Indian sports administrators: Conflict of interest

Conflict-of-interest more widespread, deep-rooted than fixing in Indian sports

By Qaiser Mohammad Ali

Indo-Asian News Service (IANS)

New Delhi, June 6 (IANS) Turning to senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, who was representing then Indian cricket board president N. Srinivasan, Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur said bias in a conflict of interest situation happens in a "subtle way".
 
Thakur said that on December 8, 2014, while hearing the 2013 IPL betting-fixing scandal in which Srinivasan, whose son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and others were central figures, was battling to come out of the conflicted zone.
 
Thakur had made the "subtle way" comment specifically when Srinivasan was trying to constitute a committee to probe the IPL betting-fixing scandal. Some members of that committee were also conflicted and the panel was eventually not accepted by the Supreme Court.
 
Separately, as secretary and later president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Srinivasan would attend Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council meetings, and was thus aware of the decisions the BCCI was taking. It's difficult to believe that he never shared the discussions, or decisions taken, within the BCCI with his own IPL franchise, Chennai Super Kings (CSK), and did not take undue advantage of that.
 
More than six years later, Srinivasan's daughter, Rupa, finds herself in a similar situation -- in the conflict-of-interest zone. The person who spotted her there is a retired Supreme Court judge, D.K. Jain. He pronounced his judgment as the BCCI Ethics Officer on June 3.
 
Rupa Gurunath was elected TNCA president, succeeding her father, in September 2019. Her husband, Gurunath Meiyappan, had already been banned for life by the Supreme Court for his role in the same 2013 IPL betting-fixing scandal. Rupa holds two posts -- of TNCA president and a Whole Time Director of India Cements Limited (ICL), which runs the Chennai Super Kings Cricket Ltd (CSKCL) that owns IPL franchise CSK.
 
These two are high profile cases that have caught the eye. In reality, there are any number of conflicted persons at lower levels whose unethical deeds never come to light, they do it in such a "subtle way". Usually, powerful people back these conflicted persons. These powerful persons are mostly politicians and businessmen spread across sports in India.
 
So, that brings us to the question: Who has harmed cricket -- or sports, in general -- the most in India? Many people would say that it is the people involved in match-fixing/betting.
 
However, I feel the conflict of interest is the biggest curse and misfortunate of Indian cricket, rather Indian sports. Match-fixing is probably not as deep rooted and as widespread as the conflict of interest, if closely seen across all sports, not just cricket, played in the country. The conflict of interest is everywhere; only the degree to which it influences varies. Sometimes it is blatant, as the Supreme Court and one of its judges (Jain) saw in the cases of Srinivasan and Rupa, respectively. At other times, it happens in a "subtle way".
 
Match-fixing may not be found in all competitive sports. But the conflict of interest is present across the spectrum; no Indian sport can claim it is not influenced by the conflicted people. Be it election of sports bodies or selection of athletes/teams, the conflict of interest is found everywhere -- in different forms at different levels.
 
Most of the conflicted persons are sports administrators, selectors, or coaches. If their brothers/sisters/sons/daughters/nephews/nieces are also playing cricket -- or any other sport -- in which their elders hold positions, the conflict-of-interest becomes obvious and blatant. It will be rare to find selectors, sports administrators, coaches clear of the conflict.
 
The conflict of interest is not restricted to selection of the "near and dear ones" by their fathers and uncles. It plays with full gusto while awarding contracts of constructing stadiums, laying of astro turfs/athletic tracks, athletes' clothing, sponsorship, supply of food during competitions, erecting tents, etc. The list is so long and varied that the mind boggles.
 
The conflict of interest is more widespread and blatant in cricket because there is more money to be made from it than in any other sport in India. The case of certain officials of the BCCI and its affiliated state associations, particularly the TNCA, is a case in point.
 
In cricket, sponsors pay more money, the requirements for the BCCI-organised tournaments are much bigger than the other sports. So, obviously more people come into the conflict zone as they often award these contracts and rights to their known ones, many times without following the laid down process of tender etc. The Delhi and District Cricket Association is notorious in this regard and leads the way.
 
Also, retired cricketers open academies in their names and then when confronted they claim they don't benefit from the fee that trainees pay. They insist they are run by their mothers, fathers, or brothers, as the case may be, saying they only lend their names. Many of these cricketers also sit in selection committees and become coaches. Would you believe them that they never influence selection of players, either blatantly or in a "subtle way", particularly if their sons and nephews are in contention? Impossible.
 
So, it should not have taken more than five months, since the time the complaint was filed, for the BCCI Ethics Officer to declare that TNCA president Rupa Gurunath was indeed in the conflicted zone. The conflict was so obvious.
 
Interestingly, the BCCI did not respond to the notice of Justice DK Jain. The reason is not far to seek: Srinivasan's is one of the four groups that had formed the coalition in October 2019 to come to power without having to fight an election.
 
They at all costs wanted to get rid of the Vinod Rai-headed Committee of Administrators, appointed by the Supreme Court, that had been running the BCCI for around 33 months, following the 2013 IPL betting-fixing scandal.
 
The bright side of all this is that at least the BCCI has an Ombudsman, though he at times is rendered powerless. Some sports federations might also have appointed Ombudsman. But have you heard any of them delivering judgments of the same magnitude as delivered as in the case of Rupa Gurunath? Or, any judgment at all.
 
"Purity of the game has to be maintained at any cost. Persons at the helm of affairs should be above suspicion. We are thinking in the larger interest of the game. There should be no chance for people to point fingers at those who are running the show," the TS Thakur-headed Supreme Court bench, also comprising FMI Kalifulla, had said in December 2014 while hearing the IPL scandal.
 
The already side-lined Srinivasan, whose son-in-law Meiyappan was in sharp focus in the IPL scandal, had offered to keep away from the BCCI-initiated probe involving Meiyappan and others.
 
The bench countered that by asking Srinivasan's counsel Sibal: "You [Srinivasan] say even if elected you will stay away from decision making against those found guilty. But the question is even then can the decision of BCCI be seen as a fair decision? Will not he be exercising his influence in some way or other? Bias in such situation happens in a subtle way."
 
(This story was first published by IANS on June 6, 2021)

Indian administrators must change mind-set towards women's cricket

By Qaiser Mohammad Ali

(Indo-Asian News Service)

New Delhi, May 30 (IANS) In 2012, the Indian Sports Ministry asked all the national sports federations (NSFs) to make provision for "at least 10 per cent of its total membership" to women, besides the 25 per cent membership and voting rights it envisaged for the government-nominated athletes on the executive committees of the NSFs.

But the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) would have none of it -- it can only afford to snub the sports ministry, like it did.
 
In a 39-page, strongly-worded reply to the Ministry, the BCCI straightaway rejected the instructions.
 
"Cricket for women is no doubt conducted under the aegis of the BCCI, but (it) has never attracted even a fraction of the popularity associated with the men's team," it wrote.
 
"Our members would never accept such an illegal imposition of women having membership and voting rights over cricketing matters concerning the men's team. In fact, this provision is downright absurd as far as the BCCI is concerned. The end result of these changes would dilute the voting rights of the existing members by 35 per cent (25+10 per cent) and that is reason enough to drop these provisions," the Board added.
 
Needless to say, the BCCI never implemented the Ministry's instructions -- and got away scot-free.
 
Here's another example. Just a few years ago, when I asked a former president of the Indian cricket board during a formal interview about the lack of facilities for Indian women cricketers, he chose to go "off the record" and poured out, what I felt, were his true feelings for women cricketers.
 
What he told me "off the record" was candid as well as disconcerting. More importantly, his "off the record" reply gave a peep into the mind-set of Indian cricket administrators vis-a-vis women cricketers.
 
"See, the Indian (male) players are getting the facilities after several decades; the women's wing wanted this within two years," he stated, off the record.
 
"They want to be treated on the same lines as (Mahendra Singh) Dhoni and (Sachin) Tendulkar. Within bounds and reasons, they have been given all -- they have been holding camps, using the NCA (National Cricket Academy). They want to tour; they are allowed. We cannot duplicate the men's wing for them. The men's wing got it after many years after delivering so much on the field. Please understand that," he said.
 
