Till this moment both Abhishek and I are not sure whether Tendulkar really nicked that out swinger from Aquib Javed. It was somewhere in early nineties and India was playing Pakistan in a one day series. India was chasing a 250 odd score and was already two wickets down. Tendulkar was facing ominous Javed when that fateful delivery was delivered – the delivery that decided the future of my relationship with Abhishek. As soon as the ball passed Tendulkar’s bat, there was a huge appeal. Tendulkar didn’t move an inch but the ball did after passing his bat; And Pakistani’s sensed the edge. They all went up for the appeal only to realize that the umpire was not amused. He denied that appeal only to start a perennial cold war between us - two best friends.
Although highly disappointed, Abhishek was convinced that Tendulkar had nicked that ball. He was an ardent Tendulkar worshiper; however, he valued his honesty more than anything else. It was the era when snickometer was not yet invented and so everybody watching on television relied on their visual senses to judge any such incidence. But then again, we both had different visual capabilities. I wore glasses and Abhishek didn’t. So we saw, or rather interpreted, the incident differently. For me, it was certain that there was daylight between Tendulkar’s bat and that ball. In contrast, Abhishek, like the Pakistanis, saw a clear deviation of the edge. So I was happy and he was shocked when the umpire gave it not out. Our reactions surprised both of us. I viewed Abhishek’s views as anti nationalist while he thought that I was being unethical.
Tendulkar, like any great player, would have walked if he really nicked it I argued. As my evidence I recalled a similar incidence when he walked off against South Africa on the faintest of the nicks which was also not evident to the naked eye. So logically he would have walked had he nicked that ball. However, Abhishek was not ready to heed. He came up with his counter arguments. First, he argued that this was an India versus Pakistan affair, where stakes were very high for everyone, probably more for the best players. Second, India was in spot of bother then. But on the other day against South Africa, India was in a commanding position when he walked off.
Tendulkar, a national hero, was bigger than life and was my personal favorite. So by saying that he nicked it and didn’t walk, Abhishek hinted that he was not upright. And then he was not even budging from his ridiculous position. To me he was on the brink of blasphemy. I insisted that is why we have umpires on the field - to adjudicate. Even if he nicked it, he has the right to be there until he is given out. Abhishek countered that by saying why do then players walk when they are clean bowled or are caught at covers for that matter and not when they get a faint nick? Our arguments got hostile and it soon became Abhishek versus Ashish rather than remaining as India versus Pakistan. We argued mercilessly till the deep roots of our friendship ruptured not to be mended again.
I still think that Abhishek was wrong in debating about that incident- Tendulkar had clearly not edged that ball. But I do realize now that he sure hinted towards pseudo ethics that do exist in each of us. When he argued that probably players looked at the scoreboard and the opposition before they decided whether they should walk, he hinted that we sometimes evaluate the situation before deciding whether to behave ethical or not. Why to blame the players, we ourselves would not have walked had we were at 1 and would have walked with pride had we were at 100, not out! Also, we probably might not have walked against our arch rivals but might have done so against any other opposition! And above all why do we need a third person, an umpire, to judge whether somebody is out?
Is this discussion limited to cricket only? Don’t we face such dilemma’s day in day out in our lives? What do we do then? Would we behave the same way if we find a 500 rupee bill vis-à-vis 500,000 cash lying unattended and especially when no one is watching? Would we have the same conviction when we confront our boss vis-à-vis any other subordinate when defending some ethical point? Aren’t we a tad lenient when dealing with our kids vis-à-vis that of our neighbors when they misbehave? Don’t we feel the urge to drive on the wrong side of the road when the traffic in our lanes at Hinjewadi is jam packed? Don’t we feel there is something wrong with the moral/ethical scale we use?
Ideally, we all should behave the same way irrespective of the situation. Those among us who do that follow some basic principles in life, for them ethics and morals are absolute and not relative. Those people don’t dilute their values to cater to their surroundings. They have a fixed scale for their ethics/morals and hence their value system remains intact in every situation. They might be rich, they might be poor but they are always ethical. However, most of us are not that way. Why? The answer rests with the basic human urge to win (probably win at any cost). And since everybody wants to win, our sense of right or wrong fades away. The only thing remains is the win. And hence there is a need for an adjudicator - a judge, who can tell who won and who lost. He is probably not the one who decides who is right and who is wrong, he just decides who won and who lost based on the evidences at his disposal. And that is why there is an umpire in every game to take these on-field decisions.
But what about our day to day lives? We do hundred of things every day – some are right and some are wrong. So who adjudicates on these issues? It is our conscience that helps us makes those decisions. First, it drives us to take right decisions even when they are clearly not the winning decisions and sometimes the other way around. And this is something we see in real life too. We often see those who win are not always right and those who are right don’t always win. Second, many a times it also gives us the power to admit our faults and helps eradicate the associated guilt. Andre Agassi probably was a relieved man when he admitted taking a banned substance to enhance his performance. People might criticize him for his admittance now quoting that he was doing this to publicize his book; but those people forget that he could have lived a life of a saint and even then could have sold copies of his book and that he is no short of money, so it wasn’t about money probably! May be it was about redemption for him as he had already risked his reputation admitting that. Although late, however, he chose the right path; and so we should also. Keeping our conscience clear is more important than anything else. Life is too small and too precious to live with the feeling of guilt. Always remember – A clear conscience is the softest pillow! So sleep well.
In the end, I will stick with my gun - Tendulkar didn’t nick it and hence didn’t walk. However, if you nick it then do walk or best don’t nick it at all J
