• It happens only in India!  

• Innovation or defrauding

• HANGMAN’S KNOTTY NOOSE

Qayyum, Majid and Rashid must take a bow

Fareshteh Gati-Aslam writes about why it was necessary to talk about Match Fixing as long as five years ago

The most commonly asked question asked during the last five years was 'Why do you have to write about Match Fixing?' The other day, one came across a saying attributed to England cricketer and stalwart Lord Harris who wrote a passage in the 19th century that answers the question perfectly.

"You do well to love cricket, for it is more free from anything sordid, anything dishonorable, than any game in the world. To play it keenly, honorably, self-sacrificingly, is a moral lesson in itself and the classroom is God's air and sunshine. Foster it, my brother, so that it may attract all who can find time to protect it from anything that would sully it, so that it may grow in favor with all men.''

In practical terms Lord Harris was writing about the same game as practised in the modern day by Mark Waugh and Shane Warne, Saleem Malik and Wasim Akram, Hansie Cronje and Kapil Dev. But in moral terms they played a game the grand old Lord would never have recognised. Their moves were less innocent, more dangerous. Far from 'protecting' the game, they by their dubious, pusillanimous, utterly unscrupulous code of ethics 'sullied' it immeasurably. By introducing 'sordid' and 'dishonourable' elements they failed to appreciate the need to play it 'keenly, honorably, self-sacrificingly'. They threw morality and dignity to the high winds and in doing so destroyed the credibility of not just themselves and their teams but the game itself. 'Tis shameful, indeed and for a watcher who loved the game and made a living writing about it, it would have been equally dishonourable to watch the abhorrent practice and not expose it. The decision to write was as basic as a forward defensive prod.

It's been a fortnight when revelations have knocked the stuffing out of each and every cowardly official who protected these skivs. Alongwith millions of Pakistanis, one has an intensely personal connection with cricket, its rituals, its idiosyncrasies, its values and its many subtle charms. As a young student the game had enthralled me, drawing me deeper and deeper into its magical web all throughout the seventies and the mid-eighties. When the time came to choose a professional career, a chance visit to Lord's had such an enormous impact that the experience had to be committed to paper. Encouraged by positive responses, the field of journalism beckoned and cricket was the best loved beat.

Then followed five glorious years when Imran Khan was in charge and we were proud to raise the Pakistan flag. Five incredibly satisfying years which saw the rise of exciting young talent like Waqar Younis, Mushtaq Ahmed, Saeed Anwar, Inzamam ul Haq, Aaqib Javed; there was always Wasim and Javed and Rameez who helped a rookie reporter with quotes and information, insights and observations. These were the years which included campaigns to win series in West Indies and Australia for England and India had already been conquered. Years of searching, striving, protecting and promoting. Fruitful years, satisfying years which culminated with the triumph in Melbourne one balmy March day in 1992. Imran held aloft that Waterford Crystal trophy. World Champions. The laughter just wouldn't stop. You felt like a jackass because the grin became a permanent fixture. We had a team that combined to perfection passion and honour, a team that played to win in the best traditions of this grand game. A team that was joyous and relaxed, eyes shining in shared triumph, wide smiles all round as everyone hugged the other and always the strains of 'Allah hoo' lent solemnity to a defining moment. The best there ever was. And as we enjoyed those giddy, triumphant days little did we know of the horror the rest of the century had in store.

Even as the wild celebrations continued in Pakistan, as the team winged its way back via Singapore Pakistan cricket's headlong ride to doom and disaster had begun. Soon it would be clear that they were their own worst enemies. Each and every member of that team conspired to throw Imran out. Imran though was ahead of the game and never played with them again of his own volition, but for Miandad and Rameez, Akram and Malik, Waqar and Mushtaq, Moin and Inzamam, Aamir and Saeed infact for every blessed team member, the cracks in the abyss just kept widening in varying degrees, till the chasm opened up wide enough on May 21, 2000, almost eight years later and buried Pakistan cricket under an avalanche of mistrust, betrayal and deception.

May 21 was the date when The News of the World, announced its success at trapping Saleem Malik into making an admission about his and other players' involvement. May 21 was also the day when the PCB probably made up its mind that, with their backs to the wall, they had little option but to go public with the Qayyum Report, a document which is meticulously drawn up and is a masterpiece for delivering the correct message with more than just words alone.

Justice Malik Mohammad Qayyum has given Pakistan cricket a chance to move ahead -- after it has resolved all its problems. It is now up to the PCB to seize that moment and do the best for Pakistan.

