As India worries about qualifying for the Champions Trophy semifinals and the ugly consequences of the ill-timed fiasco over the coach’s appointment, let us try to put in perspective the core issue that has bedevilled the Indian cricket establishment for long: Conflict of interest.
A brief recap of the events leading up to the appointment of the Lodha panel shows that it was the then BCCI president, N Srinivasan’s conflict of interests and misuse of powers that led to the Supreme Court ordering an overhaul of its administrative set-up. Before Lodha panel, it was the Mudgal panel, which had red-flagged Srinivasan’s conflicts of interest in being the head of the BCCI as well as owner of an IPL team, that had led to him trying to shield his son-in-law who was allegedly involved in spot-fixing. The Mudgal panel had in fact emphasised that the widespread conflict of interest of the officials and players was one of the root causes of the rot afflicting the cricket administration.
Involved in these positions of conflict were not only administrators, but also some of the best known Indian players, legends of the game, who the fans would naturally trust far more than anyone else. The Gavaskars, Kumbles, Dravids and Gangulys of this world and many more were all in some way handling dual or multiple roles that would be termed as conflict of interest situations. Some of them were commentators as well as players’ agents. Others were coaches, administrators and also managing players.
It was because of this potentially harmful practice that placed an individual in a situation where his decisions could be influenced because of his dual roles, that the Lodha panel put in place many stringent dos and don’ts to be incorporated in the board’s constitution.
One can see the hurt and even anger of arguably India’s greatest batsman ever, Sunil Gavaskar, when he says how can his integrity be questioned. Implicit in this comment is the argument that since he has done so much for the country as a player, how can he be accused of cheating. This is a reasoning that most of the players, especially those who have performed with great distinction for the country, put forth whenever they are told they have a conflict of interest in what they are doing.
When I appeared before the Lodha panel, most of the questions pertained to conflict of interest, what it meant and how it could be prevented. It was interesting to know that most of the top players who had interacted with the panel, did not feel that there was anything wrong in being a selector, a coach or an administrator and also own a players’ management company. Their reasoning was the same that Gavaskar has presented after historian Ramachandra Guha raised these questions in his resignation letter. “How can anyone question our integrity after we have done so much for our country?” was their lament in front of the panel.
The panel was amused and even a bit amazed that these players could not understand what the problem was. No one was accusing them of having done anything wrong, nor was their integrity being questioned. It was a question of ethics and propriety where any human being, because of the temptations involved, should not be placed in situations where there is a conflict of interest with the different roles they may be performing. I remember one of the members of the panel saying that they told the players that while they individually may not get tempted, someone else very well may. And that is why it was imperative for them to place constitutional restrictions to stop this practice.
Players like Gavaskar and others of his stature would do a great service to Indian cricket if they get over their ‘persecution’ complex and be sensitive to the needs of a transparent governance system. No one is questioning their integrity. If they resist, their intent will be.