The reply came as a revelation of the mentality of the BCCI -- of what they think about women cricketers.
 
As a disclaimer, let me point out that this is not to belittle the superb achievements of the men's team over the years and decades, nor am I trying to make a case that women cricketers should immediately - and at all costs -- be given all that their male counterparts are receiving.
 
The point here is that the BCCI is rich enough to narrow the vast gap between the wages of the two genders -- provided the thinking of its administrators changes, if it hasn't so far, since the former president gave me a peep into his mind.
 
The BCCI's 2018-19 balance sheet showed that it was worth a colossal Rs 14,489.80 crore. Obviously, there is no dearth of money; it has to be the mind-set, which must change.
 
As the Indian women's team is set to embark on a tour of England in a few days, not much may have changed within the BCCI with regard to women cricketers. A sample of this can be had from the vast disparity in the annual retainership for male and female players announced recently.
 
The annual retainership/contract for players is just the latest example of the huge gulf between the pay scale of the male and female cricketers. A male cricketer in the A+ Grade receives Rs 7 crore, those in the A bracket get Rs 5 crore, cricketers in the B category receive Rs 3 crore, and cricketers in the C Grade get Rs 1 crore annually.
 
For women, there are only three grades, and the retainership amounts are Rs 50 lakh, Rs 30 lakh, and Rs 10 lakh. Yes, you read it right - Rs 50 lakh, Rs 30 lakh, and Rs 10 lakh.
 
The total amount the BCCI has earmarked for the 28 male cricketers for the 2020-21 annual retainership is Rs 96 crore, while the corresponding grand total for the 19 contracted women cricketers is a mere Rs 5.10 crore -- a colossal difference of Rs 90.90 crore.
 
Similarly, there is a huge gulf in the match fees of Indian male and female cricketers.
 
Also, the women's teams play much less international matches than the men's team - therefore, much less income in terms of match fee. Imagine, the Indian women's team last played a Test match in 2014. They will now play one in England.
 
Those who try to defend the vast disparity in payment often argue that women players don't attract revenue via sponsorship and other endorsements, so they deserve less pay.
 
My counter is: Did the BCCI over the years and decades try to take women players (and administrators of the national women's cricket body when they were a separate entity until 2006) into confidence and market their game along with men's? Did they treat female cricketers at par with their male counterparts in many other respects? The answer is: No.
 
Had the BCCI administrators over the decades honestly planned about the betterment of the women's game, they could have bundled the sponsorship deals, combining men's and women's cricket. That never happened.
 
The hard truth is that the BCCI extremely reluctantly merged the national women's body, which was an independent body until 2006. The BCCI was one of the last national men's boards to merge the women's wing on the instructions of the International Cricket Council.
 
And then people with a certain mind-set have been ruling the BCCI since. Evidently, there are different yardsticks for men's and women's game.
 
Indian women cricketers, present and past, saw a ray of hope when Sourav Ganguly was elected BCCI president in October 2019. Former India captain Shanta Ramgaswamy was among those who saw light at the end of the tunnel.
 
"As Sourav is there as BCCI president and when he says that he wants to do something for first-class cricketers, I suppose he includes women players also. So, that's a good sign. Hopefully, half of our work will be done. What we need to do, he himself is proposing. If it happens, it will be a shot in the arm for all women cricketers who slogged all their lives to help sustain this game," Ramgaswamy, who is now in the BCCI apex council as a representative of the Indian Cricketers' Association, had told me after the 2019 BCCI elections.
 
Alas, not much has happened since October 2019. Probably Ganguly alone can't do anything without his colleagues changing their mind-set vis-a-vis Indian women's cricket.
 
(First published in Indo-Asian News Service)

As Bishan Bedi recovers from illness, granddaughter makes him smile

By Qaiser Mohammad Ali ( IANS)

New Delhi, March 24 (IANS) Cricket legend Bishan Singh Bedi always had a firm grip and control over the ball while bowling his flighted left-arm spinners. The only difference these days is that he holds not one but two balls in his hands at the same time on medical advice. Instead of the leather, these are rubber balls meant to stimulate muscles after his recent multiple operations. And when his granddaughter throws the same fluorescent coloured balls in the air, Bedi's eyes light up and brings a smile to his face, even as he advises her: "catch it, catch it".

Six-year-old Suhavi, daughter of Bedi's daughter, is clearly the lifeline of the 74-year-old former India captain. So, when the ponytailed Suhavi throws the same green and orange fluorescent coloured balls high up in the air and tries to catch them, Bedi breaks into a genuine smile. And the shouts of "catch it, catch it" come out naturally and instinctively.

It is evening time and Bedi, along with wife Anju, daughter Neha, and her husband Gautam -- besides the two male nurses -- are sitting in the large lawn at the back of 'Cricket Abode', the name of his sprawling spacious south Delhi farm house. Neha affectionately makes her father drink something from a cup and eat a couple of cookies. Although Bedi is not too interested, he gives in to his daughter's pleading.

Although Bedi is temporarily moving in a wheelchair as he recovers from a recent open heart surgery and its after-effects, his indomitable will hasn't dimmed one bit, much like the courage he showed while flighting the ball to flummox batsmen and spell their doom. All his faculties are alert, coherent, and functioning well. This became evident when he warned one of the male nurses to not annoy one of his pet dogs.

Besides being fond of dogs -- in mid-1990s there were a dozen, now there are only four left -- Bedi "likes" wearing T-shirts and shorts at home, say his family members. Little wonder therefore that even these days he wears the same attire, with the unmistakable logo of 'Bishan Singh Bedi Coaching Trust', which he found around 30 years ago, displayed on his T-shirt and the shorts he is wearing.

Bedi speaks less these days due to weakness -- only bubbly Suhavi brings out a smile from him and the odd shouts of "catch it" -- but he minutely observes everything. He was quick to praise the green-and-black checked shirt of a visitor: "Very good check". Like a perfect host, he quickly asks Neha to make tea and snacks for the guest, and tray duly arrives in no time. Talking of cookies, the affable Anju informs that her husband particularly likes cookies with embellishments on top.

Now, Suhavi, the cynosure of all eyes, changes track as her father Gautam, husband of Neha, brings out a plastic golf set. Several plastic balls are placed on the spiral, Suhavi hits them one by one to a plastic hole above the ground that her father holds a few metres away.

Bedi also grows crops at the back of his farmhouse. Since the surroundings are thick with trees, stray peacocks venture into the cricketer's backyard. Suhavi suddenly leaves golf set and chases one of the peacocks, even makes a sound similar to that of a peacock. All this keeps everyone in the family, particularly Bedi, engaged and glued.

The only missing family members are Bedi's actor son Angad and his well-known actress wife, also named Neha. Lo and behold, Angad from Mumbai makes a video-call on her mother's mobile even as Bedi was engaged in a chat. Anju asks daughter Neha to hold phone to her father so that he could speak to him. When Angad asked "how are you?", Bedi answered with a question: "how are YOU?" Angad, a Bollywood actor, was attending his father in Delhi, but had gone back to Mumbai for some work. But like a faithful son, he remains in constant touch with his father on phone on a daily basis, and keeps visiting his father every now and then, along with his wife Neha, also an actor.

Interestingly, now since there are two Nehas in the Bedi family, how do the family members distinguish between the two when both are present. If anyone thought there would be confusion when someone calls either Bedi's daughter or the daughter-in-law, Anju says the issue is easily resolved by following a tradition in the Sikh families.

"In our households, even the elderly don't call the bride by name. They address them by saying 'wife of so and so'. So, when both Nehas are at home, I call them in the similar way," says the articulate Mrs Bedi, who shifted from Kanpur to Delhi in 1980 after her marriage.