A word here for Rashid Latif. His was the resolute voice which alerted us to the dangerous demon that lurked within the team. He took several stands, he wanted to play a clean game but the Pakistan Cricket officials did not let him. He tried to inform them; they did not want to know and in many instances advised him to keep quiet and join 'them' and play the game. How misguided and how weak they were and how utterly unfortunate Pakistan is to have to deal with the consequences of men such as them.

Latif is a giant amongst these cricketing pygmies. And yet he waited outside their doors, listened to their platitudes, gave up a burgeoning cricketing career and the captaincy and in the process lost real money in his efforts to play a straight game. He has achieved mythical status abroad where newspapers refer to him as a man of integrity and a true champion, but the reality is that the players who lied, cheated and deceived are still in the team, still making money (one way or another) while Rashid is the man outside looking in. The PCB must compensate him. In addition here is a man who deserves the President's Pride of Performance award for his resoluteness, his honour, for his integrity. There are too few like him. The nation owes him a debt. We must cherish him.

Perhaps if Saleem Malik had understood and appreciated the essence of cricket the way Rashid clearly did, he may not have been tempted to fix cricket matches because they earned him a nice package on the side.

When Rashid first alerted us to the reality of match fixing in 1995, after Christchurch and Colombo had already taken place, one started to be wary. The first target was Saleem Malik naturally and our former cordial relations started to turn sour. Soon he would start to put the phone down and whenever we met, inadvertently, he would make mocking noises about the futility of the press in Pakistan, who were unable to stop him. All throughout the time when Fakhruddin G Ebrahim was compiling his report, through the world Cups of 1996 and 1999, through important Test series and One-day competitions Malik went his merry way. He was supported by PCB Chairman's and Chief Executives, by captains Wasim Akram, Rameez Raja, Saeed Anwar and Moin Khan. The only known antagonist was Rashid although we can now chuckle about the fact that canny old Imran Khan never had much time for Malik, believing him to fall short of a certain standard in a crisis. At that point the Pakistan team members could have made their choice to pitch their tents in either Rashid's camp or Malik's. Sadly, they chose the latter and as the ranks of the no-gooders swelled so too did the misfortunes of Pakistan cricket.

The Qayyum Report and the cleansing of the Pakistan team, which is now a possibility, is a triumph for Pakistan. Specifically it is a triumph for Majid Khan, the man who as Chief Executive, initiated the inquiry, and for Sibtain Fazli, the PCB legal counsel who spent hours poring over the report. They were probably the only two officials who saw through the shenanigans of the players and ensured that in one way or another they would not be able to inflict lifelong damage.

Looking ahead is a painful task. The officials must tread softly. Never again must a suspected player be given the opportunity to lie with facile ease, "We want to win this game" "The boys are determined to play well" "My team is ready" "I have nothing to fear" "I am clean" "Look at my record" "I have the backing of my team". Trite phrases which have knocked the stuffing out of the Pakistan team and words which continue to ring hollow.

Writing about Match Fixing was a conscious decision, made after Bangalore 1996, after our nation was betrayed. It was clear then that Malik was not the sole guilty party. There were others. Wasim Akram's inclusion into that group was the most painful realisation. Here was an all time hero, the player who won the Nehru Cup, the Austral-Asia Cups in Sharjah, the World Cup 1992, the Man of the Series for England 1992 and countless tense, encounters. Not withstanding his youthfulness, he was a cricketing god. But as time went by, it was clear that involved he certainly was. It showed in countless ways. Akram always backed Malik, Akram always pulled away with inexplicable injuries, it was he who tried to prevent new talent from coming through. Wise old cricketers from overseas started asking, privately, in hushed tones, with pained expressions "Is Akram kosher?" Regrettably they knew what the answer would be. Mike Selvey writing in the Guardian wrote of the pain in the Selvey household when Waz, a family hero, fell from the pedestal. Others rued his fall. And despite a pending court case against this newspaper and writer, if in some way Qayyum could have conveyed to us, without subterfuge and more fattening carpets, that Wasim was above suspicion, the Aslam household and The News offices would have rejoiced.

Alas! It was not to be. It is a cross Pakistan cricket has to live with. It's most distinguished son, (95 Tests, 2599 runs, 398 wickets; 303 ODI's, 3215 runs, 423 wickets) is also its most tainted.

But by far the Qayyum Report's biggest most important impact will start to take effect when future generations of Pakistan cricketers look back and decide to pitch their tents in Rashid Latif's camp. For only then will they be in a position to play cricket the way Lord Harris recommended. And perhaps then another Pakistan captain will have the privilege of holding aloft a World Cup.

