#dnaEdit: Bad game plan

Despite its good intentions, the Union sports ministry’s reported proposal to the ministry of personnel to create a civil service cadre for sports administrators on the lines of other specialised services like the Indian Forest Service could be a non-starter. There is an inherent contradiction in what the sports ministry is attempting. All the sporting bodies competing in Olympic disciplines are autonomous institutions registered under the Societies Registration Act. These institutions will resist any attempt by the government to appoint administrators or interfere in their affairs. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) frowns upon governmental interference and infringement into the autonomy of sporting federations. The IOC had suspended the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) in 2012 for following the government’s National Sports Development Code, 2011, that prescribed elections and fixed tenures. Despite the IOC’s stance that political interference is unhealthy in sports, it has failed to rid sporting bodies of corruption. In fact, it was public pressure that forced the Indian government to intervene in the affairs of the scandal-ridden IOA which was controlled by a clique led by Suresh Kalmadi. 

Sports minister Sarbanananda Sonowal’s pitch while mooting this proposal was that professionals were needed to run sports bodies and that a specialised civil services would boost the development of sports. But does bureaucratisation add up to greater professionalism? This is the question that Sonowal must ask himself. But not before settling another unfinished task. For some years now, the National Sports Development Bill has been stuck at the draft stage despite both the UPA and the NDA promising to enact it. The bill has lofty goals and its aims have even forced the otherwise hard-nosed IOC to grudgingly admit that some of its provisions are workable. Besides bringing sports federations under the RTI Act, it also mandates the creation of a sports tribunal to resolve disputes, ethics commission to enforce fair practices, a sports election commission to conduct elections to sports bodies and a recognition/accreditation body to monitor their functioning. Some of the provisions of the 2011 Sports Code and the Sports Bill have been voluntarily abided. However, over half of the sports bodies are resisting attempts to be brought under the RTI Act.

While bureaucratising sports administration is undesirable, this has a certain appeal because of the oligarchic functioning of most federations. The trend of politicians capturing sports bodies runs counter to the credo of professionalism. The 2010 Commonwealth Games was witness to the unedifying sight of the Suresh Kalmadi-helmed Organising Committee making heavy weather of the games preparations forcing the Prime Minister’s Office to delegate a crack team of bureaucrats to oversee the complicated logistics and execution of CWG-related tasks. But the manner in which the Sports Authority of India’s 80 centres function is testimony to bureaucratic failure. The SAI centres have been hampered by the non-availability of specialised staff officers and the policy of appointing officials on deputation to SAI has failed. In February, the minister was forced to restructure the cadre ahead of plans to revitalise the SAI. He is not the first sports minister to propose a civil services cadre. He is only reiterating a 2012 proposal by Oscar Fernandes to the then minister Ajay Maken. Like Sonowal, Fernandes also believed that a cadre system would make civil servants sound professionals in sports administration. Rather than creating a new bureaucracy and trusting babus to learn on the job, the ministry should focus on setting up institutions for those interested in sports administration and coaching.