Arrogant BCCI has to get off its high horse

FOR LONG, THE BCCI HAS BOSSED AROUND. BUT THE FEELING TODAY IS CRICKET BELONGS TO ALL INDIANS, AND BCCI IS JUST AN

EVENT MANAGER.

That the BCCI told the Ministry of Sports to go take a walk on the dope testing issue is no surprise. The BCCI is assertive and knows a thing or two about protecting its turf. It’s response to the government on the WADA/ NADA issue is a forceful statement about poorna swaraj.

Independence, administrative and financial, is admirable and desirable, and it’s great if a National Sports Federation(NSF)can manage its affairs without receiving bailouts from the government. The BCCI passes this test with distinction -it runs cricket efficiently and has sixpack money muscle.

ARROGANT BCCI Arrogance, however, is neither admirable nor desirable. The tone of BCCI’s response to the ministry was aggressive, even mocking, and conveyed defiance. This, in cricket terms, was a dominant batsman dictating terms to a bowler.

This ‘we- don’t- care- for- you’ attitude raises some questions: Is the BCCI, a private body, so independent that it is answerable only to its members and can do what it pleases with its money? Is it answerable to fans? Are BCCI’s functions/actions beyond public, judicial or any other review?

Answers to these questions must be viewed in context. One, nobody is fully ‘independent’ as all rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. Freedom of speech, for instance, does not allow abuse. The right to wear clothes of your choice does not allow you to go naked in Connaught Place. So the BCCI or an NSF can’t stretch the point about independence beyond a limit.

Two, the Supreme Court (SC) has already ruled that the BCCI is, in effect, the ‘state’ because it discharges public functions. It uses the national flag, national anthem and its team plays as India. The SC also observed that the BCCI receives many direct/ indirect benefits from the state and cricket ‘belongs’ to the fans.

NEED TO HAVE TRANSPARENCY

These observations clearly indicate that there is a pro-transparency bouncer floating around which the BCCI cannot avoid. Sooner than later the demand to subject BCCI to RTI will surface. The appointment of an Ombudsman and Ethics officer (both provided in the new constitution) allows fans to approach the courts for redressing grievances.

Surely the BCCI can sense which way the wind is blowing. The choice before it is to gracefully embrace change, be more inclusive and get off its high horse. Otherwise, it runs the risk of letting the horse flee and have nothing to sit on.

One positive step would be to engage with society with humility and genuine intent to create goodwill. Other cricket boards, notably Australia and England, work on community participation, support charity and connect with young children. Sadly, none of these are currently on the BCCI radar.