From Shahed Sadullah

LONDON: I recollect as a probationary magistrate one of my colleagues being extremely moved by the tattered condition of an accused person who was brought to his court for a minor infringement of the Shop Act. While the accused confessed to his guilt, his condition and that of his children who he had brought to court with him was so dire that my friend did not know what to do. Caught between the horns of a dilemma, he wrote in his judgement that he convicted the accused but acquitted him.

When he mentioned this over dinner that evening, we all had a good laugh and warned him that after a judgement like that, he could not expect to be confirmed. He, therefore, changed his judgement the next day, fined the culprit Rs 5 and since the man was no more traceable, paid the amount from his pocket.

That such shenanigans should go in the court of a probationary magistrate is partially understandable but to get what amounts to basically the same fare from mr Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum, of the Lahore High Court, is puzzling, to say the least. The report perhaps raises more questions than it answers. Its decision to acquit Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Saeed Anwar and Akram Raza but to impose a sentence of fine upon them is the reverse of the great judicial principle enunciated by my magisterial colleague -- while he convicted but acquitted, Mr Justice Qayyum has acquitted but convicted.

Barrister Sibghatullah Kadri, the first Pakistani QC in the UK, said that it was 'unthinkable' for a judge in the UK to impose a sentence of fine, no matter however meagre, on the basis of suspicion alone, irrespective of the nature of the proceedings. Kadri said that when criminal matters formed the subject of proceedings outside a criminal court, the standard of proof might be lower than that required in criminal proceedings, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt.

But it still has to be a very high degree of probability, much higher than the 'balance of probability' required in civil cases. Kadri said that the most fundamental principle of natural justice was that a person was assumed innocent until proven guilty, but that the imposition of any penalty for not being "above suspicion" effectively turned that principle on its head, for that, by inference, means that the accused was being asked to prove his innocence.

He rightly pointed out that criminals were not acquitted by the courts because they were above suspicion; indeed, it could be said about most who are acquitted that they are probably not "above board." "But you can't go around fining people for not being above board." Kadri felt that Qayyum was perfectly within his rights as long as he kept his recommendations to "strict vigilance and further probe into their assets." "But to impose a fine after having acquitted the man is certainly not in order and quite unheard of."

It may be said that Wasim and the others have been fined for not being cooperative. Nowhere in the report has this dubious offence of non-cooperation been defined, nor has it been elaborated what acts of these players exactly constituted this offence of non-cooperation. With respect to Wasim, in particular, the findings do not appear to have given sufficient weight to the one and only piece of documentary evidence that, at the end of the day, is on record -- the scorecard.

Three matches have been mentioned in particular during the course of the inquiry; the third Test match at Christchurch and the fifth One-day International at the same venue, both during the 1993-94 tour to New Zealand, and the Australia-Pakistan one-dayer played in Colombo on September 7, 1994, during the Singer Cup. Wasim's performance in the three above-mentioned games is as follows:

1) In the second innings of the third Test in which New Zealand successfully chased a target of 324, Wasim bowled 38 overs for 105 runs and three wickets. He was by far the highest wicket-taker and among the main bowlers, the second most economical. As for those who argued at the enquiry that the defeat was a complete turnover from previous results, Australia, who suffered the biggest defeat in cricketing history when they lost the fifth Test of the 1938 series by an innings and 579 runs, had won the previous fourth Test by five wickets; Herbie Flam lost a Wimbledon semifinal to Frank Sedgman after winning the first two sets 6-0, 6-0, and North Korea lost a World Cup quarter-final to Portugal after leading by three goals to nil. If sportsmen have to be brought to provide that sort of excitement which forms the essence of a sporting encounter, I am all for it.

2) In the fifth One-day International at Christchurch on the same tour, Wasim bowled 6.3 overs for 17 runs without taking a wicket. He was by far the most economical bowler on record, giving just 2.6 runs an over while no other Pakistan bowler managed to average below four an over in that match. The argument that he did not complete his allotted overs and faked injury and that this was showed he had been "fixed" – an argument also used against him for the Bangalore World Cup quarter-final where he did not play due to an injured shoulder -- is nonsensical for one would have thought that if one had indeed been fixed, one could do far more to help one's opponents by playing than by not playing. Much was also made of his having bowled wides and no-balls during the New Zealand run-chase in this game and not once is it mentioned in the report that a bowler's analysis includes wides and no-balls and that, therefore, even after taking these into account, Wasim was the best bowler on the day. One trusts the good judge knew that wides and no-balls are included in the number of runs given by a bowler.

