On a news intensive Friday — what with Narendra Modi being officially named BJP’s prime ministerial candidate amidst much melodrama and death sentences being pronounced for the four guilty of raping the Delhi ‘Braveheart’ — punishments doled out to those involved in match-fixing in the IPL last season became an also-ran story.

But that does not dilute its enormous significance for Indian cricket.
There was hardly any doubt that Sreesanth, Ankeet Chavan, Chandila and Co. would not go unpunished despite having been given bail earlier though what the quantum of punishment should be was the subject of debate and speculation.
The BCCI, under flak from various quarters for various reasons for a very long time, had to act tough: and quickly so. Life bans for Sreesanth and Chavan suggest a hardening in the approach of the administration. Doubtless Chandila’s future is also going the way of these two once he gets his hearing from the Board.
The five-year ban on Amit Singh might seem quirky considering that he was bandied as agent provocateur, but it must be remembered that he was not playing last season and hence not ‘directly’ culpable. His career too, though, is effectively over.
Why, even Sidharth Trivedi, who it was assumed was a whistleblower and would in fact get accolades, has copped a one-year ban for not complaining to the authorities about approaches made to him by bookies.
The banned players might argue that Ravi Sawani, anti-corruption chief of the BCCI and an ex-cop himself, seems to have gone only on evidence provided by the Delhi police. As far as the law of the land goes, they have still to be tried.
Should the BCCI have waited till the trial was completed as some have argued? Not quite. There is organisational protocol that had to be followed, based on its own guidelines, which is independent of the legal position.
Obviously the players obviously have the right to take legal recourse against the bans and one understands that at least Sreesanth and Chavan will take this route. The BCCI could have its pitch queered if the courts exonerate all or some players, but that’s in the future.
The interesting aspect is that on broadly similar evidence circa 2000 and 2012 some players had got lighter penalties. So what’s changed? In consonance with the mood of the fans and coutry, one reckons, there has been a dramatic swerve towards zero tolerance.
This is all for the good though it saddens me no end to see young men forsaking their past, present and future for a few lakhs of rupees. Cricket’s credibility, especially in India, has taken a big hit because of the match and spot-fixing scandals. The erosion in credibility had to be arrested.
The question being asked now, however, is what happens to the other half of the spot-fixing story that has to do with officials, team owners et al who were also hauled into the police investigations that began last season?
To get the perspective clear, cases against Gurunath Meiyappan, Vindoo Dara Singh and others of betting must not be confused with that of spot-fixing against the players named above. Moreover, the Mumbai police have not submitted evidence to the BCCI as yet of their findings.
Be that as it may, with the BCCI AGM coming up month-end, it is imperative that this matter too is disposed of with the same alacrity and robustness of punishment (if guilt is established) as has been done in the case of the players.
The earlier process came under a lot of flak, including from factions within the BCCI as well as the high court of Mumbai bench that derided the establishment of the two-member panel which had virtually cleared everybody.
The point is not whether the earlier panel was wrong in its decision but that how things are done must be right — and also seen to be above reproach. To put it in a nutshell, the Board must show it is above board once the Supreme Court decrees on the process to be followed.