• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Croocket

B. S. Raghavan

THERE ARE a few interesting, as well as, intriguing aspects of the ongoing brouhaha over financial foul play, by cricketers and its apparent connivance by cricket boards. That the sport involved hundreds of crores of rupees, in terms of betting, fixing a nd other shenanigans, must have come as a shocking revelation to many.

Try taking to a third-rate movie-maker, scenes such as Rs. 6 lakhs being shovelled out in cash, on the spot by a player of the gentlemen's game, for buying a wrist watch, or the wallowing of so many mountains of filthy lucre, or their dancing like puppet s on a string, to the tune of a whole bunch of international goons, gamblers, smugglers and money-launderers: He would, off-the-cuff, reject them as melodramatic muck that will bomb at the box office. And, yet, these are the kinds of allegations that hav e been solemnly made by prominent insiders. And the end of the breast-beating is not yet in sight.

It will take a long time to erase the stigma attached to the Indian sub-continent, from where most bookies hail. That is also where they have had a field day, spotting their targets with unerring precision and clinching deals with expert ease. Neither th e country of origin, nor stature, nor reputation, inhibited them from tapping shoulders in hotels, pavilions or dressing rooms and hissing ``Psst!''

Much more striking is the stark fact that not one among the cricket colossuses, whom they propositioned, raised a hue and cry and bodily threw them out.

Everyone is banking on the CBI, to clean up the mess. No doubt, the CBI has taken up the investigation, but what exactly are the offences it is working to uncover? Does it have any hold on the shady persons, even in case it collects sufficient material, to conclude that money changed hands? Will the material measure up to the stringent test of mens rea, in a court of law?

Let us assume, there is reliable evidence that A offers money to B to underperform, or not to perform. It is seen that B falls short of expectations in his performance. On what objective criteria, does one directly attribute it to the payment, especially in a game like cricket, with its `glorious uncertainties'? B may have had a genuine stroke of bad luck or been worsted by superior gamesmanship. It will be next to impossible, to establish any quid pro quo beyond doubt, for B can always claim, he did no t wantonly spoil his or someone else's chances. In that event, proving the contrary can become extremely difficult.

At best, the information contained in the CBI's record of enquiries and interrogations, may help the cricket control boards to take disciplinary action, if they so wish (and that is a big if). The most deterrent course to stamp out the evil, for at least some time to come, is for the Incometax and Enforcement authorities, to turn the screw on the suspects and hit them where it hurts the most, by taking back their ill-gotten gains.

Whatever the outcome, our own hardened, home-brewed crooks in politics will never forgive Hansie Cronje. His contrition and confession apart, does he have to return a sizeable part of the tainted money? What monumental stupidity! What a frightful example to set!