Someone has to tell the disqualified members of the Board of Control for Cricket in India that the match is over. And they lost.
A bunch of office-bearers now required to use the word ‘former’ before that description, holding a meeting to ‘tackle’ the Supreme Court’s judgements makes no sense. On the field, the never-say-die spirit is something positive and admirable. Off it, that spirit can be negative and deplorable.
If the idea is to make the Supreme Court look bad (former President Anurag Thakur said sarcastically after he was sacked, “If the Supreme Court feels BCCI would do better under retired judges then I wish them all the best, I am sure they will do well”), then this is an unequal fight.
It is not the Supreme Court’s responsibility to run cricket in the country, but it can lay down the law. It can also haul up officials on criminal charges for mismanagement of funds, something the BCCI should have done but refused to because ignoring corruption is the price to pay for staying in power.
Whether the strategy being discussed by those unseated is non co-operation, formation of a rival body, ruling by proxy or a scorched earth policy — all favourite tactics of disenfranchised Indian sports officialdom over the years — the likelihood of the men who ruled coming back to rule again is slim.
Transition is difficult enough without the old order organising roadblocks to trip up the new. This is a good time to judge whether the officials were in it for the love of the game or personal aggrandisement. When someone like Niranjan Shah, former board secretary, who has been an official for over four decades says, “When I am not there, why should I bother about how the association functions?” and goes on to say in an interview with Gulf News , that there are people “who may need guidance and I will offer whatever help they need,” the mindset becomes clear. Graveyards are full of people who thought they were indispensable.
In the ideal world, the Lodha Committee, having done its job superbly would have been disbanded now. The old BCCI would have made way for the new. The Supreme Court, having delivered its historic verdict awaits the announcement of the Committee of Administrators to oversee compliance, and post January 19 should have no role to play.
But we do not live in an ideal world.
The Lodha Committee remains as a sounding board. That Rahul Johri, CEO of the BCCI found it necessary to check with the committee on the day of the selection of the national team is unedifying on two counts. The judgement was clear – the nine year limit was clarified by the Supreme Court. It meant that the joint secretary could not attend the selection meeting. Johri should have been firm and better prepared. The old lot will pounce on any sign of weakness to stir things up.
Secondly, the new BCCI – even as it is being put into place – should resist the temptation to run to the Lodha Committee for everything.
If the amicus curiae of the Supreme Court choose well, the Committee of Administrators (COA) to oversee compliance will make the transition smoother.
The obvious candidate to lead the COA would be Justice Mukul Mudgal, who has the experience, the integrity and the background. It is vital to have a legal mind in charge at this stage. He is also familiar with the tricks of the old BCCI. He headed the committee which apportioned guilt when the original IPL spot fixing charges first erupted in 2013.
A member of the Mudgal Committee, Sourav Ganguly, already a name as administrator, is another obvious choice. There is an argument for including one of the BCCI’s paid administrators, someone like Prof. Ratnakar Shetty, who has the experience, and knows where the bodies are buried.
The Lodha Committee has dismissed the meeting of the dispossessed last week as a collection of individuals who can do nothing now. That’s probably true, but the group has enormous nuisance value. And long memories.
The formation of a rival cricket board with new contracts for players and an application to the International Cricket Council for recognition can be stymied by both the Supreme Court and the Shashank Manohar-led ICC. But the notion that that’s how some officials think is testimony to their reluctance to cede power.
Those who have been disqualified have nothing to lose. Most of them will be at a loose end, and one concentrated effort to regain their seats, by hook or by crook, mainly the latter is not surprising.
This is a strangely quiet period (if it can be called that) between the sackings and the rebuilding of the BCCI. A name-change is indicated for the new. That ‘control’ in the BCCI is an anachronism. It reeks of the old and feudal. How about Cricket India? Or Indian Cricket Board?
