The Supreme Court-appointed CoA's directive to keep the Board secretary away from selection meetings was late and unfair
Chief selector MSK Prasad (left) and Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) secretary Amitabh Choudhary at a press conference to announce the Indian team for the ICC World Cup in Mumbai on April 15. Pic /AFP
Who runs Indian cricket? The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), or the Committee of Administrators (CoA)? Until last week, when the BCCI was instructed to keep the secretary (Amitabh Choudhary) away from convening the selection committee meeting, one could say that cricket in India was run by BCCI and the Supreme Court-appointed CoA, with the latter being involved in major decision-making.
Now, it seems the CoA have all the powers and the office bearers are just there to implement decisions taken. It's a far cry from a time when the Board secretary had all the clout. Probably, no one wielded it more than the late JY Lele from Baroda, who served in that position from 1997-98 to 2000-01. Let me stress that not many grudged Lele his power because he was a tireless, honest worker, who always kept one eye on the pile of expenses. I know for a fact that he preferred taking an evening train out of Mumbai to reach Baroda the next morning rather than a flight. Lele served at a time when the Board didn't have the kind of extravagant wealth it has today and he took pleasure in saving money for the establishment.
ADVERTISEMENT
I shudder to think how Lele would have reacted had he been told to stop presiding over selection meetings because the new BCCI constitution had to be adhered to. He would probably have adopted the 'take this post and shove it' approach. And he wouldn't have to call the media to spew his venom; the media would have called him.
Lele once told an India coach, who could not believe that the president was less powerful than the secretary: "Who is the president? He is the boss of the Board when we sit across the table at a meeting. Once the meeting is over, the entire administration is in the control of the secretary. Without seeking permission from anybody, I can say 'yes' or I can say 'no."
With due respect to the Lodha Panel guidelines and intentions, it is not fair to virtually strip the secretary off his powers. Indian cricket's erstwhile problems notwithstanding, there is no hiding from the fact that administrators — in this case Board secretaries — have contributed to the game and there is a place for them in the governance of the sport. To police them is one thing, to render them powerless is quite another.
To put things in the current context, suddenly chief selector MSK Prasad had to convene the selection meeting because the new constitution dictates that a cricketing person should be at the head of the table. "Except on overseas tours, the chairpersons of the respective selection committees shall convene the meetings of the selection committees...the chairpersons of the respective selection committees or administrative manager (in case of overseas tours) shall prepare true and accurate minutes of every meeting," the CoA reportedly instructed the BCCI recently.
Prasad and other heads of other selection committees, now have to jot down minutes of selection meetings while discussing the composition of a squad. Why did the CoA not insist on implementing this regulation when it came about almost a year ago, is a fair question.
Another aspect that continues to plague Indian cricket is transparency. The Mahendra Singh Dhoni post-World Cup episode made for a classic template of how not to handle an issue concerning a cricketing star appropriately.
Why did the CoA not deem it fit to confirm Dhoni's decision to take a two-month break in order to be with his army regiment immediately or at least the evening before the selection meeting? A senior Indian player, a former captain too, decides to take a break from the game. He wants to do justice to his army connection at a time when there is speculation over his future in the game, so why was there no official word?
There are other questions too: Who did Dhoni convey his intention to take a break to? The BCCI office bearers or the CoA? Let's presume he told the former. In that scenario, shouldn't the CoA have jumped off theirs seats to find out what's this all about and duly make it public? On the other hand, let's assume Dhoni informed the CoA of his plans. In that case, isn't it only fair that the CoA instructs the communications team to issue a press release? I can hear a chant, 'Why please the media, we are not answerable to them.' Fair enough, but isn't transparency one of the pillars of the reforms that aim to cleanse Indian cricket and isn't the CoA given that responsibility?
The CoA has not come out smelling of roses on the transparency front. While they go about desiring that everything ought to be played by the rule book, they ought to realise that running Indian cricket is not akin to writing a mystery novel.
The Dhoni issue aside, what stops them from revealing the name of the player who disobeyed regulations concerning the number of days his wife spent with him at the World Cup? That will stop guesswork among cricket followers and journalists. Why is the administration so much in love with innuendo and why should everything be a mystery in Indian cricket?
C'mon CoA, it is you who runs Indian cricket now.
mid-day's group sports editor Clayton Murzello is a purist with an open stance. He tweets @ClaytonMurzello
Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com
Catch up on all the latest Crime, National, International and Hatke news here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
