Will FIH re-think on Champions Trophy?

The reaction to FIH taking the Champions Trophy out of Delhi seems over the top. An impression is sought to be created that it was unexpected.

Not long ago, the FIH had hinted that a review of the allotted competitions was inevitable. This was a consequence of the ‘agreement' arrived at between Hockey India and the Indian Hockey Federation.

What must have alarmed the FIH about the Champions Trophy was the inactivity of Hockey India.

There was nothing to suggest that HI was moving towards staging the prestigious event. If it had done something, the media, which the HI floods with illuminating reports whenever India wins a match, was kept in the dark.

Presumably, the FIH thinking is governed also by the absence of a key figure like Suresh Kalmadi in pushing matters through as he did during the World Cup 2010.

It is also probable that the FIH assessed the financial implications of the Champions Trophy in view of the questions raised by RBI on the dues from the World Cup.

It is sad that India has been deprived of staging the showpiece event. The disappointment is understandable.

The larger question is what exactly the FIH wants? Simply put, it needs to know who governs hockey in India. The FIH has recognised the HI — whatever the ethical need for the latter's creation — on the recommendation of the IOA. Nothing has changed, apart from the moves by the Sports Ministry to sort out the differences between the feuding entities. The FIH is dealing with HI, which is responsible for fielding teams and represents the country in its Council. Why then should it impose a fiat that no other unit within the country can also be engaged in promoting hockey?

Is the HI not empowered to earmark or outsource a few competitions within its framework? As long as HI functions in the ambit of the international federation and the National Olympic Committee, what is FIH's objection?

The Sports Ministry's involvement stems from an element of compulsion to restrain needless posturing and recriminations leading to legal hassles. It is time the FIH understood the complexities that abound in governance of sport, not only hockey, in India.

The FIH administration has lived with all these problems since 1927. Helmsmen like Rene Frank, Etienne Glitchitch, Juan Calzado and Els van Breda Vriesmann all managed to untie the knots at various points using their tact, wit and diplomacy.

Leandro Negre should now act as a good counsellor. He must ensure that a major power like India is not abandoned on the sidelines. Rigid interpretation of the statues must be tempered by a sense of realism and logic. India needs the FIH, and vice versa.

The FIH president is urged to come up with an acceptable solution during his visit next week. For the huge hockey community in India and abroad, the chaos has crossed the limits of patience. Is there light at the end of the tunnel?