3). The third and most bizarre accusation is over the Australia-Pakistan Singer Cup game in which Wasim scored 16 runs and bowled 10 overs for 24 runs and three wickets, including both the openers Mark Taylor and Michael Slater. By contrast, the main accusers Aamer Sohail, Basit Ali and Rashid Latif scored 0, 0 and 7, respectively, making their combined score less than half that of the former captain.

The affidavit against Wasim filed by Ata-ur-Rehman is rejected because, among other reasons, the Commission felt that there was a chance that Sohail could have influenced Ata into making a false affidavit -- a serious criminal offence. Indeed, if that suspicion is justified, Sohail too is not above doubt, but he has not been fined. Indeed, while discussing the evidence of Sohail, Mr Justice Qayyum says: "He promised a lot in public, gave a lot of interviews but in court he came to be non-committal."

That is about as clear a statement of non-cooperation as one will ever get, yet Sohail has not been censured for it. And it is with reference to Sohail that Mr Justice Qayyum makes his most outstanding understatement of the libel law when he says: "Generally if people have no evidence, they should not vilify people in public." Sound advice, except that in most civilised societies it is not a rule to be followed 'generally', but always without exception.

In fact, the vexed business of television interests seems to have played a major role in this business, with accusations flying back and forth between sides who stand on opposite ends of a well defined line of interest. That interest, plus the irremediable bias of the western media towards the sub-continent in general and Pakistan in particular, has given rise to loud shrieks of delight in the British press at Mr Justice Qayyum's report as proving, as one correspondent in a leading British daily put it, that Pakistan cricket "is rotten to the core."

Lord MacLaurin, of the England and Wales Cricket Board and a strident anti-Pakistani, is reported to have said that the ICC could even enhance the punishments. What jurisdiction does the ICC have over Pakistan's courts of justice? None, one would presume. Muddled and incomprehensible as Mr Justice Qayyum's findings are, he seems to have reserved his unfairest remarks for former captain Asif Iqbal when he suggests that Asif should have come forward to "clear his name" and that he had a moral obligation to "clear the air."

The facts are that Asif received a request in Sharjah for attending the enquiry giving him three days notice to appear. He wrote back explaining his commitments, which included the Asian Test final which he had to attend and the Sharjah tournament which is his living, stating that he would be free to attend after those commitments; he also spoke to the Registrar on phone explaining the position to him. That response may not have been up to a Pakistani official's sense of his own importance, but anywhere else in the world, it would have been thoroughly adequate.

Most important of all, there is a whole global agenda behind this match-fixing saga which one may be unaware of in Pakistan, but which hits one like a ton of bricks in England. As part of that global agenda, Shane Warne and Mark Waugh only made a slight error in judgement when they accepted money from a bookie, the name of Hansie Cronje with whom this round started is now hardly ever mentioned, and outrageous umpiring decisions like the ones which carried the West Indies to victory in Antigua earlier this week do not even rate a mention in the British media, whereas one never hears the end of such errors if they are made by a Pakistani official.

It happens only in India!

By Mohammed Omair Alavi and Mansoor Ali Baig

18^th May 2000

And it sure does. No matter where match fixing and betting takes place, India is the code word. So what is common between Shane Warne, Mark Waugh, Chris Lewis, Stephen Fleming, Sanath Jayasuriya, Roshan Mahanama, Asanka Gurusinha, Herschelle Gibbs, Pieter Strydom, Nicky Boje and Hansie Cronje have in common other than that they all are cricketers - well they all were approached by bookies (we all know that, but what we don't know is that) who were of the Indian origin. With the likes of Ajay Sharma, Ashim Khetarpal, Sanjeev Chawla and Kishen Kumar (of the Papa the great fame) making it big due to their betting business in the year 2000, one doesn't need to say more to make the wise men of cricket get the point.

But unfortunately, not one Indian player ever got involved in this nasty business … well that is what the Chandrachud report says (funny, isn't it). And Nayan Mongia, the discarded Indian 'keeper only got to know about these disgusting things from the newspapers (how very innocent!). Only if one researches into the matter, he would come across one fact: Either it would happen in India or the central figure of this drama would be an India. Right Kapil? Oh do I hear someone crying!  

Innovation or defrauding

By Mohammed Omair Alavi and Mansoor Ali Baig

Ever since the Protease have returned to international cricket, specially One Day cricket, after the collapse of their system of apartheid, they have been marred with controversy with a capital C. Their captain Cronje (Capital C) and English Coach Bob Woolmer, during the last World Cup in England were their when the controversy began. Cronje wore a stud during his side’s first match of the Cup against India (again!). Woolmer referred to it as an innovation while Cronje termed it as an essential step towards the development of the game and essential it was, the Cronje way! Although people have not guessed the importance of the earpiece Cronje wore, many of us in Pakistan believe that Cronje was cheating. He may have been in contact with the bookies because the coach, with whom he was supposed to be in contact, was just there in the dressing room so why bother of consulting him when he was so near. We think that it was to contact the yet-so-far people who have played a major part in Cronje’s sacking.

