THE International Council of Cricket meeting in Dubai has, alarmingly, set the tone for hegemony of the Big Three. India, England and Australia seem well on their way to controlling the game`s affairs and deciding their own share in the profits made.

The proposal would give the three `sacred countries` special exclusive rights oncricketing matters. For instance, none of the sacred three would be relegated to a lower division of Test playing countries that is being proposed. This is unacceptable and ridiculous.

I ask the following questions: (a) What right did the ICC Chairman have to request three selected countries to prepare a report for the fundamental restructuring of ICC that has 10 full members? What right had he not to inform the other seven members that such a report was being prepared to be tabled at the January meeting with a take it or leave it threat? A confirmation that the report had been leaked confirms that it was being prepared secretly.

(b) The ICC handout is a sugar-coated bitter pill for the `poor` seven members to swallow. For instance, the ICC press handout states that there will be `no change in membership rights` when the rest of the unanimous decision aims to give India, Australia and England superior rights financially, cricket-wise and commercially. In the Orwellian manner all members will be equal but three will be more equal than the others! c) Thirdly what is the need for a transition process until 2016? By then the new governing structure would have been finalised and the stamp of the Big Three permanently imprinted on ICC`s constitution.

We must oppose the move from a legal and constitutional standpoint. The proposal to give three members superior rights (including veto, financial and cricketing control) is abhorrent as a legal concept.

All countries have ups and downs in their cricketing history. For instance, India`s record when playing away from home is abysmal. They have recently lost series in South Africa and New Zealand. Australia were in the doldrums for many years after Packer. In the changing world of cricketing fortunes, none of the `sacred three` can claim permanent superiority.

There is no denying the financial clout of the `sacred three`, especially India. But a formula can be devised to give the `sacred three` a larger slice from the bigger cake but without allowing them to assume veto rights and cricketing domination at the expense of the others.

The proposal underlines the importance of Test matches, which is commendable. The possibility of two divisions could be explored in greater depth. However, again, the control of the cricketing schedules being kept in the hands of the `sacred three` is unacceptable.

The question of cricketing tours needs to be studied with greater care. The chairman of ICC`s Pakistan task force, Mr Giles Clarke, stated in his report that the IndiaPak series `was more important than the Ashes`. Yet Pakistan would be treated as a second-grade cricketing country in the proposed system. The same would be true of South Africa, West Indies and Sri Lanka.

Pakistan must lobby with the seven `non-sacred` members. South Africa have already come out with their opposition. Sri Lanka, West Indies and Bangladesh have made similar negative remarks. FICA has also criticised the concept which only leaves New Zealand it has probably kept quiet under pressure from Australia.

The former presidents of CA and ICC have opposed the IAE proposal so have others such as Imran Khan, Clive Lloyd, Cricinfo and the Guardian. There is a huge public groundswell of opposition against the IAE proposals.

The ICC should have appointed (and it can still do so) committees to study the cricketing, financial and legal aspects of the proposals. Another round of discussion on it should be held at the next ICC meeting in the summer.

The writer is a former PCB chairman and retired diplomat