The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has been at the receiving end in the Supreme Court while the team that they field became number one Test side in the world.
It is only fair therefore to look at some of their counter arguments to the Lodha Panel recommendations as we celebrate Virat Kohli’s men becoming the world’s best
Selecting the Selectors
The BCCI has argued that a country like India needs five selectors to help select the best national squad, but the Lodha panel have recommended it be changed to three. While that is a fair argument, the point that BCCI could make is the fact that the national selectors need not always be Test players. This can form one of the strongest counters to the Lodha Panel missives.
The best example of non-Test players becoming good selectors is Raj Singh Dungarpur and Sanjay Jagdale. Both Dungarpur and Jagdale played a part in changing the course of Indian cricket history. Dungarpur was chairman of the panel that picked a young Sachin Tendulkar, while Jagdale was part of the panel which chose Anil Kumble as Test captain and Dhoni as the ODI/T20I captain.
On the other hand, there have always been Test stalwarts who headed selection panels, but have not even have known names of players they are selecting or the ones in the reckoning.
Top Order Stuff
The Lodha Panel has barred Ministers, bureaucrats and all government servants from holding positions in Indian cricket. This, BCCI considers is a bit harsh and justifiably so.
The fact is that most outcomes in India is linked to having people in high places being your benefactor. There cannot be a bigger example of this than the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai. When the stadium was built in 1974 at breakneck speed, it was possible only because the head of the Bombay Cricket Association (BCCI), SK Wankhede was a politician.
Similarly when the same ground was re-built in 2010 for the 2011 World Cup final, it was also because another politician Sharad Pawar headed the body. Pawar at the time was president of both the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) and the International Cricket Council (ICC). Despite numerous litigations and inordinate delays, it was the presence of Pawar which helped Mumbai to stage the final. Pawar, at the time was a Minister at the Centre and also his party was jointly running the government in Maharashtra. With anyone else in charge, the final would have probably been shifted to some other city.
One For All
The disbursement policy of the BCCI has come under heavy criticism from the Lodha Panel. They have therefore proposed equal votes for all the Indian States, including the ones which are yet to gain full membership and have no cricket culture.
Indian cricket is as much about the players as it is about the rich legacy of some of the states. Take the state of Maharashtra and Gujarat which together has about seven votes in the BCCI currently. All seven have contributed a lot to the progress of Indian cricket. They have won laurels as teams and also supplied players for the National side. Mumbai for example has won more Ranji Trophy championships than any other side in the country. Similarly both states are too big for it to be managed by one Association.
The Lodha Panel may not have recommended one association for the entire state, what it proposes could lead to even more nepotism.
We have two models in front of us for voting: The ICC model where there are grades and the FIFA model where equal weightage has resulted in corruption.
There are many critics of the ICC model, because the full members look out for themselves and leave out the associates/affiliates. But there is at least an incentive to be part of the high table. In the FIFA model with all members being equal, there is almost a tendency to stay in the bubble and let things drift. Hence, you have had cases of corruption as members are just happy to be part of the comfort zone rather than be more competitive.
Cooling off Time and Government Control
The BCCI is not a state-run body. It is a member-driven organisation registered under the Societies Act. Hence for a statutory body like CAG to be involved in the processes of the BCCI violates the right of a group of members to kick-start an organisation. The presence of the CAG, as mandated by the Lodha Panel, is a deterrent but is not the panacea of all ills. The BCCI appoints reputed audit firms to check on the processes and procedures. If they sign off on everything why is there a need to doubt the credibility of those auditors?
The reputation of these audit firms is at stake because if they are not above board, they could permanently be disenfranchised by the powers that be. Also similarly the cooling off period that the Lodha Panel has proposed for office-bearers is a bit unfair. Some associations work well because of the presence of a strong administrator at the helm of affairs. It requires continuity to ensure that the reforms that he has undertaken are carried forward in full. A break in the process will ensure that there is a step back. While a check on the tenure is fine it is not right to enforce a break because it will ultimately harm the sport in general.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)