On the back foot

How long will the BCCI brazenly avoid accountability?

The Board of Control for Cricket in India, or BCCI, continues to provide a dark, tragicomic vision into how impunity works in India. In a sad reflection of how the existing regulatory system and organisational structures have failed to deal with the increased challenges that have come with the rise of the Indian sport in many disciplines, the greater prosperity and success of Indian cricket have exposed the inability of its Board to keep up with the times. True, the Working Committee of the BCCI postponed the meeting that was expected to reinstate N Srinivasan, the promoter of Chennai-based India Cements, as the Board's head. However, it is not the case that the Board has accepted the strictures levied by the Bombay High Court on its internal "probe" of possible wrongdoing by Mr Srinivasan. That probe, conducted by a panel of two retired judges from Mr Srinivasan's home state of Tamil Nadu, gave him a "clean chit", as the euphemism goes, and paved the way for his resuming office as if nothing had happened. The High Court held that the BCCI's probe into the spot-fixing betting allegations that had widened to include Mr Srinivasan's son-in-law was "illegal and unconstitutional"; the BCCI has decided, reportedly, to challenge this in the Supreme Court.

According to the BCCI, once that decision was made, Mr Srinivasan "rejoined the meeting" and asked Jagmohan Dalmiya to continue to carry out the duties of the president of the BCCI for the moment. This is in itself problematic in terms of optics; few Indians would imagine Mr Dalmiya to be exactly the ideal person to preside over an organisation that is trying to clean up its act. Frankly, the way the BCCI is trying to brazen its way out of these allegations is distasteful. The Mumbai police continue to investigate the spot-fixing ring, and there is little doubt that Mr Srinivasan, even if he has been "exonerated" by the BCCI's internal probe, should not return to office. In fact, he should have stepped down rather than "stepping aside", in order to let the police investigation complete itself.

While the BCCI may have insulated itself against accusations of ignoring the Bombay High Court's order by keeping Mr Srinivasan's presidency in limbo while an appeal to the Supreme Court goes forward, it is increasingly clear that the position that the Board enjoys independent of all external regulation is becoming untenable. The Indian cricket team plays as national representatives; its matches have been declared events of national importance by the courts in the past, enabling their telecast on the national television network, Doordarshan. It should be amply clear, therefore, that treating the BCCI as a purely private body can no longer go forward. It has not shown the sort of dedication to probity and transparency that would have allowed it, in the public eye, to retain its relatively free status. The government, and the Union sports ministry in particular, cannot afford to continue to ignore the shenanigans in the BCCI. A public debate on how independent accountability can be imposed on what is, after all, a quasi-public body, is overdue. If the BCCI's satraps are upset, well, then they have only themselves to blame by placing themselves beyond internal accountability and then trying to brazen it out.