Individuals pay for collective guilt

Aussie ball tampering saga classic case of tacit instigators turning jury in the face of public outcry.

To watch an adult cry, that too in full public glare, beamed to world-wide audiences, is a sight that must have moved even the most stone-hearted. It probably was meant to. Modern day society lives in grandeur, be it in love, hate, crime or punishment. What is an event worth, if it is not skinned to the bone. In this designer world, emotions are mechanical components of a life, that are put under a scanner, care taken that nothing remains hidden, not even that teardrop that may have found its way, quietly, secretly, to the heart. Nothing is hidden from the laser-sharp eye of the camera. You are born under its glare, you die under its glare.

The Australian establishment led by its Prime Minister, had an obligation to the nation and its people to severely punish its cricket captain for letting the nation down with his “grave” crime. Not only had his player tampered with the ball, he had hatched a plot whose execution he could not prevent from becoming a television spectacle. This was unpardonable. This is not the way the Australians play their cricket. They sledge, they cheat; but to get caught is putting a nation into shame. It dents their image of “we play hard but we play fair.”

Who will punish those who have created a culture of entitlement for the players, where all acts of omission and commission are pardoned, as long as no one is caught? We were always told that a crime is committed by an individual but its guilt is collective. Those who by their tacit silence and even support, create long-term conditions for the final act to be committed are, ironically, the ones who deliver the judgment. It is convenient, it is pragmatic and it suits the majority.

The world must get on, as it did when a few match-fixers were punished for life. Till the players were not caught, the establishment the world over refused to act on genuine complaints which were getting louder by the day. They knew what was going around, who knows some of them may have even been complicit, but they chose not to act. And finally it shamed everyone.

We are living in a world whose motto is to win at any cost. Players are encouraged to compromise with certain traditional ethics, which are believed to be pernicious relics of the past. One of the main tools, we are told, to enhance performance is aggression. An abuse for an abuse and being provocative, if it helps disturb the opponent and lift your own performance, is not bad at all.

All hell breaks loose when this new age culture with wide acceptance turns nasty and a Rabada almost comes in physical contact with the opponent or a Warner and De Kock just fall short of assaulting each other. When you are screaming abuses all the time, riling the opponents, no one knows when it can get out of control and lead to an ugly mess.

Nearer home, the Indians have been the most vocal in condemning the behaviour of the Australian players, deriving a vicarious pleasure in their opponents’ discomfort. They are the ones who generally condone their players and feel proud when one of their own believes in giving it back. Sourav Ganguly was the face of that new Indian world. The proud inheritor of Ganguly’s legacy is Virat Kohli. He is not only a more talented batsman, a greater achiever, but is also redefining the meaning of overt aggression.

Maybe he has a lesson to learn from the Smith saga. As long as his aggression on the field remains within the boundaries of the game’s code of conduct, he will be encouraged to not change himself. The day he crosses the red line, a real possibility in the heat of the moment, especially when one has not learnt to control anger, his backers will disown him.

Collective guilt always turns its wrath on the individual, as Smith has learnt today and many more will in the future.

sports@newindianexpress.com

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com