In the shifting sands of India’s cricket establishment, the only constant is utter confusion from outside and continuation of its on-field operations, regardless of what transpires behind the curtain. The post-Anil Kumble exit period has seen many legends bite the dust, with even the likes of Sachin Tendulkar doing the unthinkable and expressing “anguish” over being slighted by the Supreme Court appointed administrators.
The three ‘pristine untouchables’ of Indian cricket — Sachin, Sourav, Laxman — were even accused by one of the administrators, Vikram Limaye, of exceeding their brief. This ‘unkindest cut’ of them all came after Limaye quit as administrator, preferring to head the National Stock Exchange (NSE), instead of getting bruised in an attempt to break the rock-solid resolve of the BCCI to thwart the Lodha reforms.
What must have shocked India’s most respected triumvirate and battered their egos even more is that these strictures from Limaye came after the letter written by them, in which they felt that a wrong impression was being created that they have faltered in performing their duty. They wanted the administrators to clarify to the world that they have kept the glorious traditions of cricket alive, have been faithful to Indian cricket and done no wrong.
Whether the three did exceed their brief in recommending the names of Rahul Dravid and Zaheer Khan as batting consultant and bowling coach is a grey territory. What is not grey territory is that among the three, one was forced to recuse himself while passing judgment on one of the candidates for the India coach’s job and another is an administrator-cum-commentator-cum-TV expert. If this is the case, issues of conflict of interest are bound to raise their ugly head. Unfortunate as it may be, when the environment around you is poisonous, even those considered ‘pure’ can’t escape getting tainted.
That brings one back to the question that has arisen ever since the Supreme Court pronounced its verdict on the Lodha panel recommendations: who is in charge of Indian cricket?
Last week, the court was supposed to give some clarity on what they think of this defiance from the BCCI. In an hour-long hearing the ball was tossed back to the BCCI’s court and notices were issued to the two ‘disrupters’ — N Srinivasan and Niranjan Shah — asking them to explain why they attended board meetings, despite not being eligible to do so.
The status report of the administrators, which has been scathing against the BCCI and has requested the court to make a judicial intervention for the implementation of its orders, was not discussed. July 24 is the date when the court will discuss the status report and what the three-member bench deems an appropriate order to pass is not easy to guess.
This long-drawn drama, which does not seem to be coming to an end, certainly not in the near future, has probably left everyone exhausted. Somehow the feeling has started creeping in that if it was so hard to get the board to implement Lodha recommendations, why did the court intervene in the first place?
The board officials, a law unto themselves, were plodding along, creating their own power centres, vested interests and displaying tremendous skills of manipulation and intrigue, to stay in power.
Post the court order, nothing seems to have changed. If anything, more and more “honourable” men are being dragged into this quagmire, even those whom the courts appointed to oversee the transition. We may be better off with the status quo, if this is how justice is to be delivered.
Under the circumstances when Ganguly dares to tell Anurag Thakur, “Indian cricket needs you back” he is, in one voice, speaking for the entire cricket officialdom. Who cares for the larger judicial and ethical boundaries that the court order may have placed on him and the others. It is all getting not only tedious but predictable as well.