Following the Handshakegate incident, Pakistan had demanded the removal of ICC match referee Andy Pycroft from the remainder of the Asia Cup. They were not the first team to place such a request to the ICC.
Heading into their 2001/02 tour of South Africa, India had never won a Test match in the country across two tours and seven matches. The wounds of the 0-2 sweep at home in 1999/00 were still raw. However, despite a nine-wicket defeat in the series opener in Bloemfontein, counterattacking centuries from Sachin Tendulkar and a debutant Virender Sehwag showed India could compete.
Herschelle Gibbs’ 196 had helped the hosts put up 362 in the first innings despite Javagal Srinath’s 6-76. Home captain Shaun Pollock (5-69) then had India at 69-5 before VVS Laxman pushed them to 201.
Yet again Srinath struck, and South Africa became 26-3 on the third day. India were desperate to win, and, in the eyes of match referee Mike Denness, too desperate. At the close of the day, he levelled a series of charges at the India team. The reverberations would be felt long after.
The sanctions
Denness felt that Indian wicketkeeper Deep Dasgupta and close-in fielders Sehwag, SS Das, and Harbhajan Singh had been appealing more than they should have. He docked all four 75 per cent of their match fees.
Of them, Sehwag appealed for a catch that the umpires felt that he had caught on the bounce. The Indians thought that the catch had been clean. Sehwag had been accused of using “crude or abusive language”. Denness banned Sehwag for the final Test of the three-match series. These verdicts were based on the reports of the umpires, Ian Howell and Russell Tiffin.
Additionally, Denness had two sanctions of his own. He fined Indian captain Sourav Ganguly and Tendulkar 75 per cent of their match fees and handed them suspended match fees of a Test match each.
Denness accused Ganguly of “lack of control” over his team, and Tendulkar of ball-tampering.
The disciplinary actions against Ganguly and his team came as a shock to the Indian camp, but nothing compared to the impact the Tendulkar allegations had.
“The good company” of George Bush and Tony Blair
Ganguly and Tendulkar had come on as the change seamers once Srinath and Ajit Agarkar were done. Bowling medium-pace, Tendulkar was moving the ball more than anyone, but that was not rare: he often moved the new ball prodigiously in the air.
The cameras zoomed in to spot Tendulkar do something to the seam. In his autobiography, he admitted to having used his thumb to clean the grass stuck on the seam. Denness asked for the tapes, had a look, and accused Tendulkar of “alleged interference with the match ball, thus changing its condition”.
Upon being summoned, Tendulkar requested Denness to consult the umpires. Denness did not see the need, for Tendulkar had admitted to “altering the ball” when he mentioned he had been cleaning the seam.
“I found this strange,” recalled Tendulkar, “because there was no way Denness could gauge what was going on in the middle when he was sitting eighty yards away from the pitch. None of the umpires had lodged a formal complaint against me and it was humiliating to be labelled a cheat.” He told Denness that he would raise the matter with the BCCI.
In the Wisden Almanack tour report, Dicky Rutnagur mentioned that in a later explanation, Denness accused Tendulkar of “failing to observe the technicality of asking the umpires to supervise removal of mud from the ball”. Not cheating, in other words, but things had gone too far by then.
That did not amuse the anguished fans in Kolkata, who torched effigies of Denness. “If George Bush and Tony Blair have had effigies burned then I’m in good company,” he remarked.
“We all know what he looks like”
Soon after Denness informed them of the charges, the Indian camp leaked the news to the media. Gerald Majola, CEO of the United Cricket Board of South Africa, requested Denness to attend the post-match press conference. This was probably a blunder, for Denness simply sat quietly, refusing to answer the questions.
On the tour as a commentator, Ravi Shastri made a rare appearance as part of the media that day. “If Mike Denness cannot answer questions, why is he here?” his voice boomed at the press conference. “We all know what he looks like.”
The ICC backed Denness’ sanctions. “Rules are there for a reason,” insisted ICC president Malcolm Speed.
The BCCI backed the cricketers. Niranjan Shah, honorary secretary of the board, commented: “We are unhappy with his inconsistency and the India team have no confidence in him. We feel that all the decisions are against only India. The South Africans committed the same excessive appealing.”
