lodha panel shows way; let’s see the outcome
There is no doubt that the three-member panel headed by former Chief Justice of India RM lodha has meant well in suggesting sweeping reforms in the functioning of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Everybody wants the BCCI to be cleansed of the accusations of wrongdoing and perform in a more transparent and accountable fashion. There is no dispute over the fact that many things have gone wrong in the recent past, especially on issues of conflict of interest and spot-fixing of Indian Premier league matches. The tenure of Mr N Srinivasan as the powerful cricket organisation's chief was marred by allegations, many of which have been addressed by the lodha panel and the earlier retired Justice Mukul Mudgal committee as well. With the Supreme Court's intervention in the matter, Mr Srinivasan had no option but to quit and make way for Mr Shashank Manohar to take over as the BCCI chairperson. The new board chief lost no time in making his intentions clear to turn the BCCI into a new leaf. He kick-started a number of initiatives which indicated the direction the board would take under his leadership. The lodha panel's recommendations appear to be taking that process forward. Given that this committee is Supreme Court-mandated, there is a good chance of the apex court endorsing quite a few of the suggestions the panel has made. Still, it is unclear which of them the court will accept and which will be kept aside on grounds of legality or implementability. The BCCI will get an opportunity to present its opinion, and there are indications that it is unhappy with many of the suggestions the committee has made. It may, for instance, not be on board with the recommendation that one State can have only one team; Maharashtra has more than one for historical reasons. The board may also be uncomfortable with the suggestion that Ministers should not be office-bearers of the BCCI.
This is, of course, a contentious issue. The lodha committee is of the opinion that politicians should be kept as far away as possible from matters of the cricket body. The view has widespread public support, but the fact is that banning serving Ministers from being office-bearers will not serve any real purpose. On the contrary, it will result in inequality. Former Ministers or politicians who are not Ministers will still get to sit as office-bearers in the BCCI. The other contentious suggestion the Justice lodha committee has made is that of bringing the BCCI under the Right to Information ambit. This will be strongly contested by the board on grounds of legality.
But there are other suggestions the BCCI should have no reason to oppose; indeed, it must welcome them whole-heartedly. The cooling-off period for appointments to cricketing bodies, the one-man-one-position formula, the greater involvement of former cricketers in cricket administration and fixing an upper limit for tenures as office-bearers, make sense. It cannot be anybody's case that the same set of people should be governing the game for ever. This hegemony not only blocks new talent but also leads to the entrenchment of vested interests over a period of time. Finally, it will be very interesting to see the position the apex court and the BCCI take on the panel's recommendation to legalise betting.