First, it used to be just the cricket officials and administrators, who came under scrutiny for obstructing Supreme Court-ordered reforms. These officials have been in direct line of attack from former cricketers and media for being brazen enough to snub the SC’s order.
Recently, on matters purely related to cricket, certain decisions made by the Vinod Rai led Committee of Administrators (CoA) has led to the question being asked―is it going beyond its brief? Is the current two-member committee guilty of overreach? In its latest decision, the CoA has reportedly pushed for consultants for Team India to attend only the pre-tour camps and not be with the team―a baffling decision, no doubt.
One cannot but think that this is yet another example of the CoA undermining the expertise, vision and views of the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC) consisting of Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and V.V.S. Laxman.
The SC-appointed Committee of Administrators was thrust, within hours of taking charge, into the cricket conundrum―having to figure out complicated financial deals and negotiations with the International Cricket Council (this was the biggest sore point with ousted BCCI president N. Srinivasan). Understanding and ensuring that India’s best interests were protected, the CoA, comprising Chairman Vinod Rai, Vikram Limaye, Dr. Ram Chandra Guha and Diana Edulji earned both sympathy and understanding in light of the situation they were thrown in.
It has admitted its failure to the Supreme Court of convincing board members to go ahead with reforms. This was supposed to be its primary function. It has now put the ball back in the SC’s corner. That leaves with it the day-to-day running of the BCCI. One might dare say it hasn’t fared spectacularly well either. It keeps making efforts to keep office bearers and general body members accountable and honest, yielding the stick when it needs to, like clearing list of employees and officials for tours, meetings etc., ensuring transparency in all commercial deals of the BCCI. And that’s fine. However, on pure cricketing matters, it has been guilty of trespassing into a domain which it shouldn’t.
The matter of skipper Virat Kohli’s differences over then coach Anil Kumble and the way the entire episode was handled in England has been criticised by former committee member Guha, who quit in disgust. The CoA says it was handed the matter as a fait accompli; that it was informed so late about the differences that it couldn’t do much. Even that may be acceptable to an extent.
The matter of salvaging the Kohli-Kumble impasse was left to the CAC and BCCI office bearers present in England during the Champions Trophy. There was no doubt that the three legends of Indian cricket wanted Kumble to continue. As Kohli reportedly dug in his heels and BCCI officials gave in to his views, one CAC member mentioned to THE WEEK, “Where is the CoA? You cannot be watching this matter from a distance. If you are the BCCI boss, then you should be hands on.”
With the BCCI extending its advertisement-for-coach deadline after Kumble withdrew from the race, CAC got down to the process of finalising a name. Indeed, it rose above personal likes and dislikes to hand the baton to Ravi Shastri in a unanimous decision. But, here too, there was CoA interference. The CAC sought time to discuss and decide a name post the interviews. It had something more in mind for the benefit of the Indian team. It informed the BCCI and Vinod Rai, but Rai did a u-turn the following day and ordered them to announce a name. There was absolutely no need to hustle the CAC.
And it doesn’t end here. In the entire matter of the CAC roping in former India players Rahul Dravid and Zaheer Khan as consultants, the CoA again ventured into an area that is purely cricket. It may have its views on terms and conditions and conflict of interests (CoI) that come under its purview. It has succeeded in creating the impression that by bringing the two on board, CAC members have exceeded their brief.
The attempts of CoA to purge Indian cricket of conflict of interest is commendable. It is a fact that administrators and cricketers are guilty of not comprehending the exact nature of what CoI constitutes and find it difficult to comprehend it as such.
The CoA has put a welcome process in place for all BCCI appointments―clearing them only once they have declared no conflict of interest and getting rid of any if they exist. All support staff of India A , the Women’s and Men's team have had to give undertakings. Zaheer Khan has a role with Delhi Daredevils, and he needs to consider it, but red carding it after rushing the CAC to announce its decision(s) is unfair, making it look like an inconsequential body. Terming Shastri’s selection as appointment and Dravid and Khan’s as recommendations undermines the CAC’s efforts.
If that was not enough, CoA directing the BCCI that Dravid, Khan and possibly Sachin Tendulkar too would only be with the team in camps is a blatant interference in cricketing matters. The whole idea of bringing them on board is for overseas tours. There are warm up games preceding Tests in South Africa, England and Australia. There could also be warm up games in the middle of a Test series as it does happen often in England and Australia. Who decides if players require guidance before the series and not during? How could CoA even think of such a rigid approach?
The CoA urgently needs to look within itself. It cannot split hair nor can it look to draw a white line on what can or cannot be when it comes to every team related matter.
Sport is a dynamic entity in itself. It can be run neither in a corporate manner nor a bureaucratic one. Those who have tried to do so have only perished.
