G'day, all.

From V S Naipaul and Vikram Seth on down, Indians writing in English have matched their peers around the world in terms of language, craft, style and substance. If there is one thing lacking, though, it is humour. We, as a nation (if indeed national character is reflected in national literature) stand revealed as a people who cannot laugh at our own foibles. It is a serious lack. And one way of filling it would be to publish the collected sayings of the BCCI, over the past three, four years. Such a collection would be the hot-selling ticket in the Humour category of any publisher's catalogue.

The problem, though, is that the BCCI is most serious when it is at its funniest. Its sayings are published as Fact, not Fiction let alone Humour. For my part, I haven't stopped laughing ever since a copy of the Madhavan Report landed on my table. For why? Let me count the ways:

First. What IS the Madhavan Report? It is a report on a report, pure and simple -- sort of like the pass notes we used to use in college, when we couldn't understand Shakespeare. Generated by a person with no locus standi to enquire into anything. To understand this, look at the Justice Chandrachud Report. That it was a sham is a given. But why was it a sham? Why did a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court produce such utter bilge? Simply because a FORMER chief justice is, in fact, about as useful, when it comes to active jurisprudence, as you or I. We, you or I, can 'investigate'. But we, as plain old Joe Citizen, have no rights to summon witnesses (witness the grandiose summons issued to the five cricketers, and the final outcome -- Madhavan had to go running to Hyderabad, because Azhar did not even deign to come to Madras at his call). We have no right to compel answers. We have no means of ensuring that the witnesses who do deign to see us will in fact tell us the truth. If you or I do an 'investigation', this is our handicap. And Madhavan and Chandrachud, as private citizens, suffer the same handicap as we do.

No private citizen can investigate worth a damn. Thus, asking a private citizen to inquire into anything indicates nothing more than a desire on the part of the authorities concerned to create an illusion that they are doing something -- as opposed to actually doing it. The idea is to get breathing space.

That is what the BCCI tried with Chandrachud. That is also why the BCCI put Madhavan on the job. To waste time.

There are two kinds of writing. One kind is by a person who believes in what he is saying. The other kind is by a person who is paid to write something. (At this point, you might argue that journalists belong in the second category -- we are, after all, paid to write. Ah, but the difference is, we are paid to write, but not paid to write what someone wants us to write. For instance, my editor here reads my columns and match reports after it has actually been uploaded to the net, at the same time that you do. He reads this diary when it lands in his mailbox, just like you do).

So which kind does Madhavan, and his report, belong to? Did he write what he really thought, or did he write what the BCCI wanted him to write? We don't know. But we can deduce, from available pointers. For instance -- how does the Madhavan report begin? With a gratuitous defence, spread over two and a half pages, of the Chandrachud Report, which ends with the words: "On the basis of the evidence which was available to the Committee, the aforesaid conclusions arrived at my the Chandrachud Committee in November 1997 were correct and unobjectionable."

Really? What was the evidence available to the Chandrachud Committee in 1997? Mukesh Gupta was available, as were the other bookies -- only, Chandrachud refused to speak to a single bookie. The police forces in Calcutta and Bombay had arrested various people in connection with bookmaking activities, and hinted that cricketers were involved. Chandrachud refused to talk to them -- in fact, when the Calcutta police conducted a raid while the Chandrachud Committee was sitting and we asked the former chief justice whether he would be calling the Calcutta cops to listen to their story, he replied: "That is not part of my brief."

What Chandrachud did was to first arrive at a conclusion, then look for only those statements that would support his conclusion. Madhavan, thus, would have been more honest had he written: "On the basis of the evidence that Chandrachud chose to examine, his conclusions were correct."

So why did Madhavan go out of his way (remember that he was asked to look into the CBI report, not the Chandrachud one) to give the former supreme court chief justice a clean chit? Simple -- because the BCCI wanted to convince us that it had in fact done a good job with Chandrachud. That is typical of the BCCI -- it never knows when to throw in a bad hand, but rather keeps playing it out, picking one bad card after another, hoping that somehow, somewhere, things will go right.

