Two former presidents of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) made a bombshell of a statement to the three-member committee. They told the panel, formed by the Supreme Court to ferret out facts about match fixing and betting in the Indian Premier League (IPL) that “matches involving CSK (Chennai Super Kings) and other IPL teams were fixed….” Nilay Dutta, one of the three members of the panel, who submitted a separate report, wrote that IS Bindra, former BCCI president, said that “he knew another former prominent Indian player was involved in match fixing… along with a former reputed
Indian player.”
In early April, a newspaper reported that the secret envelope, submitted by the panel to the apex court, contained “unsubstantiated” allegations against 12-13 cricketers from five of the eight IPL teams, and three BCCI office-bearers involved with the league. In addition, the article said that the envelope had names of team owners, apart from CSK’s Gurunath Meiyappan, the son-in-law of the ousted BCCI president, N Srinivasan, and Raj Kundra, part-owner of Rajasthan Royals (RR).
Who are these IPL officials? Who are the former presidents referred to earlier? Who are the former cricketers? Who are the 12-13 current cricketers? And, which of the eight team owners were involved in match fixing and illegal betting?
Justice Mudgal was reticent to reveal too much before the final Supreme Court order. But he still put several cats among dozens of pigeons. “The article was only partially correct. If the former BCCI presidents knew about match fixing, why didn’t they take action during their tenures?” When asked if the presidents were Shashank Manohar and Bindra, he made no comment. When queried if the envelope included names of six cricketers, like skipper MS Dhoni and batsman Suresh Raina, he insisted that there were too many unsubstantiated allegations and it was imperative to protect the privacy and honor of anybody who may have been implicated wrongly or because of a vendetta.
However, the one name he discussed was that of Sundar Raman, IPL’s COO, who worked with past IPL commissioners like Lalit Modi, Chirayu Amin, Rajiv Shukla, and Ranjib Biswal. Justice Mudgal opened up when told that Sunil Gavaskar, India’s opening batsman appointed by the apex court to manage IPL 7 (2014), wanted to investigate charges against Raman, and that the latter was hand-in-glove with Gurunath and a few bookies.
“Raman’s name figured in a conversation that involved Vindoo Dara Singh (a bookie and son of wrestler and movie star Dara Singh). It is mentioned in one of the annexures in our report. There are several allegations that were not verified. We felt it was our duty to tell the court, but such charges could be made due to jealousy, spite, and exaggeration. We did not wish to sully reputations and make such
names public.”
Justice Mudgal, who played cricket as a batsman in Modern School and has watched most tests in India since 1955, is passionate about the game. During the 110-minute conversation, he laughed, joked, got angry, and became serious. He felt that IPL has helped and harmed cricket; recommended that Dhoni be removed as test captain; was angry about racial bias in cricket; and said that police did not investigate IPL charges properly. During the lighter and less-serious moments, he reminisced about former cricketers, and why Ranji and Duleep trophies should be renamed.
“IPL has been good for young cricketers; it has given them money. Many 18-year-olds, who hail from small towns—and I am happy about it because most players earlier were confined to the elite, and cities like Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata and Bangalore—are flooded with money.” The cricket-loving judge pointed out: “In an IPL, a young player, who hasn’t played Ranji Trophy, can bowl a good over to a batsman like Kevin Pietersen (England). It gives him confidence. He rubs shoulders with the greats and sits in the dugouts with them and asks questions. It gives him immense knowledge and learning.”
However, there is the flip side. The youngster has to be cautious about the money. This is where the BCCI should have stepped in, and urged him to mandatorily invest 50 percent of his earnings in a three-year fixed deposit. The teenager finds himself engulfed in glamor, as he mixes with stars and celebrities he has seen only on TV or in newspapers.
The biggest drawback of the league is that most Indian players cannot play a single session in a test. The ability to play long innings, as Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman did on Day four of the second test against Australia at Kolkata’s Eden Gardens in March 2001, is missing. Forced to follow on, the Indian batsmen scripted a dream 376-run partnership that turned the match on its head. Against all odds, India romped to a 171-run victory against the Aussies, who had won their previous 15 tests.
