‘Fixing’ can define dimensions of entertainment, health, sovereignty
and existence
For years certain NGO personalities, academics, politicians,
diplomats, journalists, political commentators and even Heads of State
argued that the LTTE could never be militarily defeated. Today we know
that these predictions were part conviction, part hope and part
psychological operation to dent opposing view and military strategy.
Kumar David, a well-known commentator, insisted, for instance, that
the LTTE will never be crushed. He said, at the time, that it was
imperative for Marxists to hold and express this view. Many, like
Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu (Centre for Policy Alternatives) and Jehan
Perera (National Peace Council), launched well-funded campaigns to
convince people that the LTTE’s demands would have to be accommodated in
some way ‘because Prabhakaran can never be defeated’. Sudarshana
Gunawardena (Rights Now) screamed ‘The government’s war balloon will
burst in Killinochchi!’ Today we know who these people were batting for
and why they had to read the game in a particular kind of way.
Terrorist attack
It is hard to predict the when and how of conclusion in the case of a
war that has dragged on for decades. As such, I doubt that the bookies
were giving odds on outcome. Perhaps there were bets being placed about
specific things. For example, someone could have posted 4:1 odds on the
Army capturing Killinochchi on or before January 2, 2009. People betting
on the matter might have considered the fact that well-known defence
columnist Iqbal Athas had written on December 28, 2008 that it was
virtually a toss up, that either party could emerge victorious.
Indian cricketers celebrate victory over Pakistan during the ICC
Cricket World Cup 2011 semi-final match between India and
Pakistan on Wednesday. AFP |
The bookie would have made a killing because the said journalist has
a reputation and is expected to know more about these things than the
average person on the street. It was no ‘toss-up’. It was a rout. In the
process, some balloons did burst - those of people like David,
Gunawardena, Jehan and Paikiasothy.
People gamble all the time. It is not a clean game. It is not
‘cricket’ (or maybe it is!). This is why there is ‘fixing’. For example,
it is well known that the share market is negatively influenced by a
terrorist attack. So, if someone had prior information of an impending
terrorist attack, he/she could save a lot of bucks by selling off large
chunks of his/her portfolio. The late Dharmeratnam Sivaram (who wrote as
‘Taraki’) often knew of an LTTE attack a few hours ahead. That knowledge
could easily have been transformed into bucks if he tipped off someone
who speculated in the share market. I need not elaborate on the
buck-making potential of information, especially ‘inside knowledge’
except to say that it is a short step from this place to that of getting
the LTTE to set off a bomb. Yes, we could call it ‘spot fixing’.
It’s an old game. Gambling artifacts have been recovered from ancient
China (2300 BC), India, Egypt and Rome.
The Mahabharatha tells us that Prince Yudisthara gambled away the
kingdom and much else in a game of dice. Someone could very well have
made a bunch by betting that he would stake Draupadi (the common wife of
the five Pandava princes) if there was whispering that did not go
unheard. That would be called ‘spot fixing’ too.
Predict events
It is of course easy to speculate about these things after the fact.
Especially in cricket. There’s been so much talk about match-fixing and
spot-fixing, after all. India beat Pakistan in the second semi-final of
World Cup 2011. Did Pakistan throw the game? Was Umar Gul paid to
deliver an uninspiring and indeed match-throwing spell? Was Tendulkar
paid to offer catches at 27, 45, 70 and 81? Was he dropped because the
entire Pakistan team was paid to lose (Tendulkar getting a good score
would enhance the possibility of an Indian win, everyone knows)? Did
Younis, Misbah, Kamran and Umar get a bonus for dropping him? Was Afridi
in the plot? After all he persisted with Gul when he was being clobbered
and didn’t show concern when one or two of his star batsmen were happily
plodding away the overs? Or was his innocence proven beyond all shadow
of doubt because he left Shoaib Akhtar out of the team? Unless someone
rats, we wouldn’t know. Better to assume innocence.
What is more important is learning from error and learning to predict
events. In other words, use science; state a hypothesis upfront and put
it to the test. In cricket, for instance, given what we know and the
patterns that have emerged, we could predict something like the
following.
So and so will bowl Sehwag juicy, hittable leg side balls and two
wides in his first three overs. So and so will produce only 10 runs in
the first 30 balls he faces. So and so will bowl in a particular way in
three overs at such and such a stage of the game. Now, if this actually
happens, we should flag the person and monitor his performance, the ups
and downs. If there is shady stuff happening, the lines of the pattern
will get more pronounced and we then learn to predict the kind of
contracts that may be given to susceptible players.
Patriotic citizens
The same principle can be applied to identify people who are in the
pay of corrupt corporates. We can, again based on observation over a
period of time, predict that so and so in the Health Ministry will do or
say such and such and/or support such and such a move.
We can predict that this Cabinet Minister will push that policy or
that this senior administrator will get subtly smeared in the private
‘free’ media so that he is vulnerable to being removed or stops being
too honest for the liking of the corrupt.
This particular IGP, DIG or Minister will be portrayed in this way by
this particular TV station or media group, we can predict.
After watching the events in the ‘Middle East’ (by the way, what
‘East’ and what is Bahrain in the middle of) we need to see who are the
agents ready to be given arms to ‘rise against’ any nationally oriented
government in a given country. Or which party is paid to be hostile to
which neighbouring country so that tension can always be maintained -
ready to use when needed.
Let’s take nothing for granted. That seems to be a good rule of thumb
for the honest, responsible and patriotic citizen in these days clouded
by gambling, match-fixing, spot-fixing and nation-selling.
[email protected]
|