What else has Madhavan done, in course of his long-winded report? He has sustained the CBI case against Azhar. He has given the CBI a rap on the knuckles for suggesting that Jadeja was non-cooperative and then, with some folk wisdom, cribbed that Jadeja was less than truthful when he himself questioned him. And finally, sustained the case against Jadeja as well. I could go on -- but the bottom line is, that verbose report does not add anything of any significance to what the CBI said in its report.

The report is really interesting for what it left out. Consider the very last paragraph, comprising just two lines and coming just before his signature: "Regarding the role of the BCCI, supplementary report will be given after the BCCI submits explanation/replies to the observations made by CBI in its report."

Strange. In its report, the CBI had indicted the BCCI, in the severest of terms. Madhavan was asked to examine the CBI report. He found time to examine a Chandrachud Report he was not even supposed to be looking at. But not one single word about the charges against the BCCI itself.

Does something strike you about this? The BCCI, which asked Madhavan to examine the various charges, has not yet found the time to respond to its Commissioner's questionnaire, about its own functioning.

Now consider this: Yesterday, the BCCI met in emergency session. The session, which cost a bomb (payment for the use of the Crystal Room at the

Taj Bengal, airfares for the delegates, honorariums to the delegates, five-star accomodation for the delegates, and so on), was meant to impose punishment on the errant cricketers. After a day of deliberations, the only decision in this regard that was arrived at was to defer punishment.

In other words, this is what happened: The BCCI got the CBI report. The BCCI authorised the disciplinary committee to examine it and decide on punishment. The disciplinary committee called an emergency meeting of the board. The emergency meeting authorised the disciplinary committee to "examine all aspects and impose the appropriate penalties".

Duh!

The emergency session, though, was not a complete washout -- it did produce a 55-page booklet defending the board against the charges levelled by the BCCI.

Question is, when was the booklet prepared? Are we supposed to believe that the emergency session met yesterday morning, considered the charges against the board, and came up with the answers?

Sorry, that horse won't jump -- the printed booklet was distributed immediately after the session concluded, which meant that it had already been prepared.

This raises two questions: One, when was this report prepared, and by whom? And while on this, since the report was already prepared and printed before the emergency session took place, what role does the BCCI executive play, except as a rubber stamp for decisions already taken? And do we need such an expensive rubber stamp?

Two: If the BCCI officials had the time to prepare that self-serving defence of its actions, why then did it not have the time to respond to a questionnaire put to it by Madhavan, its own Commissioner, enquiring into very serious charges levelled against the BCCI by the CBI?

In passing -- from those two lines in the Madhavan Report, do you get the impression that he is merely waiting for the BCCI to answer his questions, and when he gets those answers, which should be any day now, he will immediately come up with a follow up report on the BCCI itself?

Good -- that is precisely the impression you are supposed to get! There is only one thing wrong with that pretty picture, though. Madhavan -- a paid employee of the BCCI -- is not going to do any such thing. Because the BCCI is not going to respond to his questions. And none knows it better than Madhavan himself.

How do we know? Simple -- our colleague in Delhi, Onkar Singh, met Madhavan shortly before the latter was due to fly to Calcutta to brief the BCCI's emergency session. Onkar asked the BCCI Commissioner if it was possible to do an in-depth interview a day or so after his Calcutta trip. To which Madhavan responded by saying that he would be unavailable. 'I am going home to Trivandrum, and intend to rest for a month or so,' Madhavan explained. Does that sound like a man who is sitting in his office, his eyes eagerly fixed on the fax machine, waiting for the Board to respond to his questions so he can come up with a report on his own employers?

All of which leads me to one final question -- who told the BCCI that it is in fact possible to fool all the people, all the time? In parting, there are other aspects of the Madhavan Report and its aftermath to be considered -- but I'll leave those aside till tomorrow. For now, adios all.....

Prem

Mail Cricket Editor