I believe that it is possible to
argue that anyone and everyone are in the pay of some dreadful creature,
organization or political force. This is
why some otherwise intelligent and even likeable people in Trotskyite
organizations spend more time calling each other ‘running dogs of imperialism’
than doing anything about imperialism.
Ralph Nader, US
presidential candidate from the Green Party, for example, is blamed by
Democrats for helping Republican win the
Presidency (‘Nader broker the anti-Bush vote!’ they claim. Well, it is not as though the Democrats
themselves are any different from the Republicans. Check out what Obama has done, is doing and
plans to do in Iraq and Afghanistan for
example.
The point is, there is a way in
which anyone who does not hold your views can be made out to be an absolute
villain. By the same token anyone can
defend what he/she does and even claim that the worst crimes against humanity
were actually strategized to benefit all humankind and indeed that such
objectives were in fact achieved.
Talk is talk, though. Claims can be made. They can be made believable too. In the end, however, ‘belief’ comes down to
an individual assessing available information and arriving at conclusion. The problem is that we never have access to
all the information that’s out there so that we can make a decent enough
judgment. We got to make do with limited
facts, less than perfect analytical skills and navigate a maze of lies, decoys,
half-truths and advertisements blinded by spectacle as well as misleading and
concealing drabness. We have to factor
in the reality that yesterday’s trusted comrade-at-arms is today’s flake and
tomorrow’s enemy. We have to understand
that the forces arrayed against are not just numerous and powerful, but have
great purchasing power and are often endowed with that potent weapon called
‘lack of conscience’.
It is a tough world out
there. We can’t win all the time.
Indeed, we would be lucky to score one or two victories over a single
lifetime. The least we can do, in many
situations, is to ensure that the chances of being taken for a ride are
minimized. This is not easy since
unsteady information foundations don’t make for decent enough extrapolation and
can even produce nothing more than flights of fancy. How do we do this?
A friend of mine wrote to me this
morning, ‘The best preventive to taking off on
flights of fancy is I guess to make predictions instead of explaining events
after they occur. When we see suspicious signs we should predict outcomes and
check whether we are consistently right or wrong or just getting random
success.’ By way of explaining, he used cricket and the match-fixing
controversy.
He
opines: ‘I have the impression that when Sri Lanka
The
stats buffs out there can check this out I am sure. There’s only so much room one can make for
‘coincidences’. If there’s a pattern,
then we are immediately alerted. It is
very subtle of course and one has to be nuanced in ones assessment for this
very reason. It is not easy to read body
language, but it is not impossible to assume, for instance, that someone in the
pay of a bookie would react in a particular kind of way as opposed to someone
who is genuine. Not everyone can wear a
disguise well. There are slips. Wigs come off, the make up melts and the true
contours of conscience and guilt surface at unexpected moments in unexpected
ways.
The more we see, the more we
learn. After some time, we discover
patterns. It is no different from
tracking terrorists. You have to be alert. You have to use all resources at your
disposal. These is the age of
surveillance. People get caught. These are days of plea bargaining. Today’s benefactor could very well be the guy
who rats on your tomorrow. There are
lots of third umpires out there. Think
Hansie Cronje. Imagine him alive today.
He is scarred. In life. In
death.
My friend also observes that while
inconsistency is not a crime, consistent inconsistency is. He points to Tendulkar, Sehwag, Bevan and
Imran as those who by sheer power of consistency stump match-fixing
allegations. On the other hand, even
such a performer can get away with a bit of ‘spot-fixing’ or the play of a
cricketing moment.
We have to be alert. We have to watch faces. Behaviour patters.
Subtle changes in these. A noticeable
shift in preference of company and recreational choice. Noticeable silences. Sudden changes of fortune. Property acquisition that is hard to account
for given known sources of income.
Investments in shady operations (scams such as the ones run by Golden
Key and Sakvithi were essentially about money-laundering). Inability to look you in the eye the way you
were looked in the eye before.
Crooks slip. When and where we cannot tell. If we can make them slip, all the
better. Vigilance is the most effective
tripper or kakul maattuwa. It
might seem unfair to subject our cricketing heroes to this kind of
surveillance, but then again, this is an unforgiving world where
professionalism ought to include an unwavering resolve to play the game right. Spot-fixing is certainly good money but it is
not as though today’s cricketers are destitute!
Prediction helps. We have general idea about skill levels. We all have memory. We know what was said, where and when. We can tell when tongues bend to shine different ‘truths’.
My friend offers a prediction: ‘We will do pretty well in the world cup or other matches
that we are to face soon. Reason: players will know that they are being watched
with some suspicion after the various allegations and will do their best and be
really unlikely to throw. And if our team genuinely does its best, we should
beat any other around these days.’ Let’s see.
I
want Sri Lanka
*This was first published in the Daily News, September 15, 2010
msenevira@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment