Cricket And Indian National Consciousness
Even as a non-cricket sporting consciousness was slowly developing in India, cricket, India's numero uno sport disconnected from the rest of the sporting universe, was chugging along, unchallenged and unaffected. Growing stronger financially, politically with the governments showing distinct dislike for interference in a body which had powerful men representing it at state, national and international level, cricket did not just bond a nation, but also enabled the bonding of party men, rich industrialists and influential lawyers. Most Olympic sports federations were outright dependent on government funding for not just training of athletes, coaches and competitions, but also for hosting national and international tournaments. Cricket was the lone anomaly in Indian sports which created its own resources, human and financial, ran its own tournaments right down to district level and generated profits to match an A list corporate venture. But, more money flowing in also created its own problems. The massive inflow of funds, particularly post IPL, was always going to bring with it, more scrutiny. A few developments led to cricketing and Olympic sports interests hitting common ground. Despite the obvious inequalities between these two sporting ecosystems in India, they had a few similar traits - they were administered amateurishly, often interminably, festering vested interests with little interest in strengthening the game, and more interested in strengthening their hold and clout via the game.
For every Vijay Kumar Malhotra who reigned over the Archery Federation of India and successfully fought elections of IOA for four decades, there is a Niranjan Shah, former BCCI secretary, vice president, ruler of Saurashtra cricket, who proudly displays his rule as sports administrator for an equal amount of time as a badge of honour. If Suresh Kalmadi, former president of IOA, had to go down in disgrace over corruption charges, BCCI strongman and president N Srinivasan faced the Supreme Court's wrath over Conflict of Interest and had to be removed by the Apex Court. The 2000 Match Fixing scandal shook the game worldwide and led to the undoing of top cricketers like Hansie Cronje, Mohammed Azharuddin and Salim Malik. It exposed the existence of the underworld-bookie mafia and cricketers’ nexus which was till then, a whispered story in press boxes, private parties, team hotels and post-match soirees. In India, a CBI enquiry was initiated, which after months of intense investigation, raids and interrogations found that Mohammed Azharuddin had allegedly “fixed” cricket matches with the help of Ajay Jadeja and Nayan Mongia for large sums, and has listed England's Alec Stewart, Australia's Mark Waugh as well as Sri Lanka's Arjuna Ranatunga among the foreign players who were either offered or paid money by bookies. Importantly, the CBI enquiry noted, there were difficulties in gathering concrete evidence to establish any of these facts in a court of law, which were further accentuated by the lapse of time between the events and the investigation. “If the matters had been investigated contemporaneously, perhaps far more effective results could have been attained," the agency noted. The Post IPL era, beginning 2008, saw BCCI and its billion-dollar league becoming the centre of controversies and questions. The next big scam that shook up Indian cricket was the 2013 IPL Spot Fixing Scandal that yet again exposed the bookie-cricketer nexus.
From 2013 to 2016, events unfolded in such a manner that it sent cricket administration into a tailspin. The 2013 IPL Spot Fixing scandal was unearthed by Delhi Police, then helmed by its Commissioner Neeraj Kumar. Having learnt their lessons from the 2000 investigation, the cops went looking for tangible proof. Former India medium pacer S. Sreesanth was found guilty of accepting money from bookies only to be acquitted by a trial court, the charges slapped under MCOCA not found sufficient and hence dropped. The Delhi Police is challenging the decision in the High Court and BCCI has filed an appeal in the Kerala High Court against the order which lifted the lifetime ban slapped by the former on Sreesanth. Subsequent events led to an unprecedented shake-up of the most powerful sports body in India. Two Supreme Court appointed Committees led by Just. (retd. ) Mukul Mudgal and Justice (retd. ) RM Lodha red-flagged the glaring conflict of interests thriving in the Indian Cricket and Board. On July 18, 2016, the then Chief Justice of India Justice TS Thakur, heading a three-judge bench, apparently brought the curtains down on a two year long bitter, hard-fought battle by the BCCI old guard led by its ousted President N. Srinivasan. “Change or perish” pronounced the court while reading out the 143-page judgement. The Order sought to bring in transparency, good governance through a structural and administrative overhaul of the richest cricket board in the world. Despite being the most powerful cricket body in the world, it also has the dubious distinction of being the only full member cricket nation in ICC which does not have a player association. It is an established fact now in law that BCCI has a monopoly over the game in India. It has used its financial and authoritarian muscle power to quash any dissent amongst players or officials. Lodha Committee has sought to change that, giving weightage to player voice in all levels of decision making.
Every time players raise issues, the BCCI has used one-time benefits, pensions, revised match fees and annual contracts to nip the matter in the bud. When former India player Anil Kumble and his panel which included former India pace spearhead and Kumble's teammate Javagal Srinath stood for elections of the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), they rode on a wave of change in approach and professionalism. The Kumble led administration sought to bring in basic changes like a modern accounting system- even that was met with stubborn resistance from members. The “Kumble” team was credited with expanding the game and its facilities outside Bengaluru to other hubs like Hubli and Mysore. Bringing changes had not been easy. Three years later, with 'numbers' not totally on their side, the team decided not to contest. In the wake of the Lodha reforms, only one state association currently boasts of a former player as its president – Cricket Association of Bengal which is headed by former Indian captain Sourav Ganguly. The recommendations of the Lodha Committee were accepted in toto by the court. The crucial ones related to age and tenure norms, cooling off periods between each term of an office bearer both at centre and state level, one state one vote and importantly, barring public servants from contesting elections of the cricket board. The day to day affairs of the organisation were, as per Lodha recommendations, directed to be run by professionals. The Lodha Committee also recommended a different structure of decision making and administration, putting limits on the number of people and committee. Representation of Government Institutions as full members with voting rights which Just. Lodha Committee viewed as grounds for government interference in an autonomous body also stands challenged by the Central Government. To ensure abiding by its Order, the Supreme Court put a financial squeeze on state associations as well as BCCI. Undertakings were asked for before approval of any requests for central grants or subsidies by state associations. A four-member Committee of Administrators (COA) led by former Comptroller and Auditor General of India Vinod Rai was put in place to ensure implementation of the reforms.
Two BCCI presidents incurred the wrath of the Supreme Court. A stubborn Srinivasan was asked to step down in the wake of his son in law Gurunath Meiyappan being found guilty of placing bets with bookies during IPL matches. Post its July 2016 order, Anurag Thakur was removed by the Supreme Court as BCCI president for obstructing implementation of Lodha reforms as was Ajay Shirke - secretary of BCCI. Two years have passed since then. The Old Guard has fought tooth and nail. From whisper campaigns to discredit the judges and other pro reform persons within and outside, to blatant, in your face refusal to accept reforms - every ploy has been tried by those affected by the reforms in Indian cricket to challenge, subvert obstruct and disregard them. Two years since the SC order given by a special bench headed by former Chief Justice of India TS Thakur pronounced the acceptance of Lodha Committee reforms, the Apex Court has given a final word on key objections raised by the BCCI. In spite of both the Special Leave Petition and the Curative Petition filed by the board against the July 2016 order being rejected, SC agreed to give relief to BCCI by re-instating the One state one vote reform, altered the tenure norm by allowing two consecutive terms to office bearers in state and BCCI followed by a three year cooling off period instead of one after every tenure. The architect of the BCCI reforms, Justice Lodha, expressed his disappointment over dilution of key clauses fundamental to the reforms process. However, despite vehement arguments, the SC stood firm on one thing that is bound to have a far reaching ripple effect not just in cricket, but on all sports bodies in India. It retained the age cap of 70 years, disqualified government officials and public servants from contesting elections to sports bodies and barred individuals from holding an office bearer's post in more than one sports body. The effort to stop powerful politicians and bureaucrats from holding sway over sports associations for interminable periods has borne fruit. This order takes Indian sports one step closer to much needed reforms. A major aspect that was argued and ferociously fought over was Just. Lodha Committee's belief that BCCI discharges public function which is subject to rule of law. In April 2018, the Law Commission of India on orders of SC submitted a 124 page report to the Union Law Ministry. It recommended that the BCCI be classified as a “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
The report was finalised at a meeting of the full commission in New Delhi. The commission further stated that not just the board but “all of its constituent member cricketing associations, provided they fulfil the criteria applicable to BCCI”, be brought under the ambit of the 2005 RTI Act. * * * *The match fixing scandals and other malpractices like age fraud and doping have time and again pointed towards the absence of a sporting frauds law. The incentives in cricket and Olympic sports in present times are massive. International cricket and IPL pay cheques have made millionaires out of hitherto journeymen of cricket - confined to the dull, uncaring, unknown precincts of domestic cricket and superstars out of top bracket international players representing India. However, more money has also led to more corruption. The IPL 2013 scandal saw the then UPA government bring out a hastily drawn Prevention of Sporting Fraud draft bill; it still gathers dust. Which brings us back to where we began, poor sporting structures and deficient management ridden by vested interests time and gain lead to malpractices in administration. The perpetrators are emboldened by the absence of stringent law and scrutiny. And here the twain shall meet - presently, sports bodies, both Olympic and cricket related in India, are living only under the fear of the Courts’ wrath. Their lone escape route is the power and clout they wield in political circles. With a glaring lack of political will to reform and professionalise sports in India combined with ad-hocism in decision making and lack of synergies between stakeholders - results, especially in Olympic sports continue to be sporadic. Rathore's silver in Athens was a lot to do with individual efforts fuelled by government and Army funds; Bindra's golden breakthrough came due to a self taught process, several hits and misses, self inflicted pain and trials. The shooting federation woke up to dissipating performances by its top shooters in 2012 and 2016 - (in Rio it drew a complete blank) focussing on its junior programme. Badminton's stupendous success story has been scripted by one man - former All England Open Champion and legend Pullela Gopichand.
There was no previous programme to base it on, it was his self devised method to success backed by the BAI and government that has given such stupendous results. Saina Nehwal, PV Sindhu, Kidambi Srikanth, and a host of upcoming talents have made badminton the success story that it is now. But even for Gopichand - he had to prove himself – he had to create a talented star in Saina Nehwal first to get access to more and better resources. An important fact that must be reiterated here is the role of athletes. While massive credit for good results lies duly with the athlete or his immediate support group and coaches, athletes' responsibilities too have increased and accountability is needed with increasing incentives. While SAI through its funding, coaching programmes plays its due role in the shaping of an athlete's career, the onus is on the athlete and federations to use these funds systematically, honestly. Sport in India remains fragmented and can work only if everyone gets on the same page with proper plans in place that they stick to. There are too many people involved with varied interests and the athletes are always torn between the different entities. These stakeholders ideally should work towards a common goal in tandem. Till that happens, sporting glory will remain sporadic, single chapters of individual success.
