Cricket's shame

The Lord's episode involving Pakistani cricketers brings up the fundamental question whether sleaze can be totally kept out of cricket.

The romanticism associated with the game is perhaps gone forever. Increasingly, in the playing fields around the world, the music of sweetly timed strokes is being replaced by the harsh cacophony of ringing cell phones.

Report of the Central Bureau of Investigation, 2000, on match-fixing.

EVERY blade of grass at the hallowed Lord's cricket ground should weep over a report, first carried by the British tabloid News of the World, that some Pakistani cricketers now touring the United Kingdom were playing to the tune set by some unscrupulous bookies based in England.

The specific allegation flowing from a sting operation conducted by the newspaper is that two cricketers Mohammad Aamir, 18, and Mohammad Asif, 28 deliberately bowled no balls (two by Aamir and one by Asif) at a time appointed by bookies during the recent Lord's Test against England and in return received money. There is reason to believe that skipper Salman Butt was also complicit in this unpardonable act. This drama that was scripted by a bookie and enacted by Aamir and Asif may not exactly have altered the outcome of the match, given the team's track record for erratic performance. But their crude display at Lord's took the cake.

It has definitely put every act of theirs during several past international matches under a scanner. This is unfortunate if one reckons that Pakistan has produced some outstanding cricketers such as Hanif Mohammed, Javed Miandad, Imran Khan and Wasim Akram. The demand that Pakistan be banned from world cricket for some time may appear harsh and exaggerated. The fact that stares us in the face, however, is that Pakistan cricket has been under a cloud of suspicion for far too long for the comfort of the average cricket fan. As I write this column, a Scotland Yard probe is on in full swing, and three cricketers, including the captain, have been summoned by it for questioning. Knowing that the Yard will do a thorough job, one is confident many insights will be gained into how much venality has crept into modern-day cricket. Such a peep into the underworld, which has gained a vice-like grip over the game, should help spectators the world over decide for themselves whether to continue to patronise the game.

What was exposed through the sting operation should not shock discerning observers of the game. They have been exercised for some time over the money factor that has enveloped cricket. Having headed the investigation of a similar scandal in 2000, I always believed that greater scandals were waiting to happen. The Indian Premier League (IPL) extravaganza has only compounded the situation.

I am inclined to compare the 2000 and 2010 episodes from various angles although there are new dimensions to present-day cricket. The first scandal, which happened right under our nose, had international dramatis personae, in the sense that apart from Indian players several South African cricketers, including captain Hansie Cronje, were lured by Indian bookies.

There is no information as yet that what has been reported from London spills over to other teams. The fact that there is an Indian connection was unearthed from the revelations made by Veena Malik, a former girlfriend of Mohammad Asif, who had faced a doping charge a few years ago. A Pakistani actress who has enjoyed modest success, she featured in a few Pakistan-Bollywood joint ventures. She revealed that her now estranged boyfriend was in constant touch with Dhiraj Dixit, a photojournalist from Delhi, and that the links related to betting on cricket. She added that she tried to advise Asif against the relationship but did not succeed.

On the other hand, Dhiraj claims it was Veena who approached him and offered to fix matches, as she managed at least seven Pakistan players. It is difficult to surmise who is speaking the truth. In any case, the charges and counter-charges establish that the cricket world is as murky as the underworld. The Scotland Yard inquiry could expose more dubious characters manipulating cricket to their commercial advantage.

A second point of contrast between India 2000 and Pakistan 2010 is the fact that the former was less daring and more sophisticated and that it came to light because of the accidental monitoring of a particular set of phones by the Delhi Police. Compared with what some Indian cricketers did in 2000, the Pakistanis have been crude. They appear to have thrown caution to the winds and underestimated the prowess of the media in the U.K., which is always looking for scandals. It is this complacence that spells the ruin of many common criminals.

The fundamental question is whether sleaze can be totally kept out of cricket. Not in 2010, when many sportsmen are engaged in a rat race to grab as much money as possible before they are eased out of the game. How else can one explain two up-and-coming cricketers, who had everything going for them, bartering away their image for temporary gain?

The former Pakistan coach Geoff Lawson has been brilliant in analysing the psyche of his former wards. He thinks it is unreasonable to apply Western standards of conduct to the Pakistani players. Lawson believes that Pakistani cricketers are paid much less than their counterparts elsewhere, including in India. This, to an extent, explains their vulnerability to betting syndicates, whose offers are attractive even by Western standards. Lawson plugs yet another line that should astonish many. According to him, both cricket selectors and players in Pakistan are under pressure from the underworld, which threatens them all the time over both selection and doings on the field. One selector was known to have confessed that he was backing a particular player who did not measure up to standards all because he (the selector) had been threatened with harm to his family if he did not choose the lad. This seems apocryphal but cannot be dismissed as a figment of one's imagination, considering that Pakistan is a troubled nation. This also proves that crime and cricket have got mixed badly, at least in the subcontinent. Yet another factor that Lawson highlights is the extremely modest educational background of recent Pakistani cricketers, many of whom come from poor and needy families. Strong family loyalties drive them on in search of financial opportunities, and ethics becomes a casualty.

The Lord's episode should exasperate well-meaning and honest cricket administrators. Nothing seems to have helped, including the imposing of huge restrictions on cricketers so that they do not socialise with people they do not know and the signing of a fairly clearly worded code of conduct. The setting up of an anti-corruption wing within the International Cricket Council (ICC) has brought only a marginal change in attitudes. There have been suggestions that a strong law should be enacted to deter those tempted to stray from the standards expected of them.

One is not at all convinced that a stringent statute would reverse the situation. Deterrence may not always produce the desired results. Indoctrination of the players against misconduct through video films could help.

But these are at best only half-baked solutions. Is it appropriate to say that what happens on the cricket field solidly reflects what is happening in the polity? This is especially so in the case of Pakistan. Unless those governing a country change drastically in favour of transparency and good conduct, there is little that the others can do. The hope is that Sharad Pawar, the current ICC president, will draw lessons from what happened at Lord's and draw up an imaginative plan that will rein in those cricketers who exhibit unethical tendencies even early in their career.