The truth of the matter
Prem Panicker
Editor's note: For the second straight day, and given the importance of the
subject, we present Prem Panicker's Email Diary of Friday as an opinion
piece on the main page, for the benefit of those who do not subscribe to the
Diary.
Good day all....
"Patriotism" is a word we hear bandied about a lot these days. Tell you
what, though -- if that word refers to someone who loves his country
dearly, then it is becoming increasingly difficult to be patriotic these
days.
I mean, look at us -- the Federal government suspects wrongdoing. The
premier investigative agency in the country is assigned to probe. It
turns in a report confirming that wrongdoing on a major scale has been
going on. And then we find that our laws do not provide for any action
-- not even a token slap on the wrist -- to be taken.
In other words, our government cannot even proceed against the corrupt.
Whereas the corrupt can, if they are fined or banned or otherwise
punished, go to the selfsame courts that are powerless to punish them,
and be reinstated.
Which sums up this country pretty well -- a land where the laws, the
legal machinery, favour the crooks.
But then, why should that surprise us? Laws can be only as good as the
lawmakers themselves -- and judging by the evidence before us, our
lawmakers are no good at all. Consider this -- in the aftermath of the
CBI report, we have discovered a serious lacuna in our laws. We have
found that the Anti-Corruption Law is in fact toothless, since it
pertains only to government servants and, therefore, leaves 99.9 per
cent of the country outside its ambit.
It is two months since the report was published, and the futility of the
law became common knowledge. In these sixty days, have you heard of our
lawmakers -- the MPs, the ministers, et al -- calling for a review of
the law, or making moves to widen the law, to ensure that any citizen
found guilty of corruption can be punished by the courts?
Of course not -- no one is even talking about the necessity for such a
review. What are our law-makers talking about, then? Take this week
alone. An MP -- in other words, a man elected to the supreme lawmaking
body of this country -- has been openly saying that there is more
corruption in the CBI than there is in the cricket fraternity. And
even more curiously, no one, not even the government, takes him to task
for it. Meanwhile, the Defence Minister and Sports Minister huddle
together to find ways and means to let off at least one of the crooks.
Wouldn't you give an arm and a leg to have been a fly on the wall when
that meeting was taking place? How would it go? 'Georgeji, dekhiya,
problem is that Jadeja has been indicted, and if we don't prescribe any
punishment, the janta might turn against us, and you know what that
means when the next election comes around; as it is, political pundits
are saying this government may not last another 12 months.'
'Umaji, main maanta hoon ke what you are saying is right, but what to
do? Think of my problem also -- this Jaya Jaitley, who happens to be a
senior leader in my party, and you should know, Umaji, that when a party
only comprises two leaders, that means 50 per cent of our leadership,
wants Jadeja let off with a token punishment, how can I deny her and
cause problems for myself. As for the janta, don't worry -- it will be a
year or more before we have to go to them and ask for votes and by then
everyone would have forgotten, don't you know how the janta is?'
So much for our law-makers. And yet we wonder why our country is in the
state it is in.
In order to help things along, Ajay Jadeja comes along with another
'defence', to supplement the 17-page effort he had circulated to the
media a fortnight ago (ironically, his lawyer, the man who prepared that
defence, is also the lawyer for one of the leading bookies, but let's
not worry about that just now).
The cornerstone of his latest defence is -- Why did the CBI believe
Mohammad Azharuddin's statement implicating me, but disbelieve Manoj
Prabhakar's statement implicating Kapil Dev?
Do you really have to be an expert in law to answer that one? Here is a
very simple answer, on behalf of the CBI, for Jadeja's latest:
There is a qualitative difference between someone who says, 'He fixed
matches' and someone who says, 'I fixed matches and he helped me.'
The former is an unsubstantiated allegation. The latter is a
self-incriminatory statement. The person who says 'I fixed matches and
he helped me' is in effect admitting to a crime, and then naming his
partners in crime. And the self-implicatory nature of the second
statement is what gains it credibility.
