But BCCI is also a secretive body with little transparency in it operations and virtually no accountability. It is a hub of cronyism with little scope for outsiders to have a say. The Lalit Modi episode has already exposed that the best-run cricket body has too many the skeletons in its cupboard. What, God forbid, if some of the decisions went on to inflict irreparable damage to Indian cricket?
Yes, BCCI, a private autonomous body with billions of rupees at its command, needs to be less opaque and more accountable. The 4-0 loss to England in the recently concluded Test series is a warning signal that not everything is alright with Indian cricket and its thinktank needs to be overhauled. If the government’s proposed National Sports Act manages to achieve that, it’s acceptable and advisable.
Where do politicians fit in here? To be fair to BCCI, it has leveraged well the influence of its politician-office-bearers to further its cause. But in the general narrative of Indian sport it could be an exception. Almost all associations are headed by politicians or their henchmen, who have little understanding of the sport they are supposed to be in charge of and promoting. It shows in India’s performance in major sporting events.
BCCI
president Shashank Manohar, Rajiv Shukla (R) and N. Srinivasan (L)
during a news conference in Mumbai. Punit Paranjpe/Reuters
The concern over politicians creating small fiefdoms out of the sports bodies in not new though. In 2004, Sunil Dutt, then Sports Minister, had expressed worry about the unusual interest of politicians in heading sports federations. Leaders like VK Malhotra, Jagdish Tytler, Arun Jaitley and till not long ago Suresh Kalmadi have been heading sports bodies for long. But this is a short list. At the state level, individual sports bodies are a permanent pocket boroughs of specific politicians.
What, pray, politicians have to do with kabadi, kho-kho and badminton associations? These are sports which would give them little mileage in terms of visibility. The money involved is also too low to interest them. These are the reasons they contribute to the associations or the sport so little. But these people just hanging on to a position makes no sense. It is worse when they occupy the position at the cost of people who are genuinely interested in the improvement of the sport. The election process to these bodies is generally opaque. It is designed to ensure that the incumbent and his supporters win always. This has to change.
The Sports Minister’s proposal to reserve 25 percent of seats in associations for former sportspersons of that particular sport is a welcome idea. This will bring greater expert knowledge to the game, helping its improvement. No wonder, all former sportsmen are gung ho about Maken’s bill.
The bill fixes the maximum term—three—for any sports official in any discipline and an upper age limit of 70. The first one will help ease the vice-like grip of the same set of people on associations — some of the incumbents in different association have been around for more than one-and-a-half decade — and the second one will make the bodies more than a retired man’s club.
“This bill is comprehensive. It includes the tenure norms, age norms, and also, all these sports federations must be considered as public authorities under the Right to Information Act. Besides, this draft Bill has a provision of ombudsman,” according to Maken.
The effort is expected to bring more transparency to the functioning of sports bodies. But are the political parties game enough? Over 80 percent of the present office-bearers of prominent national sports federations such as Indian Olympic Association, Archery Association and Athletes Federation, will lose their jobs if the bill is enacted. Earlier efforts to control sports federations have failed badly due to the political influence enjoyed by the associations.
Reforms are okay but there’s a word of caution here. Politicians may look redundant heading sports associations but they are necessary to promote sport, particularly the ones which are not as popular as cricket. They help open doors which would otherwise be shut if people with lesser influence and poorer manipulative skills take the lead.
As for the BCCI, the less the government interferes in its affairs the better but it has to be transparent. The country cannot sit silent if it drives cricket to slow death.