The Wire: New Delhi: Friday, 25 June 2021.
Since February 2019, a
disability sports researcher has filed 60 applications under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (RTI), querying the credentials of the national coach of
the Indian para-badminton team, Gaurav Khanna, and trying to learn which
national sports federation had appointed him to the post. But she has yet to
receive a useful response.
The researcher also claims
that ever since she began filing the RTIs, she has been getting anonymous
threatening calls from unidentifiable numbers, asking her to be careful when
she travels to the US where she is currently pursuing a PhD programme.
All the researcher had
wanted from these RTIs was information that would help her make sense of the
functioning of the para-badminton circle as part of her doctoral research on
the sporting environment in India for athletes with disabilities. But the
less-than-useful responses to her RTIs, the harassment she has been subject to
since she began filing the RTIs and the opaqueness of the whole environment of
para-sports in India that she has experienced since she started her research in
2015, have given her cause to believe that para-sports in the country are less
than safe for their athletes.
“India is blinded by the
medals won by athletes with disabilities. No one delves behind the
inspirational stories,” Padmini Chennapragada told The Wire. Chennapragada has
a master of science in adapted physical activity from the US and has been
researching para-sports in India for five years now.
“I wanted to show the
citizens of India that medals are not proof of how safe a sport is. I wanted to
do substantial data-backed research to bring to light how the under-privileged
of India are taken advantage of,” she said about her research.
A series of dead ends
Chennapragada’s study is
particularly relevant at this time as Indian para-athletes prepare for the
Tokyo Paralympics that will be held between August 24 and September 5 this
year.
Her study lists several
ambiguities in India’s national sports federations (NSFs) including a lack of
transparency and accountability. She has also noted some clear violations of
the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (NSDCI), in the functioning
of the NSFs.
The researcher started
filing RTIs for her analysis of the role of the Paralympic Committee of India
(PCI) in para-badminton in February 2019 when, after three years of on-ground
research, including talking with officials in the various sports associations
and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS), she did not have enough
useful information to position on an empirical academic paper.
Different authorities had
provided different answers for the same questions, which also contrasted to the
ground-level feedback she had collected, Chennapragada claimed.
“Having returned to India
after witnessing the smooth functioning of the Freedom to Information Act in
the United States, I realised that India has a similar powerful tool in the RTI
Act. But the system failed me when my RTI applications were repeatedly
unanswered and eventually lost while doing the rounds of different
departments,” said Chennapragada.
All the RTI applications
Chennapragada filed should have had easily available answers. But she still
does not know, for instance, how players are selected for the Target Olympic
Podium Scheme. Or on what basis players are sent to international events. Or
how Indian para-badminton players can have international rankings when there
appear to be no national rankings.
She also alleges that she
cannot find information about coaches, sports budgets, the credentials of
players, the functioning of state-level units of the national sports
federations and even the coordinators of the Badminton Association of India
(BAI) and the PCI.
For example, when
Chennapragada requested archival information pertaining to state and national
championships and other old records from the PCI under the RTI Act, 2005, to
analyse the governance of the sport and the administrative practices internal
to the organisation, the response she received from the PCI said: “The
requested information is over the stipulated duration and PCI does not have the
resources or the infrastructure to store the data for such a long period.”
This violates certain
aspects of the NSDCI which states that a national sports federation will get
recognition from the MYAS only if it is able to provide “annual report, audited
accounts, details of national championships held, utilisation certificate in
respect of government grants” and so on.
If the PCI does not have
this data, Chennapragada argues, how is it still a recognised national sports
federation?
Many email RTIs sent to the
MYAS regarding the PCI’s internal functioning also never received a response,
said Chennapragada.
“The online RTI system lets
you choose MYAS or the Sports Authority of India (SAI) as an option. As an
applicant, I have zero control on which sports section the RTI is sent to. I
see a pattern especially in the MYAS where RTI applications pertaining to the
PCI often go to sections where the information is unavailable and the
application is transferred to another section and it is a dead end from there,”
Chennapragada alleged.
The Wire tried contacting
PCI president Deepa Malik regarding the issue, but failed to get a response.
There are classification and
qualification rules set by the Badminton World Federation (BWF) and the
International Paralympic Committee for the players representing a country in
international tournaments. However, in India, the national rankings of
para-badminton athletes are not mentioned on either the BAI or the PCI
websites.
Chennapragada filed another
RTI to get the national rankings, for which she received varied responses from
the PCI that either asked her to refer to their official website, which has not
been updated since 2018, or specified that “such information is not withheld
presently”.