All this while, the fluorescent rubber balls are at play, either in the hands of Bedi, who had a paralytic attack too, or of Suhavi. Pressing these balls stimulate muscles, explains Dr Natottam Puri, an old friend of Bedi. "There are several ways of doing physiotherapy, and this is one of those. When the hands press the rubber ball, it stimulates muscles and gets rid of muscle atrophy," says the well-known doctor-turned-cricket-commentator. Then Puri pays a huge compliment to his friend of several decades, referring to Bedi's never-say-die spirit: "There's a fast bowler's heart in a spinner's body." Time has passed quickly, and the sun is about to set. Bedi has been sitting in the wheelchair for long, and he is now feeling tired. "Can I go inside now, please?" he politely asks his wife. Everyone agrees. "Would you like to take a walk?" Anju and Neha ask him. But Bedi is not too interested. So, Gautam pushes his chair inside. Suhavi too goes inside, after chasing the peacocks. The rest of the family members and the two nurses also walk inside the covered area of the vast 'Cricket Abode', far from the madding crowd of Delhi.

(This story was first published by Indo-Asian News Service)

Say It Again, The Bat Is A Lonely Hunter

How brothers Sarfaraz Khan and Musheer fought darkness and came around to be regarded among Indian cricket’s brightest talents

Sarfaraz Khan.
Photos: Emmanual Karbahri (Outlook)

By Qaiser Mohammad Ali

(This story was first published in Outook magazine dated June 1, 2020)

New Delhi: Depression, the blight that has its talons sunk across the world, can melt the doughtiest of persons. Only a few emerge stronger, but it takes mental toughness and doggedness. Sarfaraz Khan and younger brother Musheer, the young cricketers of Mumbai, seem to have those qualities in abundance. They not only overcame a tormenting 2019 but notched up career best performances in the season that ended in March.”

Even as Sarfaraz was serving a oneyear cooling-off period in 2018-19 season to qualify to represent Mumbai again on his return from Uttar Pradesh after five years, the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) banned Musheer for three years for indiscipline. As the blues slowly consumed Musheer, their father-cum-coach Naushad too succumbed to depression. 

The three faced a bleak future in cricket—the only thing the family lives for. But, guided by a doting Naushad and some psychiatric therapy, how the two boys have returned with stronger resolve and renewed vigour! 

From left: Sarfaraz Khan, his younger brother
Musheer, father Naushad, and third brother Moeen.

They scored runs and dismissed batsmen almost at will, playing with steely determination. Hard-hitting middle order batsman Sarfaraz, 22, finished the Ranji Trophy tournament with the highest average in India -- 154.66 -- while plundering 928 runs in six matches, comprising a fabulous, unbeaten triple and a double century.

Sarfaraz, who had hammered a record 439 for Rizvi Springfield in a Harris Shield inter-school match in 2009, chipped in with cameos for the Mumbai under-23 team for the CK Nayudu Trophy.“He has had an outstanding season. There’s no doubt about it. His comeback was due to his mental toughness and he has worked hard at his cricketing skills as well. His father, too, has worked hard. Both Sarfaraz and Musheer are talented,” former India and Mumbai captain Dilip Vengsarkar tells Outlook.

In 2015, a year after a good performance at the under-19 World Cup and Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) buying him for Rs. 50 lakh, Naushad had taken a transfer for Sarfaraz, still a minor, to Uttar Pradesh due to lack of opportunities in Mumbai. But the stint in Uttar Pradesh was unsatisfactory. 

Form deserted him too and a serious knee injury just before 2017 IPL added to his misery. The consolation: RCB kept faith in Sarfaraz and retained him for Rs.1.75 crore at the January 2018 auction. Finally, a wiser Naushad brought Sarfaraz back to Mumbai in 2018, but he had to sit out the cooling-off period to be eligible to play in 2019-20.

The Sarfaraz of 2020 is vastly different from the one of 2015. A natural strokeplayer, he has learned to curb his instincts in red-ball cricket and justified selectors’ decision to pick him with three centuries, including a brilliant triple century against Uttar Pradesh – 301 not out (391 balls, 30x4, 8x6). His stupendous Ranji sequence reads: 8, 71 n.o., 36, 301 n.o., 226 n.o., 78, 25, 177, and 6 -- 928 runs at a stratospheric average of 154.66.

Former India wicket-keeper Kiran More was impressed too. “Sarfaraz is an exceptional talent. This season is a game changer for him. He has gone through hell, so he’ll now be prepared to take on any challenge…. He’s definitely India material,” More tells Outlook.

Naushad, who motivates his sons by reading couplets from famous ghazals, says the turnaround is due to a change in Sarfaraz’s approach. “For example, he used to dread getting out in the slips. Now he doesn’t, as he chooses his strokes and tries to play the ball along the ground,” he says.

Sarfaraz, rather nonchalantly, describes his game thus: “While playing red ball cricket I try to be patient. If you stay at the pitch, you would know what shots to play. I play my natural game in white ball cricket. But, even in longer versions, after completing a century I switch to my natural game. Simple.”

It was, of course, not simple -- not just for injury-hit Sarfaraz, but also for Musheer and Naushad. The MCA had handed its under-16 captain Musheer, who was yet to turn 14, a three-year ban for ‘indiscipline’ during a Vijay Merchant Trophy match against UP in January 2019. “I expected a lot from my sons, that’s why I went into depression. When Sarfaraz came back from UP, I got depressed as I wondered about his career after his cooling-off period -- will Mumbai pick him again?” confesses an emotional Naushad.

Sarfaraz slew all doubts with his prolific bat. The icing on the cake was left-arm spinner Musheer capturing 30 wickets at a miserly average of 9.36 in the under-16 Vijay Merchant Trophy on his comeback after his ban was reduced to 11 months following an apology. The diminutive tweaker, who turned 15 on February 27, bagged two 10-wicket match hauls -- one in the final against Punjab--in four matches to propel Mumbai to the title triumph. Overall, he captured three five-wicket hauls, and scored 125 runs. In the under-19 Cooch Behar Trophy, he scored 84 runs and took a solitary wicket in two matches, as Mumbai lost to Vidarbha in semis in which he scored a fine 57.

During their period of crisis last year, Naushad, a former cricketer, took his sons to play matches in Bangalore, Hyderabad, Moradabad, Meerut, Mau and Azamgarh, to keep their hands in. “It was a tough period, but a popular couplet of Nida Fazli inspired me: Safar mein dhoop toh hogi jo chal sako to chalo, sabhi hain bheed mein, tum bhi nikal sako to chalo, yahan kisi ko koi rasta nahi deta, mujhe girake agar tum sambhal sako to chalo (there will be heat and roadblocks in the journey; you venture out if you can withstand these hurdles),” he recites.

Both Sarfaraz and Musheer had to seek psychiatric help. In 2011, when a Mumbai school wrongfully, and unsuccessfully, accused Sarfaraz of age manipulation, he slipped into depression, and Naushad had taken him to a psychiatrist. Last year, Musheer also saw a psychiatrist in Mumbai, before coming out stronger. “Depression is the single largest illness in the world that hits every social stratum. We’ve to recognise mental health in sports to help athletes bounce back,” Dr Samir Parikh of Delhi’s Fortis Healthcare tells Outlook.

About his last year’s cooling-off period, Sarfaraz says, “I knew the opportunity would come, and for that I’d have to be prepared. During that period, I got to understand and know myself.” Their troubles now a distant cloud, Sarfaraz and Musheer are well on their way.

(I wrote this story after the end of the 2019-20 Indian domestic cricket season, which was a very successful one for Sarfaraz Khan and his younger brother Musheer, a promising left-arm spinner)

HOW THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT IS STRATEGICALLY SILENT ON BRINGING BCCI UNDER RTI ACT, LETTING THE BOARD'S EMPLOYEES RUN THE DOMESTIC CRICKET

By QAISER MOHAMMAD ALI, Outlook magazine, issue August 13, 2018

FOR several years, the central government has been making an effort to bring the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, like all National Sports Federations (NSFs). But the Board has been steadfastly, even audaciously, stonewalling the government, thanks to the full backing of politicians who have been -- and still are -- part of it. Successive dispensations, too, have never really been serious about implementing it.

While defying government RTI orders with disdain, the main thrust of BCCI’s defiance—and on which it has been harping unashamedly—has been that it doesn’t take financial assistance from the government. That is only partly true, as it does take indirect, ‘substantial assistance’, as the Delhi High Court observed some years ago and something the Union sports ministry, too, keeps insisting. And, crucially, the men who are the foundational support to the superstructure of BCCI-run tournaments—match officials who run things on the ground—are employees of government institutions.

