Abhijit Kale, who?

This ride seemed to be headed to a destination of some sort of affirmative action like in the match-fixing episode, but that was not to be. Kale, it seems, realised there was no point trying to fight the king and his army. He therefore chose to opt out of the bout after the initial bluster.

As it happened, both parties decided to buy time. And their alibi was simple: Team India’s performance in Australia and Pakistan, which demanded the attention of everyone from those in the BCCI to the paying public. The Kale issue faded somewhat, in the process.

Yet, this should not happen. A professionally-run institution should not function in such a cavalier fashion. Look, for instance, at what the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) did to Pakistan paceman Mohammed Akram recently. They fined him for tampering with the ball while playing for his county, Sussex. The matter was confronted head on and a quick verdict emerged. This, despite the fact that a very important series against New Zealand was being hosted, and preparations for the September Champions Trophy were in full swing.

But then you are talking of two different systems. The BCCI took refuge in their rulebook which, according to Clause 38 (vi), gives it six months’ time to come to a decision. These rules were framed way back in the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s. The changing dynamics of the game demand a change in approach, but then flexibility was never the middle name for BCCI, or its mandarins.

The most basic issue which should concern us is the way we run our cricket and treat our cricketers. If India had won the World Cup, for instance, such an issue may never have emerged. The “feel good factor” would have drowned out any attempt at course correction. Here we had a golden chance to root out some evil from our cricket system through a calibrated approach and we let it go.

Team India is doing well, so why bother about the supply line? That seems to be the thinking. Critics might want to compare the Kale saga to copying or the leaking of exam papers. If copying causes a public outcry that ensures strict penal action, so should nepotism in team selection. For years there have been persistent whispers of such wrongdoing. Now, when a concrete case has emerged, the issue gets swept under the carpet.

If the whole case was about one person’s word against the other’s, why delay the verdict? Look into the matter and absolve both sides. The refuge in the shape of Kale’s apology letter was also very flimsy. While admitting that he tried to influence the selectors, Kale reiterated he did not bribe them. What other proof does the Board need to act? You believe Kale when he says he tried to influence the selectors and ban him, but accept his contention that he never bribed the selectors.

It seems now, on hindsight, that if Kale had taken this step on November 20, 2003, when the Kale story broke, the whole matter would have died a clinical death. Selection at all levels in India, at some time or the other, is faulty, but is never reported because of lack of proof. Here was a chance to set the system right, to ensure that India shines — both on and off the cricket field — but it was not to be.

The whole matter has now been relegated to history books — much like the match-fixing saga. And we will move on. Some years down the line, there may be another case of this kind, perhaps for a graver misdemeanour. We will get outraged by it initially and then, in time-honoured fashion, move on. Conveniently, public memory — especially in India — is very short. Meanwhile the Men in Blue will be back at Bangalore making oft-repeated statements of their hopes and aspirations of making it big. And everything else is forgiven and forgotten.