A shade of grey

Foreign trips. Floods. The Sialkot lynching. Frenzied moral outrage seems to be the bee’s knees these days.

Rationality is the first victim of outrage. And frenzied moral outrage seems to be the bee’s knees these days. Foreign trips. Floods. The Sialkot lynching. We are in a state of irrationality at the moment — which cannot possibly help us in any way. It comes, therefore, as no surprise that that as the spot-fixing scandal came to light, the reaction was similar. In fact, there is a petition that has been filed that seeks to try the players for treason. Yes, treason.

At the risk of playing spoiler to the nation’s content with being perennially enraged, and of inviting plenty of ire, there are a few points of contention that I would like to put forth regarding the scandal surrounding our cricket team. Firstly, and this is an obvious point that few in the media have bothered stressing upon, there is a difference between match-fixing and spot-fixing. Despite the fact that its story was a big scoop, the British media outlet that broke the scandal seems to be insisting that the issue they uncovered was of “match-fixing”. Not quite. In fact, given the creaming that Pakistan was given in the fourth Test, I’d be happier to believe that the match was fixed, which would mean that our players do not possess the ability to descend into such depths of ineptitude.

The evidence points towards players being involved in spot-fixing — which, while still wrong, is not quite as criminal as throwing a match. That the British media outlet is insisting that it was match-fixing suggests that the issue of spot-fixing wasn’t quite scandalous, or shocking, enough. It really isn’t the same thing. It’s a shade of grey.

Before I am accused of justifying the players’ wrong — let me clarify. One, nothing has been proven. Two, even if it is proven, let us think of this rationally: What would you do if you were offered 10,000 pounds (Rs1.3 million) to bowl a no-ball? One no-ball, or two. No-balls are part of the game, especially for Pakistan. It is like paying Bangladesh to lose a Test match against Australia, that too in Australia. Before you answer that, let me tell you that a large majority of you, your sanctimonious outrage aside, would have. And then justified it. Don’t kid me, or yourself.

Also consider that, if you are reading these pages, it means that you are a part of a select segment of society that is privileged to many luxuries that others are not.

Yet you would have done it.

Now consider that at least one of the cricketers, Mohammad Aamir, has just come out from the slums. The others have enjoyed and experienced a world of luxury for a while, and therefore are more culpable. Which brings me to the issue of degrees of culpability. Aamir is young. Very young. In fact, he is just 140 days past being tried as a juvenile and has just five months of Test experience and just over a year of international experience. He is poor. He is also obviously an idiot. But I will stress that his crime is less than that of the other three — whatever way you look at it. It is the other three who, if found guilty, should be the principal, and principle, accused. Asif’s former love interest, Veena Malik, has also charged that Asif had plans of coaxing Aamir to join his game. I do not know if that is true, but the idea that a young – experience and age-wise – cricketer can be influenced is not a farfetched one.

As a parting shot, I would like to add just this: It is truly ironic to see corruption-tainted leaders of this country waxing lyrical about justice, and how no one will be spared.

But then, moral outrage is, after all, the name of the game.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 1^st, 2010.