Mohinder Amarnath has spoken and the effects are understandably turbulent. It questions the integrity of people in authority and transparency of the system.
The selection process of the Indian team is one of the most awaited and anticipated events. Aspiring cricketers, cricket lovers, analysts all wait excitedly for it.
Around a decade ago the chairman of the selection committee Kishan Rungta had suggested that it should be telecast live since it generates so much interest. Everyone ridiculed the suggestion but look at what we have come to now.
Amarnath’s revelation has brought the feeling that perhaps all the hoopla we see over selection is just a farce, a show which is actually run not by democratic decision making but power.
He said that the selection committee had agreed to sack Dhoni as captain but an ‘internal arrangement’ saved him.
Many are not aware that as per the constitution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the approval of its President needs to be sought for a team going on a foreign tour and not for the home series.
Even then, it is a mere formality and only on two occasions has the past President used his veto and that too for the home series.
In 1959, Board President Ratibhai Patel sent a telegram to Indian captain Polly Umrigar before the Chennai Test directing him to include off-spinner Jasu Patel in the team instead of A.K. Sengupta.
Umrigar, a man of principles like Mohinder Amarnath, refused and when he was forced, he quit captaincy on the morning of the match.
Another case
In another case in 1997-98, a player was appointed vice-captain despite captain Azharuddin and coach Aunshuman Gaekwad having complained to the selection committee about the attitude of the player. When Board President Raj Singh Dungarpur came to know, he objected and replaced the player with Anil Kumble.
Amarnath’s remarks clearly indicate that though his colleagues had agreed to remove Dhoni, the Board President shot down the move.
If Amarnath was so perturbed with the interference of the Board President, he ought to have put in his papers at the end of the meeting, which he didn’t. Was he so naïve to think he would be appointed the chairman of the selection committee for the next three years during the AGM?
The reason of the President favouring Dhoni over Gambhir is unknown. But it is obvious that no chief would want an employee who will challenge his authority.
If five cricketers have been deservedly entrusted with the responsibility of choosing the best national team, why give veto power to someone and leave room for partiality. What are the selectors there for otherwise? They are paid Rs. 60 lakh per annum (Chairman of the committee gets Rs. 10 lakh extra) with perks because they select the team. The President’s job is not to select the team. By taking over their task isn’t he questioning their integrity?
Why would a selector speak up now if his job might be at risk of getting ‘Amarnathised’. A selector’s job is about making decisions. If we take away this fundamental power from him, he will be a dummy. Why even waste so much money and have selectors when one man can do everything.
And finally, has Dhoni’s perception of leadership changed after his frequent visits to army camps?
The difference in army and cricket is that personnel in the army are trained to be the leaders to combat the enemy. In cricket you have to be a born leader to control ten men for a maximum of five days in the field. It’s time Dhoni introspects his leadership role.
Keywords: India, cricket, Indian cricket team
I do not see how changing the captain alone would have made a
difference. Did Amarnath also recommend dropping Sehwag, Tendulkar and
Zaheer? The problem with us Indians is that we bring in too much emotion
into every decision. Frankly with the set of players who performed the
way they did in England and Australia, it is difficult to imagine what
miracles a newer captain would have worked. I don't see anything wrong
in the President overruling such a major decision, that's what
Presidents are for.
Very good article with good analysis. This might be the case of where the BCCI President has used the veto power, though for home series he is not entitled as per the constitution. One aspect is very clear that the country will never know in how many instances the selectors had just gone with the instructions of the top bosses, which affected / benefitted many including the players at the cost of national interest.
Mr. MAKARAND WAINGANKAR is going overboard; why he is not talking
about Sachin Tendulkar? It is a known fact how Mumbaikars [formerly
Bombay] dominated the Indian Cricket, on & off the field irrespective
of performances. And why talk about Dhoni visiting Army Camp, which
has no relevance at all. It is also very well known not Mohinder alone
but his father the great Lala Amarnath defied the Board time and
again. Agreed, Dhoni has a bad patch, as the captain and also as the
player; but then that holds good for Gautham Gambheer [who the writer
wants at the helm], Sehwag, Kohli, the Great Sachin; the team as a
whole failed and just picking Dhoni is illogical. The Cricket world
know how Poly Umrigar defied Mansur Alikhan Pataudi when he was made
the captain after Contractor's injury in West Indies. Let us give
opportunity to the youngsters to prove and then change guard.
Mr. Makarand, has well narrated, how the BCCI system and its autocratic president works. The amount of money being paid annually to the selectors and Chairman, perhaps that could be the reason’s they remained puppet.
Please Email the Editor