Unfair to put all politicians in one set BCCI must draw up a fresh to-do list
MUMBAI: Politicians entering sports bodies is not something many approve. Be it the glamour or financial pull of these associations, political involvement has been a regular occurrence. In recent years, the spate of irregularities, especially in the Indian cricket Board has meant officials with political leanings come under extra scrutiny.
The Supreme Court’s decision to implement the Lodha panel recommendation to bar ministers and bureaucrats from BCCI posts has the potential to snap the trend.
The decision is likely to alter cricket administration as we know and could form a precedent for appointments across sports bodies in the country. However, it is a good time to revisit the issue and see if all politicians in sports administration misuse the power, in this case the power to govern a sport in a country whose citizens consider it a religion.
While it is easy to paint all politicians with the same brush, there have been instances when the political class has done more good than bad. Entering when associations were not flush with cash and there was little glamour in sports administration, a few politicians did in fact lay the base for that association’s financial rise.
In 1972, under Mumbai Cricket Association president SK Wankhede, who was the Speaker of the Maharashtra assembly, the association began building a venue, which was later named the Wankhede stadium.
Earlier, matches were staged at the Cricket Club India, and MCA had to pay a hefty rent. Building the Wankhede stadium gave MCA an independent financial standing.
Sharad Pawar’s entry as president in the 90s helped it grow further as he helped execute more infrastructure projects. Pawar facilitated the availability of two more grounds in Mumbai for the MCA. On one stands the indoor academy that has proved beneficial for many Mumbai and India cricketers.
In the 1980s, Madhya Pradesh cricket too saw improvements under Madhavrao Scindia, the maharaja of Gwalior who later became a Congress minister. Scindia was the architect of cricket development in the region when the association was struggling financially.
BCCI president Anurag Thakur, a BJP MP, has also played a role in bringing international cricket to the hilltown of Dharamsala. “If politicians can run the country, they can run sports bodies,” he had said earlier this year.
IN INDIA, THE LODHA PANEL HAD TO PORE THROUGH OTHER REPORTS AND INCLUDE THE SALIENT POINTS
NEW DELHI: With the Supreme Court accepting most of the recommendations made by the Justice RM Lodha committee, the cricket board is braced for a root-and-branch change in its functioning.
It anticipated the Supreme Court to pretty much go by the report of the committee it appointed in January, 2015, making some reforms.
The Lodha panel’s recommendations are aimed at loosening the grip of individuals with influence and certain pockets that effectively control cricket in India. Still, cricket administration is way ahead of other sports federations.
A quick glance at what triggered the chain reaction that led to Monday’s firm stand by the Supreme Court shows that tweaking the BCCI constitution in the first place, ahead of the 2008 launch of the IPL, to let a senior office-bearer own a team paved the way for conflict of interest. N Srinivasan, who was allowed to own CSK while holding a senior post while the then BCCI president was Shashank Manohar. Although the Lodha committee has laid out a lot in black and white, real transformation will come only when senior BCCI members decide to usher in change for the better. BCCI secretary, Ajay Shirke, had told HT in an interview during the Supreme Court hearings on the Lodha panel report that the time has come to make BCCI a ‘process driven organisation’.
“It definitely has tremendous room for improvement… My goal now is to make the Board more of a process-driven organisation than a person driven one,” Shirke had said.
Shirke acknowledged the past failings. “Certain decisions were taken that have affected BCCI’s image. These decisions were taken because the structure at the time permitted it. So, I feel a system-driven protocol needs to be implemented. The focus will be to help restore BCCI’s image.”
In Australia, reforms were ushered in by a panel tasked by the board. And its recommendations were promptly implemented. Same was the case with England. In India, the Lodha panel had to pore through those reports and include the salient points. That shows there is much gap to bridge between recommendation and implementation.