NEWS
SCHEDULES
COLUMNS
PREVIOUS TOURS
OTHER SPORTS
STATISTICS
INTERVIEWS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

The Chandrachud Report

3. The incident mentioned in clause (a) above is falsified by the statement of Sanjay Manjerekar, which I accept as true. He says that the match at Sharjah against Pakistan in October 1991 started late. He and Manoj Prabhakar were on the right path when the umpire said that the light was bad. There was only a brief stoppage in the game. Manjrekar has stated categorically that he and Manoj did not go back to the Pavilion and the statement made by Manoj Prabhakar is wholly untrue. Manjrekar's statement accords with the probabilities of the case.

4.The incidents mentioned in clause (c) and (d) above are couched in a language which is beautifully vague. The incident mentioned in clause (c ) speaks of "certain quarters" having approached Manoj Prabhakar "somewhere" with a request that he should perform below par in "a certain match". The incident mentioned in clause ( d) speaks of Rs. 25 lakhs being offered to Manoj Prabhakar by an "Indian team member" for sabotaging the match in favour of Pakistan. He says that he spurned the offer but that did not stop the offers which flowed in regularly. Surely if an Indian team member approached Manoj Prabhakar with such a highly objectionable offer, the first thing which should have occurred to him was to report the matter forwith to the Manager or the Coach or the Captain or the vice-captain or any other member of the team in whom he had confidence.

5. The incident mentioned in clause (e) above refers to a match against West Indies. Nayan Mongia is alleged to have conveyed to Manoj Prabhakar the "Management's instruction to try and get as close to the target". Even here Manoj never claimed that he was victimised for carrying out the instructions of the Management. Nayan Mongia has said in his statement that he has never experienced the fixing of a match as a member of the Indian team. In fact he says that it is "crazy" that any player will make an attempt to lose a match.

6. The incident mentioned in clause (g) shows Manoj's total unconcern for truth. Aamir Sohail and Azhar were never captains of their teams at the same time or in any match whatsoever. They never tossed together. Azhar tossed with Imran Khan, Wasim Akram and Moin Khan but never with Amir Sohail. Apart from that, it is puerile for seasoned campaigners like Aamir Sohail and Azhar to proclaim within the seeing of a couple of commentators that the other had won the toss. Now, of course, the Referee is present at the toss but all along, a couple of commentators have always been present at an arm's length. The allegation made by Manoj in this behalf is so completely concocted that it deserves no further attention except that this allegation shows that Manoj has no regard for truth whatsoever. In his zeal for involving Azhar, Manoj overlooked that the Managers, the coaches and members of the two teams would not have been silent spectators to such an absurd claim made by their respective captains.

7. The target of allegation in clause (h) above is obviously Azharuddin. I do not know from where Manoj got the figure of 5000 Dirhams which is said to be the price of the suit. I will have occasion to point out later that the members of the Indian team are now paid so handsomely by the BCCI that a costly suit or an expensive watch can not be regarded as the offspring of a bribe.

8. It is not easy to understand what Manoj means by saying in clause in clause (1) above that it is better to approach an ex-player than a current player of the team. In fact, this allegation destroys the other allegations made by him. On his own showing he was approached more than once with an offer of bribe. Why was that done, if the same result could be achieved more easily by getting an ex-player? It is not a happy thought, but the very persistence and tenor of the allegations made by Manoj tend to show that, rightly or wrongly, the alleged bribe givers entertained the belief that Manoj was the right person for paying a bribe to.

9. The statements made by Manoj which are extracted at (1)-(5) above are not of a different genre than those which are already dealt with. He told the Statesman that in the bathroom of Indian Cricket everyone is naked. This is too sweeping a statement to merit acceptance, apart from being bad in taste. Then he says in his letter dated 16th June 1997 to the secretary BCCI that he had informed "the concerned persons" about the offer of bribe of Rs 25 lakhs. It defies understanding as to why Manoj is afraid of disclosing the names even of those "concerned persons" , by which is evidently meant the officials of the board or the manager the captain and so on. There was surely no danger to his life in disclosing those names.

10. The fundamental objection of Manoj to disclosing the names of persons who offered him bribes or asked him to play below his form is that such a disclosure will spell danger to his life. He said in his statement before me that he was warned that his life will be in danger if he disclosed the names. I pleaded with him that he may dislose the names to me in confidence and that I will not mention those names in my report, much that he disclosed those names to me. Faced with this situation he changed his stance, an adroit player that he is and said that he is afraid that he will be sued or persecuted if he disclosed the names. With my humble experience at the bar and on the bench, I told him how unfounded his fear was. But he stuck to his crease for concealing those names. This indeed is an easy exercise. Make any unfounded allegations you like against team-mates, officials and others and then try to get away with it by saying that the names of the culprits cannot be disclosed because there is danger to life or the fear of litigation.

More