The early 1990s, when I used to write about cricket for a living, seems in hindsight to have been the last age of innocence for the sport. Young Indian cricketers on tours spent their time, and energies, hunting down a cheap Indian meal, or an obliging NRI who could do their laundry. That was because Indian cricketers, even though paid handsomely by Indian standards, lived on dollar allowances that were barely enough, and both Indian meals and laundry (for all those whites) could be expensive.

Of course, the 1987 World Cup in the subcontinent gave rise to sensational allegations, notably by Pakistani fast bowler Sarfraz Nawaz that Pakistan deliberately threw its semi-final against Australia. Even on this side of the border, a rumor was that Sunil Gavaskar had thrown his wicket (he was bowled by a beauty of a delivery by Phil DeFreitas in the first over of the semi-final against England). Even though Pakistan and India went on to lose the matches, the allegations seemed wild at the time and few, if any, took them seriously.

We also had at least two cricket reporters in the press box who not only placed bets but also provided information, mostly about the wicket and the weather, to bookies. Still, none of us – and I mean not just the reporters but also the reporters-punters, bookies and cricketers – believed match-fixing was possible. It was never even considered. How on earth could it be orchestrated?

What existed then was a simple underground betting ring, presumably because of a latent demand from Indian punters unable to bet on sporting events bar horse racing. It was an honest operation based on trust. Bets could be placed on the phone if you were in the ‘inner circle’ and could be trusted to pay up. Similarly, bookies honored the bets. Today, the honor-based underground betting ring has been replaced by an underworld system in which several bookies, and large punters, seek to manipulate outcomes by simply fixing matches, rather than by showing a keen understanding of the game’s nuances.

As the match-fixing revelations, or allegations, rage on, Pakistan’s ‘cricketing culture’ has faced intense, and deserved, scrutiny but both India and the International Cricket Council, the sport’s ruling body, have lessons to learn.

India needs to consider legalized betting on cricket, just as England, Australia and even South Africa already have. A legal system may not end match-fixing but could, most certainly, reduce the likelihood of match-fixing attempts, and probably make policing by the ICC’s Anti Corruption Unit more effective. Of course, this will require action by the Indian government, and not just the Board of Control for Cricket in India. But in this age of reforms, it’s something that should get a fair hearing.

From the ICC’s point of view, it must be disappointing to find out that its Anti Corruption Unit couldn’t prevent the recent scandal. The failure raises a lot of questions that only the ICC can answer. For example, did it act on the claims of at least five Australian cricketers that they had been approached by bookies in the past one year? If so, why was such action ineffective? Or, even more significant, does its program extend to protecting young, uneducated and vulnerable cricketers like Pakistan’s Mohammed Ameer? If not, should the ICC run an induction program for young cricketers like Ameer, or any newcomer who enters international cricket? In these and other answers might lie cricket’s ability to avert another embarrassing match-fixing scandal.