Anyone who watched Jagmohan Dalmiya's righteous indignation over the judgment passed by Mike Denness, the ICC match referee, against six Indian cricketers can't help reflecting on the irony of his current position on the contract row that has endangered the Champions Trophy next month. Since he was elected president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) last year, Dalmiya has assiduously cultivated the image of a pro-player administrator and the great redeemer of Indian cricket. And until this point, Dalmiya had hardly put a foot wrong: he had been proactive and progressive, and it seemed that professionalism was soon going to be a reality in Indian cricket. He looked like just what Indian cricket needed: a strong man with the right intent.

It is therefore odd to watch him waver and wobble over an issue that is not only outrageously unjust to Indian cricketers, but also flagrantly illegal. To claim that he had been reduced to the status of a postman is an uncharacteristic admission of weakness from a man who, in the normal course of events, would have been expected to use this issue to further erode the credibility of the men who currently run ICC.

Unfortunately for the Indian cricketers, who have been taken aback by Dalmiya's meek acquiescence to ICC's stand, the matter is infinitely more complex than they would like it to be. Dalmiya may now plead ignorance about the controversial ambush clause that lies at the heart of the controversy and engineer leaks of official correspondence to support his case, but it is undeniable that Dalmiya's stake in ensuring the smooth conduct of the Champions Trophy is almost as high as that of ICC.

It is he who, as ICC chief between 1998 and 2000, conceptualised and successfully conducted the first of these knockout tournaments, then called a mini-World Cup, in Dhaka in 1998. It was he who created ICC's marketing wing. It was he who oversaw the awarding of the Champions Trophy and World Cup rights. And it is Ehsan Mani, Dalmiya's comrade-in-arms during his ICC days, who is scheduled to take over as the next ICC chief next year. To completely wash his hands of the sponsors' contract would, in a way, amount to disowning his own legacy.

But Dalmiya had perhaps not bargained for the resolve and solidarity that the Indian players have displayed so far. They might have got themselves the wrong lawyer (Ravi Shastri's combativeness on the cricket field was admirable, but he lacks the tact and subtlety to be a useful negotiator), but they know, as does the whole nation, that they have got a foolproof case against ICC. They have already made a reasonable concession by offering to ask their individual sponsors not to air ads that might conflict with the products of the official sponsors of the Champions Trophy during the event. It is now up to ICC to reciprocate in kind.

ICC might hold out the subtle threat of isolation against Indian cricketers now that the players of Australia, England, South Africa and Pakistan have signed up, but it does not make ICC's flagrant violation of the players' rights more just. Indian cricketers are secure in the position of the wronged parties, and in the knowledge that the Champions Trophy will be severely devalued by their absence. It is not a coincidence that all the major sponsors for the Champions Trophy and the World Cup are Indian corporates - and they have not forked out millions for a ragbag Indian team.

Having resisted so far, there is no reason why the Indian players should give in now. It is not too late for ICC to beat an honourable retreat, and it is incumbent on Dalimiya to facilitate it.

Sambit Bal is editor of Wisden.com in India.

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd