BCCI under RTI: What lies ahead?

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”— Friedrich Nietzsche

After the Commonwealth Games debacle last year, Sports minister Mr. Ajay Maken seems desperate to make amends. Even though the Sports Development Bill was rejected by Parliament, Maken vows to keep pushing on. Under the National Sports Ombudsman Scheme (within the Sports Bill), “the scheme shall apply to all National Sports Federations as defined under the Act”. The sports ministry wants the BCCI to work as an NSF and be deemed a “public authority”. The bill aims at bringing the plenteous BCCI under the ambit of the RTI for greater transparency in the gentleman’s game.

It would give the audience a chance to question the working of the BCCI. Why wasn’t a certain player picked for a series? Why the tight scheduling leading to injuries? Why let the secretary own an IPL team? Etc.

BCCI vice president Rajiv Shukla commented on the bill saying that as the BCCI did not take grants from the government, it did not qualify to be under the RTI. The BCCI is a private club consortium registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies registration Act. Another argument put forward by the people against the bill is that the BCCI, albeit all the controversies, is still better off than most other sport governing bodies. The track record of domestic government officials in sporting bodies has been abysmal. Making it a part of public authority and bringing it under the government would lead to further corruption.

BCCI, for its part, has had its share of controversies. From the match fixing drama of 2000 to the ICC world cup debacle of 2007, there have been major mix ups in the BCCI kingdom. Introducing the IPL was, in critics’ minds, a gateway to corruption. This was amply proven by Lisping Lalit and company. The ICL, which took players who were discarded by the BCCI and gave them an opportunity, was effectively shut down by the BCCI. There have also been issues of nepotism and corruption in the BCCI mainly because of politicians and businessmen holding eminent positions. The BCCI is, in a sense, the microcosm of Indian politics.

The new bill proposes a clause according to which 25% reservation would be provided for ex-players in governing bodies. This may be a welcome step as it gives powers in the hands of people who actually love and respect the game rather than those who use it to furnish palatial homes. On the flipside though; excellent players do not necessarily translate into excellent managers. Ex-players with management expertise should be given the responsibility of governing cricketing bodies. One of the drawbacks of the bill is that it has no international precedent to fall back upon. It is an avant-garde step and has no other body to look up to for support. The involvement of the government in sports, especially in India, is heavily criticized by the critics as well as the public. This makes the sports ministry’s case weak. Another flaw in the proposed bill is the possibility of frivolous demands and complaints.

Even though the BCCI isn’t directly funded by the government, it uses government stadiums all over the country at nominal costs and has tax exemptions in the name of promoting cricket. The BCCI should be grateful to Anna Hazare for diverting the attention of the nation while England thrashes India in the ongoing series. Even the most naïve of men in our country know that the BCCI is as far removed from charity as a struggling middle class employee from a Bentley. Since the fan invests so much of his time and emotion in the game, it is only fair that he know what goes on behind the scenes. It is essential that the public be sure of the credibility of the cricket it watches. Not puppet shows like the performance based wrestling bouts. Even with its flaws, the sports bill seems to be a positive step forward and, as petitioner Rahul Mehra puts it, “it’s akin to a Jan Lokpal for sports”.