But then there are so many other residual makeovers that it is best to give it an immediate burial instead of allowing the matter to fester. Hopefully Harbhajan would have learnt his lesson.

He has rightly been warned along with Seeshant by the authorities in India and should now concentrate on his bowling. That is something he has really to work hard. To say the least, his overall performance has been rather disappointing.

From cricketing point of view the tour of Australia (Test Matches alone) has been very encouraging despite the glaring failures at crucial junctures. Wasim Jaffer and Yuvraj Singh have been very big let-downs and to some extent, so has been Mahinder Singh Dhoni, particularly with the bat. On the positive side has been the performance of the bowlers of whom Ishant deserves special mention. He has been the discovery of the tour. The main credit, however, must go to Anil Kumble whose towering personality gave Indian cricket a new dimension and more than compensated for the petty and deplorable attitude of the Board of Control for Cricket in India.

It is very difficult to understand motive behind the so many contradictory statements made from time to time from different people and the implied threat to both Cricket Australia and the International Cricket Conference. It must made very clear here that the BCCI had no business what so ever to repeatedly threaten to withdraw from the tour. No responsible organization would have behaved the way the BCCI has behaved during the Indian team's tour of Australia.

It has questioned the authority of the very organization of which it is an important member. It has questioned the integrity of the neutral umpires and it has undermined the office of the match referee.

No doubt the team had reasons to be unhappy with Steve Bucknor's supervision and more than angry with the manner in which Mike Proctor dealt with Harbhajan Singh's case but it must be remembered that the two gentlemen represent the authority of the ICC and should not be dismissed in such a trivial fashion.

There were other ways of dealing with such sensitive issues but certainly not by holding out threat of withdrawal from the tour. The BCCI's posture could be seen by many as an attempt to blackmail or holding both the hosts and ICC to ransom.

The BCCI has been quick to deny that it was flaunting its financial power but what else was it doing when it threatened to call off the tour midway through? A lot of money was at stake and most of the investors would have lost money for no fault of their own.

All because of the whims and fancies of the BCCI and its financial clout. There could be possible ramifications of the BCCI's behaviour during the Australian tour. Prospective hosts of future tours could even ask for a guarantee from the BCCI that it would not pull its team out midway and may add a clause of compensation to be paid in lieu.

After all the BCCI has set a precedent of asking for change of umpire and questioned the match referee's decision. What else is left in the game?

Ramu Sharma