Monday, 28 November 2016

Award-winning article

GREY PAGES FROM A PLAYBOOK: 
Sports Authority of India is crippled by a paucity of coaches, as trainees are often left to fend for themselves

(This story was chosen as the winner in the ‘sports/print’ category of the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Sports Journalism 2016.)

Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism
(sports/print) 2016 along with the prize cheque.  
QAISER MOHAMMAD ALI, Outlook weekly magazine, November 28, 2016

It won’t be far off the mark to say that, along with catches, coaches win matches. But the Sports Aut­hority of India (SAI) is woefully short of them. And they have always been so in the SAI’s 32-year existence. Over the years, their numbers have actually gone down, in sharp contrast to the increasing number of trainees across the country. The problems staring SAI coaches in the face are many—little money, ad hoc promotion policy and random postings. Some coaches have taken to legal recourse over these grouses while the majority has quietly accepted the ground reality, though their motivation and morale have sagged badly.

The SAI has a sanctioned strength of 1,524 coaches. According to SAI director-general Injeti Srinivas, they have 1,123—a massive shortfall. Out of 1,123, only 983 are regular coaches, while 139 are on contract and one on deputation. “Plus, around 200 coaches are on contract for national coaching camps, excluding those on deputation from the Railways and CPSUs etc.,” says Srinivas.

Coaches themselves have been affected. When several senior coaches retire, they aren’t replaced immediately. Often, new recruits are inexperienced. A decision has been taken to hire about 200 coaches before the year-end, but the shortage would be huge even then. Two years ago, a big state like Tamil Nadu had only 30 coaches for all sporting events. Orissa has far fewer. Uttar Pradesh too is suffering—once known as a nursery of hockey and a force in badminton, UP has only three SAI badminton and six hockey coaches.

Yet, this festering stagnation is a matter of legacy with the SAI; the present dispensation inherited this culture of neg­lect  from its predecessors. Before we moan about a poor showing at the Olympics, it’s instructive to take a look at the massively skewed coach-trainee ratio: in 1997-98, there were 1,613 coaches for 3,042 trainees at 103 SAI centres. 

Ten years later, the number of coaches was reduced by 259, their strength plummeting to 1,354. In the same period, the number of trainees grew to 15,007—an increase of 11,965. This proliferation happened because the SAI exp­anded faci­lities from 103 to 290 by opening day-boarding centres and extension centres. In 2008-09, coaches’ ranks were depleted further, with only 1,302 left, but trainees touched the 16,000 mark in 295 centres.

In 2009, then sports minister M.S. Gill had acknowledged the problem. “After 10-20 years, we might need 2,500 or even 3,000 coaches. It’s a big country. The unf­ortunate thing is that 1,800 coaches have been reduced to 1,300 by attrition—ret­irement, death etc,” Gill had said then. The vexatious situation persists. To be fair to the SAI, the Centre froze recruitment of coaches for almost 20 years, starting 1993-94. Many senior coaches either ret­ired or died in the period. With numbers sliding as positions weren’t filled up, it led to a crisis-like situation.

Recruitment was finally re-opened in February 2014, when 172 coaches were taken on board on a regular basis. In May last year, 119 coaches were hired on a contract basis. But a nagging shortfall still stalks SAI centres. Bad management of coaching staff exacerbates the issue—existing coaches are unevenly distributed, unfamiliar tasks are assigned to them and their performance isn’t properly monitored. 

“First of all, there’s scarcity of coaches, and then at many SAI centres with a shortage of staff, coaches are made to perform odd jobs in which they have no expertise. These jobs can be like security monitoring, storekeeping, maintenance, horticulture, as hostel wardens or in the personnel department. This particularly affects trainees at small SAI centres and kids at the grassroots level,” says a senior SAI coach. 

A few years ago, in a shameful incident, a Dronacharya award-winning coach was seen serving tea and snacks to a former Prasar Bharati CEO at New Delhi’s Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium, from where a women’s hockey final was being telecast by Doordarshan.

In all this, it’s the trainees who have suffered the most—several SAI training centres across India are either running without coaches or are heavily under-staffed. “At many SAI training centres, including a few in New Delhi, trainees are learning the lessons by themselves, through trial and error,” pointed out a senior coach in Delhi. There is also a complete lack of coordination between the SAI and the states, resulting in an improper distribution of coaches.

There are many examples where SAI and state coaches are catering to the same sport in excess numbers. Promotion and seniority are touchy iss­ues with SAI coaches, many of whom complain of stagnation and demotivation. There are instances where coac­hes are at the same level after 20 to 25 years of service. How can a demotivated coach inspire an athlete to win?

Now, finally, in the last six months, about 200 promotions have been given, says Srinivas. “The promotion policy is very rigid, there is nothing like an out-of-turn or fast-track promotion. So, even the best coach and an ordinary one will get promoted at the same time,” he says. After 1987, when the National Institute of Sports was combined with the SAI, an integrated coaching cadre was formed. Since then, coaches like Sandhya Kaul, Amra Chauhan and R.K. Sharma, who were affected by the promotion/seniority policy, have moved courts and tribunals.

Not just coaches, other SAI staff, like scientific staff, including doctors, nut­ritionists, dieticians and nurses, bes­ides supervisors at various SAI hostels and centres, have been heavily understaffed for two decades. In the second half of the ’90s, a special investigation unit of the Centre looked into the SAI’s functioning and advised a reduction of staff.

 “Unfortunately, even the lesser number that the SIU suggested wasn’t filled up,” a senior SAI official recalls. Now, after the dismal performance at Rio and the prime minister setting up a task force aimed at the next three Olympics, young sportspersons of an economic superpower would hopefully have experts to guide them.

(This story was chosen as the winner in the ‘sports/print’ category of the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Sports Journalism 2016. It was published in Outlook weekly magazine dated November 28, 2016.)

Sunday, 27 November 2016

‘WE SHOULD FOCUS ON FOUR, OR MAXIMUM SIX, SPORTS DISCIPLINES’

Exclusive Interview with SAI Director General Injeti Srinivas

By Qaiser Mohammad Ali, Outlook magazine, Nov 28, 2016

SAI Director General Injeti Srinivas adm­its to many shortcomings in policies. He sugg­ests India should embrace foreign expertise in administration. But the 56-year-old IAS officer may not be around to see the changes he is ushering in as he could be transferred out of SAI any day after being promoted as secretary. Exce­rpts from an interview with Qaiser Mohammad Ali.

I gather some review has taken place after the disappointing show at the Rio Olympics. How would you asses India’s below-par performance in almost all disciplines, barring wrestling and badminton, in which we won the only medals?

Our performance has very been disappointing at one level, in terms of getting medals. At another level, if you look at the performance -- you may be surprised by what I say -- but there has been some progression. For example, in archery, if you look at the performance across those events and compare it with last two Olympics there was some progression. But the progression loses its relevance because we didn’t win [more than two] medals. We are essentially obsessed with medals; we just want medals.

We are starved of medals.

Yeah, but medals are not hanging on tress that you can pluck them. You really have to earn your medals. But I would say in the few areas we can take some satisfaction. I would say that uncertainty that we have in medal expectations is mainly because we are just nowhere in measurable sports [like athletics etc.] till you have some stature in mother sports [athletics, swimming etc.], which have so many medal events, you’ll always be running this risk [of failure].

After winning just two medals, no heads have rolled, in the sense that no accountability, no big shake-ups have happened so far.

You’ve hit the nail on its head. This is the whole issue of roles and responsibilities. So, today if there’s a disappointment or debacle we’ve had at the last Olympics [and] if I ask the question ‘who’s responsible for it’ what is the answer? Each person will try to deflect it to something other than him. This is the bane of the problem. The role delineation should be crystal clear. The government’s role is largely policy-making, the structural reforms or something like that it has to carry out, and the financial support which it has to give. In many countries governments step in. In the United Kingdom, bulk of the funding comes from UK Sport, which in turn receives it from the government and lottery funds. SAI has a bigger role, operationally, and naturally the SAI will have to take responsibility, in the sense, the training camps for athletes and their preparation. So, [regarding] the 360 degrees sort of attention and result orientation, there are issues within SAI. We have to make it more result oriented and a little more focussed. The national sports federation (NSFs) are, of course, mainly responsible for identifying the talent, honing it and selecting the national teams. So, they’ll have to take the lion’s share of credit as well as [criticism for] failure. The government and SAI can, at best, be the facilitators. And then main actor, the athlete, has a huge amount of accountability. So, it’s ultimately a shared accountability and if there is a failure -- if you go objectively and dispassionately -- you’ll find fault-lines among all these stakeholders. So, we’ll have to sit and honestly identify and admit to those fault-lines and correct them.

Has it been done at any level since Rio Olympics?

It is happening, but perhaps not yet in a convergent manner, because it is happening individually. Some federation is doing something, SAI may be doing something, individually, some brainstorming may be taking place. But all these stake holders coming together and making a very honest assessment and introspection and identifying the mistakes/deficiencies, and collectively trying to address them…that’ll require some sort of institutional structure, which is missing. We’ll have to look at a system that has all the stakeholders on the same page. I really don’t know what that system should be. I know there are global best practices. Since we have a very strong historical links with the UK, maybe we can relate to their system. I’ve seen their system very closely, it works very well. They reconstructed the system from mid-1990s and it has reaped good dividend. That’ll basically involve, to put it in precise terms, creating a strong sport culture at the community and school level, and making the university as one of the major platforms for creating hubs of excellence for sports, so they are able to merge academics and sport together. So, nobody has to leave academics to pursue sport and face problems of financial and job security after the sporting career. That’s something we can look at. They’ve also very good interventions in terms of governance reforms. That means they are at arm’s length from federations, sort of don’t dictate anything to them. But they’ve such a robust performance measurement system and performance-linked assistance. They say, ‘You reach this benchmark, you get this.’ You reach higher benchmarks, you get more funding which is not tied funding; it’s flexi funding.

Also, SAI today has a very safe environment. Ninety per cent of the federations have no option but to come to us. So, we’re not bothered. We don’t have to earn that whereas under the UK Sport there’s an English Institute of Sport (EIS), which is doing some of the activities that SAI does, like holding national camps and preparation of athletes. There it’s left to the governing body whether they want to select the EIS for holding camps or do it elsewhere. So, EIS has to survive if those guys [its employees] have to get salaries, they HAVE to give a product acceptable to federations.

Which is not case with SAI at the moment.

Perhaps [SAI is] failing because of its monopoly. I am being very, very honest. I’m not saying we are deliberately failing; I’m saying the sense of security is so much, the comfort level is so much that you [federations] can’t go anywhere else, so [SAI sort of tells them] ‘this is what we have, take it or leave it’. Everything doesn’t come out of the goodness of heart and magnanimity. Survival is the strongest motivator. So if an organisation has a survival issue – ‘if not us they can go to some other person’ – it will improve. It’s not a question of SAI; it’s a question of architecture being changed. The federations should also realise that if they don’t fall in line with good governance practices they’ll get no funding and they will just evaporate. If SAI doesn’t deliver then SAI can't sustain. So, there’ll have to be some compelling circumstances.

After having worked for the sports ministry and now at SAI, are you leaving SAI any formula or plan on the table when you leave SAI, as a posting is due to you after being promoted as secretary?

I really don’t know when I’ll leave SAI. Coming to the point, that’s what [I’ve said above] is the bane of our system. Throughout it has been my effort that whatever learnings have come, effort is to work in a team and institutionalise it. I think we institutionalise bit by bit in SAI, and people before me have done their bit too. So, be rest assured that we’re moving in the right direction; not that we’re in an ideal sort of standard right now. I’m confident we’ve streamlined a lot of things and they’ll hold us in good stead.

PM has said a task force be formed for the next three Olympics. When can we expect this task force in shape and what changes do you foresee or should be there for these Olympics or at least for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics? Will there be a change in our approach?

I think the latter part of November should see the task force in place. There has to be a change in approach. We all are working on those lines only. One is there has to be a long-term approach; there can't be ad-hocism and, therefore, there is no option but looking at a 12-year cycle. You can't look beyond 12 years because it’ll be too difficult. But looking merely looking at 2020 Olympics doesn’t take you anywhere. So, 2024 is a must and 2028 is equally important. What we are really looking at is -- and to put it in simplistic terms – some of the star performers of today, in a relative sense in the Indian context, who have the age advantage and can be seen podium-type-finish athletes for 2020 will become your prior priority. Obviously, you’ll have to see how best to support them. Then, you need to have the bench strength. This is where we have failed to some extent. We’re happy that somebody is doing very well, but we don’t realise that somebody can be injured; there can be so many other uncertainties. So, you need to have three people standing behind who can replace that somebody. For 2020, our biggest effort is that for each star player there should be at least three people, at par with him, standing behind. And the third is the development group, under-16 essentially, who may participate in the 2020 Olympics but may stand some chance [of winning medals] in 2014 and thereafter. So, for this long-term and specialisation approach, we can't play with 15 disciplines. If there’s an outstanding talent in any discipline identified as a specialisation discipline you can support the athlete but you don’t have to focus on the discipline. Focus should be on four and an upper limit of six disciplines.

Would there be changes in the categorisation of sports, which are currently divided into ‘high priority’, ‘priority’ and ‘others’?

That will be dynamic; that’s not set in stone. I think one of the first responsibilities of the task force would also be, in a scientific and objective manner, at [selecting] those four to six sports. Then, naturally there will be a change in the groups also.

There are some sports like kho-kho and kabaddi, at which we are the Asian and world champions, but they are not in our ‘priority’ list.

