MATCH REPORTS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
HOT LINKS
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
BOOKS & THINGS
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF

The feline is out of the bag!

Prem Panicker

In media circles, we've been hearing the rumblings for a while now. The first low warning growls, from deep within the jungle.

A major story on betting and match-fixing in Indian cricket was, we understood, about to hit the stands.

This morning, rather than wait for my subscription copy to be delivered, I went to the newsstands at the ungodly hour of 6 am and picked up a copy of the latest copy of the newsweekly Outlook.

Fifteen minutes later, I stubbed out the remnants of my cigarette, put the magazine aside and sat peering through the smokescreen, trying to figure out where the fire was. The bag had been duly opened, the feline had duly jumped out into the open -- only, I am still unsure about whether this thing in our midst is a tiger, or a pussycat.

A quick precis of what the story -- written by an old friend and former colleague, Krishna Prasad, in tandem with Aniruddha Bahal -- does, and does not, contain is in order here.

The story leads with the text of Manoj Prabhakar's signed statement that he was offered Rs 2.5 million by an Indian player to play below par against Pakistan during the 1994 Singer Cup in Sri Lanka.

It's nice to know that Manoj has put his name to the statement -- the allegation, however, has been made before. And so has the response: that in the tournament in question, India never did play Pakistan; the scheduled game between these two countries was wiped out due to rain. This fact, of course, does not invalidate Manoj's statement -- after all, such offers are not made as the teams walk out to play, it is perfectly possible that the offer was made the evening before the match, at a time when it was not clear whether or no the match would go on as scheduled.

Let's leave it there for now, and look at what else the story -- the first major one in the Indian media openly to talk of betting and match fixing, and the involvement of our cricketers therein -- does say.

The story says that it is boom time for the business of betting on cricket. No argument there.

It says the betting mafia is a very well-organised outfit, operating on the pyramidal principle with little bookies handling their exclusive clientele, and being in their turn controlled by bigger bookies, the spiral of accountability ending right at the very top. And it speculates that this "top" is Dawood Ibrahim in Dubai.

Fair enough. That the betting syndicate is organised is a given -- you don't deal in multimillions per day, per match, without being organised. As for Ibrahim, heck, he is pretty much responsible for most of India's ills with the possible exception of the recent earthquake in Madhya Pradesh, so there is no good reason why he can't carry the can for this, too.

And that is pretty much what the story does say, in so many words -- the rest is suggestion.

And after a few more readings of the article, my take on this is that the device of suggestion has been resorted to because despite their best efforts, Bahal and Prasad have not been able to put their hands on any real proof. And this is not meant as a criticism of the two journos -- the only way you can prove that X is involved in betting and match fixing is for either X himself, or the concerned bookmaker, to openly testify to it in the presence of witnesses. And surely both bookie and X will be aware that there are easier ways of committing suicide.

So what the article does do is list instances of games in the recent past that have produced startling results -- the St Vincent ODI and the Barbados Test being latest in the list (which makes me wonder, incidentally, why not the Madras Independence Cup fixture, where as in St Vincent, India found itself losing from a position of near invincibility?).

Elsewhere, it names some players, past and present, as having found themselves the subject of speculation. And it leaves it up to the reader to draw his own conclusions.

Fair enough -- and that, methinks, is our cue. And as far as I can see, two major questions need to be answered, and answered in the heck of a hurry, before Indian cricket enters its next season.

Look, no one is denying that betting exists. Nor that it is an illegal activity. But that is a matter for the police, not for us to lose sleep over. It becomes grist for a cricket reporter's mill only if betting syndicates have begun directly influencing matches, by bribing players and getting them to tank certain games.

So, the first question obviously is -- is match-fixing a major part of the Indian cricket scene today?

Frankly, like Prasad and Bahal, I don't know! In the sense of, being certain sure enough to name names and blow the lid off things.

But some points made in the Outlook piece are certainly worrying.

Item: Kamal Bindra, wife of former BCCI president Inderjit Singh Bindra, is quoted as saying she knows more about match-fixing than she is prepared to talk about.

Item: A Bombay cop recounts having overheard a telephone conversation involving a bookie who was under police scrutiny, during the 1994-1995 tour of New Zealand. The cop recounts that before the inaugural match of the four-nation Centenary ODI series, the bookie called one Indian member of the side to confirm that the "arrangements" had been made. The rest, of course, is cricket history -- India were bundled out for 160, and the Kiwis won with 17 overs to spare. The cop is, he is quoted as saying in the article, prepared to testify in case of an enquiry, and even produce the concerned bookie at the time.

Item: It is recalled that A Venkat Rao, administrative manager of that tour of New Zealand, had at the conclusion of the series named four Indian players as being involved in match fixing, before retracting his allegation.

Item: Sunil Dev, manager of the Indian side during the 1996-1997 tour of South Africa, is quoted as saying: "I believe the performance of some players is definitely influenced by outside forces. Some former players are also involved in this racket. I think the board should conduct an enquiry." Dev then goes on to allege that there was a particular Indian player who was unhappy at Benoni when India beat Zimbabwe to reach the SBI triangular finals. "Everybody knows who that player is," says Dev, rather coyly. "I would like to mention that once a player retires as captain," the then team manager is quoted as having written, in his report to the BCCI, "he should also retire from the team as a player. No army can be commanded by two generals, no company can be run by two managing directors."