It’s a matter on which the BCCI conveniently, and consistently, keeps mum. This April, The Law Commission of India (LCI) in a report prepared on directions of the Supreme Court, recommended that the RTI Act be made applicable to the BCCI and all its state affiliates. In addition, the Supreme Court has concluded, in the famous ‘BCCI versus Netaji Cricket Club (Chennai)’ case of 2005—and even in the Zee Telefilms vs Union of India case—that the Board “exercises enormous public functions” and “state-like functions”. These include selection of national teams that are fielded in global tournaments, with players/officials wearing the Indian national logo using the word ‘India’, which is part of the Emblem Act. 

The main governmental assistance to the BCCI comes in the form of heavily subsidised land provided for constructing stadiums, income tax/customs exemption—between 1997 and 2007, the government gave an exemption of Rs 2,168 crore—and civic/security services etc.. “Whenever the BCCI faced difficulty in obtaining customs duty exemption it approached this ministry, seeking a certificate that announced it is a recognised NSF for cricket. The ministry has issued such certificates in favour of the BCCI,” the Union sports ministry in December 2011 said in its reply to the Central Information Commission (CIC), supporting an application that had sought that the BCCI be declared a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act.

However, strangely and surprisingly, while listing the assistance it provides to the BCCI, the government never highlighted the most important support it provides—match officials. They conduct various domestic tournaments and are thus the pillars, as well as the nuts and bolts, without which the entire BCCI edifice would collapse. Had the sports ministry in its various reports/replies to Parliament questions raised this point, the BCCI would have been defenceless. A case could thus have been built for it to come under the RTI ambit and share information, particularly financial, that it fiercely shields.

Two top sports ministry officials who handled the BCCI-RTI Act issue during sports minister Lalit Maken’s short tenure in 2011-2012 now candidly admit to have erred in overlooking this vital aspect. “Yes, we didn’t realise this at the time. If we had flagged this issue with the BCCI, it would have been better because the Board benefited from these umpires and scorers etc. who are actually government employees,” one official tells Outlook. The other concurred with his colleague’s views. 

So, who are these match officials and how are they so important for the BCCI? They are umpires, referees, scorers, and video analysts—and, in many instances, even coaches and players. A significant number of them are government employees who double up as cricket officials during the domestic cricket season in winter after taking legitimate/special leave from their offices. 

Veritably, the number of match officials —all freelancers, trained by the BCCI—is colossal. The BCCI uses close to 500 match officials—the world’s largest such contingent—comprising umpires, referees, scorers and video analysts. Of 97 umpires and 58 match referees, the people who conduct matches, a substantial number are government employees. Besides, there are many referees, scorers and video analysts who work in various government institutions, mainly banks. 

It’s surprising how long the roster is—the Reserve Bank of India, State Bank of India, Comptroller and Attorney General, Dena Bank, Canara Bank, Vijaya Bank, Oriental Bank Corporation, Punjab National Bank, Indian Railways, Services, Indian Oil, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Food Corporation of India, Income Tax Department, Accountant General, India Post, BSNL, and Life Insurance Corporation. 

Although the BCCI is the world’s richest cricket body, it cannot employ nearly 500 officials permanently, simply because they wouldn’t have anything to do in the off season. It makes business sense for the BCCI to hire them professionally, only during the domestic season. The question here is not whether government employees can conduct BCCI matches; they are free to pursue their passion. The issue is of dogged resistance by the Board to become accountable and transparent under the RTI Act. But, as the ministry officials admitted, the government has itself to blame for giving the BCCI a long rope. If it sincerely wanted to force the BCCI, it could have told it something like this: ‘Look, you are heavily dependent on us in many areas. If you don’t come under the RTI Act, we would not grant leave to our employees to work in your tournaments as match officials.’ 

Indeed, government employees take leave to officiate in matches. Of course, some banks are aware of what their employees do, but still sportingly oblige their employees, and indirectly, the BCCI. “I worked for 28 years with Syndicate Bank in Bangalore, before retiring in 2008. My bank was very cooperative in granting leave within the rules so that I could officiate in matches. I would attach the BCCI letter of assignment while applying for leave,” Shavir Tarapore, a former ICC International Panel umpire and ex-Karnataka cricketer, tells Outlook. 

It is said that due to his insistence on BCCI coming under the RTI Act, the Congress-led UPA government removed Maken in October 2012, after barely 20 months in office. It must be remembered that at the time, influential Congress party ministers Jyotiraditya Scindia and Rajeev Shukla, along with the BJP’s Arun Jaitley called the shots in the BCCI. They also headed three of the Board’s state affiliates. Over the years, whenever it has come to shielding the BCCI from becoming accountable, politicians have joined hands to scotch all such attempts. 

Also, a few RTI activists have over the years tried, though unsuccessfully, to eke out information, particularly about finances, from the BCCI. Besides, some people allege that the BCCI even “bought out” some RTI activists who wanted it to be declared a ‘public authority’. Such talk gained ground when they often failed to appear before the CIC when summoned. 

As the blockbuster 2018-19 domestic cricket season, comprising a whopping 2,017 matches, is set to start on August 13, there are apprehensions about the BCCI managing to deploy umpires, referees, scorers and video analysts smoothly. Be that as it may, the Board would, for the umpteenth time, bank heavily on banks and other government institutions for the indispensable match officials. Freely partaking of the government’s beneficence, the BCCI quails only when the issue of its coming under the RTI umbrella arises.

BLONGERS MUST WALK

This infraction resulted in exemplary punishment. The ICC must now crush the recrudescent scandals that deface cricket.

By Qaiser Mohammad Ali, Outlook magazine, April 9, 2018

The entire saga of tampering of the cricket ball by Australian player Cameron Bancroft in Cape Town, the subsequent discovery—and admission by the culprits—of a conspiracy led by captain Steve Smith, Cricket Austra­lia’s enquiry and the punishment ­meted out, has dealt a grievous blow to the so-called ‘gentleman’s game’. Is cric­ket today the most corruption-­ridden and the  most cheating-prone of all major international sports? As scandal after scandal unfolds, the fan is left wondering about the vaunted sense of ‘fair play’, ‘sporting spirit’ and gentlemanly propriety. The very concept of sport as a means of entertainment has been overtaken by a grim ‘win-at-all-costs’ syndrome and the greed for money.

Although there have been innumerable cases of cheating in sport for centuries around the globe, any misdemeanour on or off the cricket field parti­cularly hogs global headlines, as it has historically been hailed as the game that the good guys play. So, Bancroft rubbing an illegal foreign obj­ect on the ball, to get the adv­antage of reverse swing for his bowling side during the third Test against South Africa, was a monumental disgrace, even if he did it on instructions from the team’s ‘leadership group’.

So blatant was the cheating that Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull termed it a “terrible disgrace”. He called upon Cricket Australia (CA) to act “decisively and emphatically” and punish the guilty. CA promptly laun­ched an inquiry, following which it banned captain Steve Smith and vice-­captain David Warner for a year each and Bancroft for nine months from all international and domestic cricket. Later, coach Darren Lehmann stated that he would quit after the fourth Test against South Africa sla­ted to start on March 30. Warner will never be considered for leadership roles. BCCI has banned Smith and Warner from captaining and representing Raj­asthan Royals and SunRisers Hyderabad respectively. Additionally, ICC has fined Smith and Bancroft, though that was like just a slap on the wrist.

Over the years and decades, there have been many instances of cheating in cricket. At times, they give the impression that the game has perpetually been a cosy club of conmen. In the last ten years particularly, there has been a spate of cases involving ball tampering, spot/match-fixing, pitch-­fixing, batsmen getting out deliberat­ely, players passing information to bookies and poor on-field behaviour. A few of those caught in corruption have been penalised with bans, but some cricketers seem incorrigible and continue to indulge in illegal practices, wilfully flouting rules.

Mukul Mudgal, a retired Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who probed the 2013 IPL betting-fixing scandal, is categorical in his assessment. “For a long time, cricket has not been a ‘gentleman’s game’. For that mat­­ter, no competitive sport can be a gentleman’s game. Yes, the standard of fair play differ from game to game, but that tag is a thing of the past. There are very high stakes involved now,” Mudgal tells Outlook.

