The criticism of the selection of sportspersons for the Arjuna awards this time around is more scathing than ever despite the panel having an illustrious cricketer at the helm. It is nobody’s intention to argue a case which denies rewards for sporting achievements. But there is something rotten in the system. The flaws are perceptible, requiring immediate attention to bring in a measure of transparency or accountability.
What needs to be eliminated is the power of recommendation vested with the national federations. The guidelines followed are opaque, generating bitterness. Several sportspersons have voiced their concern. It is undeniable that federation officials are not beyond playing ‘politics’ in this crucial area. Accusations are nothing new. Only they have accentuated after the awards got linked to cash and official promotions in their work places.
It is clear that the panel headed by Kapil Dev has not covered itself with glory. What the yardstick was for constituting this committee is itself unfathomable. Hockey India’s disappointment at drawing a blank is perhaps justified in the light of the names on the list from other disciplines.
Baffling incongruitiesHI secretary-general Narinder Batra has raised a few pertinent objections. He has also underlined baffling incongruities.
What puzzles many is the number of awardees from one State. This has, quite understandably, triggered a debate which is unlikely to disappear quickly. The social media is abuzz on the issue. Such discussions only contribute to lowering the image of some of the awardees. It is astonishing to note that the nomination of a squash player is questioned by a member of the same fraternity! The facts displayed show a distorted picture of the candidate’s achievements.
It is difficult to refrain from reiterating that this annual ritual creates more bitterness than plaudits. The system demands a total revamp by the institutions concerned under the Sports Ministry. The polemical exchanges arising out of the awards year after year deserve a parliamentary debate leading to a tightening up of the guidelines without a hint of ambiguity. Is it not a shame that the panel has to reconvene to pick a boxer when the administration of the sport in the country is itself in shambles? The question who recommended the names is shrouded in mystery when the national unit is under suspension by AIBA.
There are no two opinions over the need to legislate new logical norms that enable a sportsperson to qualify for selection. The system of requesting federations to recommend the candidates must be dispensed with. The performance of the national players in various competitions can easily be scrutinised by an independent committee consisting of non-federation officials and sportspersons of exemplary track records. This panel need not exceed six persons with a fair knowledge of all major and minor disciplines.