Item: The story quotes a punter as saying that India, chasing 120 to win the Barbados Test, were favourites to win. And that he subsequently received a tipoff from a friendly bookie that India were to lose, and hastily covered his earlier bets. The story also mentions that a journalist called Madan Lal before the Indians began their fourth innings chase, to inform him that India was set up to lose.

Okay. That's quite a lot of smoke, right there.

And that brings us to the logical next question: what needs to be done next?

To my mind, there is only one answer -- the Board of Control for Cricket in India needs to launch an immediate, and totally public, enquiry.

The commission of enquiry needs to comprise personalities who have the total faith and respect of the general public. And it needs to have the very widest possible terms of reference.

It should be able to call on Kamal Bindra to put her evidence where her mouth is. It needs to be able to call on Manoj Prabhakar to name the Indian player who allegedly offered him that bribe. It needs to call the Bombay cop, to ask him to produce his bookie and the documentary evidence (the cop says he has the bill of the call, including the room in the hotel in South Africa it was made to, which means tracing the concerned player is ridiculously simple). It needs to be able to call on Venkat Rao to, once for all, either name names or deny that he ever named four players in the first place. It needs to be able to call on Sunil Dev to confront the player concerned, on whom he has cast doubt in his statement.

The committee also needs to be able to call on the services of investigative agencies to determine if our cricketers have stashed away money and assets disproportionate to their known sources of income -- and if so, determine where this money came from in the first place.

And the BCCI needs to do all this ASAP, if not sooner.

There is one all important factor to be kept sight of, here -- cricket is supported by its fans. Fans who have patiently sat through a season of indifferent performances by the stars they revere, indifferent results by a team they still turn out by the thousands to support with their energy, their enthusiasm, and their hard-earned money.

And the cricket fan deserves more at the hands of the players and the officials than this climate of uncertainty. He deserves to know whether his team, or members thereof, are guilty of letting down the trust he has placed in them.

One thing he does not deserve -- and that is to view every over bowled by an Indian bowler, every dismissal of an Indian batsman, every result of the team, with eyes of suspicion -- because this will finally kill his enthusiasm for the game and for its performers. And once that happens, Indian cricket will be as dead as its hockey is today.

For all these reasons, we need an open, total, thorough enquiry -- now!

And yes, the committee of enquiry also needs to probe, thoroughly, the increasingly talked about nexus between journalists and the betting syndicate.

Which brings me to this offshoot to the Outlook article -- that it names members of the media as being part of this whole nexus. And that is even more shocking -- for if the media is not exempt from taint, who then will keep tabs on the cricketers, who will expose any wrongdoing that occurs?

I was, personally, shocked to see some wellknown journalists named as people who openly bet on cricket matches, often from the press boxes of the concerned stadia.

Shocked, because if journalists bet on games and, as indicated in the Outlook piece, even pass on to bookies privileged information about ground conditions, player form and state of mind, and such, what then is to stop other journos from taking it that step further and actually attempting to influence the way a player performs?

Surely it is no coincidence that in recent times, there are increasing murmurs that journalists are proving to be the conduit between players and the betting mafia?

Sabayasachi Sarkar of Ananda Bazaar Patrika is in fact quoted in the Outlook article as saying, 'Calls from Dubai and Mumbai come to certain journalists on a regular basis during the toss. The same journalists interact with the players in the dressing rooms. It happens all the time.'

What are we to think?

With all due respect, I think it is up to the journalists themselves to clear the air. For if the cricket fan ends up losing faith both in the players and the media that reports on their activities, then what else is left?

Postscript: While the optimist in me hopes against hope that we will see the BCCI order an immediate, honest, open enquiry, the realistic side of me has to regretfully admit that the possibility is remote.

Underlining this feeling is a brief interview with Jagmohan Dalmiya, which is carried by Outlook as an adjunct to the main piece. I'll quote just the really relevant bits -- and the remarks in italics are mine:

Q:There are transcripts with the Mumbai police of talks between players and a bookie. They say if an enquiry is held, they will furnish proof.
Jagmohan Dalmiya: I don't know how to respond. I don't think players are involved at all. I don't think players will betray their country for a little money.

For heaven's sake! The man is being told that there is evidence, and that it can be placed before him, and what does he say? That he believes that all concerned are good little boy scout types and that he doesn't believe they would have done any wrong? Not one word on the lines of "This is serious, and we will look into it"?

Q: Journalists with bookie links place bets from the pressbox. The same journalists mix with the players. Isn't that a big grey area?

Jagmohan Dalmiya: I personally feel whether it is the players or media or board officials or whoever is involved with the game in some capacity or other shouldn't bet.

For heaven's sake, the sequel! I mean, here we are being told that this is being done openly. Names are named. And what does the BCCI secretary and, heaven help us, future president of the International Cricket Council, say? That they should be good little boys and not get up to mischief!! Why doesn't he just put a sheet over his head and shout "Boo!"?

Q: Before the (Independence Cup) finals in Calcutta, a commentator organised a meeting between some Pakistani players and bookies. Were you aware of this?

Jagmohan Dalmiya: What? I don't know what you are asking. I don't know anything. I have no comments. Please don't ask such questions.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is there an undercurrent of panic in this answer? A case of methinks the lady doth protest too much? I donno. One thing's for sure, though -- if this is how Indian cricket's topmost official -- and one slated, within a fortnight of date -- to take over the reins of world cricket reacts to a situation this serious, then there seems little reason left to be optimistic.