When the disagreeable 'jingoistic' clash between archrivals India and Pakistan concluded controversially in Dubai, recently - with India winning the Asia Cup, yet walking without the Trophy in hand, juxtaposed by zero-handshakes, and petty demeanour from either side - it left a repulsive note. It was not a question of one good team winning; it was a question of cricket not winning its coveted place as the gentleman's sport.

It is a fact that cricket is no longer the hallowed sport it once was - though it has had its bright spots, thanks to more than a handful of great cricketers and equally committed administrators guiding the sport with their impeccable credentials and presence.

One damaging factor that has blighted world cricket is aggressive behaviour. Aggressive behaviour is best defined as a response that delivers hurtful stimuli to another object, or person. Witness the tantrums of Javed Miandad. But, for the sake of argument, let us accept that there was a positive dimension to his (mis)demeanour which, paradoxically, won him a certain degree of adulation. Miandad's aggro stance is the stuff winners are made of and also worthy of being 'imitated' to undermine the nerves of the opponent.

Certain cricketers, in the name of professionalism, likewise, resort to sheer gamesmanship, or sledging. A debate, kicked off by Sunil Gavaskar, and refuted by well-known 'perpetrators' like Dennis Lillee. It goes without saying that sledging instils undue pressure on players and support-staff of the opposing side. Protagonists dismiss such contentions by saying, 'If you can't take it, you can't play big sport.' Umpires are also easy prey and scapegoats for many players.

Remember the Mike Gatting-Shakoor Rana's ugly incident? Sportsmanship has become a casualty with spectators too. Pakistan's crowd, for instance, frequently encouraged Miandad's aggro disposition, which often truncated the cricket arena into a graveyard of the game, with glee. Inference? When the aggro attitude of the players is transferred to spectators, the outcome can be as horrendous as the violence once witnessed on football grounds in Europe and elsewhere.

Money is, perhaps, the only magnet. But, paradoxes do exist. Let's highlight a handful of incidents that have brought shame to cricket. Dr W G Grace's quirky antics, pardoned because of the gentleman's standing; Douglas Jardine's 'Bodyline' design; Charlie Griffith's chucking row; Trevor Chappell's under-arm delivery of the last ball in a match against New Zealand; the Miandad-Lillee showdown; John Snow-Gavaskar rummage; Colin Croft's shoulder charging at an umpire in a Test match; Gavaskar-Lillee squabble; Lillee's aluminium bat incident and 'betting;' Rodney Hogg's kicking the wickets for being no-balled; Manoj Prabhakar-Maninder Singh's fisticuffs; Peter Kirsten's abusive words at Kapil Dev for his own fault; Rod McCurdy, who kicked his manager during Australia's tour of South Africa, not to speak of Virender Sehwag being 'stonewalled' by a 'no-ball plot' and deprived of a worthy century, in Sri Lanka, among several others.

Now, let's move on to yet another parable - a host of match-fixing allegations and their terrible aftermath. The list is endless. On the contrary, Mammon was no consideration for the likes of Vijay Hazare and his ilk, nor for Viv Richards, who refused to tour South Africa of the apartheid era for a fabulous, undisclosed sum. Also, don't you forget Gundappa Viswanath, who recalled Bob Taylor after the umpire had declared him 'out,' when he wasn't out, only to lose the 'Jubilee' Test match against England at Bombay (now Mumbai). However, let us emphasise that all these events have been examples in isolation, not regulation.

Over to the irrefutable wisdom of John Arlott, the 'Voice of Cricket,' 'The game affords a perspective in which the petty, or childish, attitude is so disturbingly conspicuous that no reasonable person is prepared to maintain it.' But, what has one got to say of Lord Harris, a patriarch of old England, who years earlier, caused a furore by running out, without warning, an opponent, who was out of his ground at the non-striker's end? The fact of the matter is yesterday's sportsmen often become the 'reformers' of tomorrow. So, don't be surprised if Miandad now writes an ode to the merits of civilised behaviour, maybe, 'A Handbook of Good Behaviour in Cricket.'

Yes, pass the buck, or coffee-cup, this way, if you will. But, the air of (un)holy pomp lies with the press, or the media, as well. It is, indeed, sad that most of our perceptive observers take a cynical view of modern cricket, what with their acknowledged brilliance, arid periphrases, and formal droolings on what was done, or how it ought to have been done.

In such a vast ocean of perplexity, the soul of sanity comes from this wonderful thought, 'Avoid clapping and laughing in the face of the persons you have defeated. Certainly, you are not going to face a cannon ball, or hear the ugly sentence of your death, but on the other hand you are going to examine, as a batsman, your own ability as a striker.' Mike Brearley made it fundamentally simple. He said, 'Have respect for the game, the opposition, crowd, umpires, and one's own colleagues.' A noble idea, yes. But, you don't have Frank Worrells and Viswanaths, or Rahul Dravids, playing the game, anymore.

One plausible riposte is, perhaps, related to moderation; maybe, focused awareness. Not rigid, draconian measures - whatever their orientation. A strict code of conduct, punishable if violated, imposed on players and the crowd, may not solve basic attitudinal problems that result in smearing the spirit of competition in cricket, or any other sport. There has to be a concerted effort by each sportsman and sportswoman, and us all, to restore the great tradition of fair play, forthrightness, and justice - to put an end to this ignoble rot in the world of sport. In our context, cricket.