Selective recognition in the West Indies? We salute you A.I. Kallicharan!

There is only light ,  one truth and that is our lord and saviour

In the past, move on.


Unjust, it is a fact, it has been abolished for almost 200 years, almost 3 lifetimes, so move on and DO NOT MAKE EXCUSES .


There are recent examples of Amin expelling Asians who migrated to the UK with nothing and now, not many years later, they are some of the wealthiest in the UK. Did they continually cry about their exile and stripping of all their wealth? No they were industrious and made a success of themselves against all odds.


We had Colonel Rambuka in Fiji who did not like the growing influence of the Indians, through their hard work, and a civil war ensued in the early 80s. Are they better for it?


You may give many examples of English intervention and they may be fact but where does it take us to go on about it.


Are your regimes Whiter than White?


Think!!!

Slavery ended a long time ago but the legacy lives on
The indians in Figi  are a transplanted people into the land of the native Figians
The Asians of Uganda never assimilated

Nice one Krish.


I can still see his brisk and purposeful walk to the crease.


I believe he said contractual issues prevented him from WSC.

3,579 Views

I hope half of these Viewers dont wanna push me off a cliff  :-[

Alvin Kallicharran's son unhappy with treatment given to father
Tuesday, Aug 16, 2011, 8:00 IST | Place: London | Agency: DNA 

Vijay Tagore  
                                                                                                         
                                   
[size=1rem]Rohan isn't happy with the way his father was treated during his playing days and the documentary Fire in Babylon[/size]
   


  Fire in Babylon is a smash hit in England but not everyone connected to West Indies has actually been too amused. There is a school of thought that it is an inaccurate presentation of the country’s cricket history.
One dissenting voice is Rohan, son of legendary Alvin Kallicharran. He feels it is not the complete story of the rise of West Indies cricket. The film deals with the reign of West Indies cricket team during the turbulent ’70s and ’80s which also was the time of Bob Marley, anti-Apartheid movements and London riots.
“It is a one-sided and ‘politically romantic’ appraisal of how the West Indies rose to prominence, littered with inaccuracies,” says the 37-year-old Rohan, conversely stating that the film has failed to acknowledge his father’s contribution to the West Indies cricket. Kallicharran played in 66 Tests ending with an average of over 44. He also captained West Indies.
Rohan justifies his point by quoting Michael Holding and Colin Croft. “The film presents a team of predominantly black people trying to dominate a white world, and that wasn’t the case at all. You didn’t run up to bowl quickly because the guy on the other end was white. We bowled just as quickly to people from Pakistan or India as we did to England or Australia. It had nothing to do with race. It was about abilities and performance,” reads a quote from Croft in New York Times.
Holding was quoted as saying: “The West Indies team consisted not just of black players, but also white and East Indian ones from Trinidad and Guyana. The film tells a very good story about the elevation of the Caribbean identity through both music and sports, but it overstates the black-and-white racial angle — the way people creating popular movies and books tend to do.”
The conversation could make you infer that the film is, in a way, symbolic of treatment meted out to the cricketers of Indian origin in the Caribbean although he would hasten to add that the situation has improved.
“Whilst I did not believe there to be a race issue in West Indian cricket at the time, the Indian community were left disengaged over a period of time with none of their players in the side. Certainly now, there is no issue, with the likes of Chanderpaul and Sarwan having been integral, and Bishoo, Deonarine, Rampaul, amongst others playing regularly,” he says.
Somewhere in his heart there is a sense of anguish that his father has not got the recognition he deserved. “He did not go to the Packer series for the sake of the West Indies team,” he reminds you. Then, there’s this instance which has hurt Kallicharran. He was dropped for the 1981 Australia tour but was never informed.
Kallicharran and Clive Lloyd played in Birmingham, in a county game, around that time but they did not discuss about it.
“Warwickshire played Lancashire in a Sunday League match in August 1981 and Clive did not advise dad that he was to be dropped for the Tour of Australia,” he recalls. Kallicharran played for Warwickshire for about 18 years.
The discussion veers around the cricketers of Indian origin and Rohan acknowledges that there was a period when the Indians and Pakistanis in Trinidad and Guyana harboured a dilemma about their allegiance to West Indies when India and Pakistan played in the Caribbean.
Rohan wants to pen a book on his father which will automatically bring in the conflict in the minds of Indians in the West Indies. He would also address the issue of ‘coolie’ which players of Indian origin have heard of. In the Caribbean, the word coolie has strong racist connotations. It means an Indian slave. He would discuss with his father if he ever was addressed as a ‘coolie.’
“The dropping of my father, however, was widely considered to be a slight to the Indian community, and I know of many who found it difficult to support the West Indies without any of their own players present,” he reveals. His book will reveal more.

Selective!


However there were no Indians and Pakistanis just Indians as their arrival was well before partition.


I wish the focus to remain on Kallicharan but there were other biases towards the 'Islands' as Sobers would attest to.


You would not be far mistaken if you think, blacks do believe ownership of cricket in the region is theirs alone.