That may be because kabaddi is not yet an Olympic discipline. But your point is well taken. Literally, we should strive hard to make it an Olympic discipline. When sports like taekwondo and golf are getting into Olympics, why not kabaddi? Remember, in the 1936 Berlin Olympics, kabaddi was a demonstration sport. A demonstration sport typically graduates into a full-fledged discipline. So, we have missed something, otherwise if kabaddi was there one or two medals would have been assured, like it was in hockey in olden days.

What is our current policy with regard to foreign coaches, and will there be a change in policy post-Rio?

Today hiring foreign coaches, basically, means that in certain sports we don’t have the competency required for competing at that [global] level within our domestic system. Indian coaches just don’t have that exposure of the high-performance level. So, in those sports we have to look for foreign coaches. That situation in the global world is not peculiar to India and coaches are very mobile. So, I don’t think we really need to really worry so much about foreign coaches because if you want to have the best, or among the best, in the world, they could be India or may not be in India. So, you’ll keep looking at foreign coaches. The policy would be open. But when you are engaging a foreign coach, you would certainly be short sighted if you don’t look at improving your own domestic coaching development structure, with or without their [foreigners] help.

The numbers of domestic across the country are much short of requirement, the sanctioned strength of 1,524 for the entire country. There are only about 1,000 coaches at the moment.

There are 983 regular coaches, 139 on contract, one on deputation. Plus, around 200 are on contract for national coaching camps, excluding those on deputation from the Railways, CPSUs etc. We will recruit around 200 regular coaches by this December.

That is not the issue. The issue is that SAI coaches are like a drop in the ocean as far as the requirement of this country is concerned. SAI coaches are basically for the national camps and SAI’s own schemes. Please understand, if every state were to identify their high priority sport and if they were to have some nursery/academy, can you imagine the transformation it could have brought in? SAI is an entity and what can one entity do in such a large country. Everybody has to plug in.

It’s not SAI’s fault completely as the recruitment was banned by the government for almost 20 years, from 1994 to 2014, and every year many coaches retired or died.

Now we have rectified that and in 2014 we recruited 127 regular coaches. Now, the recruitment process has been further strengthened and fine-tuned. Now, we’ll have computer-based test, so there is no possibility of any manipulation. We have totally outsourced it.

One grouse of coaches for many years has been that their promotion is much delayed or doesn’t happen at all. Designation- wise they might be promoted, but not grade wise. Another grouse is that there is no criterion for promotion.

I will go by facts because anybody can say anything. We’ve a rigid system; unfortunately a rigid one. There’s nothing like an out-of-turn or fast-track promotion. So, even the best coach and a very, very ordinary coach will, unfortunately, get promoted at the same time. We run a system where we are open to people challenging us in courts and tribunals. So, I think that is one of the problems with our system whereas in a private system, maybe, you can incentivise the guy who is doing well and he can overtake everybody. In our system they can't.

I do agree that there has been some stagnation. But we’ve taken up a drive and in the last six months about 200 promotions have been given. About 300 people will get the benefit of this promotion. This has been done after many, many years, and in spite of lots of limitations. I agree that people cannot be stagnating because then their motivation levels come down.

About Top Of the Podium Scheme (TOPS), some federations say that as athletes now get the money straight from the sports ministry, they were not listening to them and going to places of their choice to train. Is there a rethink on TOPS’ procedure of allotting funds to athletes?

These are the teething problems. It was the first time you had a scheme with money where you allowed customised training. And you had some reasonably good criteria for selection of people so that there was no nepotism and wrong selection. By and large, a system was a put in place. It is true that we went by the wishes of the athlete and maybe we bypassed -- I am not getting a better word than that right now – the federations or did not factor their viewpoint. Partly that can be explained that sometimes it was coming out of federations’ rigidities. They had very coloured perceptions and sometimes they were very outdated. And you had no time – about six-to-eight months were left for the Rio Olympics – so you had to take a call. But now with hindsight we feel that the architecture should not be changed.

Work on restructuring of SAI is going on for the last couple of years. What is the current status?

We’ve reached a stage where in the next couple of months we may see it approved. SAI badly needs to be restructured. The organisational structure, what it had in 1984 [when it was born] and its objectives don’t match anymore, so it has to change. Managerial level was not even 25 per cent and bulk of it was C&D (Construction and Demolition). Those things can be outsourced. You actually need domain expertise. Of course, there is no question of hurting the interests of the existing employees and they will get whatever they had to get. But certain cadres will become dying cadres. And right now if you want the best talents from outside, you are not able to get people on deputation. The new structure will also have some slots where you can get the best people for deputation, internationally also. If we are taking a foreign coach, we can also take a foreign director for development. That is being envisaged and can be a reality. For example, suppose we get a person from UK Sport on deputation for two years and pay him whatever he gets there, or more, you can gain hugely from that person. Then he goes away and naturally we develop in-house strengths and expertise and take over that function.

And presently there is a lot of stagnation in SAI and it is demotivating people. With better promotions people will become more satisfied. Coaches’ promotion was one thing, but the problem is more acute in the administrative side.

How long are you there in SAI?

I have no clue. Right now, they have upgraded me here.

(This interview was published in Outlook weekly magazine, issue dated November 28, 2016)

Friday, 23 September 2016

'CHEEKY' BCCI'S BALANCING ACT

At its annual general meeting, cricket Board took decisions in complete defiance of instructions of the Supreme Court-appointed Lodha Committee


By Qaiser Mohammad Ali, www.outlookindia.com


New Delhi: The BCCI on September 22, 2016 defied the Supreme Court-appointed Lodha Committee by taking up its controversial agenda at the Annual General Meeting, but also tried to do a balancing act by saying the decisions taken were subject to the approval of the apex court.

The Lodha Committee had warned the BCCI that if it took up any agenda items concerning 2016-17 onwards it would be contempt of court, until it fully complied with its wide-ranging recommendations. But a defiant BCCI went ahead with the entire 13-point agenda, and constituted new selections committees, elected its secretary, approved the budget for 2016-17, and picked its representatives for the ICC and the Asian Cricket Council meetings – all decisions pertaining to the future.

At the same time, the BCCI tried to show that it was complying with the Supreme Court order, saying the decisions taken were subject to the approval of the court.

"At today's meeting, the BCCI has tried to show the Supreme Court that it was complying with its order while not giving much heed to the Lodha Committee," said a prominent member of a state association, interpreting the BCCI move.

"Essentially, three things have emerged from today's meeting. One, the BCCI will accept some Lodha Committee recommendations in toto. Second, it will accept some other recommendations with slight amendments. And, lastly, it looks like it will never accept a few recommendations like one state, one vote, which threatens the existing of associations like Saurashtra, Baroda, Mumbai and Vidarbha,”" he said after the meeting.

The BCCI also passed a resolution, which looks a clear attempt to not to antagonise the Supreme Court, just a few weeks after asking chief justice TS Thakur to recuse himself from hearing its review petition, filed against the landmark July 18 judgement.

