While the Indian cricket board has to be more transparent and accountable, the fact is that the government too has neither achieved excellence nor profitability in any sport it has controlled
While the Indian cricket board has to be more transparent and accountable, the fact is that the government too has neither achieved excellence nor profitability in any sport it has controlled Sports minister Ajay Maken's attempt to make the BCCI -- along with other federations -- into a public and accountable body was sound in intent and perhaps keeping in tune with the flavour of the times. But it had to be looked at with consideration and not just in confrontation mode, which is how it had unfortunately developed before it was rejected by the cabinet.
BCCI president Shashank Manohar & (inset) sports minister Ajay MakenMr Maken tweeted early in the day that he wasn't advocating government control, rather transparency in the federations. It is widely, and perhaps reasonably believed that politicians who control most sports bodies would never allow their powers to be diminished.
While that may be true, there was also the fear that government interference would follow. Such is the history of government meddling in sports in India, and so dismal its track record for the past 65 years, that in many ways this was a more depressing scenario than the original.
Everyone has grievanceThe government has neither achieved excellence nor profitability in any sport it has controlled. Almost every sports body in the country has grievances with the powers that be -- either for apathy or excessive, stifling bureaucracy.u00a0 The state of hockey and athletics, to name only two disciplines that bear testimony to this.
Whatever success we have had is because of tremendous personal commitment from our sportspersons and athletes, which includes the ability to run through a government-provided obstacle race.
So, while there several misgivings about how the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) conducts its affairs -- and for many critics, these have been heightened because of the debacle in the recent Test series -- there are several more reasons why it should be kept independent of government interference.
Focus on cricketI am focusing on cricket here because that had willy-nilly become the major bone of contention. But I am also focusing on cricket because it could take a proactive step in towards making Indian sports transparent and cleaner.
u00a0The success of Indian cricket can be substantially ascribed to the fact that the BCCI is a private organisation. It does not depend on the government for money. Over the last decade or so, there have been considerable successes -- the Test series against England Test notwithstanding and the criticism levelled against the Indian Premier League.
Yet, there is still need for the BCCI to be more transparent and to be more accountable.. It would be a fine gesture on the part of the cricket establishment if it voluntary agrees to RTI scrutiny. While it is registered as a society under the Societies Act or some such, the BCCI claims to represent a billion hearts which beat for cricket and on whose faith it collects millions of dollars in telecast rights. It seems only fair then that those hearts be allowed to ask legitimate questions.
The jump to public accountability need not be so frightening. The proposed Draft National Sports Policy Bill required -- among other things -- that sports bodies come under the Right to Information Act, that their accounts be public, that office-bearers have a limited tenure and retire at 70. WADA compliance for dope testing is also required.
Of these, the BCCI as an audited body just needs to make its accounts public more easily. For instance, Cricket Australia's profits, losses etc are available at the click of a mouse on a website. Only stubbornness would prevent such a process being followed by Indian cricket too.
Where age limit and tenure of officials is concerned, unlike many other sports federations in India where the administrators don't change for decades, the BCCI's office-bearers change every three or four years (depending on the status of the office) after elections are held. Given how life expectancy is rising, perhaps 75 is a retirement age which can be discussed.
Where drug-testing is concerned, WADA compliance has to be non-negotiable. This is mandatory in almost every competitive sport and it is distressing to see the BCCI show so much recalcitrance. Suggestions like selection committee meetings being televised are not as sensible as they may seem, but having more former cricketers in key administrative positions is a decided advantage.
Terrible signalsPoliticians wresting power in cricket associations across the length and breadth of the country sends terrible signals. In fact what is required is voluntary transparency from the BCCI. Major decisions could be explained upfront so that they do not explode later as controversies. Often, the biggest charge against the BCCI office-bearers is of arrogance and then, of secrecy.
These can be repaired if the BCCI sees itself as accountable to the people and opens up to them. For all that the BCCI is in the public eye, it is remarkably susceptible to bad communication with its biggest constituency; that is the fans and lay public.
In today's world that is no longer acceptable.
