Danushka: price that must be paid

The reality is stark and the price will have to be paid. As a mischievous but amusing text message had it, while Sri Lanka was out the T 20 World Cup before the semifinals, Danushka Gunathilaka for wrong reasons succeeded in putting this country on the world map. While mainstream and social media have already pronounced their judgment, a judicial determination is yet down the road and the cricketer remains held in the meantime in a correctional facility in Australia. But one thing is clear and needs to be said in Gunathilaka’s defence. He did not repeat not (emphasis added) seize the victim, thrust her forcibly into a shrub jungle or wherever and commit an offence. He accompanied her to her home, presumably by invitation, where the alleged acts of sexual intercourse without consent were committed. This after meeting through a dating device, drinks at a public bar and a restaurant meal.

What happened thereafter remains to be established. Obviously accompanying the victim to her home was consensual and probably on her invitation. After the court imposed gag on details of the encounter had been lifted, there have been many reports on what happened or allegedly happened. This was inevitable given the salacious aspect of the incident, the fact that the accused was a member of a national team competing in an international event attracting global attention and, of course, media proclivity for sensation. It is in the nature of things that Sri Lanka’s country image has been severely blackened. After all our national cricketers are unofficial ambassadors of the country and what they do both on and off the field reflects on the country itself. Sadly that has already happened in this instance.

There are two sides to every story and Gunathilaka’s version has not yet been publicized. There have been reports that the alleged assault was triggered by the female partner’s insistence on protected sex which had been rejected. Right now the evidence appears to be mostly circumstantial. The investigation would no doubt have involved medical and forensic aspects that will emerge at a later stage of the proceedings. Gunathilaka’s bail application has been turned down and the case is likely to go to trial early next year. It has been reported that the bail refusal will be appealed in a higher court.

Meanwhile Sri Lanka’s sports minister has tendered a blanket apology over the incident to all concerned. He had labeled it as an “irresponsible individual act” and extended an apology to the victim, the Australian government and people and to the International Cricket Council (ICC). He had further assumed responsibility on behalf of the country and its people and promised “necessary remedial action.” He revealed in a Twitter post that the Sports Ministry and Sri Lanka Cricket had in coordination of the Australian High Commission here taken action to provide the accused with necessary legal assistance. A three-member investigation panel headed by a retired high court judge and two lawyers have also been appointed.

How events will pan out will be seen in the coming weeks. It has been stated in the public domain that although Sri Lanka Cricket had initially taken a firm decision to distance itself from what was called an “embarrassing incident,” there had been VVIP political pressure to bear the player’s legal costs. At one stage it was stated that these costs would be borne but recovered from Gunathilaka, who has now been suspended for the fourth time. The most recent suspension was last year when he, along with two other players breached a bio-bubble in England during the covid pandemic. These players were sent home and a two-year suspension was slammed on them. But this was later reduced to six months. Reduction of punishments imposed or breaches of discipline is not uncommon in Sri Lanka cricket. These are often influenced when particular player skills are needed for the team composition.

Wisdom too often dawns ex post facto. It is now being said that the concerned authorities were too lenient when Gunathilaka last got into trouble. Our cricket correspondent now in Australia says that

the team management comprises of gentlemen who are well respected in cricket circles and no doubt they have the best interests of Sri Lanka cricket at heart. But there are question marks on whether they have the firmness to deal with troublemakers like Gunathilaka. “It needs a Duleep Mendis or an Asanka Gurusinha to take the bull by the horns,” his report said.

However that be, a lot of damage has been done to Sri Lanka cricket and many autopsies on the how’s and the why’s will inevitably follow. This is perhaps the worst incident since the controversial rebel tour against South Africa where apartheid then prevailed. The life ban slapped on the players involved by the Board of Control of Cricket in Sri Lanka ended the careers of most of them, resulting in their exclusion of what had by then developed into a high paying industry. Whether Danushka Gunathilaka, in the event of an unfavourable verdict, will able to play cricket in the few years remaining to him as a player remains to be seen. But there’s no escaping the fact that immense harm has been inflicted both on the player personally as well as Sri Lanka cricket by this unfortunate incident.