"The 87th AGM of the BCCI is being held today 21st September 2016 and the proceedings are being conducted for the compliance of statutory provisions under which the BCCI is constituted and also for ensuring that the day to day operations of the BCCI are not hampered particularly in view of the ongoing major national and international tournaments, commitments and is subject to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court," reads the resolution passed at the meeting held in Mumbai.

A source said the BCCI also sent to the Lodha Committee the list of decisions taken, another move to show that it was not taking the former Supreme Court judges head on.

Although the Lodha Committee did not send an observer for the meeting, as it was talked about in some quarters, another source aware of the panel members' mood said that the BCCI has committed contempt of court by taking up the controversial agenda. "The committee has seen the decisions taken and it will take a call," he told Outlook.

While on the face of it, the BCCI tried to have the best of both worlds, that was not the case behind the scenes at the AGM, said a state association official who attended the meeting. "There was some rough talk on the sidelines of the meeting and one of the persons used some uncharitable words," he said. "However, officially, the BCCI tried to show that it was complying with the Supreme Court's order, like appointment of ombudsman, player-agents, code of conduct etc."

Also, the BCCI has convened a special general meeting on September 30 to consider the amendments to the rules and regulations of BCCI as recommended by the Lodha Committee.
Interestingly, the Lodha Committee has already drafted a new constitution for the BCCI and told the Board to adopt it. But it now remains to be seen how much of the constitution drafted by the Lodha Committee would be incorporated by the BCCI.

Wednesday, 24 August 2016

BCCI MAY NOT ADD ANY NEW TEAMS FOR 2016-17 INDIAN DOMESTIC CRICKET TOURNAMENTS


Top official cites time, venue & logistics for defying Lodha Panel recommendation

By QAISER MOHAMMAD ALI, Outlookindia.com

NEW DELHI -- The new, 2016-17 domestic cricket season is just nine days away and the BCCI is resisting the Supreme Court/Lodha Committee recommendations that seek inclusion of all the states and union territories in every national tournament.

Despite the recommendations having the Supreme Court seal, the BCCI would most likely stick to the previous season’s format for the various tournaments, it is gathered. That would mean non-inclusion of new eight state teams that till now weren’t allowed to compete in Ranji Trophy, the premier men’s championship, and six Union Territories.

The states that are not included in Ranji Trophy are Bihar, the third most populous state of India whose full membership was snatched away by the BCCI in 2001, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.

The Lodha Committee has recommended that there should be a combined team of the six Union Territories from the upcoming season while the seventh UT, Delhi, already competes in all tournaments. The BCCI is opposing both recommendations.

The BCCI recently announced that the 2016-17 season would start on August 23, with the Duleep Trophy being played in Greater Noida. But the fixtures of the other tournaments, including Ranji Trophy, have still not been announced.

A top BCCI official would only say that the fixtures would be announced “soon” while indicating that the Board would stick to the old format for the tournaments for the 2016-17 domestic season.

A source, however, said that the Ranji Trophy would begin from October 6, with the newly-promoted full member Chhattisgarh being the 28th competing team. There will be a total of 124 matches, and all of them will be on 40 ‘neutral’ venues, said the source.

“The Supreme Court judgement has still not concluded, meaning it has not yet been fully implemented as we are seeking to exploit remedies in the form of a review petition and, if that fails, the curative petition. The review petition will be filed soon. While we are implementing some of the recommended reforms, we won’t be able to include nine new teams [eight state teams and a combined Union Territories’ team] in the 2016-17 season,” the BCCI official told Outlook.

“So far Bihar is concerned, the state is a BCCI Associate Member and Associate Members don’t compete in Ranji Trophy. And for the UTs, what value the combined team of Union Territories will have and what name will you give to it?” the official argued.

Asked if the Lodha Committee will have to approve the fixtures before they are released, he rather sarcastically said: “They can do anything.”

While listing the BCCI’s “practical difficulties” in including additional teams, the official cited time, venue and logistical constraints, especially when there is hardly any time left for the season to start.

“Nine additional teams in each of the four men’s tournaments – Ranji Trophy, under-23, under-19 and under-16 – would mean actually 36 new teams. Similarly, nine women’s teams in two categories, senior and junior, would mean 18 teams. That works out to a total of 54 additional teams,” he explained. “How can you add so many teams and so many matches when the time is so short. Plus, there are other problems like venues and travel that would be there.”

But the Lodha Committee would have none of it. “They [BCCI] will have to include the nine new teams. The Supreme Court judgement [in the 2013 IPL betting-fixing case] came on July 18. They have to add them, no doubt,” a source close to the Lodha Committee told Outlook.

“The BCCI doesn’t have to make those teams; the respective associations have to do that. If the BCCI is unable to create those teams, and include them in their round-robin format, clearly [administrators] they should resign, if such a small thing can't be done,” he said.

“The first question you should ask them [BCCI] is: Have they taken a policy decision to ensure that each state will have one team separately, especially when both the Supreme Court judgement and the Lodha Committee have said that they can have a single north-east team?” he wondered.

The Lodha Committee on August 9 issued to the BCCI a set of timelines for implementation of various reforms. The two important deadlines given are September 30 and October 15. There are indications that one more timeline would be issued, probably by end-September.


In its last month's judgement, the Supreme Court had given the BCCI up to six months to implement all approved recommendations of the Lodha Committee.

BCCI MAY NOT ADD ANY NEW TEAMS FOR 2016-17 INDIAN DOMESTIC CRICKET TOURNAMENTS


Top official cites time, venue & logistics for defying Lodha Panel recommendation

By QAISER MOHAMMAD ALI, Outlookindia.com

NEW DELHI -- The new, 2016-17 domestic cricket season is just nine days away and the BCCI is resisting the Supreme Court/Lodha Committee recommendations that seek inclusion of all the states and union territories in every national tournament.

Despite the recommendations having the Supreme Court seal, the BCCI would most likely stick to the previous season’s format for the various tournaments, it is gathered. That would mean non-inclusion of new eight state teams that till now weren’t allowed to compete in Ranji Trophy, the premier men’s championship, and six Union Territories.

The states that are not included in Ranji Trophy are Bihar, the third most populous state of India whose full membership was snatched away by the BCCI in 2001, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.

The Lodha Committee has recommended that there should be a combined team of the six Union Territories from the upcoming season while the seventh UT, Delhi, already competes in all tournaments. The BCCI is opposing both recommendations.

The BCCI recently announced that the 2016-17 season would start on August 23, with the Duleep Trophy being played in Greater Noida. But the fixtures of the other tournaments, including Ranji Trophy, have still not been announced.

A top BCCI official would only say that the fixtures would be announced “soon” while indicating that the Board would stick to the old format for the tournaments for the 2016-17 domestic season.

A source, however, said that the Ranji Trophy would begin from October 6, with the newly-promoted full member Chhattisgarh being the 28th competing team. There will be a total of 124 matches, and all of them will be on 40 ‘neutral’ venues, said the source.

