Or has it? It is a good bet-and I use that word fully aware of its implications-that we have not heard the last of it. It is possible that some of those punished, if not all of them, will seek legal redress. It is also possible that some of them, if not all, may actually speak their hearts out and expose further muck.

It is not hard to imagine that some officials of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) have willy-nilly been aware of, if not involved in, the sordid goings-on, but preferred to look the other way. It is also possible that some of them even made a deliberate attempt to launch a cover-up operation in the form of the Chandrachud Commission in 1997. BCCI must now dispassionately investigate attempts by some of its own members, including team officials, to sweep the whole thing under the carpet from as early as 1994.

Having focussed on the players and the long-serving physiotherapist, it is time now to unearth facts about some of BCCI's own officials. An attempt was made to defer the Disciplinary Committee meeting in Chennai this week, with one of its members, Mr Kamal Morarka, staying away. The BCCI vice-president even sought a postponement of the crucial meeting and has maintained there was no real urgency to take action against the players on the basis of the CBI report.

There is reason to believe that a serious bid was launched to convince the other member of the panel, another BCCI vice-president, Mr K M Ram Prasad, that he should either toe Mr Morarka's line and stay away from Chennai or advocate the line that the decision would have to be taken by BCCI's general body rather than by the Disciplinary Committee. It was just as well that Mr Ram Prasad saw wisdom, not just in joining BCCI president Mr A C Muthiah in the deliberations in Chennai-with Mr Morarka keeping away-but also in endorsing Mr Muthiah's argument that it would not help anyone if the BCCI were to be seen as dragging its feet again.

Mr Muthiah will go down in history as the one BCCI chief who withstood enormous pressure from his own colleagues in deciding and announcing action against the erring players and physiotherapist for their roles in match-fixing and for their nexus with bookies and punters. So, he will be well aware of these elements in the BCCI. He would do Indian cricket greater service by exposing such persons and their questionable intentions.

Mr Morarka's statement that the CBI did not reveal anything new-"Everyone knew about match-fixing. So what did the CBI tell us new?"-could be the starting point for it all. He could be asked to explain, for instance, what he knew of match-fixing and why he did little to stop its growth to mammoth proportions. Remember, former BCCI vice-president, Mr N Venkat Rao, made a statement on his return as manager of the Indian team in New Zealand in 1995 that there were four black sheep in the Indian team? He was forced to withdraw the statement and accuse the reporter who had interviewed him of putting words in his mouth.

There have been other officials who have been aware of the cancer among some Indian players, but turned a blind eye to it. Former BCCI president Mr Inderjit Singh Bindra went on record as saying that he had warned some players not to place bets during a tour of England in 1996. He did not even place the incident on the BCCI's records. Mr Jagmohan Dalmiya could have emerged a hero had he applied his mind in 1994 when, as BCCI secretary, he agreed to suspend Mr Manoj Prabhakar and Mr Nayan Mongia from the Indian team for two matches during the Wills World Series. Had he instituted a inquiry into the incident, he may have stumbled on the truth and discouraged match-fixing.

What of the players? The cherubic Mr Ajay Jadeja's absence from the Indian side will be the biggest loss, more so since his is a fine cricket brain. At age 29, he had at least three to five years of cricket left in him (even if he has had surgeries on a knee and a shoulder in the past couple of years). His bubbly enthusiasm will be missed.

Mr Mohammed Azharuddin, him of the magical wrists, was on the threshold of a momentous 100th Test, having made a century in his last Test. That he is 37 has caused many people to infer that his batting would not be missed as much, but make no mistake, he was still as good as any in the land. The new Code of Conduct enforced by the International Cricket Council and BCCI itself is ample deterrent, but the laws of the land must also be changed to ensure that match-fixing does not merely entail a simple fine. There cannot be a greater crime than playing with the emotions of a passionate people, can there?

(The writer is editor, CricketNext.Com.)