And further, when a player admits to fixing matches, and then names
another player as his accomplice, and it turns out that the other
player's phone records show 100s of calls to bookies, then you have what
in legal terms is called corroborating evidence. And that is why
Jadeja's so called defence (I wonder how much he pays the lawyer who
dreams these dillies up?) is fuller of holes than a colander.
But then, I forgot the real dilly. Jadeja is blameless, you see, because
he like all Indians is superstititous and when he was told that talking
to a bookie a few dozen times a day brings good luck, of course he spoke
to the man. Huh, big deal!
I wonder, though. I seem to remember Jimmy Amarnath coming in to bowl
looking like a rabbit with a bee sting on the tail, thanks to that red
handkerchief peeping out of his back pocket. If for the sake of
superstition, Jimmy could carry a hankie in his backpocket, why can't
Jadeja carry a mobile, so that he can get further doses of luck between
overs?
Anyway, that is a digression. To get back on the main track, Jadeja
needn't go to all this expense and bother, of getting incompetent
lawyers to come up with laughable 'defences'. The real 'defence' is
being mounted behind the scenes -- Aditi Jaitley speaks to mom Jaya,
Jaya Jaitley speaks to George Fernandes, George Fernandes speaks to Uma
Bharati, Uma Bharati speaks to A C Muthiah....
Did you notice one thing about Muthiah's recent statements? Whenever he
is asked about the nature of punishment that is going to be meted out,
he responds, always, with the same words: "The punishment will be
strict, far stricter than other countries have meted out."
Why do you suppose he keeps mentioning the punishments meted out by
other countries? To understand why, look at what is happening in the
world around us. South Africa which under Hansie Cronje had the most
corrupt team going, has indefinitely postponed its King Commission.
Hansie Cronje has retired from the game -- other than that, no real
punishment has been imposed on him. (A ban? How can you ban a player who
has voluntarily said the day he confessed that he will take no more part
in cricket?)
The West Indies and England have cleared their tainted players without
even bothering to inquire into the charges. A court has stayed the ban
on Salim Malik. And Shane Warne and Mark Waugh, proved to have taken
money from bookmakers, have been let off with minor fines, and there is
no more talk of any action being taken against them.
In other words, no country has taken any action worth the name against
any cricketer. So when Muthiah says that the punishment the BCCI imposes
will be stricter than that imposed by other countries, he is on a very
good batting wicket.
Tomorrow, if Muthiah, speaking on behalf of the disciplinary committee,
thus says that Jadeja will be fined one lakh, and banned for one year,
that ban to have retrospective effect, he would have fulfilled his
promise, and imposed punishment "stricter than that of other countries".
But what will it really mean? Fines are, pardon the expression,
chickenshit to someone like Jadeja -- he could, for instance, call one
of his friends just for luck, and lo, the amount required will
materialise. That, incidentally, tells you the power of superstititions
-- see? It does bring good luck!!
As for the ban -- with retrospective effect means from the start of this
season. While play actually began for India with the ICC knockout in
Kenya, it can be argued that the date to take into account should be the
day on which Jadeja played his last international match, which was in
early April. We are now already into December. So effectively, in five
more months, Jadeja can come back into the national side. And we can all
-- Aditi, Jaya, George, Uma, Muthiah, Morarka -- live happily ever
after.
I hope I am wrong, and the board for once acts with some backbone. I
fear, though, from what I hear behind the scenes, that I am right.
I have one more recurring fear. I fear that if the board and the
government keeps taking the fans for granted in this fashion for too
much longer, one of these days there will be a major riot. And once the
trigger is pressed, no one -- not even that happy political cabal --
will be able to recall the bullet, before it thuds from point blank
range into the very heart of the game we once loved, and now love to
dishonour, to disgrace.
Prem Panicker
Mail Prem Panicker