“The Supreme Court judgement has still not concluded, meaning it has not yet been fully implemented as we are seeking to exploit remedies in the form of a review petition and, if that fails, the curative petition. The review petition will be filed soon. While we are implementing some of the recommended reforms, we won’t be able to include nine new teams [eight state teams and a combined Union Territories’ team] in the 2016-17 season,” the BCCI official told Outlook.

“So far Bihar is concerned, the state is a BCCI Associate Member and Associate Members don’t compete in Ranji Trophy. And for the UTs, what value the combined team of Union Territories will have and what name will you give to it?” the official argued.

Asked if the Lodha Committee will have to approve the fixtures before they are released, he rather sarcastically said: “They can do anything.”

While listing the BCCI’s “practical difficulties” in including additional teams, the official cited time, venue and logistical constraints, especially when there is hardly any time left for the season to start.

“Nine additional teams in each of the four men’s tournaments – Ranji Trophy, under-23, under-19 and under-16 – would mean actually 36 new teams. Similarly, nine women’s teams in two categories, senior and junior, would mean 18 teams. That works out to a total of 54 additional teams,” he explained. “How can you add so many teams and so many matches when the time is so short. Plus, there are other problems like venues and travel that would be there.”

But the Lodha Committee would have none of it. “They [BCCI] will have to include the nine new teams. The Supreme Court judgement [in the 2013 IPL betting-fixing case] came on July 18. They have to add them, no doubt,” a source close to the Lodha Committee told Outlook.

“The BCCI doesn’t have to make those teams; the respective associations have to do that. If the BCCI is unable to create those teams, and include them in their round-robin format, clearly [administrators] they should resign, if such a small thing can't be done,” he said.

“The first question you should ask them [BCCI] is: Have they taken a policy decision to ensure that each state will have one team separately, especially when both the Supreme Court judgement and the Lodha Committee have said that they can have a single north-east team?” he wondered.

The Lodha Committee on August 9 issued to the BCCI a set of timelines for implementation of various reforms. The two important deadlines given are September 30 and October 15. There are indications that one more timeline would be issued, probably by end-September.


In its last month's judgement, the Supreme Court had given the BCCI up to six months to implement all approved recommendations of the Lodha Committee.

UNCERTAINTY LOOMS OVER NEW ZEALAND'S MATCHES IN DELHI

As DDCA comes to a standstill, question is: Who will organise two games?

By Qaiser Mohammad Ali, Outlookindia.com

Delhi's Ferozeshah Kotla Stadium, where New Zealand cricket team's two
matches, including a One-day International, are scheduled to be played,
in September and October, 2016. Photo: Qaiser Mohammad Ali
New Delhi: The New Zealand team is scheduled to open its India tour next month with a match in Delhi, but there is a huge uncertainty as to who will organise that game — the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) or BCCI/Lodha Committee —  and also an ODI in October. No preparation for the matches has begun as yet.

The matter has been compounded as a top DDCA office-bearer has warned his colleagues against taking any “policy decisions” as that would be “illegal and declared null and void” in the wake of the Supreme Court judgement on Lodha Committee recommendations for reforms.

The Lodha Committee, which the Supreme Court has authorised to implement its own recommendations in the BCCI and its affiliated units, has announced that its role started on July 18, when the apex court delivered the judgement. Therefore, say experts, the BCCI/DDCA cannot organise international matches without taking the Lodha Committee into confidence.

New Zealand is scheduled to play a three-day warm-up match from September 16-18 and a One-day International on October 19 at the Ferozeshah Kotla.

DDCA’s other perennial problem is that its officials are constantly at loggerheads with each other in a battle of attrition, often changing sides, and pulling down their rivals.

This is starkly evident from DDCA vice-president Chetan Chauhan’s warning to his colleagues against taking policy decisions and DDCA general secretary Anil Khanna convening an emergent executive committee meeting on Tuesday to discuss the organisation of New Zealand matches.
Chauhan, whose designation also keeps changing between ‘working president’ and ‘vice-president’, recently wrote to Anil Khanna, saying that since several DDCA office-bearers have completed nine years in power – the maximum period permitted by the Lodha Committee — they all stand disqualified.

“As you are aware, a judgement has been passed by the Supreme Court listing various directions on the continuance of the office-bearers of the association,” Chauhan said in his letter that was copied to all DDCA directors.

“The undersigned along with many office-bearers have completed more than three terms (9 years) and the judgement of the Supreme Court is to be implemented. After the judgement, we are only ‘caretakers’ of the association and we may have to vacate the office any time. Please do not take any decisions regarding policy matters as it will be illegal and declared null and void,” warns Chauhan in the signed one-page letter.

However, Chauhan’s letter seems to have made little impact as the meeting is on. The two-point agenda is to discuss the New Zealand matches and also the scathing Mukul Mudgal Report on the DDCA’s mismanagement that he has submitted with the Delhi High Court.

It remains to be seen if Chauhan himself attends the meeting or takes a principled stand, based on what he has said in his letter, and boycotts the meeting. It will also be interesting to see how many other DDCA directors (executive committee members) support Chauhan.

Mudgal, a former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court who was appointed by the Delhi High Court to supervise international/IPL matches at the Kotla, discovered many grave shortcomings in the way the DDCA has been organising matches. After overseeing the fourth India-South Africa Test in December, the ICC World Twenty20 and the IPL this year, he submitted a stinging report.

That case, between the DDCA and South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) is coming for hearing in the court on August 22. At the last hearing, the court had sought a reply from the BCCI reply on the scathing Mudgal Report on the DDCA mismanagement.

Sources said that some DDCA officials are now planning to take back the case so that they themselves could organise the two New Zealand matches.

“A certain section of the DDCA office-bearers wants to now take back case because they don’t want the Delhi High Court to supervise both matches against New Zealand. Some disgruntled elements in the DDCA have not been able to have their way or say in organising last several matches, thanks to Mudgal’s tightening of screws. If the case drags on, the court might again appoint an observer to conduct the match that would further annoy the disgruntled elements,” the source told Outlook.

“On the other hand, the DDCA and the BCCI officials have discussed, over several meetings, the possibility of an independent committee organising matches at the Kotla, following the Supreme Court judgement, especially as Lodha Committee is now effectively in control,” he informed. “Don’t be surprised if the BCCI and the Lodha Committee jointly constitute a committee to organise both Delhi matches.”

Meanwhile, former India cricketer Kirti Azad has joined issues with Khanna over the convening of the executive committee meeting. The former Delhi captain, who led the state team to Ranji Trophy title in 1991-92, has alleged “fabrication of minutes by some DDCA office-bearers” and “fraudulently prepared balance sheets” of the last three financial years in a letter addressed to Anil Khanna. Azad wants the executive to discuss those points too at Tuesday’s meeting.

