#dnaEdit: BCCI’s real crisis

The return of Jagmohan Dalmia as president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) gives rise to the proverbial sense of deja vu. He had won the election last time with the indirect support of Congress which checkmated Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Sharad Pawar’s bid. The next time round, Congress shifted stance and Pawar got through. It was after Pawar’s term that N Srinivasan came in. The politics of BCCI is both intriguing and lacking in substance. It is a mere sports organisation like the Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) or the All India Football Association or the Indian Badminton Association. The difference is that the BCCI is the richest association because cricket has become the most commercially successful game in the country, and also in the cricketing world. 

Many of the BCCI insiders vehemently defend the credentials of the association as the best because it manages the game well and it grabs every opportunity to take cricket to the next commercial level. The telecast rights of the game have always been a matter of controversy, and the BCCI used its control over the game to arm-twist the sports channels. Dalmia left on the sour note of the granting of telecast rights, and he was under cloud for quite a few years. But the man hung around, letting the inquiries and the controversy dissipate. N Srinivasan’s term as BCCI president exploded in his face because of conflict of interest that arose in the Indian Premier League, with his company, India Cements, owning the Chennai Super Kings. There was further twist to the story with allegations of his son-in-law Meiyappan, who was also nominal official of the Super Kings, being involved in betting. 

Ever since the allegations of fixing of matches surfaced 15 years ago, BCCI has been in the eye of the storm. Paradoxically, BCCI seems to be running a flourishing business and it is this profitability that seems to serve as an armour. The organisation does not feel any need to clean up the system because money is flowing into the BCCI coffers. It is not necessary to agonise over the acts of omission and commission of Dalmia in the past and that of Srinivasan, and whether they should have been allowed to occupy the powerful position of the president of the BCCI in the first place. The more disturbing aspect is the internal politics of the BCCI system. Dalmia was able to become the president because it was the turn of the East Zone and the proposer and the seconder had to be from the same region. Srinivasan came in at the time he did because it was South Zone’s turn. This regional quota system might appear equitable but it does not do anything to make the cricketing body transparent and accountable. 

It would be useful to remember that scandals have scarred international sports organisations like the International Olympics Association (IOA) under Antonio Juan Samaranch and the Federation Internationale de Football Association  (FIFA) under Joseph Blatter. Both IOA and FIFA had to address the issues. The BCCI has managed to deflect the challenge of scandals by setting up unconvincing internal committees to inquire into questions of corruption. Besides stoutly resisting the demand for the cricketing body under the purview of Right To Information (RTI). Even though there is a technical and legal justification for compliance with these norms. The BCCI might take cricket down with it if its office-bearers continue to be contemptuous of the need to maintain credible norms.