This is no longer about ball tampering. It hasn't been since the ICC, rightly, applied the maximum penalty applicable to something that isn't anywhere near the worst thing a player can do on a cricket ground. Worse has happened.

This is now about a land that prides itself so much on playing its cricket its way that it has often sought to prescribe how the rest of the world should. It is difficult to imagine that they aren't aware of how others view their approach but I sometimes get the impression that it doesn't really matter. It should now because the backlash they are copping is pent up anger from the rest of the world being unleashed.

Sport occupies an almost disproportionate importance in Australian society. And Australia's sporting heroes are figures that the nation loves to admire. When they are up there, they are Australia. If they fall, Australia falls. And this week in South Africa, a much admired Australian fell and with him, a lot of Australia thought it had fallen too. Hence the outrage that is seemingly disconnected from the actual extent of the infringement. Tampering with the ball is something cricketers have done for years and Mike Brearley asked this week if there is a cricketer who can put his hand on his heart and say he hasn't done it. Tampering with the ball doesn't win you a cricket match, it gives you a better chance and hence the highest possible punishment is a Level 2 offence which can cause a player to be suspended for a game.

It is nowhere near as grim as fixing a match. Some people in search of headlines have tried to suggest that. Nobody in the cricket world takes that seriously. In fact there were suggestions many years ago (including from Richard Hadlee) that ball tampering should be legalised since by shining one side of the ball you are changing its condition anyway. When you fix a game you are cheating the public and depriving them of a fair result, something they are entitled to.

Australia always thought that someone else did it. They drew a line, a convenient line, and thought that by being behind a line they had created, they were in the clear. Their line was often offensive to others and frequently they did to others what they didn't like done to them. Hence the complete lack of support for David Warner when the South Africans said terrible, contemptible things to him. As Michael Vaughan said in a fiery exchange on twitter with Candice Warner, she needed to look closer home to understand why people were saying what they were to her husband. Two wrongs don't make a right, South Africa were wrong but by complaining, Australia's players drew attention to their own misdeeds.

I am not entirely surprised by what has happened. Sportsmen often live in a bubble cut off from what the rest of the world thinks, surrounded by people like them who help prevent outside thought from coming in. Often, they look down on this outside thought anyway. This bubble existence also creates a sense of invincibility, a feeling that they can get away with anything. It is also a reason why movie stars, for example, do silly things sometimes. When Steve Smith and the Australians thought they needed to alter the condition of the ball to stop South Africa's progress in the match, and the series, they needed a voice that said "don't". But in the homogeneous environment of the dressing room that voice had no place.

"Don't" was important, not just because it was unethical (even if some get away without paying taxes, not paying them is still unethical) but because it was silly to believe they could get away in a country that didn't currently like them and whose cameras were likely to be on them all the time! That is where you need senior players (or the elder brothers that I so often refer to) to provide words of caution. But if the captain is a dominant figure, people don't always have the courage to say no. When Hansie Cronje discussed throwing a match in a team meeting, only a couple of players offered a dissenting voice.

Australia's sportsmen may not be angels, there aren't too many in other lands either, but in the eyes of their fans, in their sports loving society, they are as close to being revered figures as is possible. Hence the widespread outrage. (The outrage in the rest of the world is just an opportunity of getting back at the Aussies. There is a lot of 'holier than thou' verbiage on view here!) Hence too, the need for Cricket Australia to offer more stringent punishment than the ICC.

Having said what I had to, I have one more bone to pick. I have heard voices in India, from my generation and those slightly older, trying to slant the narrative towards suggesting that Indians would have been treated more harshly and that therefore, the cricket world is biased in its outlook towards India. Nothing fills me with greater sadness, even anger, because we are driving our young minds towards self-pity. Young India is proud, holds its own in the world and is marching ahead towards opportunity. It is seeing tomorrow eye-to-eye and we must fill it with self-belief not this crazy idea of being victimised. I fear our generation is dumping its scars, its mindset on a generation that is vibrant and positive. So spare them your wounds and your darkness. In any case, nobody in the cricket world victimises India anymore. This is the best time to be an Indian cricketer in the wider world.

Rant done, I look forward to positives emerging from this, to younger players becoming aware that indiscretions can have terrible outcomes.