Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The CBI enquiry has disclosed that Manoj Prabhakar, during his playing career and after retirement, had linkages with a number of bookies/punters. There is also evidence of his having underperformed and passed on information and introduced other players to the betting syndicate. There is also evidence of Prabhakar receiving money from them for rendering such services. Prabhakar has also placed bets on cricket matches.
According to Mukesh Kumar Gupta, he was introduced to Manoj Prabhakar in 1990 by Ajay Sharma, a fact endorsed by both Ajay Sharma and Manoj Prabhakar. Mukesh Kumar Gupta has further stated that he paid a sum of Rs 40,000 to Prabhakar before India’s tour to England in 1990. He promised to pay him money equivalent to the cost of a Maruti Gypsy, with wide tyres, after the England tour, if Prabhakar provided information about weather, pitch, team composition, etc during the tour. Mukesh Kumar Gupta has also stated that Prabhakar underperformed at his behest in one of the Tests in England, which ended in a draw. Mukesh Kumar Gupta has further stated that he kept his promise and financed Prabhakar’s Gypsy, with wide tyres, after the England tour. Prabhakar has admitted to purchasing a Gypsy after theEngland Tour, but denied that it was financed by Mukesh Kumar Gupta. However, MK’s statement in this respect appears to be more credible in view of the specific reference to Gypsy with `wide tyres’ and also the factthat Prabhakar purchased this Gypsy after the England Tour.
Mukesh Kumar Gupta further stated that Prabhakar had `sold’ him the information about the Ranji Trophy quarterfinal match in 1991 between Delhi-Bombay. Prabhakar in his statement has accepted that he had provided the information that Delhi would lose the match but denied having received any money from Mukesh Kumar Gupta. It is, however, difficult to believe that Prabhakar provided this `information’ without expecting any returns. Mukesh Kumar Gupta has further stated that during the one day series in Australia just prior to the World Cup, 1992, Prabhakar had provided specific `information’ about two one dayers against Australia in which Mukesh Kumar Gupta made good money on the basis of Prabhakar’s `information’.
Mukesh Kumar Gupta has further talked about the England tour of India in 1993. He claims that in two one-day matches in that series at Gwalior, Prabhakar had provided `information’ which turned out incorrect. However, in the one dayer at Bangalore, his `information’ proved correct.
As regards the word `information’ used by MK, it is difficult to believe that in an age when television has brought cricket to our drawing rooms and expert commentators thoroughly analyse various aspects of a match like pitch, team strengths, probable result, etc., such information provided by a player is of any use to a Bookie. So, in this respect, it has to be construed that the word `information’ is a euphemism for underperforming or `fixing’.
