Veteran journalist and broadcaster Kishore Bhimani writes on what he told the Lodha Commission which interviewed him among several others to cleanse Indian cricket
RM Lodha during a press conference at New Delhi in July 2015. Pic/AFP
Kolkata: The battle between the Cricket Board and the courts of Law was so long drawn out and complicated with red herrings that it is quite possible to lose track of the essential issues and historical perspective.
RM Lodha during a press conference at New Delhi in July 2015. Pic/AFP
To review it very briefly, it all began with N Srinivasan president of the Board, a dictator with no checks who ran the Board like a personal fiefdom. And he might have got away with everything but for some of the sordid happenings in the IPL. That there were accusations of match-influencing, betting coups and big money deals of the worst kind brought the whole matter into public focus. That one of the main players was Srinivasan's son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan made it into a Greek drama of many acts.
The appointment of the Mudgal Commission must be seen in the above context. Justice Mukul Mudgal, a cricket lover and a judicial persona with an impeccable reputation went into the matter with immense precision which led to the end of Act One of the drama. It might be mentioned in the context of the case that CAB (Cricket Association of Bihar) spoksman was the chief complainant to the Honourable Supreme Court. In reply to several RTIs and queries in the media he admitted that he was being bankrolled by another controversial persona of the game, Lalit Modi.
The Lodha Commission of three very respected judges set out methodically to unearth truths about match and spot fixing, conflicts of interest, betting in the game, misuse of power and position, political interference and the whole matter of structural deficiencies which plagued the game. Immediately on the radar was the issue of Srinivasan heading up the Board as also owning the Chennai Super Kings through his company India Cements alongside the matter of the betting of huge sums by Meiyappan. The names of several bookies and Vindu Dara Singh cropped up and the dirt hit the fan.
Strict recommendations
To fast forward to the present, the recommendations of the panel were surprisingly forthright and pretty strict. The honourable judges' recommendations were detailed and far-reaching and had the following highlights — one man on post. Obviously there was the feeling shared by the cricketing public that power was concentrated in a few hands. Thus a Board president might also own a team and preside over the selection of the national squad. A Board chief might have a say in distribution of match venues which he might influence in his other capacity as state president. The system had to be cleansed once and for all. The effects of this are being felt even as this is being written as state body elections are being reviewed and postponed.
That some administrators ran associations for long spells also engaged their Lordships. Power becomes more concentrated with time. So came the recommendation that three-year terms maximum; total of three terms and the 'cooling off period' in between. This is essential so that power 'consolidation' can be prevented.
The issue of match fixing, spot fixing and betting proved a major issue with the honourable judges. I recall during my lengthy meeting with the Lordships I attempted to analyse the very complicated matter — how it works, what harm it does and how it can be detected and tackled. This is not everyone's cup of tea. People talk about match fixing as if it were a day-to-day issue.
\With my five decades of familiarity with the game, I submitted that matches are not 'fixed' they are 'influenced'. Two or three key players might become involved in return for big money they might under-perform. And even this might be the case in one out of a few hundred matches. In the main, the majority matches are above suspicion. This is important to be highlighted for continued respect for the game.
Legalise betting
What was the solution? I respectfully suggested that legalising betting in cricket as it is in England, Australia and South Africa might be the answer. What is legal can be supervised and it would take away from the game the underworld which so often controls match-influencing from Dubai, Mumbai and Karachi. Untold sums are involved to lure players and even umpires. Since all betting is under the radar nothing can be traced. At Ladbroke's in London on the other hand a big bet would lead to an immediate investigation. I was so thrilled when their Lordships recommended that betting on cricket be legalised!
While the Supreme Court responded positively to most of the recommendations, they were wary of restricting advertisements which would have severely impacted finance for this very popular TV viewing. The presentations by the Board as well as the TV franchisees no doubt was received positively by the apex court.
The issue of one state one vote was being originally touted as one state, one association. Happily it were not so. The vote would be on revolving basis thus being fair to all. This prevented the spectre of dissolving two of three associations in Maharashtra (Pune, Mumbai and Vidarbha) or in Gujarat (Baroda, Saurashtra and Gujarat). Only voting patters would be affected — no sweat for anyone! It also decided that some bodies like CCI in Mumbai and NCC in Kolkata would have the status of associate members without too many powers.
No more ministers
There would surely be much weeping and gnashing of teeth over the stoppage of ministers and bureaucrats from running the sport, something that will be welcomed with a huge sigh of relief by one and all. Too often has naked power been used by political bosses to the detriment of sport. One hopes this reform will be replicated in such bodies as the IOA and the Badminton bodies! It will immediately being a few changes in Bihar as well as Assam.
The age restrictions for those above 70 is something sports followers have waited for patiently. Too often have we seen people in the twilight of their lives refusing to step down even as they are uncomprehending of youthful aspirations. On both the Right to Information and on the possibility of legalising betting on cricket, the matter has rightly been decided to be referred to the Law Commission. In my view the exercise of the commission was done with such an open mind and with tackling as many aspects as possible that we lovers of the game will say three cheers to the Supreme Court and their commissions!
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
