The circumstance in the BCCI seems set-up perfectly for the Board to re-orient the focus on developing Indian cricket. Justice Lodha Commission seems to have done a decent job with regard to the recommendations to help clean up administrative systems. The BCCI has asked its affiliated units to discuss recommendations threadbare and offer counter-views to see whether it’s possible to implement them.
The implementation of the new system, approached earnestly, is a good opportunity to consider some fundamental issues concerning cricket administration in India. In the context of the recommendations submitted by the Lodha Commission, it is the right moment to address the role of former cricketers in the game’s administration.
Indian cricket can be carried forward only with the involvement of former cricketers. Having played the game at the highest level, only these gentlemen can understand the demands that must be met in order to take the game to the next level.
It doesn’t necessarily mean that only cricketers can bring about changes. They need a support system comprising experienced administrators. There have been great administrators who did commendable work when there was no money in Indian cricket; but hadn’t played even first-class cricket. However, on the whole, former cricketers have made a positive impact on Indian cricket.
Madhav Mantri, Ghulam Ahmed, Polly Umrigar, Dilip Vengsarkar, Chetan Chauhan, Anshuman Gaekwad, Brijesh Patel, Shivlal Yadav, Arshad Ayub and quite a few others, have made significant contributions to their respective associations.
Although others like Anil Kumble and Javagal Srinath found it a bit hard to handle the affairs of the association; along with Rahul Dravid, they did make an effort to get involved in cricket administration. Now, Sourav Ganguly has rapidly progressed to the position of President of Cricket Association of Bengal.
The current system however, continues to favour administrators and leaves little room for former cricketers to contest elections with a fair shot.
It hardly seems fair that this is the process that guides the administration of the sport which is all about creating a level playing field for two teams to compete for victory.
The way these lopsided elections have come about is due to the lack of uniformity in the constitution of different associations.
Not only is there no uniformity but when a group wins, certain clauses in the constitution are quickly amended to suit their requirements.
Once the constitution is amended, the acquaintances of elected officials get memberships to the associations. Some of the associations have not only family members and friends as members but even employees of companies owned by the elected officials. The officials are thus assured of votes in the association election.
This is the root cause of bad administration in Indian cricket. In such a scenario ex-cricketers have no means to defeat the system. The likes of Sunil Gavaskar, Bishan Singh Bedi, Kapil Dev and many other reputed players, who belong to different associations, have no voting rights. Kapil Dev says: “I tried to fight in the elections but I lost badly. Cricketers just can’t fight a system.”
Voting rightsIn fact, the only time cricketers were given membership was when Brijesh Patel took over as Secretary of the Karnataka State Cricket Association. Legends like E. A. S. Prasanna, B. S. Chandrasekhar didn’t have voting rights.
A new policy was formed and now more than 100 first-class players are voting members of the KSCA. Kumble and Srinath too benefited from this membership policy. The development of cricket in Karnataka is proof of the efficacy and the necessity of such decisions in cricket administration.
Moving forward, administration is one part of the foundation for improving the sport. Another part is policy making and programmes related to talent development. However, cricketers are just not allowed to get back in the game once they are through with playing. Surely, after retirement, we don’t expect them to coach kabaddi players!
Only in Mumbai Cricket Association did Sharad Pawar involve former cricketers in developing talent, by constituting a Cricket Improvement Committee; but only a few former players could be accommodated. It is notable though that cricketing decisions are left to the CIC. Pawar doesn’t let anyone else interfere.
The Lodha Commission could re-visit the issue regarding ex-cricketers’ involvement in cricket administration. They can’t be victim of conflict of interest policy.
The game needs experienced cricketers. If they are good enough to hold a few posts because of their experience, they should be permitted to do so. Eventually a cricket association has to have majority of cricketers.
As Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi had said: “Get a constituency for first-class cricketers in the Managing Committee of each association and reserve 50 percent of the seats for them. Let first-class cricketers and umpires vote for those seats.
At least then we will have 200 plus first-class cricketers in associations of the BCCI. If they have to have a club to fight election then they will not be encouraged to get involved.”
Sure, this suggestion is practical and it puts the power in the hands of the people who deserve it — those who have served the game first hand by playing it. That is the need of the hour.
