Questions the BCCI would rather not ask

One weekend, I was driving into town from my home in Vashi. We were late for a party, so when I got to the little used road that snakes under the Mankhurd flyover and leads to Chembur, I took it in a rush, just as the signal was turning from amber to red.

A traffic cop waved me over. I parked, and was fishing out my driving licence when my wife chipped in with 'Just give him some money, let's go, we are getting late.'

I slipped a 20 rupee note into my driving licence; the cop 'inspected' the documents, retained the relevant one, handed me back my licence, and we zipped off.

What startled me at the time was not the fact that a petty bribe got me off the tedium of having my licence impounded, and of then having to go spend hours in some dreary traffic court getting it back.

The real eye-opener was that my wife knew what to do, given that she doesn't even drive.

The Abhijeet Kale imbroglio reminds me of that incident. Assuming -- strictly for the purpose of argument -- that Kale, or his mother (?!) did offer a bribe to two selectors, the question is, how did they know that money buys a berth on the national team?

Complete coverage The Selection Scam

The fact that a bribe was offered -- and we are assuming it was, only for the purpose of argument -- underlines the fact that corruption is commonly perceived to be a fact of Indian cricketing life; that the notion of corruption as short-cut is so common that my wife who doesn't drive, and Kale's mother who doesn't play cricket, know what to do.

So where in all this brouhaha is there any attempt, by the Board of Control for Cricket in India, to address the larger question of corruption?

IS IT just me, or do you too get the feeling that there is something unholy about the haste with which the Kale affair has been handled? The accusation is publicised and, less than 48 hours later, the man is tried, and condemned to a life of oblivion.

All this without giving the man on trial a chance to face his accusers -- an elementary requirement of jurisprudence?

There is some initial confusion -- the impression conveyed at the outset is that Kale was trying to bribe his way into the India 'A' team. When questions are raised about what man in his right mind would offer Rs 20 lakh for a slot on a tour from which he could hope to earn just Rs 4 lakh, max, there comes the clarification -- the bribe was for a slot on the national team, we are told, not for India 'A'.

The media, we are told, 'misunderstood'. Which is par for the course -- every time someone in the establishment puts his foot in it, comes the explanation: 'I was misunderstood/misquoted.'

You would imagine, from the frequency with which this occurs, that the media was comprised entirely of deaf people -- but never mind that.

The whole sequence of events is vague, to the point of being mystifying. The allegation against Kale surfaced on November 20; on that day, the two selectors said they had submitted their report to the BCCI.

Earlier the same day, BCCI joint secretary Professor Ratnakar Shetty outed the news that two selectors had been approached.

When did it happen? When was the bribe offered?

Was it on, or just before, November 15, when the national side to tour Australia was selected? It could not have been. Consider that the team was being picked from a list of 20 probables; even Kale's mother would have known that selectors, no matter how heavily bribed, could not have picked a name outside of that list.

So was it before November 13, when the probables were picked? If yes, how come the two selectors waited a week or more before submitting their report? How come it was a board joint secretary who knew about the incident first, before the board president even?

The official chronology does not jell; what it does do is raise further questions about the whole affair, questions the BCCI should -- but is not -- addressing.

LET'S BE charitable for a moment (meaning, don't laugh just yet), and say that the haste with which Kale was tried and convicted underlines the BCCI's zero tolerance policy towards acts of corruption.

If that is the case, then how to explain Vanka Pratap?

Consider this: The Hyderabad first-class player says a selector approached him through an intermediary, seeking a bribe. He says he reported this to no less than Jagmohan Dalmiya, president of the BCCI. He says no action was taken.

You would expect, if the Kale incident were to be taken as precedent, that the BCCI would have immediately suspended the selector concerned. After all, if the unsupported accusation by two selectors is enough to fry Kale, the unsupported allegation by Pratap is surely enough to pillory the selector concerned?

But no -- when it comes to a charge against a member of the establishment, the BCCI itself is silent; instead, the Hyderabad Cricket Association takes up the cudgels and demands, from the player, an explanation which, we are told, will be forwarded to the disciplinary committee.

What, precisely, is Pratap supposed to explain? Why some selector approached him?

What is the disciplinary committee supposed to consider? Why Pratap opened this can of worms? If yes, then which disciplinary committee is considering why Messrs Kiran More and Pranab Roy accused a player?

The counter argument could be that Pratap cannot prove a selector did in fact approach him. Fine -- by the same token, can Kiran More and Pranab Roy prove that Kale -- or his mother -- approached them?

Look at it from another angle. Pratap stated that he had been approached via an intermediary, and that he had reported this to Dalmiya, who assured Pratap that he would 'look into it'.

When the affair hit the headlines, BCCI secretary S K Nair said the report had not reached him.

If, then, an explanation is required, shouldn't it be sought from Jagmohan Dalmiya?

Shouldn't it be Dalmiya who is asked to tell us what he did with Pratap's report?

Did he 'look into it'? If so, what did he see?

Did he forward it to the people concerned in the BCCI for investigation and action?

If so, to whom, and what was the outcome?

Or did he just sit on it? If so, why?

Those are the questions the incident throws up, and it is not up to Pratap to answer these; yet it is Pratap who today faces the awesome majesty of the establishment; it is Pratap who has surely precipitated the end of his own cricketing career.

Interesting case study, is it not?

If a selector accuses a player, the player gets his head chopped off; if a player accuses a selector, then, too, it is the player who gets it in the neck!