Jwala Gutta’s ban a dangerous misstep by Badminton Association of India

A lifetime ban is a decision too harsh for Jwala Gutta

The Badminton Association of India’s lifetime ban on Jwala Gutta, and its withdrawal of the Jwala-Ashwini combination from the Denmark Open, is a dangerous setback not just for Indian badminton, but for Indian sport.

The ban was announced apparently to punish Jwala for threatening to withdraw her team from an IBL encounter against Bangalore team Banga Beats. Whether she was justified in acting so is hardly the issue.

What’s unmistakable is that the BAI has chosen to use a cannon when a cane would have sufficed. Jwala is prone to outbursts, some of them childish. Banga Beats felt that fielding Jan O Jorgensen instead of the injured Hu Yun was in accordance with the rules. It was eventually decided to avoid the prospect of a walkover and play Arvind Bhat instead of Jorgensen.

The standoff between the teams lasted about half-an-hour. The BAI claims the confrontation damaged its image.

Setting aside Jwala’s justifications for acting the way she did, it’s obvious that the BAI is causing greater damage to itself than what Jwala caused them during the IBL.

If the BAI thought she had to be punished, it could have considered a reprimand, or at the most a one-match ban during the IBL. To hand a lifetime ban makes one wonder if her actions were of the same seriousness as a doping offence or fixing a match.

As things stand, not many are going to be convinced by the wisdom of BAI’s actions, and will only result in more people asking for responsible decision-making by India’s sports bodies.

But there are other troubling questions this episode throws up. Why were the two teams allowed to argue for half-an-hour? Weren’t the rules clearly spelled out? If they weren’t, surely, the BAI itself was responsible for what transpired.

The other question is the BAI’s right to withdraw a player it chooses from an international tournament. Badminton remains a sport controlled by national federations as players’ entries to tournaments are sent by their federations. It is obvious that this is what gives the federation unquestioned authority over its players.

In this age of professionalism, why must a player’s career be decided by her national association? Professionalism can only be possible when a player is in full control of his or her career, as in the case of tennis. A sport where a federation pulls the strings on its players whenever it chooses will remain stuck in bureaucratic tangles.

Consider tennis. Top international players have often aired their displeasure with the All India Tennis Association without facing the prospect of an international ban. The AITA cannot control a player’s international career, and that’s the way it should be.

A national association should only be in charge of its team for events such as the Thomas and Uber Cup and multi-sport events such as the Olympics, Asian Games and Commonwealth Games. It should be up to the player to decide his participation for the rest of the circuit.

The BAI’s action against Jwala has affected her partner Ashwini Ponnappa as well. Other players too are likely to feel miffed, and this will build on the discomfiture expressed by some players at the beginning of the IBL.

Jwala and Ashwini are India’s best women’s doubles team, and hurting their prospects will only hurt Indian badminton. The Uber Cup is scheduled next year, and Indian badminton need Jwala and Ashwini to be at the peak of their form.

With Saina and Sindhu heading singles responsibilities, India stand a great chance of doing well if a strong doubles team is fielded. Hurting the Jwala-Ashwini combination is a hare-brained way of punishing dissent.