Lies and videotape

Sir, - This refers to your Editorial ``Cricket, lies and videotape'' (The Hindu, May 30).

Any one finding himself in Manoj Prabhakar's predicament would have done exactly what he did to make the persons in whom he had confided initially admit publicly what they were saying in private. If Ajit Wadekar or Navjot Sidhu, for instance, had said in public on being requested by Prabhakar to do so ``Yes, Prabhakar did inform me about the alleged offer of bribe he had received from Kapil Dev for match-fixing but I did not think at that time that he was telling the truth or I did not consider his allegation serious enough to warrant further action on my part'', their subsequent behaviour could be understood and even excused.

But all of them, for various reasons, fully realising that Prabhakar had no other way to support his claims for having taken them into his confidence over the matter, were flatly denying that he had ever spoken to them about the episode, thereby portraying him as a wilful liar or one suffering from delusions. Especially after Kapil Dev had threatened him with a libel suit, Prabhakar had obviously no option but to resort to surreptitious means to safeguard his reputation and garner as much evidence as possible in his defence. Of course, if Prabhakar had kept his mouth shut from the very beginning (as many others had chosen to do under similar circumstances), he could have avoided getting into this self-inflicted mess.

Such undercover investigations, as is well-known, are quite common as with a married couple suspecting each other's fidelity or with partners in a business enterprise suspecting each other's bona fides. Crime investigation agencies resort to sting operations all the time like detectives posing as drug pushers and female detectives even posing as prostitutes. If a man reports looking into a bedroom and witnessing a woman being strangled by her husband, can the police refuse to take any action because the information has come from a peeping Tom?

Moreover, it is commonsense that withholding information of whatever nature - it is after all for the courts to decide whether such information is relevant or not - about a crime that had been allegedly committed is a crime by itself and, therefore, whatever means is adopted to uncover such a crime is justified even if it involves invasion of privacy of the withholder of such information.

V. Nagarajan,

Chennai

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Unrest in the Northeast - II
Next     : Misconceived remarks