“Today, bowlers can get away with four good overs (maximum allowed in T20), but cannot do a good 10-over stint. They are players, who are excellent in T20, above-average in one-day games, but unfit for tests. The prime example is that of Ravichandran Ashwin, the off-spinner. He is outstanding in a 20-over match, passable in ODI, but I would not pick him up in a test. But that is my opinion; as you know, there are one billion cricket experts in India.”
One can say the same about Dhoni, who is an excellent T20 captain. “He has great intuitions and backs his hunches. But this is not so in tests, where he becomes too defensive. His obsession with some players becomes a disadvantage in a test. There were instances, when players became tourists on a tour. Dhoni won’t give them a chance. Going by his recent performances, I would not choose him as a skipper in the longer format.”
Justice Mudgal was livid about what he dubbed as incidents that “smacked of racial bias” in global cricket. “Certain players and officials (match referees) are singled out for harsh treatment. There are double standards in the way situations are judged. I have seen it time and again how players from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and West Indies are singled out for punishments. I have seen it in other sports as I am a member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (a global body to facilitate the settlement of sports-related disputes).”
He gave examples of such biases. Chris Broad, the former England pacer, played 25 tests and 34 ODIs, but was appointed as an international match referee in 60 tests and 244 ODIs. Compare this with Indian pacer Javagal Srinath, who played 67 tests and 229 ODIs. His match referee record: 32 tests and 132 ODIs, or almost half of Broad’s. Sachin Tendulkar was banned for a game for ball tampering; South African Faf du Plessis was fined 50 percent of the match fee for the same offense.
Sadly, such prejudices turn into reverse ones. “Why should the national tournament, Ranji Trophy, be named after Maharaja Ranjit Sinhji, who played for England, but never for India? Why should Duleep Trophy be named after Duleep Sinhji, who did the same? Why can’t we name them after CK Nayudu, Polly Umrigar, Mushtaq Ali, Vinoo Mankad, and senior Nawab of Pataudi?” Justice Mudgal seemed disgusted and appalled when he raised these questions.
The mention of these former greats took him back down the memory lane. He remembered the West Indian pair of fast bowlers, Wesley Hall and Charlie Griffith. “Hall would start his 50-yard run-up almost from the sightscreen at Delhi’s Ferozeshah Kotla, but Griffith is the fastest bowler I have seen. Each time he bowled, I never saw the ball unless it was in the keeper’s gloves or hit off the bat.”
He then recounted a story about Richie Benaud, the legendary Australian captain, who first stationed himself at silly mid-off and then silly mid-on to catch India’s opening batsman, Pankaj Roy, on 99 runs. He described how Bishan Singh Bedi shocked Australian Dougie Walters, when he bowled him with the arm ball that whipped in as Walters shouldered it.
As the conversation veered back to match fixing and betting, he talked about the role of police in IPL investigations. “The Delhi Police forwarded information about Raj Kundra and Umesh Goenka (bookie) to the Rajasthan Police, but the latter stopped the investigations. The Rajasthan Police said it had no jurisdiction as Kundra did not reside in the state but in London.”
Justice Mudgal’s report indicted Chennai police for not pursuing information about the involvement of a senior CSK cricketer in match fixing. Other leads got by Delhi Police and Mumbai Police—like names from Vindoo’s iPad, two Indian players mentioned by bookies, Chandresh Jain and Ashwani Aggrawal, and players named by fast bowler S Sreesanth, who was arrested—were forgotten.
Laxity of the police, BCCI’s smugness, lower ethics of players, and involvement of board’s officials and IPL team owners contributed to the mess in IPL. But the overriding issue in Indian cricket is about conflicts of interest. It is about the conflict of interest between Srinivasan and his ownership of an IPL team (CSK), the conflict of interest between senior players and their agents, and the conflict of interest between cricket and commercial interests of all the stakeholders.
Unfortunately, conflict of interest was not a part of Justice Mudgal committee’s terms of reference. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will still grapple with it. And, as Justice Mudgal pointed out there needed to be a detailed investigation into the IPL game between CSK and RR, played on May 12, 2013, in which Gurunath and Vindoo fixed, betted and exchanged information about CSK’s score and how it would lose the game.