“Information that is
supposed to be public according to the Sports Code was not being provided
openly. So I had to use the RTI to bring that information out,” said
Chennapragada. “For example, the PCI’s MYAS disclosures were not public prior
to October 2019. My repeated RTIs and complaints to MYAS finally got the PCI to
update their website with that information.”
In direct violation of the
NSDCI, the PCI has for many years not adhered to an annual competition and
training calendar that is published on their website. And there is no evidence
of a long-term development plan submitted to the MYAS or the SAI as required by
the NSDCI.
In an RTI response sought
from the PCI to provide information regarding all the long term development
plans that have been in place between 2002 and 2019, Chennapragada was told:
“The requested information is over the stipulated duration and PCI does not
have the resources or the infrastructure to store the data for such a long
period.”
The PCI is also required to
provide proper training to coaches and conduct coaching development programmes
as part of its long term development plans. But this too has not been adhered
to.
In another instance of a
violation of the NSDCI, state championships have never been conducted for all
the member states of the PCI. While the code requires the national sports
federation to have an all-India presence, the PCI’s membership does not include
all the regions of India even today.
“The NSDCI is in fact a
policy document that became a de facto law with poor and inconsistent
enforcement,” said Chennapragada. “But in reality, India needs a sports law
that considers all these issues. In the case of para-badminton, there is not a
single person in its leadership who has any trained experience to
scientifically handle governance.”
Chennapragada also found a
couple of loopholes in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD)
that would make it difficult for athletes in para-sports to turn to the
legislation for support if necessary.
First, although the RPwD
lays emphasis on the promotion and development of sports for people with
disabilities, it never specifically mentions the Paralympics or any other
disability sport discipline when it refers to creating opportunities for
competition.
And second, although the
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE) supervises the promotion of
disability rights through its Department of Empowerment of Persons with
Disabilities, there is no mention of any working connection between the Ministry
of Youth Affairs and Sports and the MSJE.
“If we have any issues or
grievances we can go to the PCI, but usually people tell the coach,” an
international-level player told The Wire. “However, I am hesitant to approach
the coach because he controls everything and decides who participates in which
tournament.”
‘A one-man show’
“The RTIs I filed to gain
Khanna’s employment details and understand his affiliation with the PCI or the
BAI were the strangest experiences of my research,” said Chennapragada.
From her on-ground research,
Chennapragada had learned that while the BAI is responsible for the development
and management of all aspects of the sport in India, including para-badminton,
its lack of expertise in para-badminton has seen the PCI take over most of its
functions in the para-badminton circle.
She had also heard from
grassroots level players that the para-badminton national coach, Gaurav Khanna,
had all the sponsors and national associations that manage para-badminton in
his hands and also controlled the underage players.
This information intrigued
Chennapragada and she wanted to know who had appointed Khanna as the national
coach the BAI or the PCI and what his credentials were for the job.
N.C. Sudhir, convenor of
BAI, told The Wire that the BAI should ideally take all decisions related to
the sport of para-badminton. “But due to a lack of experienced people from the
para-badminton circle, the BAI is not able to take as much interest in the
discipline as they are doing in the able-body sport,” said Sudhir.
He confirmed that although
there is no written agreement between the two associations, the PCI, which
actively works in the management of para-sports, “has been taking a keen
interest in developing para-badminton”.
The PCI is affiliated to the
International Paralympic Committee as India’s National Paralympic Committee. It
is also recognised by the MYAS as a national sports federation, which gives it
the powers to develop and manage most para-sports and a few international
events of para-badminton such as the Paralympics, the Asian Games and the
International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports Federation (IWAS) tournaments.
“But the entire sport of
para-badminton has ended up becoming a one-man show with the national coach,
Khanna, getting too much power to take major decisions,” alleged Sudhir.
K.Y. Venkatesh, a veteran
dwarf athlete who was recently conferred with the Padma Shri award for his
service to para-badminton, also told The Wire that the entire para-badminton
scene in India is controlled and run by Khanna from his academy in Lucknow. He
alleges that Khanna, along with BAI chairman Prabhakar Rao, manipulates the
national rankings and appears to push only one player.
The process of filing an RTI
application in India is pretty straightforward. If the specific department has
the information you need, they send it to you. If not, they route your request
to the appropriate department or refuse to share the information while stating
why it is being refused.
