Rules of the game

The Indian Cricket League’s challenge to the current cricketing establishment has shaken the Board for Control of Cricket in India enough to sack Kapil Dev from the National Cricket Academy. Dev is executive board chairman of ICL and has connected to India’s emotional quotient — as he has so often before — by saying that he is interested in cricket for India. His question to this churlish move by the BCCI is, why can’t the ICL and BCCI coexist?

Why indeed. The BCCI has had sole run of Indian cricket for 66 years, and apart from a few recent decisions to increase match fees and pension for former first class players — and that too after a protracted battle between the board and players — the emphasis has largely been on making money for itself. Apart from the cash-rich organisation and a handful of high-profile players, not many others have benefited from these riches.

No one grudges their incomes, but the fan would be well within his rights to ask what else the BCCI has done for the game itself. Maintaining and increasing infrastructure, creating a sporting ethos, providing encouragement to domestic cricket, ending the politics of the selection system — none of these have been on the priority of the BCCI, no matter under whose leadership. The World Cup and Greg Chappell fiascos only added to its bankruptcy of fresh thought.

The arrival of the ICL is then a boon for talented players all over the country and even the world. They are being offered extremely generous remuneration as well as a platform to display their skills. It is hardly surprising that they have jumped ship and signed up with the ICL. For many, staying with the BCCI would have brought nothing. And cricket, ultimately, is about players and spectators.

Many sporting disciplines have been through this phase of catharsis — cricket itself once before with the Kerry Packer tour. Other governing bodies have come up in chess, boxing and tennis. The BBCI has to adjust to this challenge intelligently.

The point is, as far as we, the fans — who are also neglected by the BCCI — are concerned, good cricket is good cricket. The game is more than a sport; it is entertainment. With new forms emerging and television channels devoted to the game being launched, cricket has to be ‘sold’ to the viewer as a package. At the same time, domestic cricket has to be nurtured to create a pool of fresh talent. There is no reason to think that this should only be done by one organisation — today, competition must be expected and encouraged. Especially if it benefits the players and more so, the millions of fans of the game.