Woolmer, who at that time tried not to be too scathing in his remarks, has suddenly, in a turn of events, gone against Cronje as he thinks he may have cheated. So fellas, I think that this is the right time to make the bosses of cricket think once again before its too late…!

Is Rashid Latif beyond recall?

By Syed Asif Ali
26 March 2000

ONE moment the captain of the national team. The next, gone without a murmur. This refers to Rashid Latif, one of the best wicket-keepers ever to grace the game anywhere. Considered competent enough to lead the side on a tough South African tour, the acrobatic keeper currently finds himself out in the cold.

It's been in April 1998 that Rashid had last donned the Pakistan gloves. Since then he is thought to be a pariah by the PCB officials. Even with Moin Khan sidelined on fitness grounds for Peshawar Test against Sri Lanka, he was not considered as a replacement, for reasons certainly not concerning cricket.

Rashid's career ride has not been smooth since the day he strode on international arena. He has been more out of the team than into it. But his ins and outs are not based on his performance in the field, rather on the policies of ever-changing board officials on the match-fixing issue.

The rise of Moin on the cricket horizon do justify, to a good extent, Rashid's ouster. The former has really turned himself into a key member of the team, of late. However, it was only when Rashid - in protest against match-fixing - announced his premature retirement midway through the African Safari that Moin got a re-entry into the team to make selection matters difficult for his junior rival. That Rashid has been at loggerheads with the PCB management over the notorious betting saga also worked in Moin's favour.

Each time Rashid got a recall, he justified his selection, but failed to retain his place in the team.

Debuted in 1992, Rashid was well set to have a distinguished career on the basis of his unusual all-round talent; with the bat and behind the stumps. Even before he hit a gallant 50 on his debut at Oval, he had made his pressure felt through his exceptionally good performance on domestic circuit. He toured England as second-choice wicket-keeper for his maiden international assignment.

Moin, being an honoured member of the triumphant World Cup squad, was the first pick for that series. However, so copiously and proudly was Rashid's name being quoted as a new find that he was understood to take over Moin. That he would replace his senior counterpart was all in the air.

As expected, Rashid succeeded Moin and remained an undisturbed member of the team till the African Safari in December 1994 when he, along with Basit Ali, raised his voice against match-fixing and in the process announced his retirement (which was later withdrawn by him) midway through the tour. Since then he has lost what was his permanent place in the side. He has been constantly in and out of the team.

Ignored for the series against Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka at home and the Asia Cup (April 1995) and Singer Trophy (October 1995), he was recalled after 10 months in October 1995, to tour Australia along with Moin.

He was retained for the World Cup 1996 and the England trip after that. Despite hitting a gritty 45 in the first innings of the opening Test against England and a match-winning 30-plus in the low-scoring last one-dayer, he was left out of the squad for Sahara Cup in September 1996.

Not because Moin had a Test century to his name during the English tour, but because of the match-fixing allegations re- ignited by him against Wasim Akram and Co. for the Bangalore defeat in the World Cup. As the PCB didn't want the issue to resurface, he was deprived of his place in the team.

It was only when Majid Khan, the former PCB chief, attempted in vain to dispense with the services of Wasim and Waqar that he was able to represent Pakistan again - and this time as a captain - in Dhaka Independence Cup and the twin tours of South Africa and Zimbabwe from December 1997 to April 1998.

Before that he had also appeared in the Lahore Quadrangular Tournament but that only proved to be a token appearance for him. During his absence from the team, he missed a number of assignments including the home series against Zimbabwe, New Zealand and South Africa, besides the Nairobi Quadrangular (September 1996) and Sharjah Singer Trophy (November 1996).

A change in PCB - bringing in Khalid Mehmood as Chairman - first caused the shift of captaincy to Aamir Sohail and finally to Wasim Akram, the blue-eyed boy of the new chairman. By that time a judicial commission had also been constituted to probe into the allegations of match-fixing, chiefly levelled by Rashid.

What happened in-camera before the Justice Qayyum Commission had been reported in the press and endorsed as true by the Justice too. However, the report, which is currently with the President of Pakistan, has yet to be confirmed officially. That the accused are free to represent Pakistan internationally is akin to their acquittal.