All major sports in the world have had their low points. Athletes have been ­ind­­ulging in malpractices for ages in different sports events, including the Olympic Games. In the US, Major League Baseball (MLB) was rocked in 2013 when many players were caught using human growth hormone from the Biogenesis of America clinic. MLB got cracking and pun­ished 14 players—the most number of suspensions it has ever handed at one go.

Basketball, another extremely popular sport in America, also has had its share of scandals. In March last year, New York Knicks’ Joakim Noah was suspended for 20 games after he tested positive for ligandrol, a banned substance. In 2016, O.J. Mayo of Milwaukee Bucks was banned for violating the NBA’s anti-doping programme. These are not isolated cases; NBA’s history, dating back to the early 1950s, is replete with bans and suspensions of players for various transgressions.

But the biggest corruption case in sports in recent history was the FIFA bribery and money laundering scandal in 2015. It is believed that at least $150 million changed hands between FIFA officials and outsiders. The bribery att­empt also hit the bidding process of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, besides FIFA’s media and marketing rights. Seve­ral top officials were arrested by the US police and investigation authorities, while some others chose to surrender. Among those impacted was Sepp Blatter, who was removed as FIFA president after a 17-year-long stint.

Since the scandal, a drastic cleansing drive was initiated at FIFA. Amongst the measures taken was the appointment of Mudgal as chairman of the FIFA Governance Committee. “FIFA has taken several steps to improve its functioning and make it transparent. I can give one example. The 2026 World Cups bids are now being assessed and all the criteria are on the FIFA website. There are two sets of bids: one is a joint bid by Canada, Mexico and the US, while the other bidder is Morocco. The way they are going to be judged is in the open and there’s a committee that will assess them,” he says.

However, no single governing body has been able to rein in corruption and illegal activities in cricket. In the Indian sub-continent and Australia (and less so in England), cricket is the biggest money-spinner, and the scale of malpractice in the sport is also massive. The list of offences is endless even if one looks at the game’s recent history. In 2010, some Pakistani players accepted money to bowl no balls in a Test in England; in 2012, an Indian TV channel all­egedly induced some second string Ind­ian players with monetary offers to play below par; in 2013, the IPL betting-fixing scandal exploded in the open. In between, there have been several cases of ball tampering. Amongst those charged were Sachin Tendulkar (vs South Afr­ica, 2001), Rahul Dravid (vs Zimbabwe, 2004), Shahid Afridi (vs Australia, 2010), and Faf du Plessis (vs Australia, 2016), to name a few big names.

Many experts, including Mudgal, feel that the ever-growing stakes in cricket are responsible for the breaches that tarnish the reputation of the glorious game with unfailing regularity. Former India all-rou­n­der Madan Lal can’t understand the gr­eed of current cricketers. “Com­­m­­erc­ia­lisation is only one of the reasons for the mess. If you deeply think about the issue, corruption should ideally be less bec­ause players are now getting more money, which should satisfy them; so, teams should be clean,” says Madan Lal, a member of the 1983 World Cup-winning team.

Former India hockey captain and Dhyan Chand’s son Ashok Kumar points to Kerry Packer’s World Series Cricket (WSC), launched in 1977-78 in Australia, as the turning point of commercialisation. Denied TV rights for Australian cricket, the media moghul hired the world’s top players and threw money at them to play for him. Since then the lot of cricketers has only grown healthier in terms of improved remuneration. The hike in their payment structure coincided with a rapid rise in sponsorship money. Ashok Kumar says that players were ‘managed’ as far back as 1970s in the Calcutta Hockey League, in which he represented Mohun Bagan, but that seems like innocent days compared to match-fixing in cricket today. “I played the league in 1969 and received Rs 3,000 for the season. I came to know there that players were ‘managed’, but I am not sure if they were ‘managed’ with offers of money or by some other kind of inducements. Secretaries of the clubs would do that, and inform us that so and so have been ‘managed’. But, overall, hockey has been clean—rather, I would say, too clean,” Ashok Kumar tells Outlook.

Former India football captain Subimal ‘Chuni’ Goswami, who also captained Bengal in the Ranji Trophy, also squarely blames excess money in cric­ket for the malpractices. “Cricket is no more an amateur game, and players are now professionals. Everyone is trying to impress all in order to earn more money because the sport is now fetching unimaginable amounts of money, especially T20 cricket. So, I am not surprised at what is happening in cricket,” says Calcutta-based Goswami.

Many people feel imposing monetary fines on players would not serve the purpose, simply because it doesn’t pinch them. Slapping bans is a better way to teach them a lesson, as that would damage their reputation. For INS­tance, Warner lost a personal sponsor even before CA pronounced the one-year ban on him. Home appliance giant LG confirmed that it would discontinue its long-term sponsorship of Warner in the light of the ball-tampering scandal.

Disturbingly, the Cape Town controversy has raised the question if cricket is fast becoming one of the most notorious sports, thanks to the convulsions that keep rocking it regularly. Mudgal takes a pragmatic view. “We have to have rules about sledging etc. in the code of the conduct. But to make cricketers choirboys is also stupid. The bid to turn them into paragons of virtues is not going to happen. Cricket is a very professional game, highly competitive,” he says.

Mudgal says the measures suggested in his committee’s report on the 2013 IPL betting-fixing scandal and those sugges­ted by the Lodha Committee could be a first step to check malpractices. But more than anything else, a vigilant and stern ICC is of paramount importance. After the kid-glove treatment it meted out to the culprits in the Australian squad in the present ball tampering con­trove­rsy—when that country’s cricket board has han­ded out exemplary punishment—it does seem the ICC is of a mind to take stern action. The governing body has fin­ally said it would rev­iew ball-tampering and code of conduct rules.

(This story first appeared in Outlook issue of April 

BETTING AND FIXING ATTEMPTS WILL GO ON, SAYS NEERAJ KUMAR, ANTI-CORRUPTION UNIT CHIEF, BCCI

(INTERVIEW)

 By Qaiser Mohammad Ali, Outlook magazine

Neeraj Kumar, now 64, was the Delhi Police Commissioner when his subordinates broke the 2013 IPL betting-fixing scandal by arresting several cricketers like Sree Santh, and now heads the BCCI’s Anti-Corruption Unit. Kumar spoke to Qaiser Mohammad Ali on the challenges of tackling bookies and the menace of betting and match-fixing. Excerpts:

Do you see a spurt in bookies’ activities?

One can never know because we get information about their moves and their approaches once in a while, but that is no measure of what they are doing behind the scenes. It’s not that if they are more active we’ll get to know or if they are less active we’ll get to know. They are always active because the stakes are so high, so people have to be active, though they’ve become more cautious and adopt newer techniques. Just to give a perspective, on betting website Betfair alone, $45 million are bet on one IPL match. And there are several such websites. And this is open betting; you can imagine what goes on in the dark sector. Most of the Indian bookies -- and those who bet ‘petis’ and ‘khokhas’ etc – don’t do it by any means by which they could be tracked. They are always active and we should go with the presumption that they are at it all the time.

So, the ACUs of all the countries and the ICC have to be one step ahead of them?

Obviously, that’s the logical conclusion. In every which way we have to be more active, whether it’s technical assets or human assets or your own resources – manpower and technical – more hands-on, more pro-active and so on.

Since Sobers Joban is a former domestic Indian cricketer, can the BCCI ACU take action against him [after a sting done by British tabloid, The Sun]?

For what? First of all, you have to understand that the BCCI ACU has no police powers. We cannot summon, interrogate or arrest anybody. Secondly, suppose a police station wants to take action, but the laws are as good as non-existent. You’ve seen the fate of cases in the past. In the absence of proper legislation to deal with betting etc – unlike in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa – we cannot make any kind of illegal activity in any sport illegal and enforcement agencies are totally powerless. There is a Bill pending in Parliament, though. The only thing that the BCCI ACU can do is to gather intelligence and to have photographs [of bookies/punters] and tell players, who are being educated by the ACU all the time, that so and so is a shady man and please beware of him. And, as I have said in my letter that has gone public, that the BCCI ACU knew about Sobers Joban and Prinyank Saxena and the fact that we have all the details of them, it should be a matter of great satisfaction, if not pride, for the BCCI.