The ICC stood by Denness, and found support in England, Australia, and New Zealand. The three boards aligning against the rest was not a first. When South Africa had left the Commonwealth in the early 1960s, they should have lost their Test status, but they did not – because the same three boards had voted for South Africa’s inclusion.
“Denness’ sense of fairness dates back to the Victorian era when Britannia ruled the waves,” thundered The Hindu. “In the event, Denness truly believes – in the manner of his forefathers who ruled this land with such cunning for so long – that there are always two sets of rules. Nothing has changed since the days when the sun never set on the British Empire.”
The words of the Pakistan-born Ehsan Mani (at that point the ICC president-elect) were closer to the truth: “What we have is an enormous communication problem. There is also a big cultural gap between Asian culture and white culture.”
Unfortunately for everyone, the incident could not have taken place in a worse country. It had barely been a decade since South Africa had left the abnormality of apartheid behind them.
With Jagmohan Dalmiya at the helm, the BCCI did not budge. Scyld Berry described Dalmiya as “the control freak, the player of political games, the man who destabilises then poses as the saviour of the Indian tour by telling his players to play on.” Harsha Bhogle, on the other hand, described Dalmiya’s stance as “a reflection of the Indian mood”.
The BCCI and Dalmiya had been much more than that, especially when it came to relations with South Africa. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Indian government had been firm in their stance against apartheid. However, once the ban was lifted, India were the first team to tour South Africa and, a year later, to visit them.
The BCCI-UCBSA bond had been firm for over a decade. Ali Bacher’s vote had helped the Indian subcontinent snatch the rights of the 1996 World Cup from England. South Africa were set to host their first ever World Cup a little over a year later. The last thing they could afford was to put Indian participation in jeopardy.
BCCI and UCBSA now presented a united front, demanding Denness be sacked. The ICC did not agree. The two governments got involved and, with their backing, BCCI and USBSA replaced Denness with former South African wicketkeeper Denis Lindsay for the third Test.
All the while, the second Test reached its conclusion. Dasgupta and Rahul Dravid saved the game with a five-hour partnership. Throughout the last two days, the Indian commentators criticised the decisions. The broadcasters played Pollock’s appeals – some of them vociferous – several times, as the commentators reminded that he had gone unpunished.
But the cricket had taken a backseat long ago. The contest had moved to the boardrooms.
“It was easier facing Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson”
The stance did not impress Speed: “No cricket board has the authority to remove Denness from his position as match referee. The ICC cannot accede to demands for his removal … It has been suggested in South Africa that a replacement match could be staged if the Test does not go ahead.”
UCBSA, meanwhile, made all arrangements for the Test. “We have received reports of protests at South African embassies in India and our country has been caught up in this issue,” announced Majola. “South African cricket cannot afford a cancellation of the final Test of a series that is still open.”
With everything uncertain, he observed: “It was easier facing Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson than waiting to hear whether the third Test is going to take place.” Denness had famously dropped himself from the XI when Lillee and Thomson had blown England away during the 1974/75 Ashes. This time, his absence was not deliberate.
India left Sehwag out of their playing XI at Centurion. They picked Connor Williams, an uncapped Baroda opener for a game that South Africa won by an innings.
True to Speed’s words (“it would not be recognised by the ICC as a Test match”), the contest never got official status. Williams hit seven fours in an excellent second-innings 42, but never got a Test cap.
The aftermath
The matter did not end there. India’s next Test series was against England, at home. Ahead of the first Test, at Mohali, a question arose: since the Centurion match never got official status, had Sehwag served his one-Test ban?
The question was unanswered as late as three days before the Mohali Test. An exasperated Speed eventually asked Dalmiya. The response was typical Dalmiya: “I could be hauled up for corruption and the [ICC] Anti-Corruption Unit could charge me [for revealing the XI].”
Sehwag did not play at Mohali.
The ICC did not reappoint Denness’ contract the following year. “There was a reduction from the part-time referees,” he insisted, “of which I was one, to the full-time referees.”
“Not everything was right about it after all the acrimony, which I must say was largely unnecessary,” concluded Tendulkar. “Mike Denness’s decisions had led to a crisis that had ended up dividing the cricket world down the middle. It was an avoidable incident and one that left everyone bitter in the end.”
