embraced Pakistani stars cannot be
stopped from playing domestic cricket. It is their livelihood
——————————————————————————————————

PAKISTAN Cricket Board Chairman Nasim Ashraf may have done his level best to win over Attorney General Malik Mohammad Qayyum in its studied endeavour to stop discards currently on the pay-roll of the rebel Indian Cricket League (ICL) from playing in the country’s domestic first class tournaments but it is unlikely to be the last word on the issue.

Qayyum had told a private television channel last week that the PCB measure constituted a breach of fundamental rights as it directly impinged on their right to earn livelihood — playing cricket being the bread and butter of ICL signees including Imran Farhat, Taufeeq Umar, Azhar Mehmood, Abdul Razzak and Shabbir Ahmed.

The other star, former skipper Inzamamul Haq, has retired from both Test and ODIs but has backed Farhat and Umar’s decision to take the board to court over its restraining order to their respective employers in domestic cricket.

It sets for an intriguing game, even though the puritans will be inclined to say it is just not cricket. Qayyum went on record to suggest that the ICL stars stood a very good chance of nailing the PCB move.

It is unclear what he thinks after meeting Ashraf, but his flip-flop is known from the days of presiding over an unsettling inquiry into the match fixing against Pakistani players as well as one that ended in a life ban on former captain Saleem Malik.

From reports circulating in the national press, the PCB has taken a harsh stance, ostensibly to stop the moneyed ICL from “sniffing young blood” in Pakistan lest there is a talent drain.

While there can be little doubt that the PCB has its heart in the right place the same cannot be said about its modus operandi. For one, it is inconceivable in this day and age, to use coercion to stop a player from earning his bread, especially when the board is no longer interested in giving him a contract worth its salt.

The situation can be compared favourably with the current trends in the Pakistani print and electronic media, where once the moguls, who would not brook dissent and treat their employees with little more than family furniture are now forced to not only look after them with a degree of indulgence but usually look on helplessly, as another prospective employer plucks them out for better remuneration and comfort.

So it is with the PCB-spurned ICL-embraced Pakistani stars. Of those, who have already played the inaugural round of the ICL, save for Azhar Mehmood and the retired Inzamam, everyone remained on the fringes of national selection. But there is a story accompanying each of the individuals, which may explain why they chose to risk their career in Pakistani colours.

Farhat has a long-standing feud with the selectors. His father-in-law, former Test cricketer Mohammad Ilyas, was first embroiled in a controversy over his exclusion by apparently, storming the selectors office and threatening them.

This led the PCB to bar Ilyas from entering the board’s headquarters in Lahore and the famed Gaddafi Stadium. A few protests, including the threat of a hunger strike by Ilyas, later the ban was revoked but a probation of six months placed on Farhat for good behaviour.

The southpaw was included in the national team in due course but could not hang on to a place. Thereafter, Farhat lost his cool over non-selection and this time directly and publicly questioned his ouster. He was eventually lured to the ICL.

Abdul Razzak was particularly piqued over his exclusion from the team that squared off for the inaugural Twenty20 World Cup in South Africa and announced his retirement in disgust.

He had hoped the platform that the ICL provided him could possibly be used as some sort of a bargaining chip with the PCB. To his utter surprise, the board was unmoved, especially after Pakistan’s fantastic performance in the T20 World Cup.

Razzak then, rescinded his retirement and publicly expressed his desire to don the national colours. The PCB was still unmoved. So he moved to ICL, thus probably drawing the curtains on an exciting but surely unfulfilled career.

Taufeeq Umar remained in and out of the Pakistan team and could, with some justification, claim that he didn’t always have luck with the men who pick and choose. But with a proliferation of the game in its shorter (ODI) and shortest (T20) versions, where he didn’t quite belong, he probably felt, he could do with money (he has only recently married). It can be argued that ICL is a T20 format but then, it is not recognized either by the ICC or any other international body including BCCI, which is coming out with its own Indian Premier League.

Finally, Shabbir, despite his promise was seriously impeded by his action being called into question once too often. For these reasons and the fact that Umar Gul, as the third seamer, behind Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif had cemented his place would have persuaded him to see the ICL as not only providing him a reality check but also serve as a platform for the easiest way to earn money.

That having said, it takes nothing away from the fact that these players have as much right as the others to ply their trade, which is a source of livelihood for them. Although no two comparisons are alike, it can be argued why the PCB chose to lure back Mohammad Yousuf, who was similarly incensed at his exclusion from the T20 World Cup (even if it was sugar-coated as enforced “rest” by the PCB) from the ICL and not some of the others.

In fact, the PCB had to incur major expenses to fight for Yousuf after the ICL slapped a lawsuit on him, and even compensate the maestro for losing whatever money he was promised by them if he had stayed on.

It is patently clear to everyone that the PCB paid through its nose to get back Yousuf because he created a mountain of runs the previous year and the Pakistan batting, in his absence, would have struggled to hold its own. 
The slip is showing.