Why some sports in India attract champions from the poor while others largely remain with the rich

By QAISER MOHAMMAD ALI, Outlook magazine, issue of August 29, 2016

About 22 years ago, the sports ministry had organised a big do at ­Vigyan ­Bhavan in New Delhi to present cash awards to those who had won medals in international competitions in 1993. A booklet published by the ministry for the occasion, with the names and photos of the awardees, was a classic memento from the shambolic world of Indian sports officialdom. It spelt ‘sports’, in a cute lapse into Punjabi English, as ‘supports’. And long-distance runner Bah­adur Prasad’s certificate said the Asian Track and Field Meet was held in ‘Man­ali’, the hill resort in ­Himachal Pradesh, instead of Manila!
Not much has changed in the world of Indian sport and the meagre haul at the Rio Olympics reflects it. Despite the governm­ent’s casual attitude towards sports—look only at the three-paise per capita allocation in our Union budgets—winners like Sakshi Malik and Dipa Karmakar continue to emerge from far-flung places where facilities are almost non-existent. (P.V. Sindhu is not exactly from a poor village, but badminton is perhaps the most widely played sport in the country.) And yet, there is no dearth of people who think only ‘losers’ take up sports, as they are good for nothing else.
India’s sports history is full of stories of athletes who, with their sheer will, have defied poverty and lack of access to infrastructure and incentives to achieve glory almost sin­gle-handedly. Boxer Kaur Singh’s parents were poor farmers in Punjab’s Khanal Khurd village. Boxer Dingko Singh from the Indian navy grew up in an orphanage in Imphal. Boxer Mary Kom’s parents were farm labourers in Kangathei village of Manipur’s Churachandpur district. Asian Games gold medal-winning athlete Preja Sridaran’s mother was a domestic help and long-distance runner Gulab Chand came from a family of poor labourers in Varanasi. Youngsters brought up in economic hardship make up most of the Indian contingent to Rio, with only the fire in their bellies taking them to international arenas.
“Only sons and daughters of the poor can exert as much as excellence in athletics demands. Children of the rich, in contrast, play games such as golf and badminton,” says Gurbachan Singh Randhawa, who came fifth in the 110 m hurdles at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. “There’s no facility at the grassroots level for Indian sportspersons. So, all the credit for individuals who make it big despite their poor background goes to their parents and teachers.” Agrees former India hockey player and coach Joaquim Martin Carvalho, who adds, “Athletes have done their best at Rio Olympics against all odds. Abhinav Bindra, for example, won an Olympic gold in London, 2012, despite the system, not because of it.”
Government funding was not enough, so Abhinav had to spend money from his own pocket, which is possible only for those who come from relatively affluent families like his. He hired a personal coach and trained in a foreign country. Dipa Karmakar, on the other hand, had to fight tremendous odds in her ramshackle gym in Agartala. The class divide in Indian sports is stark, and it runs across sports.
In cricket, most pace bowlers come from middle- or lower-middle-class background. Former India and Delhi pacer Atul Wassan is an exception. He says he comes from an “air-conditioned background” and still sweated it out under the sun. So, our sportspersons have to have that extra grit as compared to international athletes.
“If some athletes are performing well, it is only incidental and not a reflection of planned growth,” says former chief of India Boxing Federation Ashok K. Mattoo. “It is only because of their own determination. If someone really wants to excel, they start from home, where support never reaches. Thankfully, our children have the confidence that, if supported, they can move forward. The ministry looks at sports only from an ­administrative point of view.”
Bahadur Prasad, from Bilauwa village of UP’s Mau district, is an example of people from small villages carving a niche. His parents never went to school and when he joined the Provincial Armed Constabulary as a constable in 1985-86, his monthly salary was Rs 255. He went on to become the Asian champion in 1,500 m and 5,000 m events.
“In track and field, about 95 per cent athletes, whether it is P.T. Usha, Shiny Wilson or Gulab Chand, come from poor, hard-working families in the villages,” he says. Most of the stadia and training facilities are in or around the big cities. Lack of governmental support where it is most wanted and where it will be most effective is a key factor behind this debilitating environment. “The Sports Authority of India and the states are providing support, but very nominal. They talk big but their facilities hardly reach the athletes,” says V. Sreenivasan, husband of P.T. Usha.
Pyari Xaxa and Sasmita Malik of the Indian women’s football team would rea­dily agree. Pyari, 19, who won the All India Football Federation’s ‘Emerging Footballer’ award for 2015, is a 19-­year-old Adivasi girl from Jhartarang vill­age (25 km from Rourkela in Orissa) who travels eight kilometres every day—2 km on her bicycle and the rest on a bus—for her football practice. Her father, who worked as a guard, died 16 years ago, and both her brothers work as labourers. Sasmita, who comes from Aul village in the state’s Kendrapara district, is the daughter of a junior clerk in the railways.
Her father works extra hours as a plumber to make ends meet.
“If we focus more at the grassroot level, we may start getting results,” says Mohammed S. Jabbar, a former Indian women’s football coach who groomed Pyari and Sasmita.
Michael Ferreira, several times world champion in billiards, points to the low sports budget. “Peanuts, sir, peanuts,” he says. “Definitely, we have to increase our sports budget. And we have to get rid of the bureaucratic control of sporting institutions. Give the administration to people like Sebastian Coe of England, president of the world athletics body, who know sports.”
For 2016-17, the Centre allocated Rs 1,592 crore for sports, up by only Rs 50 crore from the previous year (the defence budget went up a whopping 13.1 per cent). That’s what makes the princely sum of three paise per capita, while the US spends the equivalent of Rs 27. “The government contributes almost nothing,” says Randhawa. “Unless sports makes it to the government’s priority list, things are unlikely to change in my lifetime.”
Ferreira blames the media and the corporate world too for the mess. “We encourage just one sport, cricket. This has always been my complaint,” he says. So, what is the way out? “I do foresee a change, but not in the near future. It might take another five to 10 years for our thinking to change.” Ferreira’s optimism is touching, but soon we will all be cursing the athletes who went to Rio and came back with so few medals. We will be lamenting how we don’t have the ‘sporting spirit’ in us, and once again, a whole lot of talented, unsung sportspersons will go back to their villages of dark poverty.

Monday, 25 July 2016

WHEN YOUTH QUESTIONED POWER

The Supreme Court verdict has its origins in the joint PIL of these two trailblazers


By QAISER MOHAMMAD ALI, FROM OUTLOOK magazine, issue dated August 1, 2016

If the BCCI today faces a situation when it has to undergo wide-ranging changes, it was one of its own administrators who unwittingly sowed the seeds of opposition. Just before India’s tour of Australia in 1999-2000, then BCCI secretary J.Y. Lele had said in an interview that Sachin Tendulkar-captained India would lose the three-Test series 0-3.