Did you take into confidence the CBI’s Sports Integrity Unit in this or other cases?

We are not in touch with them, nor they are with us. I accidentally came to know about this unit’s existence just a couple of months ago because it is investigating the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association matter [financial irregularities].

Do you think this CBI unit can help in curbing the fixing menace?

That can happen only if you have a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the BCCI and the CBI. It has to be through the ministry that controls the CBI. If I have to deal with any police force on a regular basis, and if it’s binding on that force to assist the BCCI ACU, it has to be through the MoU that spells out the rules of business. This is a matter for consideration.

Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals return to the IPL in 2018 after serving their two-year bans. Do you feel that it will pose a bigger challenge to the BCCI ACU?

Although their return will have no direct bearing on the level of corruption that might happen, betting would take place whether it is team ‘X’ or ‘Y’. Betting and fixing attempts will go on the same scale. If something happens like it happened in 2013, whether it is caught by the police force or the ICC, of course it will immediately be a reflection on the BCCI itself.

Have you given any blueprint for monitoring the IPL?

We have a blueprint that we follow every IPL. But I have sent several proposals for augmentation for IPL and for other resources. Even when the ACU was formed in 2012 the minimum total sanctioned strength was six people, including its chief. We are short by three on that proposal and more than five years have gone by, leave alone making additional changes. And the number of matches has gone up several times.

The BCCI wants to retire all its employees at 60. Do you think that’s a fair call vis-à-vis ACU personnel?

I joined at the age of 61-plus. I can’t make a comment on that because that would be a policy decision of the Board. But the point is that when you are looking for a Director to head the ACU and if you are looking for an IPS officer, surely nobody will quit the police service to join BCCI, if he’s worth his salt as a cop. It will always be someone 60-plus, once he has retired from the service.

Are you willing to stay as BCCI ACU chief? 

Why wouldn’t I? The insights and the understanding of the goings-on have come only with passage of time. And I would like to continue to put that to good use in the interest of cricket and to keep it clean.

(This interview first appeared in Outlook)

Pushed by WADA, the national anti-doping agency seeks cricketers’ samples. But BCCI hides behind the ICC Code

By QAISER MOHAMMAD ALI, Outlook magazine

The scourge on doping has once again cast its murky shadow on world sport in the recent past. In the aftermath of the massive doping scandals in Russia and Kenya, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is tightening its rules for doping violations by athletes, even as the International Olympic Council (IOC) has barred Russia from the Winter Olympic Games, to be held in Pyeongchang, South Korea, this February.

Charges against Russia are particularly grave. It is alleged that the state ‘sponsored’ a doping programme that ran from 2011 to 2015, and that hundreds of its athletes took advantage of the ‘official patronage’. Since 2002, the IOC has stripped over 50 Russians of their Olympic medals for doping violations.

Now, the proposed changes in the WADA rules, which the world body has not disclosed, may affect cricket as well, particularly the way the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) gets dope tests done on its players. On being asked by WADA, the Union sports ministry has told the BCCI to let the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) personnel collect cricketers’ samples for testing. BCCI has been using a Sweden-based agency, International Doping Tests & Man­age­ment (ITDM), for collecting samples.

The BCCI has refused to change its process, saying that it doesn’t fall under NADA’s jurisdiction, as it is not a National Sports Federation (NSF), and that it is “only required to operate within the anti-doping rules and regulations set by the International Cricket Council (ICC)”, which is a signatory to the WADA Code. All national cricket Boards implement the ICC Code, which is based on the WADA Code.

The sports ministry has now sent the BCCI reply to WADA, and has asked for guidance. “WADA wrote to the Indian sports minister, asking him to bring the Indian cricketers under NADA and do the testing etc. We asked the BCCI to cooperate with us and said that we would make a joint programme for testing cricketers, in-competition and out-of-competition,” says Rahul Bhat­nagar, Union sports secretary and NADA vice-chairman.

The ministry has told the BCCI that if it doesn’t cooperate “NADA may run the risk of becoming non-compliant with the WADA Code”, while its cooperation would help it become fully compliant. “The BCCI, as usual, never replied to our letters [for some time]. We then said we would forcefully take the samples and that we would see when they try to stop us. We have now asked WADA to let us know the correct position and accordingly we will take action,” says Bhatnagar.

WADA says that under the terms of the World Anti-Doping Code, NADA India has the testing authority over athletes who are nationals, residents, lice­nce-holders or members of sport organisations in India or are present in India. “The BCCI has prevented NADA India from conducting testing on athletes from the sport of cricket, and WADA is in the process of addressing this issue with the relevant anti-doping organisations within its Compliance Monitoring Pro­g­ram,” a WADA spokesperson tells Outlook.

However, WADA’s position is a bit str­a­nge, as the BCCI has been ICC Code-com­­pliant since 2011, so it’s impossible that the world anti-doping body wasn’t aware of it. Now, WADA, quite significa­ntly, says BCCI has “prevented” NADA from testing, adding to the puzzle. On the other hand, ICC looks like adopting a wait-and-watch policy in this tussle between the sports ministry and the BCCI. “We [have] maintained that this is a domestic matter of the BCCI and, as such, the ICC will be unable to comment on this,” it says.

Team India cricketers were tested for the first time at the 2003 World Cup. Later, the BCCI established an anti-­doping department, with Oly­m­­pian Dr Vece Paes heading it, and adopted the ICC Code in 2011. Now, the BCCI has its own anti-doping education programme and players are tested during the dom­estic tournaments and IPL. Only two Indians—Delhi pacer Pradeep Sangwan and Baroda batsman Yusuf Pat­­han—are among a global list of 22 cricketers who have tested positive so far.

There are two agencies that are hired by the ICC and BCCI—ITDM and Australia-based Sports Drug Testing International (SDTI)—for their education and sampling programmes, and both entities are recognised by WADA. So, that is not an issue.

Then why, wonders Doctor Ashok Ahuja, who has been part of BCCI’s anti-doping programme and is associated with ITDM, is the ministry insisting that BCCI involve NADA. “It is not that the BCCI alone gets the sampling done from these agencies (ITDM and SDTI), or it is not that these agencies are running for BCCI alone. A whole lot of international sports federations also carry out their programmes through these agencies. So, what are NADA’s objections to BCCI roping in these agencies?” he asks.

In the absence of a detailed explanation from WADA—it says it’s “addressing the issue in collaboration with the relevant parties”—a few reasons for the imb­roglio are being cited by experts. One is that the government wants to ‘control’ the BCCI, which in turn says that it is independent, as it doesn’t take any financial assistance from the government, unlike other federations.

The other reason could be that WADA is keen to tighten its rules after the Russian doping scandal. “After the doping scandal in Russia, Kenya and some other countries that led to 500-600 athletes being banned from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games, WADA was at its wit’s end as to how to handle this situation. In Russia and Kenya, officials were also involved in the scandal. So, to ensure that officials are not involved in what is called ‘state-sponsored doping’, WADA may be insisting that the national anti-­doping agencies should handle the testing programme,” says a BCCI source.

P.S.M. Chandran, who works as a doping control officer for the BCCI and is also NADA’s independent observer and a resource person for its anti-doping education programme, says the BCCI is fol­l­­owing the correct procedure. He ref­rains from commenting on whether government wants to control cricket, but he points out the deficiencies in NADA. “There are shortcomings in it, no doubt about that. It is ill-equipped, its office works in a temporary way—it is trying to get office space for years and is currently sharing a crammed place with other government departments in Pragati Vihar Hostel in Delhi—it is under-­staffed and doesn’t have many doctors. Everything is not perfect with NADA,” Dr Chandran tells Outlook.

Comparing the standards of NADA and ITDM, a source pointed out another shortcoming in the government owned agency. While NADA pays around Rs 1,000 to a sample collecting official for a day’s work, ITDM pays Rs 6,000. Also, all ITDM officials are medical graduates, while that’s not the case with NADA.

