SPECIAL REPORT The Supreme Court's proposal for a complete cleanup of Indian cricket was pretty clear today: all India Cements employees to be removed from whatever position they are in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Rajasthan Royals and Chennai Super Kings to be suspended from IPL 7 after spot-fixing allegations and Srinivasan to be removed as BCCI chief with Sunil Gavaskar's name being mentioned as an able interim replacement.
But even as Srinivasan offered to step aside as BCCI chief till all matters were investigated - something the court appeared to reject - cricket fans were left wondering why nobody — present or former cricketers, commentators and experts and other prominent members of the board — had raised their voice against the man to this point.
"It's a growing bubble put around the Indian cricket team," senior ESPN Cricinfo journalist Sharda Ugra said on a discussion on CNN-IBN before adding: "The power and money available to him to give out help this conspiracy of silence. States are not asked about explanations of what happened to money he gave them.
This is for anyone on his payroll. Srinivasan has bought the silence of everyone in the game. Anyone who is a commentator doing commentary in Bangladesh at World T20 cannot even write column on DRS, selection and issues like that. This is institutionalised silence -- a mafia way of working. They wont kill you but more money will certainly buy silence."
Former BCCI chief Inderjit Singh Bindra, who has openly revolted against the current regime said that Srinivasan just doesn't see the writing on the wall when a board is run like this. But he does believe that Sunil Gavaskar would be a good choice to run the sport — given that there was no conflict of interest. "The whole board and the system needs to be changed. Gavaskar is a good idea but provided there's no conflict of interest.
He should give up employment with board if he's to take over as head of the board," said Bindra. However, Sports lawyer Rahul Mehra didn't quite share the same enthusiasm: "As far as Gavaskar is concerned, it's not only about him being BCCI's face for the last few years -- he didn't even take a stand against DRS because he was with the BCCI. Gavaskar and (Ravi) Shastri are very much a part of this.
The Supreme Court has given this a right direction -- but there are other people who could have been mentioned — Bishan Singh Bedi, Sourav Ganguly, Mohinder Amarnath and Dilip Vengsarkar." Former Mumbai captain Shishir Hattangadi, who opened with Gavaskar during his career, admitted that while Gavaskar was great at hitting balls hurled at him, he may find administration harder: "He's been proposed but it doesn't mean he's the best administrator out there.
This is a different game where he has to adapt to the corridors of power in BCCI. He has to take a call on commentary commitments and other issues too — this could be harder than middling the ball. He'll also need the resources and a lack of ego we cricketers are not used to." One of the other challenges Gavaskar will have to face how the BCCI's silence policy extended itself to the IPL, where he questioned why people had remained quiet over the last six seasons.
But cricket commentator Charu Sharma tried to sympathise with stake-holders for remaining tight-lipped about the issue. "Nobody wants the IPL to implode or collapse -- so people would rather be quiet or just carry on. They want to work it out, but in isolation. One must also understand the view of the stakeholders -- don't bring whole house down but work it out among themselves," said Sharma.
But Ugra mentioned problems that ran deeper than just a conflict of interest or bought silence: "The BCCI has an amendment in their constitution which allows Srinivasan to be removed as a nominee from South Zone but still come back if two members from East Zone backed him to be president. Previously, whoever was president had to step away for a few years before he stood for election once again — Srinivasan changed this and everybody supported him.
It's like people saying, 'why don't you run us forever so that we get richer?'" Bindra may have backed Gavaskar's abilities as an administrator but also admitted that one change at the top will not make a difference — he proposed a complete revamp for significant betterment of the game. But what if Srinivasan sat tight and told the board that he was staying? "If he says I'm staying, the board will do nothing. They will just twiddle their thumbs and wait for the Supreme Court to pass an order."
No comments:
Post a Comment