The latent nepotism that prevails in the top cricket body of the country should not continue anymore. Cricket in India is much more than a sport. Sensing this, the current administrators of the organisation must bring change to it
There shall be no exaggeration if it is stated that cricket in India is a national sport that connects people both socially and culturally. Cricket in India is not only admired, but it arguably remains the hallmark of love, faith and passion for hundreds of thousands of people. The apex body for cricket administration in India is perhaps one of the richest boards in the world, yet it has invited serious judicial wrath over its manner of functioning.
A committee headed by Justice RM lodha, former Chief Justice of India, observed that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) indulged in serious inaction regarding betting and match-fixing, and made frequent amendments to rules to enable influential persons to perpetuate their control and promote their financial interests, permitting or enabling its office-bearers, employees and players to do acts which clearly give rise to conflicts of interest. There was no effective resolution mechanism, there was lack of transparency and accountability, and there was a general negligence towards wrongdoing. In addition, although the BCCI discharges public functions, its working is perceived as a closed-door and back-room affair, with it not being accountable to those who are affected by its decisions.
The latent nepotism due to the very structure prevalent in the cricket’s administration, has resulted into provenance of lobbying in the sport. Policies are formulated and altered in such a way that suits the needs of few powerful. Such a structure neither conveniences the positioning of an ombudsman nor an independent auditor. Consequently, cricket administration in India is perceived to be functioning under a close-room set-up, and this is substantiated by the Justice lodha committee report. The apex court observed that the function of the BCCI squarely fell under the ambit of public functions, and hence, it cannot escape the legal scrutiny. It is a well-known fact, however, that the BCCI has been taking the stand that it is not a public authority and the Right to Information is thus not applicable to it.
The nature of influencing decision-making is not only limited to non-cricketing functions; it has been percolating down to the cricketing functions as well in the Board. The Indian Premier league fiasco revealed the timing, strategy and conduct of the lobbyists — perhaps, the agent or the promoters themselves.There exist grave concerns about those who act as agents of players. Their backgrounds are normally unknown, as are the commercial arrangements entered into by and on behalf of the players.
lobbying activities can get their breeding ground in the structure of the BCCI itself. There are at the moment 30 full members, some of whom do not field teams, while others do not represent any territory. One Union Territory and 20 States are included and 10 States and six Union Territories remain either excluded or disenfranchised. In addition, officially, there are associate and affiliate members as well as so-called future members.
The Services Sports Control Board, the Railways Sport Promotion Board and the All India Universities represent particular national service groups, who traditionally constituted the largest employers of Indian sportsmen before the advent of liberal, private enterprise. Apart from these, two cubs — the Cricket Club of India at Mumbai and the National Cricket Club at Kolkata, also enjoy the full membership of the BCCI. Mainly attributable to their historic legacy, both Maharashtra and Gujarat have three full members, each representing parts of their respective States. Maharashtra, therefore, exercises votes through the associations of Mumbai, Vidarbha and Maharashtra; while, Gujarat fields the associations of Baroda, Gujarat and Saurashtra.
The regulations of the BCCI only speak of three categories of members — full, associate and affiliate. However, the Justice lodha panel is stated to have found a list of six ‘future members’, a category that does not have a legal basis. This consists of Uttarakhand, Mizoram, Telangana, Chandigarh, Puducherry and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Such a classification seems a half-way house with no real purpose except to give the association an illusion.
Further, the concentration of all powers with the president, from overall superintendence of the Board and its affairs, to taking action against players and even approving the composition of the team chosen by the selectors, make it much more than the parenspatriae of Indian cricket.
This analysis does not, however, undermine the contributions of the BCCI in shaping up Indian cricket into what it looks like today — a huge success. But it is nevertheless expected that the Justice lodha committee recommendations are implemented in the true spirit. Neither the BCCI nor those who are apologists of its wrongdoing, can have their way anymore.
(The writer is a Government employee. Views expressed here are personal)