sport itself. This is a terrible pity because cricket on the sub-continent has emerged as a major entertainer, second only to the movies. Its diminution imposes a cost on everyone who likes the game.
There are two issues involved here which are being mixed up. One is betting and the other match-fixing by players. Betting on whatever sport, unless legitimised, is always informal and sometimes illegal. Also, its volume generally depends not just on the fan following but also on the degree of uncertainty inherent in the sport. Cricket, with its dependence on 22 players, three umpires, the pitch, the weather, form, toss, play strategy and tactics, not to mention sundry other factors, is a natural sport for betting. The surprise is that it didn't begin much earlier, as it did in England where betting on cricket is legal. This suggests that it should be legalised on the sub-continent also. This will bring the activity out of the shadows, which means it can then be regulated.
As for match fixing by bribing players, the key question is the willingness of the players to go along. While nothing other than penal action can be contemplated against the brokers as long as betting is illegal, some precautionary measures can indeed be taken against players succumbing to temptation. British horse racing provides an example worth emulating.
A three-man board of highly respected individuals called the stewards conducts formal enquiries and imposes heavy penalties on those found guilty. Indian racing has such a system. Last year, a top jockey was suspended. This may not end all malpractice (race rigging is believed to be fairly rampant); nevertheless a similar system needs to be evolved for cricket too. If the game has indeed been dirtied, why not try and clean it up by having a board of supervisors with adequate stature, comprising one member each from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka? Three retired chief justices should do the trick.