The Board of Control for Cricket in India elections have come to a close for now. The buzz surrounding the elections seemed to suggest that the future of Indian cricket is entirely dependent on the actions of those who would take office.
However, an interesting development that characterised the elections was the emergence of more politicians, their keen interest in the elections; and them making significant interventions in the process leading up to the polls.
The BCCI, compared to other sports bodies in India, functions very smoothly. Indian cricket too has reflected this efficiency in administration by winning two World Cups, one T20 World Championship and the junior World Cup.
While it is undeniable that some corners of the powers that be display nepotism and bias at all levels, it has to be said that the progress pyramid of players graduating from junior to senior levels of cricket is intact. The BCCI which has overseen all this success is an autonomous body that doesn’t fall under the ambit of the sports ministry. Then one has to wonder how and why are the politicians swarming into the BCCI and its elections?
When Dalmia and Bindra were at the helm of the BCCI in the early 1990s, they improved the financial state of the BCCI and by that, that of individual stakeholders.
Their successor, Srinivasan improved on his legacy and bettered the BCCI’s negotiating powers over other national boards and the ICC. The wealth so raised was disbursed among former players. Like it or not, it was Srinivasan’s idea to do so. Perhaps the only complaint one can have is that umpires were not included in that project and must be included in the future.
Now, the BCCI is in a unique situation wherein two former ICC chiefs returned to contend for the BCCI President’s post again. Such peculiarities combined with the constant presence of politicians at the highest level of the sports administration seem to be Indian cricket’s biggest problem.
Many members of the ruling party at the centre participated keenly at various levels in this year’s elections. What has prompted such involvement in an autonomous body?
Adding to this is the match-fixing and betting allegations which led to the intervention of the courts. The Supreme Court judgement has contributed to forcing Srinivasan on the back-foot who until then was heading the BCCI well. Concentration of power at the top has resulted in the draining of the wealth of the BCCI due to extensive litigation processes and huge legal expenses.
It must be noted that all the State associations of the BCCI have their own constitutions and there exists a lack of uniformity between the constitutions of various State associations and between the constitution of the BCCI and the constitutions of various State associations. How can one expect any co-ordinated growth in the sport, in such a scenario?
Perhaps a cumulative effect of the above points is the absence of any cricketers, who have served the country, in the BCCI’s governing body. Former cricketers are labouring as secretaries to politicians who are present at all higher levels of cricket administration in the country.
Elections are distinctly political and they have a tendency to politicise the sport and its administration instead of making it a priority. Persons recognised for their integrity in politics as well as cricket administration should step up to clean this mess. Now, that the elections are done, may we expect the focus to shift back to the development of the game.
