Bowling out bcci

Bowling out bcci

But the Supreme Court ruling might just be the first innings of a long Test match. The Supreme Court's damning judgment on the Board of Control for Cricket in India had been foreseen by everybody except, it seems, the BCCI top brass. Ever since the court-appointed committee headed by former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha had, nearly a year ago, recommended an overhaul (संपूर्ण रूप से बदलना (सुधार हेतु)) of the administration of Indian cricket, BCCI was effectively under the cosh (experiencing difficulty or criticism). But over the past year, the cricket board chose the path of resistance leading inexorably (अनवरत रूप से/अटलता से) to the current situation where the BCCI president and secretary were shown the door on Monday and a majority of office-bearers were no longer eligible to stay in their posts. The thrust of the Lodha committee recommendations was to radically reform cricket administration in India and to curb the “powerful individuals” and “coteries (अन्तर्गुट),” which it felt ran cricket. BCCI, for its part, rejected most of the recommendations, including several crucial ones such as the age limit of 70 years for office-bearers and a tenure cap of nine years. That the court was unwilling to accommodate BCCI's objections was apparent when it said during a hearing in September 2016 that if BCCI did not “fall in line,” the court would ensure that it did. When BCCI refused to back down, the way was paved for the latest judgment. Indeed, the situation might not have come to such a pass if BCCI had engaged the Lodha committee rather than taking an openly adversarial line. For a cricket fan or sports lover, there is much to cheer about the court ruling. It strikes at the heart of a cabal(षड्यंत्र/साजिश/चालबाजी) , and its attendant patronage (संरक्षता/संरक्षण) system, which has controlled Indian cricket and its vast riches for the past several decades. The cricket board's hubris (अभिमान/घमंड) was apparent from the way it repeatedly defied the country's highest court of law. There is no good reason why the president or secretary of BCCI, despite some of them having done stellar (उत्कृष्ट/अच्छा) work in the past, should have wielded (काम में लेना/उपयोग करना) such enormous powers. The entire structure of BCCI, and even its very name, is a throwback to an earlier era. The larger impact of the court ruling goes beyond cricket. It has the entail to change the way sports is run in India by pushing out the cliques that run sports bodies and ushering (प्रारम्भ होना/प्रारंभ होना) in professional management. At the same time, however, the court ruling raises some troubling questions. While BCCI's archaic (अप्रचलित/पुराना) and nepotistic (पक्षपातीय) structure was definitely in need of reform, there is a tendency to blame all the ills of Indian sport on inept administrators. This is not a recent trend. A columnist writing in the 1950s in this paper wondered when effective insecticide could be used to treat the “slugs, worms, petty dictators and other similar pests” that run sports bodies. The court has made BCCI swallow the medicine that sports fans might have been yearning for (उत्सुक होना) , but there is a danger in tarring all cricket and sports administrators with the same brush. Another common fallacy (भ्रांति) is the belief that former sportspersons are necessarily better sports administrators. It's true that former players might know sports better, but it is not a given that they are either good administrators or any less prone to politicking. The other cautionary note that one must strike is on the role of the court and its prescriptions. At a broader level, one could well ask if it is the court's job to oversee the administration of cricket in India. While the court rightly pulled up the cricket board for betting and conflict of interest charges in the Indian Premier League, it gradually expanded its remit to reforming BCCI. It could plausibly be argued that the latter was an instance of judicial overreach and the kind of activism that has a great appeal for the Indian middle class. Regarding the Lodha committee's specific prescriptions, there are several that one could quibble (argue or raise objections about a trivial matter.) with. Why, for instance, should there be an age limit of 70 years for BCCI office-bearers, who are elected, when there is none for India's elected representatives? Again the one state, one vote recommendation gives short shrift to the history of cricket's development in India. There are good historical reasons why Bombay or Baroda have separate cricket associations despite being part of Maharashtra or Gujarat. Indeed, there is merit in keeping the older units even while considering claims of smaller states, like Manipur or Chhattisgarh, for full membership. In light of the Lodha committee recommendations, the way forward for cricket administration too seems uncertain. Since almost all BCCI and state association office-bearers have been rendered ineligible, a pair of amicus curiae (an impartial adviser to a court of law in a particular case.) will for the time being finalise a committee of administrators. But the extent to which the court will continue to oversee day-to-day cricket administration remains to be seen. We might be faced with a situation where, in historian Mukul Kesavan's words, cronyism would be replaced by a “creeping nationalisation of Indian cricket.” As with many court rulings, the intended result might also run up against reality. It is quite likely that the axed cricket administrators will find ways to wield clout through proxies, which is quite common, for instance, in local representative bodies where there is reservation for women. To use a cricketing analogy, the court ruling might just be the first innings of a long Test match.