India Today:Wednesday, January 04, 2012.
In 2012 we could witness far reaching changes in the way sports is governed in India. There is a chance that a mighty entity like the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) would mend its ways to conform to the law of the land and, who knows, our athletes might win several gold medals at the London Olympics.
 |
| Sachin Tendulkar |
More immediately, a good performance by MS Dhoni and his men would bring immense joy to the millions of cricket fans in India. Cricket lovers here are also wishing that the BCCI accepts that it too is a national sports federation (NSF) and thus a 'public authority', accountable to the government and the public.
With the advent of a new year, the BCCI's battle with the government over whether or not it's a 'public authority' seems to have entered a decisive stage. Many people feel it's only a matter of time before the Board accepts the inevitable and embraces the Right to Information (RTI) Act in addition to the rules of governance that other federations follow.
By all indications, the BCCI, which is the world's wealthiest cricket body at Rs 2,530.88 crore, cannot afford to defy the government for too long as pressure is building on it. In a significant development a few days ago, the sports ministry told the Central Information Commission (CIC) that "there exists just and reasonable grounds for the BCCI to be declared as a 'pubic authority' under the RTI Act, 2005".
The ministry, responding to the CIC on an RTI application, said that since the BCCI receives "indirect funding" from the both the central and state governments, it can be categorised as a 'public authority', and would thus be answerable under the RTI Act.
Recently, when I tried to gauge the BCCI's mind - not that its stand in not known - an officebearer spoke with utter contempt for the government. He said it should first take care of the stadiums built/ renovated for the Commonwealth Games rather than try and bring the Board under the RTI's purview. "Look, what is happening to their stadiums. They should first try to maintain them and then talk about the BCCI," he said disdainfully. It was obviously not just his personal opinion and reflected the BCCI's mind-set.
Despite this feeble posturing, there are clear indications that deep inside their hearts, BCCI officials, including some famous politicians, realise that sooner than later the Board would have to accept the changing face of sports administration, implying transparency and accountability.
Even if we assume for a moment that the sports ministry fails to rein in the BCCI soon, there is this brilliantly sharped edged tool, the RTI Act, which can cut through the hardest of surfaces. And then there are courts which aggrieved parties can always approach.
The BCCI's refusal to accept the inevitable is a travesty because it has admitted to being an NSF in the past. When its imported ground-maintenance equipment worth crores of rupees was stuck at Mumbai airport, a desperate BCCI wrote to the sports ministry in September 2007 to issue a certificate saying that it is indeed an NSF (a copy of that letter is with Mail Today). Even though the BCCI would've sought that certificate most reluctantly, the bottom line is that it has admitted that it's like any other sports body.
So far the ministry has apparently been taking the usual route, of correspondence, in dealing with the BCCI. But if public pressure increases through RTI, and the issue reaches a court of law, no one knows what the BCCI's fate would be.
.JPG)
.JPG)
