CHENNAI: “We invited this. Didn’t we?” the reaction of a BCCI member summarised what several in the beleaguered body were thinking after news emerged on Wednesday that the CoA has sought the removal of its office-barers. Not for the first time, they were regretting letting go the opportunity of implementing the order, with a request of reviewing two-three contentious points.
The BCCI wasted this chance at its special general meeting on July 26, when instead of finalising those points, they added key recommendations in the list of ‘objectionable’ ones. It effectively meant that rather than conveying compliance, that meeting made the BCCI look more defiant, refusing to concede ground after having agreed to do so. Documents released by the CoA show that during the meeting, representatives Maharashtra, Hyderabad urged members to keep the list short.
They went to the extent of saying that adding issues like age and tenure cap will infuriate the judges and make matters worse. But in the end, consensus was it that all those be kept in the list of ‘objectionable’ points. “Not just that we had nothing to show for by way of initiating reforms. By adding points to that list we also sent a message that we continue to be on the path of confrontation. That way, it’s not surprising that the CoA has come down heavily on us.
In the process, we seem to have lost the faint chance of getting certain concessions,” a state unit head, who attended the SGM, told Express. In previous meetings, other than Maharashtra, representatives of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh had also spoken in favour of keeping complications to the minimum and sending out a message that the state bodies are willing to comply.
Back then, it was often said that opposition from the N Srinivasan camp kept those suggestions from being accepted. In the July 26 meeting, there was no Srinivasan. “There is no point blaming individuals for the process getting stalled. At the end of the day, the BCCI collectively failed to reach consensus on accepting the court’s reform orders. Had a majority of members seen merit in falling in line, they would have spoken against those opposing them. Since that didn’t happen, it has to be assumed that they are on the same page,” said the president of another unit.