That prediction triggered a probing, nagging doubt in Shantanu Sharma, who had freshly completed graduation from Bhagat Singh College in Delhi: “I was disgusted after reading that interview. I told Rahul Mehra—my old classmate—that I wanted to do something.”
Hindu College graduate Rahul, too, felt “something fishy...smelt fixing” and wondered how a BCCI administrator could so openly predict the outcome of a series.
“I approached one of my uncles in Delhi administration and in two months we got the documents we wanted,” 43-year-old Rahul, now senior standing counsel (civil) & standing counsel (criminal) of Delhi government, tells Outlook.
Shantanu and Rahul, both products of Delhi’s Modern School, approached lawyer Prashant Bhushan to help them file what turned out to be the first meaningful PIL against the powerful BCCI and Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA). It led to the Delhi High Court passing a “favourable judgement”, making the BCCI open to judicial scrutiny under Article 226 (Power of High Courts to issue certain writs).
“For the over 75 years [of BCCI’s exi¬st¬ence till then], the law was that only members of BCCI could challenge it in a court of law. But after our PIL and the passing of the landmark judgment, any citizen of India could challenge BCCI and other sports bodies, as they were held to be discharging key public functions, like selection of team India etc, which are akin to state functions,” Rahul explains.
“Thus, for the first time, an ordinary citizen had successfully challenged a sports body (read BCCI) and succeeded in making it acc¬ountable to Indian citizens and be transparent in its functioning,” he says proudly of their joint PIL. “Initially, we wanted a legendary cricketer to file that PIL. But none came forward. Between 1999 and 2007 simply nobody raised the [BCCI-related] issues.”
Shantanu, a businessman, discloses: “We did our homework and collected documents from people who themselves turned out to be corrupt. They tried to corrupt us, but we wouldn’t allow that to happen.” Rahul and Shantanu’s fight was against corruption and mismanagement in the BCCI and DDCA; they passionately wanted to cleanse the game.
Today, both Rahul and Shantanu take pride that their pioneering fight against corruption in sports as young men has culminated in the Supreme Court ordering the BCCI to make all-round changes in its constitution and outlook.
“I’m delighted with the judgement. It also shows, in a way, that our cause in filing that PIL in 1999 was just,” says a satisfied Shan¬tanu. “When I was fighting that case, my fat¬her was against it; he nearly disowned me.”
His father’s views would have changed after the historic SC judgment.

HIS FIGHT TO THE FINISH (vs BCCI)

In his gritty tussle with BCCI, Aditya Verma had a little help from friends


By Qaiser Mohammad Ali, From OUTLOOK magazine, Dated August 1, 2016

A day before the historic Supreme Court judgement on July 18 compelled the BCCI to start making wholesale changes in its set-up and rules, former cricketer Saad Bin Jung sent an SMS to petitioner Aditya Verma, saying, “Forget Bihar cricket, you’ve saved Indian cricket. People will remember you for that”.

That could be an apt summary of the three-year-long battle that Verma (52), secretary of the unrecognised Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB), one of the several factions in the state, fought in the Bombay High Court and in the apex court.

Verma has another ambition. “I’ve been praying, please let me see the day my Bihar team would again play in the Ranji Trophy,” Verma tells Outlook. “My ambition is to help at least a dozen Bihar cricketers represent India in the next five years.” It’s to be seen if the BCCI includes Bihar (and other non-full member states) in the 2016-17 dom¬estic tournaments, beginning in September-October, as the SC has given the BCCI six months to implement the Lodha Committee’s recommendations.

It all began in May 2013, when Verma, a former university cricketer, moved the Bombay HC against the ‘flimsy probe’ that the BCCI was trying to conduct into the 2013 IPL betting-fixing case. One of those implicated was Gurunath Meiyappan, son-in-law of then BCCI president N. Srinivasan. Verma, said to be backed by a BCCI lobby, demanded a thorough probe.

After Verma registered a ‘partial win’ in Bombay, the case moved to the SC and its scope expanded. About three years later, on July 18, Verma had a reason to smile, as a bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla pronounced the judgement at 2.14 pm. “It’s an excellent judgement; rather, it has exceeded my expectation a little,” he says. “Although deep inside I was confident of this kind of judgement, the Supreme Court, after all, has its own perspective of things.”

The fact that Bihar has not competed in the Ranji Trophy for 15 years deeply hurts Verma. The Jagmohan Dalmiya-led BCCI had snatched away the full membership of India’s third most populous state in September 2001, handing it to the newly-¬carved Jharkhand. Board politics was the reason, Verma alleges. The apex court judgement has not only restored Bihar’s vote as a full member, but also ordered the BCCI to give within six months all states, including small ones like Arunachal Pradesh, 
Meghalaya and Nagaland, the same privilege—something they didn’t have so far. There have been reports that Verma’s petition was actually part of a bigger game-plan within and outside the Board: get back at former BCCI president N. Srinivasan. This lobby included Lalit Modi, a prime malcontent who was expelled by the Srinivasan-Shashank Manohar duo in 2010 for ‘financial misdemeanour’. In that respect, the anti-Srinivasan gang has succeeded—thus far. 

Modi has even admitted to footing Verma’s petition-related bills. Verma concedes that he has had to seek ass¬istance from people, though he claims that he also sold his own land for Rs 40 lakh to meet his legal expenses. “I faced a fund crunch. I would beg people for various things while fighting this case, like plane tickets for myself,” he confesses. With the BCCI firmly under Srinivasan’s thumb, the IPL betting-fixing scandal came like a godsend for Modi, Verma and others. And a beleagured Modi found in Verma someone who was willing to stick his neck out against the might of Srinivasan. “People talked about many things; that Lalit Modi funded my case and others helping me. It was because Modi’s enemy was also my enemy [Srinivasan]. And because Modi and his lawyers were fighting the Rajasthan Cricket Association’s suspension [by a Srinivasan-led BCCI], we became friends,” he admits candidly.

Sometime during the long-drawn case, Verma says he was offered money to back out and also threatened with dire consequences. Did he feel ever feel like quitting? “Never,” he says. “If I take up an issue or a cause, I don’t relax until I take that to its logical end. I can’t butter up people. To fight for my right is in my character.” 

One of his team of lawyers, led by Nalini Chidambaram, praises Verma for “refusing to be bought”. 
“I appreciated that he stood steadfastly against the BCCI and his tenacity under pressure,” says Chidambaram. In fact, for the case, Verma sacrificed his son’s fledgling cricket career. “Srinivasan, through Bengal cricket chief Dalmiya, ensured that my son was not selected in the Bengal under-19 team, even after playing for Calcutta University for three years. No one was ready to pick him,” he claims.

Verma himself was a promising opening batsman who idolised Sunil Gavaskar (“I was such a staunch fan that, like him, I never wore a helmet”). But he’d often stand up to ‘injustice’, resulting in his not being picked for the Bihar Ranji Trophy team. This tendency even cost him a job. But that was the past. At the moment, Verma is feeling vindicated about having taken up the right cause, and won. Right now, he’s not thinking far—whether or not the historic judgement would lead to a much-needed cleansing of the other Indian sports federations too.