It is, rather, the accuser (Rashid) who has been distanced from the bet and wicket, as if being convicted for some quilt; the guilt of attempting to rid the game, in Pakistan, of 'extra- cricketcular' activities. One does not mind too much succumbing to the rationale that the Justice Qayyum report has not been, and might not be, made public in view of the larger national interest.

But then how far is it true to punish the innocent appellant, when the accused have been ignored for national considerations! That Rashid's much junior, Atiq-uz-Zaman, was given a chance in Peshawar Test despite him being in good touch confirms that the PCB does not want him back in the team, for reasons known to all connected with the sport in any capacity.

It goes without saying that Rashid's inflexible stance on the betting scandal did him all the damage on professional front. Right since the disgraceful story has come up, none of the board officials supported him and took a hardline against its central characters. His co-accusers pulled out one after the other, but he remained steadfast.

He did not compromise on principles. The option of withdrawing from his stand and making way into the team always rested with Rashid. But he did not exercise the option. Had he done so and made friends with others, he would have been a happy member of the playing eleven.

Alas for Rashid! He sewed his boyhood and youth into cricket but has so far failed to reap the harvest. However, it's not yet curtains for the peerless performer. He is still young and agile, and could prove as productive as others in the business.

Rashid is a performer par excellence and he has, time and again, proved his worth to the national team. With 80 victims in 22 Test, he has one of the best dismissal rates behind the stumps. Moin, in comparison, has 109 victims in 52 Test. Besides, Rashid's 700 Test runs, also featuring a half-century on debut, at an average above 25 shows he is no rabbit with the bat.

However, convinced of Moin's exploits with the bat and his approach to the game, one has never wished a recall for Rashid at the expense of Moin. A majority of cricket fans do wish to see Rashid back in the team but can't see Moin missing out. If such is the case with selectors too and they are in a fix on the issue, going for both would not be a bad idea: Rashid as a wicket-keeper and Moin as a batsman. After all Moin is now an established bat. And, by the way, a batsman Moin would be more relieved a captain than a wicket-keeper-batsman Moin.

HANGMAN’S KNOTTY NOOSE

Nemesis may at last be catching up with the cricketers in Pakistan, thanks to recommendations of a strong probe body.

By ANIRUDDHA BAHAL

In that wide swathe of area that we could label as the non-third world, the general trend is for a rougher brand of justice in direct proportion to the level of public acceptance. The rule seems to be: the higher the wattage of adulation bestowed on an individual by society, the more should his or her accountability be. On the subcontinent, it’s just the opposite. The mean tolerance level of criminal culpability of any kind suddenly seems to have touched a new high. The fact that a sitting Lahore High Court judge has, so to say, passed a judgment against Wasim Akram and five others has neither excited Akram’s fans at large nor has it moved cricket administrators to do what should have perhaps been done two years ago—enforce bans on their careers. Acceptance of verdicts should, after all, not be any less important than their passing.

In Pakistan, we are seeing—with the solitary exception of Salim Malik—the return of the tainted players to the international arena. Mushtaq Ahmed is facing a life ban but has been selected for the Australia tour.The others—Akram, Inza-mam-ul-Haq, Saeed Anwar and Ejaz Ahmed—return, grinning from ear to ear, facing only fines ranging from Rs 2-5 lakh. The International Cricket Council is so limp in both law and will that, in spite of a conduct commission, it prefers to wait out the storm from the sidelines—a referee content watching a bout with hands crossed across the chest as the opponents hit below the belt, bite whole ears, and head butt at will. Says Waheed Khan of The News, which broke the story on the bans and fines: "The commission also recommended that Akram be removed as captain of the Pakistani team and a close watch be kept on his activities in future. About the other players, the judge says he’s convinced that ‘they were not entirely straight in their statements to the commission, or in their activities at some period of time’."

"Yes! I’m convinced of wrongdoing"

Why don’t you wait and find out? I have done my job. People said I wouldn’t be able to deliver but I have and now it’s up to the President.

I had to take 62 depositions. The player availability for questioning had to be kept in mind. Then in the summer the high court is closed and the World Cup happened. I had to list the assets of the players. I was busy with my own judicial work. Then someone would come and name four others and they would come and take some other names. So it went on.

Just one or two. Basically the ones involving Asif Iqbal. The Indian angle was not in my mandate so I didn’t probe the same.

Their transcripts are there in the report as an annexure. Four to five pages. It’s evident that they may not lead to convictions but they can most certainly be used for corroboration of certain incidents. They basically suggested the involvement of players and referred to a few particular incidents as well.

