Through its eight decades as the governing body, the Board of Control for Cricket in India lived up to the “control” in its name, often placing that aspect above all else.
The body as a whole, if not an individual, was in control and there was no confusion over who made the decisions, right or wrong. Some individuals were benevolent dictators, others merely benevolent and still others outright dictators.
Power tended to be in the hands of one individual — sometimes it was the president, at other times it was the secretary, and once it was even the man who introduced the IPL. Corruption — not always financial — followed such concentration of power.
The Supreme Court’s necessary intervention eliminated some of the ills, and through the Lodha Committee report, guaranteed the removal of many more. But it also led to extra layers of administration; it has now become difficult to figure out who is in charge.
Is it C.K. Khanna, the acting president, who was characterised by Justice Mukul Mudgal in his report to the High Court as a “pernicious influence” responsible for the “major ills” of the DDCA?
Is it the depleted Committee of Administrators, whose task it is to oversee the transition in the BCCI?
Are all answers in the Lodha Committee report — and if so, do we need clarifications and answers to frequently asked questions?
The recent (and continuing) muddle over the appointment of the national coach brings all the shortcomings in the system into sharp focus.
That the coach’s term was running out at the end of the Champions Trophy was known a year ago. Still, like municipal bosses in our cities who are surprised every year when the monsoons arrive, the BCCI behaved as if caught off guard. There was no attempt to be proactive and either decide on a new coach or give the incumbent his well-deserved extension.
This is not about Anil Kumble or Virender Sehwag or Ravi Shastri or any of the claimants to the post. They are professional men engaged elsewhere and need to know in advance if the plan is to have one of them take charge till the end of the 2019 World Cup. A matter of courtesy if nothing else.
By putting out stories in the media and hoping that Kumble would resign in disgust, the BCCI which has always felt uncomfortable by the no-nonsense approach of the great Indian bowler, has now painted itself into a corner.
Not so long ago, the Kumble-Kohli row was the headline grabber. Now the narrative has changed, and the current tune being sung is the lack of any problem between the captain and coach. Even the head of the CoA who was in England and met the two of them has said that he didn’t notice any rift.
The CoA has announced that Kumble will continue till the end of the short tour of the West Indies — something that ought to have been made clear to him well before the Champions Trophy.
It was a sensible call, but is that a part of the CoA’s remit? How does that fit in with its main responsibility of overseeing the transition?
C.K. Khanna, meanwhile, has said in a letter to the acting secretary that the selection of the coach should be deferred till the end of the West Indies tour. Again, a sensible call, but why could that not have been made earlier and before stories of the rift began to muddy the waters?
And where does that leave the Cricket Administrative Committee, another layer as far as the selection of the coach is concerned? The CAC was brought in by the earlier dispensation in the BCCI to give itself a modicum of respectability.
Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and V.V.S. Laxman, three of the country’s finest, spent most of their tenure unsure about what they were meant to do. And then came the idea of these experienced men choosing the national coach. It gave them something to do apart from making the BCCI appear somewhat less political.
The CAC wants more time to choose Kumble’s successor, aware perhaps that it threw its weight behind him originally and the results do not cry out for a change. That overlapped with the BCCI president’s thinking too.
There was a suggestion meanwhile that the BCCI decide on the coach at its Special General Body Meeting on June 26. But that is not on the agenda now.
Indian cricket’s alphabet soup – BCCI, CoA, CAC, SGB – might have been funny in another context. But who is meant to do what and to what deadline seems to be unclear. It is a lack of clarity that plays into the hands of those who brought the BCCI to this sorry pass.
According to the Lodha Committee, the coach should be chosen by the national selection committee. If the June 26 meeting has been called to discuss the implementation of the report, there might be another twist in the tale yet.
