Two-faced. That’s what governments past and present can be easily accused of because they support gambling in casinos but frown upon matka, which is also a form of gambling. The recent drive against matka has been triggered by the high court which told the police that it would form a special investigation team of its own if it failed to initiate action against matka. What is matka? Legally this game of chance has not been defined and this is one of the reasons why cases have fallen flat in court.
The moral issue though, is how can we have two approaches to gambling? It is legally protected if held in the luxurious surroundings of a casino and despised when held in the corner of a street with a non-descript table, a stool and chits of paper. The accusations made against matka dealers that money is siphoned into the shady world of terror organisations and drug dealers may or may not be true, but similar accusations can also be made against casinos which are accused, rightly or wrongly, of allowing clients to use the hawala route to bring in and take out money. Both forms of gambling are a vice and both have client support. So why is one seen as a menace while the other protected by law?
If matka has not been legalised till date like casino gambling it’s because a lot of people “ politicians, rogue cops and lawyers, feed off the fact that it is illegal. While politicians and rogue cops collect ‘hafta’ or protection money from matka bookies and kingpins, lawyers make their money by defending the accused in gambling cases. That almost all the cases end up in acquittals is proof of a nexus between the police and matka bookies. The cops have a standard approach to raids. The arguments in courts are the same and the result is the same. If one were to study all the court orders in the last three to five years one would not notice any deviation from this pattern. Hence, the trade remains protected even though it is illegal.
Like casinos, the matka trade also provides jobs and livelihoods to many families and politicians are aware of it. Hence strict action is rarely taken. The reason politicians often give for protecting casinos is that they provide valuable revenue to the state. If casino gambling is justified on the basis of revenue then there should be no impediment to legalisation of matka. If casino gambling is allowed because it provides jobs then there should be no hurdle in granting the same protection to matka. Stop this two-faced approach to gambling. Either both need to be stamped out or both legalised. But to have one and despise the other is a classic case of double standards.