Punishment was only recommended by me after taking into account the degree of guilt. In my view, the team as a whole was not at any time involved. Only certain players were. So fines basically depended,as I said, on the degree and nature of guilt. There were some borderline cases and these had to be weighed carefully on the scale of justice. I went through the evidence carefully and also decided whom to believe and whom not to.

Yes! I’m convinced of wrongdoing or I wouldn’t have recommended the bans or the fines.

No. Nor did any player approach me. They knew of what mettle I was when I ordered contempt and perjury proceedings against Att-ur-Rehman.

No confidentiality clause. Everything is in black-and-white. I think eventually it will be made public.

The depositions against the guilty players, first reported by Outlook in February this year, offered remarkable insights into cricket’s underbelly. The testimony of Saleem Parvez, a former employee of the National Bank of Pakistan, proved crucial with respect to both Malik and Mushtaq Ahmed. Parvez said, "Mushtaq and Malik received $100,000 from me on behalf of someone for fixing the match in Sri Lanka. The amount was paid so that Pakistan lose the match, which they did. They were playing against Australia. I had acted on behalf of my friends. I had taken this money to Sri Lanka as I knew the team was going to sell the matches. I thought why should I not try. I handed the dollars to both of them who were together in their hotel room. They asked me for a larger sum of money but I told them that I only had $100,000."

In fact, if pace bowler Ata-ur-Rahman had stuck to his earlier testimony, a life ban could have been coming Akram’s way as well. Rahman had this to say about Akram: "Akram himself had given me money to play badly. While I was in England, Akram prevailed upon me to give an affidavit to the effect that the earlier affidavit submitted by me was under coercion. At that time I was in Newcastle. Akram asked me to come over to Manchester where he threatened me with dire consequences and said that he was stronger than me in Pakistan...When we returned to Pakistan from New Zealand, Akram gave me Rs 100,000 and promised to pay the remaining amount if I continued indulging in match fixing. Subsequently, my mother fell ill and my sister was operated upon and my conscience pierced me with the result that I stopped becoming a party to it."

While Rahman is currently facing contempt proceedings for changing his statement yet again, it was former wicketkeeper Rashid Latif’s testimony that has possibly resulted in Inzamam, Anwar and Ejaz being fined. Latif said, "In ’94 we toured New Zealand. Before the fifth one-dayer at Christchurch, Salim Malik, who was the captain, called me to his room. I went there and found three, four players there. I can’t disclose their names as they are not the main culprits, though the entire team is involved in match fixing and betting.

Malik told me we had to lose the match as he had struck a deal with somebody. I was offered Rs 10 lakh by Malik. I told him I would think over the matter. It was obvious that the other players there must have also been offered money. The next morning, when I took the catch of a batsman, Malik reprimanded me. During the break I told Malik I was not going to be a party to the fixing."

With pressure building up on President Rafiq Tarar to act on the recommendations of the report, it is likely that he himself is trying to gauge the position of General Musharaff and his gang on the issue. Ironically then, it is with the coup leaders that the fate of cricket’s international image lies. The recommendations will, in fact, be a good test to ascertain whether the changed guard means business. The last word, however, belongs to Fareshteh Aslam Gatti, a senior journalist at The News: "In Pakistan, at least we have the comfort of knowing that the judiciary did a credible job of the inquiry. What about the BCCI’s own inquiry?" In short, is the BCCI content being former chief justice Y. Chandrachud’s conscience-keeper?

Former Pakistan keeper Rashid Latif shares his thick dossier on match-fixing

By ANIRUDDHA BAHAL in London

Former Pakistani wicketkeeper Rashid Latif flips through a dossier of evidence four inches thick that implicates some Pakistani cricket players in match fixing. He allows occasional glimpses of copies of cheques written in favour of Salim Malik by Pakistani bookies—seven bearer cheques in all, postdated a month apart and related, according to Latif, to payments for some matches in 1994. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. At the smokey pub where Latif’s agent, Saeed Younus (who represents a dozen other Pakistan Test cricketers, including Wasim Akram and Saeed Anwar ) is also present, Latif reveals things about subcontinent cricket that are likely to put the entire establishment under scrutiny, which it incidentally already is.

Can one player influence a match? "When Salim Malik was captain, he would bowl himself at crucial stages of the match," Latif replies. "He would set an offside field and bowl on the legside. While batting, he would also run out his colleagues. I escaped being run out by him in England last year. The third umpire gave me out but the match referee overruled the decision. "Having said that, bookies like to have three-four players on their rolls because then they can control the outcome of a match better. For, if the result goes contrary to the bookies’ expectations, they suffer huge losses. "Chasing 250 in the last one-dayer against England in Nottingham last year, we needed a run rate of over seven when I came in. But I took Pakistan home. The players had to return more than Rs 2.5 crore to the bookies because this result wasn’t to their (the bookies’) liking."