Whatever may be the final result of this curious tussle with WADA at its centre, the BCCI says it is already working with the government in a way, since it uses its National Doping Testing Laboratory (NDTL) for testing players’ samples, coll­ected by IDTM. “IDTM sends the colle­c­ted samples for testing to a WADA-­­­­accredited laboratory, viz. NDTL. Since the CEO of NDTL is the Union secretary (sports), Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, the dope test-ing for the BCCI is conducted under the aegis of the Department of Sports,” says BCCI CEO Rahul Johri in a letter sent to Rahul Bhatnagar. Johri also points out that since 2013 the BCCI has “consistently reported the highest number of sample testing in the world amongst all cricket Boards”.

Nevertheless, the prickly issue has to be resolved soon, before the IPL begins in April. Right now, neither the BCCI or the sports ministry is ready to budge an inch. The tug of war as to who will conduct doping tests on cricketers is at its tautest.

(This story first appeared in Outlook)

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH BCCI's CoA CHAIRMAN VINOD RAI: ‘$570 million is a mirage [for BCCI]. Nobody’s going to give us the 2014 ICC model’

Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators chairman says a reasonable amount should be thrashed through dialogue and debate with ICC

By QAISER MOHAMMAD ALI, Outlook magazine, May 22, 2017

As Comptroller and Auditor General of India (2008-2013), Vinod Rai brought out some major audits like that of 2G Spectrum allocation, coal mines allocation and corruption during the 2010 Delhi Commonwealth Games. Now, as head of the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) he is trying to reform the BCCI as per the Lodha Committee recommendations.

Excerpts from the Exclusive Interview:

What made you agree to the Supreme Court’s offer to head the CoA?

When SC makes a request you have no option, but to accept it with due humility because it is a matter of privilege for a person to be picked up by the Supreme Court.

After working with the BCCI for a few months, would you say it is the most challenging task that you have undertaken in your professional career?

Not really. In my 45-year career, I have handled far more challenging assignments. But the only difficulty is that the BCCI does not seem to have a systematic or scientific structure of governance, no prescribed or uniform system of administration, and [for] rules and laws etc., the applicability does not seem to be inform. So, we [CoA] are engaged in a job of trying to make it systematic and make sure that it is subject to good governance, going forward.

What exactly was your message to BCCI’s state associations on May 6 after which they had a change of heart -- from being confrontational to being ready for negotiations with ICC on revenue sharing model?

After seeing all that what was appearing in the media and talking to some of the state associations I got the feeling that they were not very much in picture about what was happening between the BCCI and the ICC. So, they didn’t have the perspective. And I think they had not been sensitised about the issues that the BCCI was taking up. So I thought it was best for me to talk to them directly and to sensitise them about the issues that the BCCI was facing vis-à-vis the ICC. I must compliment them for the maturity they showed: once they got to know what the issues really were they realised that they had a very incorrect picture or inadequate picture about the so-called dispute between the BCCI and the ICC. The moment they got to know the true picture, all of us got on to the same page and we were on the same wavelength thereafter.

Was there not a single voice that raised doubts about what you were saying?

No. There were certainly doubts before we started the discussion, but by the time we ended with all the five zones, we were all on the same page and even the naysayers had a change of heart and they also decided that pulling out of the Champions Trophy was the most ill-advised action that they would take.

In other words, were the BCCI office-bearers not showing the true picture to the state associations?

I don’t think they had a dialogue at all. After the new model of governance was introduced by the ICC [in 2014], the BCCI had an SGM in February 2016 in which probably all the states were not introduced [to governance model] and all that the SGM discussed was the financial model. They never got down to the model of governance which was undergoing a change and which is making a change to the constitution of the ICC. It means once introduced it becomes permanent. The financial model undergoes a change every two or three years and can change once again, but governance model doesn’t change. And I don’t think that was explained to them properly.

Do you think it was deliberately not explained to them?

No, I wouldn’t say it was deliberate. I don’t think anybody just took note of the fact that there was much more to explained than this. What happens is that financial issues hit you first, and the entire attention got diverted towards that side.

Why does the BCCI need so much money when it already has Rs.5000 crore-Rs.6000 crore net worth and has good infrastructure too?

I may not subscribe to that viewpoint. For any institution, if there is revenue accruing to it for any activity performed by it, that justifiable revenue must accrue to it. So, if the BCCI deserves a certain fee or a share of that revenue, they must get it. That’s why I felt that if the BCCI was supposed to get $570 million, for example, they should get it, or if they had to get $450 million they should get it. And $293 million which was being offered was certainly very incorrect; am not saying inadequate. BCCI can always make it. But incorrect vis-à-vis other countries who also contribute to the revenues of the ICC, and seeing the share what India contributes, the BCCI deserves to get much more.

Had this meeting between the CoA and the state associations been convened earlier than May 6, a lot of negative talk could have been avoided. Isn’t it?

Certainly. A large part of it could have been avoided. But we got the feeling that there were some interested parties that were wanting to put out news items that suited their interests. But we did make an attempt to sensitise the state associations, or the least at an SGM, sometime in March, after the CoA was appointed. But they scheduled the SGM on a date I was travelling abroad. And we made a request to them to reschedule it, but they didn’t agree to that. That was the time I wanted to explain to them that ‘look, this is the factual position and any decision that you people take must be predicated on the facts that I am placing on the table for you’, because I don’t think they weren’t sensitised about them. We also gave them a presentation on the ICC financial model and we explained to them that I’ve had discussions with representatives of eight countries’ Boards. Only Zimbabwe I couldn’t meet because I was travelling, but Vikram Limaye [COA member] and Rahul Johri [BCCI CEO] met them. To all eight Boards, we proposed a win-win formula for everybody, in which the share of Indian wasn’t going down and they were going to continue getting what was a much, much higher figure. The only issue is that we all are misled by this figure of $570 million. As I explained to the state associations, $570 million is a mirage. It’s true that it was signed in 2014, but the moment it was signed protests started against it. Then the dispensation at the ICC changed [From N. Srinivasan to Shashank Manohar]. And till today we’ve not received a single dollar as against the 2014 model. And it’s claimed -- I don’t know the truth – that arms were twisted. But the moment the other countries got the opportunity…see, you can’t do anything on a long term basis under duress. They have started speaking up, so we told that it was okay, $570 million -- minus the $125 million cost they had calculated, India’s share was $445 million. Now, the present ICC chairman is offering $390 million, which is very near $445 million. In fact, we had negotiated an amount that would have been higher than $400 million, after discussing with all the states, and am still hopeful that the ICC will accept out share to be higher than, say, $400 million.

You talked about taking the middle path and told that to the BCCI state associations also, and they agreed to take that path eventually as that is a very important segment. Isn’t it?

Not so much the middle path. We are sticking to the 2014 model and I call that a mirage. Nobody is going to give us the 2014 model [revenue share]. They claim that they were made to sign it under duress. I really don’t know. But considering the fact that we got voted out 9-1 [at the ICC Executive Board meeting in April] is very evident that all the countries are arranged against India. And they have offered us $293 million. Both appear unfair. So, that’s why we said that what is reasonable is to be thrashed out and that is a dialogue or a debate we are presently having with the ICC.

How was your meeting with Mr Shashank Manohar a day before he resigned as ICC chairman on March 15?

I had a very good meeting with him, along with Vikram and Rahul, in Mumbai. We discussed for three-four hours and I must say, to his credit, that he was very fair with us and did a lot of straight talking and he put things in the right perspective for us vis-à-vis the ICC. The ICC Directors also have a viewpoint; they also have, if I can call it, a certain ego, and we keep bashing their ego all time. He put all that in perspective. After the meeting when we were leaving and he was going back to Nagpur, I told him ‘Mr Manohar, if you ever consider resigning, do consult us’. He laughed it off. But of course the next day he resigned.

Was Mr Manohar satisfied with the conversation he had with you people?

Both of us – him and us – left very satisfied and convinced about the arguments of both parties. We decided that we’ll work in a collaborative manner and ensure that both parties benefit in the long term.

There’s a perception that Mr Manohar is taking revenge because he didn’t get along with Mr N. Srinivasan and some people see Mr Manohar as an ‘anti-national’ because he is supposedly working ‘against India’. Since he is an independent ICC chairman, is it fair to level those charges against him?

