The truth of the matter

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