Have you yourself been approached by bookies? "Yes, twice. An Indian approached me during a Test match in England and offered me 20,000 pounds (Rs 12 lakh) to not allow Pakistan’s total to cross 300. Pakistan were 290 for nine overnight. I was in with Ataur-Rehman. It was a small thing to do. But I told Wasim Akram and the manager about it. Now I think I shouldn’t have told Wasim. Anyway, I was determined to cross 300. We went on and scored 350."

What strained your relationship with Salim Malik? "In the finals of the 1995 Mandela Trophy against South Africa (in Capetown), I told Malik that we should bat first as it would be difficult chasing under lights. Malik disagreed, but then veered around to my view. I was vice-captain.Since there was a lot of talk about betting in the air, all the players decided to swear on the Koran that they would not get involved in betting.Only Malik didn’t because he was out for the toss. But when he came back, he told us that he had opted to bat second.Pakistan lost the match." About the tour report that Pakistan tour manager Intikhab Alam wrote after the South African tour, a copy of which Latif possesses: "Intikhab wrote that Rashid is fighting with Malik. That he is causing unrest in the team about Malik’s participation in betting. Only two-three players supported my stand on the tour—Basit Ali, Aamir Sohail and Waqar Younis." According to Latif, Alam also wrote in his report that no Pakistani player was involved in matchfixing. According to Latif, that’s stuff for the birds: "At one point he says no player was involved. At another, he says that Basit Ali was involved. That’s why he took his early retirement."

How much is the Pakistan Cricket Board involved in a cover-up? "Javed Burki as the ad-hoc committee chairman took the names of three-four players. Burki’s report says that after the Test series ended in Sri Lanka and before the one-day Singer Cup started in Colombo, Malik met bookies in Pakistan and struck a deal. That’s why Pakistan lost all the matches. "In the incident with the Australian players, Burki
said that the Australians had submitted unsigned affidavits. That’s not true. If you see the copies of the documents, you will see that they are all signed. "Also, Arif Abbassi, the then chief executive of the board, wrote to Justice Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, the judge conducting the inquiry, that he could travel anywhere in the world to conduct his investigation. But in his letter to the Australian Cricket Board and the ICC, Abbassi wrote that the players would have to come to Lahore to depose. Yeh baat galat hain na? (isn’t this wrong?) "Arif Abbassi also went on to say to me that in Sharjah tournaments a bookie by the name of Raju sat in the Indian dressing room constantly and the Indian team players and management didn’t have the guts to tell him to get out."

About this hot tape that you have which implicates Saeed Anwar, Malik and a whole lot of players. "Agar woh de diya to sara kissa hi khatam ho jayega (if I disclose that, then the whole issue will be scuttled). I am trying to elicit information from them. I cannot give that." Younus, the agent, intervenes: "The thing is that some of these players Rashid has played cricket with since his childhood. Basically, they are telling him to shut up, not say anything about it.Chup raho."

What about the affidavit you have from Ata-ur-Rehman? "He didn’t give it to the Pakistan board. He gave it to me. It’s been attested by a magistrate. He says he was offered a bribe of Rs 1 lakh by a bowler to bowl badly. We lost the match. This was in 1994 in New Zealand in the last one-dayer." It transpires the bowler was none other than Wasim.

How much do the players get for a match? "For one match all of them combined could get Rs 3-4 crore. They take the money in cash after the result. I have seen cash being exchanged in hotels, houses. Hamne bhi chape mare hain (Even I’ve conducted raids). Only, I didn’t have a video camera." What other things do you have? "Well, minutes of Arif Abbassi where he says that Wasim and Waqar were offered Rs 24 lakh to lose a match in England in 1992. Other things as well." In an earlier conversation I had with former Pakistan cricket executive Arif Abbassi, he told me that two Pakistani players were prepared to depose that some players are involved in betting. But that, according to Abbassi, didn’t mean that they were involved in matchfixing. Interestingly, Abbassi went on to say that in Sharjah tournaments, a bookie called Raju was always in the Indian dressing room and the Indian contingent didn’t dare tell him to leave. Latif also has correspondence between Sarfaraz Nawaz, the former Pakistan player and sports minister, on Government of Pakistan letterheads to the President of Pakistan where he categorically says he has evidence of malpractice among players. He is prepared to give a guarantee that the documents he has are copies of original documents. Latif himself started on the road of collecting evidence after he was kicked out of the team. It’s hard not to believe what he says.