Saturday, 28 May 2016

SEHWAG AND TIGER PATAUDI 'SIR'


Former India batsman revealed that it was the former India captain's 'advice' to change his stance in 2006 that helped him score a lot of runs


By QAISER MOHAMMAD ALI, www.Outlookindia.com


New Delhi has been — and is — home to many past and present Indian cricketers and captains. But when a frustrated Virender Sehwag, for the first time, openly alleged widespread corruption in Delhi cricket in 2009 and had threatened to leave Delhi over it, he had turned to Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi for guidance.

After Sehwag, feeling helpless with a "corruption-ridden" DDCA administration, told Arun Jaitley, then president of the Delhi and District Cricket Association, of his 'decision' to leave Delhi, the politician asked 'Viru' to meet him. It was then that Sehwag turned to 'Tiger' Pataudi to articulate his thoughts on the raging issue of corruption, particularly in the selection of Delhi teams, that he had raised.

Sehwag, the only Indian to score two triple Test centuries, has not forgotten that contribution — and more. On Saturday evening, he indicated how much he respected the late Pataudi, especially after revealing that it was the former India captain's 'advice' to change his stance in 2006 that helped him score a lot of runs.

While speaking at the naming ceremony of the 'Sehwag Pavilion' and 'Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi Sports Complex' at Jamia Millia Islamia, the ace cricketer said he had met Pataudi only a couple of times — in 2006, August 2009 and, maybe, a couple of times more.

"I was travelling with him in a car and I asked him 'sir, have you seen my batting?' in 2006 when I was not scoring runs. He told me 'you are a good player, keep believing in yourself, trusting in yourself'," former India captain Sehwag, an alumnus of Jamia, told the audience.

"I said 'can you give me some advice?' He said 'I don't think you need advice but since you have asked me I can tell you that if you open your leg a little bit then you will score a lot of runs. And after that I scored my second triple century," Sehwag said to thunderous applause from the audience comprising Sharmila Tagore, wife of Pataudi and Bollywood actress, Jamia Vice-Chancellor, teachers and students.

"I was very thankful to sir [Pataudi] who gave such honest advice, and after that I scored many, many hundreds, the [second Test] triple century, and a double hundred in one-day matches. I was lucky. It's great honour for me to be here and spending time with you," he said.

Pataudi, the first India captain to register a Test win overseas, in 1969, had later disclosed that Sehwag had requested him to accompany him for the meeting at Jaitley's residence in August 2009, and he agreed due to his "respect for Sehwag".

Apart from Pataudi, the other story that Sehwag, dressed in a green checked shirt and brown trousers, narrated to his spell-bound listeners was how he got admission in Jamia.

"And after that [getting admission] I played for the country. So, I am very, very thankful to this university that gave me admission when no college in Delhi gave me admission," the swashbuckling batsman, who completed his Bachelor of Arts degree in 2001-02, said to a loud laughter and applause from the gathering.

Sehwag's childhood coach Amar Nath Sharma had taken him to Noor Mohammed, Physical Education Director at Jamia, for admission.

"Noor sir took my selection and told me one thing only. [Since] in XIIth standard I had a compartmental [re-exam], in English, so he asked me to clear that exam and then only would I get admission. He said 'go and study hard to clear that exam so that I could join the university'. I worked hard and cleared the exam and joined the university," he said. "I worked hard [at cricket] and practiced for hours and hours."

Due to his preoccupation with matches, Sehwag's attendance fell short of the minimum required mark for taking exams and Noor Mohammed had to take him to then Vice-Chancellor to get him special permission to write papers.

"He told him that 'this is the boy who will play for India one day. So, please allow him to sit in the exams, because if he doesn't practice, doesn't work hard, he can't play for India'," he said, referring to the reasons Noor Mohammed gave for short attendance.

"Thank you the Vice-Chancellor at that time and Noor sir who, believing in me, gave me the opportunity to use this ground and be a part of Jamia," said the indebted retired cricketer, now mentor of IPL franchise Kings XI Punjab.

However, Noor Mohammed was surprisingly missing from the function, despite living at a stone's throw from the venue. It transpired that he was not invited, that, too, to at a venue that he had worked hard to develop to its present shape, and where he even today goes for his daily morning walk.
When contacted, Noor Mohammed, who retired from Jamia in 2014, said he was not invited. "It's a normal practice that retired heads of department of any office are usually invited for such functions," he said.

The land on which Jamia's Bhopal Ground, which comprises an international-size cricket field and a modern sports complex, was developed was donated by Pataudi's mother, Begum Sajida Sultan, the last begum of Bhopal. The complex has now been named 'Nawab Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi Sports Complex' but the words 'Bhopal Ground' have also been retained. It is also a first-class cricket venue where several Ranji Trophy matches have been played.

Sharmila Tagore, dressed in a yellow saree, said that "ideally" her husband should have been attending and speaking on this occasion, but considered it a "singular honour" and an "emotional moment" for her to be there.

"You probably only know him as a cricketer. But in truth he had a natural talent for many other sports. He played racquets, he played tennis, he played squash, he played football, he played hockey. So he was really blessed. And he also played a lot of snooker, hustled a lot of people and made money at the Bombay Gym Club, and also played bridge. And he had a lot of love for athletics. So this place, he would really have loved it," she said in her measured speech.

Sharmila said Tiger was "always calm and in control with his amused grin".

"He always had this look as if there is something funny about the world and detached from the machinations of lesser men. On the field he was relentless and hard hitting, passionate and unstoppable. Off the field he was caring, gentle, generous, very, very funny and very, very naughty," she said.

Sharmila also briefly touched upon the present state of Indian cricket, clearly hinting at the administrative side of the BCCI.

"Indian cricket is at the moment in a considerable state of reflection. It is blessed with resources in terms of players and infrastructure. However, some big questions remain," she said without pronouncing the word 'BCCI', which didn't treat Pataudi well in his last few years. When his IPL fee was withheld, he had to move the Bombay High Court to recover Rs.1.16 crore from the BCCI in April 2011, just a few months before he died. In 2013, BCCI instituted an annual lecture in his memory.

Jamia presented to Sharmila an oil portrait of Pataudi, made by Shah Abdul Faiz, an assistant professor in the Faculty of Fine Arts at the university, and a crafted framed photo of Sehwag to the ace cricketer.

And Sharmila donated Jamia a large-sized black-and-white framed portrait of Pataudi executing a cover drive, possibly while representing Sussex in English county competition, which she unveiled at the entrance of the sports complex.

Asked why she chose that particular photo, Sharmila told Outlook: "It's a good shot and I like the concentration, [his] hand-eye coordination."

Sehwag also unveiled a photo of his, batting in India's ODI coloured uniform, as part of the simple ceremony. (This story first appeared on www.outlookindia.conm on May 16, 2016)

[Click here to read all my stories in OUTLOOK magazine http://www.outlookindia.com/people/Qaiser-Mohammad-Ali/16843]