The theatre of the absurd that is Indian cricket administration has been borrowing unashamedly – to be fair, perhaps unknowingly – from the master, Samuel Beckett himself.
Take Niranjan Shah, who is over 70, has overstayed and is yet to be overthrown. Beckett provided the line for the likes of Shah. In Waiting for Godot , written in 1949, the character Pozzo says, “I don’t seem to be able to depart.”
That could well be the motto of sports administrators in the country. They don’t seem to be able to depart. Those running other sports will be watching how the reforms in cricket turn out, for if the Board of Control for Cricket in India appears to get away with its ego-driven, power-retentive tactics, then they have nothing to fear.
Only mortality will keep those who have been ruling for two or three decades from adding another two or three decades to their reign.
“I don’t seem to be able to depart”. The response to this by another character in the play is “Such is life.” And that’s what sports lovers in the country will have to tell themselves.
Even Beckett would have hesitated to write a play where the characters have no respect for the highest court of the land. Not believing in god is a personal choice; but not bothering about the Supreme Court is not a choice. And it will have consequences.
We are on the verge of celebrating (if that’s the word) the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s endorsement of the Lodha Committee reforms in the BCCI. A time-table for compliance was laid out. Yet, barring three cricket associations, none has shown any urgency in complying.
Delay and more delay
Instead — as it has done from the time the Supreme Court entered the picture — the BCCI’s tactic has been to delay, delay, and then delay some more. Delay is dangerous, as the governing body found out when the Supreme Court sacked its president and secretary.
And now, having formed a special committee to identify the reforms the body doesn’t feel comfortable complying with, the BCCI is hoping to muddy the waters further. But you cannot cross a bridge if you insist on burning it first.
There is a refusal to acknowledge something fundamental here. When the Supreme Court sentences someone to death, for example, the sentenced person does not have the option to gather family and friends around him to discuss whether to accept the ruling or not. He has no choice; he cannot tell the Supreme Court, “Hey, just give me some time, and I’ll get back to you with my thoughts on compliance, and point out the portions of the sentence I don’t fully agree with.”
Intransigence could prove costly
That might be an extreme example, but the principle remains. The BCCI, which had enough chances to tell the Supreme Court what its misgivings were in the course of the hearings, failed. The combination of arrogance and smugness has already cost it much. Continued intransigence could prove more costly, as the Finance Minister Arun Jaitley pointed out recently. This is not rocket science.
The special committee and the Committee of Administrators are both set to submit reports, the former to the BCCI and the latter to the court (the hearing is on July 14). The BCCI’s sense of entitlement, after making a mess of its case, is nothing short of stunning.
N Srinivasan and Anurag Thakur, powerful board presidents both, behaved as if the court could not touch them. Both were removed, yet the BCCI did not learn its lesson, perhaps putting its faith in future laws being passed in Parliament that would override everything else.
The court-appointed Committee of Administrators’ reluctance to act tough and lay down the law (while awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling on the many cases filed by the state bodies) seems to have emboldened the BCCI further.
The acting president C.K. Khanna, with strictures against him from the Mudgal Committee, has neither the power nor the focus of the presidents mentioned, and seems to be happy to help maintain the status quo , especially since it keeps him in power.
With the Niranjan Shahs and the Rajiv Shuklas and the Srinivasans continuing to call the shots — the first two are in the “special committee” — the BCCI is a long way from setting its house in order.
Optimists who thought that a strong candidate might emerge from the muck focused on cleaning it up and starting afresh have been disappointed. The lure of power is strong, and compromise is the weapon of those seeking to cling on to it.
Perhaps there are officials who are unhappy, and looking to take the BCCI in a new direction, free of the muck and the baggage of the past. Then again, to quote Beckett one final time, they are “not unhappy enough”.
And that’s the tragedy.