I really don’t know the inter-personal relationship of members of the BCCI over the years. I’ve never followed the history of the BCCI so closely, so I can't say anything about it. But I must say one thing: The ICC model that has been derived is not the Shashank Manohar model; it’s a model that had been derived taking the other countries’ viewpoint. To a large extent, though, being Indians it would appear it is unfair to us. But to a large extent it is fair to lots of countries, and where it is not fair we’ve pointed that out to him; or the share of a certain country is much more than what they deserve we’ve very frankly pointed out to him and he has acceded to our viewpoint. 

After Mr Manohar resigned, it seemed that everything would go back to square one. Later, he agreed to continue.

I don’t know about that, but we were one of the people who thought that we must persuade him to withdraw the resignation because he shares a very good rapport with all the countries and they have deep faith in him. And this deep faith is not because he is a former BCCI president or has got financial muscle or anything like that but because of the fact the he talks to them very frankly, very clearly and on even keel.

After the BCCI scrapped Champions League Twenty20 in 2015, Mr Jagmohan Dalmiya proposed a plan of earning more revenue in that two-week window in September-October. Are you aware of that model?

I heard of it but I shouldn’t be commenting on it because I don’t know it in detail. But you must realise one thing: we can’t be making our players play 300 days in a year. Body fatigue and injuries are very important; the game has become very challenging now. It’s very demanding and it’s not fair to make them play that long, just so that you can garner some revenue.

Many tax issues are confronting BCCI. Since you and Mr Vikram Limaye [Managing Director & CEO of IDFC] are best placed to tackle these tax issues, are you going to look into them and help resolve them?

We haven’t had the time to look into the tax issues in detail. We are only privy to some of the recent cases, like the Kochi IPL case [arbitration], the Stamp Act issues, a long pending arbitration issue with Sahara India, and some more recent ones. But we’ll soon look at it [old cases] and I’d very much want to set up a small group which, in about a month’s time goes into it and comes up with a report. Then we talk to all the agencies with whom these disputes are going and once and for all negotiate a settlement and close them. Otherwise, ultimately they’ll just drag and the only winners in the entire thing will be advocates.

A major issue is of double taxation where both the BCCI and its state associations pay taxes on the same income. That’s a genuine complaint.

Instead of fighting over it, we should have taken up that case with the Central government and get a dispensation for a one-time resolution on that because it’s useless fighting the government all the time.

The damning Deloitte audit reports on state associations have been distributed to them for their observations/reply. How many states have responded?

I don’t remember, so can’t say. Well, damning or otherwise…that’s why I’ve said systems have not been put in place. That’s the entire problem.

What action is going to be taken on Deloitte reports?

I will have to discuss it with the states; I don’t want to do it just now because this meeting [on May 6] was for a different purpose. But we’ll soon discuss with the states zone-wise.

It’s very clear from the Deloitte reports that all kinds of financial irregularities have happened in different states. Will the offenders in the state associations be punished at all?

I would classify it into two different parts. One is if somebody has done irregularity where malfeasance is involved. That needs to be investigated separately. But I’m more interested in the other part of it, that going forward, we give a system to the states and even for the BCCI that everything they do is put transparently on the website.

You’ve ordered an Operating Manual for the BCCI for internal controls and approval of expenses. Is it ready?

It is being worked on and I am expecting it will be ready by the end of May. After we have prepared it, we’ll give it to the [Supreme] Court to decide if it is to be made operational or not because we don’t want to enforce anything on our own. We are a court-appointed committee and ultimately it’s the court that will decide on all these issues.

Are any steps being taken to curtail BCCI’s legal expenses?

Well, I can't say we have taken any steps on that as yet because we haven’t had time to look into all this. The moment we got into it, the other issues overtook us – conducting the IPL, our issues with the ICC, players-related issues were there, the media contract etc. So, we’ve been engaged with those kinds of things.

On ICC’s instructions, the BCCI reluctantly merged the women’s wing with it in 2005, but has not provided equal status to women players on various counts. Even in the players’ share of 26 per cent from the BCCI, women have not been included till date. Does the CoA propose to rectify this anomaly and pay the arrears to women players?  

We are systematising that. There has been a kind of a mismatch over there. In fact, we’ve already granted players a one-time benefit and things like that. It may not be equal to what the male players are getting, but they have been granted substantially.

What are your views on players’ association, as the Lodha Committee has recommended?

That is one aspect that I have not really not looked into in the sense the advantages of having a players’ association. But I sincerely feel that every state must look up to their former players, senior players, prominent players to mentor the teams and be in some capacity advisors to the state associations. They seem to be running in total vacuum of how the game is being played. There are cricket players and cricket administrators. There is no such thing as professional cricket administrator, unless he really understands what the game is all about and, in a large number of ways, empathises with players. The whole thing is around the player itself. Isn’t it? That’s why I do think that senior players do need to take up mentoring positions with the associations.

The senior players are not encouraged to come into cricket administration.

Both ways it has happened. Lots of legendary cricketers have become recluses. Some of them have spoken up, but are not encouraged to speak up. And some who have been very outspoken there have been attempts to put them down. Commentators can always speak, but for [BCCI] employees there’s a conflict. If you are an employee of BCCI, it’s not fair to speak on air, I agree, because first you must internally resolve what you want to say. But if you are a free commentator, why not.

BCCI’s about Rs.50 crore is stuck with Karnataka development government for purchase of land for the National Cricket Academy in Bangalore.

It’s not stuck; we have taken possession of the land [near Bangalore airport]. That was the one of the first things we did. And the land is probably slightly inadequate. I have a small team working on it. And we’ve approached the Karnataka government for some more land, contiguous to it. That land is available. And in the first reference, the Karnataka government has been positive on that. I am hoping that we’ll get that land also. So, we’ll get a huge chunk, maybe 500 metres by 450 metres, and that will be good for an international quality cricket academy.

What about the Rajasthan Cricket Association’s suspension issue? In 2013, RCA elected an expelled Lalit Modi as its president the got suspended.

We haven’t got into it. There are some legal issues with Rajasthan.

Ruchir Modi recently told Outlook that the RCA has requested COA to lift the ban on it.

It has not come to my notice. It will come up in one of the meetings.

When do you foresee all the state associations finally implementing the Lodha Committee recommendations?

I don’t know and I can’t put a definitive time to it, but we are hoping by the time we of the AGM, which we hope to hold in September all the state associations would have come around. And barring one or two issues I think they will accept every other issue and they will pass it. I can’t predict about the state associations, but I would very much like the CoA to wind up in October because the AGM time for the BCCI is September. After the AGM we need to wind up because, hopefully, there will be no need for us to be there.

Is the CoA is showing some flexibility over one state one vote recommendation.

We are nobody to show any flexibility. All we did was that we asked the state associations: please tell us which of the issues in the reform package are hurting you the most. Then they came out with two-three issues. One of them was the one state, one vote, and the other was that we need to have five selectors instead of three at present. Then somebody talked of age [70-year upper limit] and cooling off etc. But these were the issues that were common among them. We have no mandate to show flexibility. COA’s mandate is: There are a set of reforms, you implement them. But in the course of implementation, if we find there is some issue, we’ll point that out to the court.

What has been your overall experience with the BCCI? Is it the same BCCI that you looked from outside? Have you as a person or as a professional gained something?

All of us are experienced administrators. I have been in public service for 40-45 years. We’ve seen all kinds of administrations; seen all kinds of people in administration. And I must say to the credit of civil service that the way we are trained, the experience that we gain, we can manage situations. It’s not a problem. I don’t think the BCCI is not that much of a challenge. It’s a democratic body like any other. People have talked to me about state associations being ‘captured’. Yes, certainly, if a state association or the BCCI has been run by somebody for the last 10 or 12 years, it’s not a good thing for the simple reason that over a decade fresh people, fresh ideas must come. And if I stay there for 10 years my vested interest or public interest get merged and I start perceiving from my point of view while I think it’s public’s point of view. I think that every five years or seven or ten years things must move on and people must change because I take it for granted that ‘look, if I move away the institution will collapse’. No, it has not happened to anybody anywhere. The institution is always bigger than the individual.

(An abridged version of this interview -- and the video -- was published in Outlook magazine, issue dated May 22, 2017. http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/570-million-is-only-a-mirage/298862 )