However, said Chennapragada,
when she filed an application with the Lucknow Division of Northern Railways
where Khanna is officially employed and posted, she received a personal
communication on her cell phone from a Lucknow number asking her to clarify what
information she needed via her RTI.
“A week after the phone
call, my RTI application was sent to the personnel department of the railways
and since then I have yet to learn if the Indian Railways ever issued a No
Objection Certificate to Khanna to run a private coaching academy and travel
across the world as the national para-badminton coach on government money while
still earning a salary from Northern Railways,” she said.
The RTI applications
Chennapragada made to the MYAS and the SAI requesting the same information have
either been lost or ended in responses that blamed other committees.
BAI convenor Sudhir told The
Wire that the BAI had been informed by the PCI that it had appointed Khanna as
the national coach for the para-badminton team.
“In 2019, the appointment of
the new chairman, Prabhaker Rao, completely changed the functioning of the
sport. All decisions are taken by Khanna and Rao without any discussions with
me. Even the rankings are prepared by them,” said Sudhir.
‘Half-baked information’
On condition of anonymity, a
player who is in the race to qualify for the forthcoming Tokyo Paralympics
confirmed to The Wire Chennapragada’s claim that the functioning of the
para-badminton circle is not transparent.
“We get all the information
on a WhatsApp group. The PDF circulars sent on the group never have a
letterhead. All national rankings, tournament calls, press invites etc, never
carry any official stamp. We have to seek information regarding sponsors, our
affiliation with the government schemes, what tournaments we should participate
in and the procedure to participate and so on from other players or outside the
circle. All the information we receive is half-baked,” said the player.
The PCI has been suspended
by the International Paralympic Committee three times since 1992 for a
multitude of reasons including internal conflicts, gross mismanagement and
practices impeding the growth of the paralympic movement in India. The most
recent suspension of the PCI was in September 2019, when the MYAS cited
violations of the National Sports Code in the body’s decision to sack its then
chairman, Rao Inderjit Singh.
Last December, the PCI’s
suspension was revoked. In the process of seeking approval to function as a
national sports federation, the PCI submitted an annual competition and
training calendar, in which several events were scheduled to take place at a
private para-badminton academy in Lucknow – the GKE Badminton Academy (Gaurav
Khanna Excellia Badminton Academy).
“The fact that a new academy
is owned by the national coach is not new, as we see in the case of the
Gopichand Academy, but annual tournaments that decide which players will
participate in international events being listed at a private academy sounds
fishy. Also, how did a full-time Indian Railways employee commit to so many
hundreds of hours of travel with India’s para-badminton team?” Chennapragada
wrote in her personal blog.
Her RTI responses filed to
confirm Khanna’s coaching credentials said: “Information being personal cannot
be supplied as per Section 8 of the RTI Act, without consent of the concerned
person.”
This is a violation of the
RTI Act, 2005, claims Chennapragada. Section 8 of the Act does not apply to
Khanna’s case, she said, considering that none of the RTI responses from any
association say Khanna has been appointed by them.
In almost all the RTIs filed
by Chennapragada regarding Khanna, the departments concerned say different
things.
RTI query: Who employed Gaurav Khanna as the
national coach for para-badminton?
Response from SAI: He is engaged by PCI and BAI as coach.
Response from PCI: There are no Coaches/ Assistant Coaches
that are appointed by SAI in PCI payroll / PCI has not appointed any Coaches/
Assistant Coaches for SAI payroll neither has claimed any such expenses from
SAI.
Response from BAI: He is appointed as a coach by PCI.
Grassroots level players
also allege that Khanna tries to push players training at his academy to all
international events while ignoring the talents of others.
“I didn’t know that
participating in multiple events would work for qualifiers in the Paralympics.
I don’t want to name the player but no one can qualify for the Paralympics
within two years of entering the sport. Not being able to have the same
advantages as Khanna sir’s students is mentally taxing,” said a para-badminton
player on condition of anonymity.
Chennapragada said that in a
private conversation with Khanna he had told her: “PCI ban hogaya tho koyi baat
nahin, hum SAI se kaam karaalenge (No problem if PCI is banned, we will get our
work done by SAI).”
‘Nothing to prove’
In response to Chennapragada’s
allegations, Gaurav Khanna told The Wire that as long as medals are won by the
players he trains, he does not need to prove anything to anyone other than the
officials of the PCI.
“My statement about getting
work done from SAI meant that if none of the associations work, we can always
go to the highest authority and they’ll listen to our requests,” Khanna told
The Wire. “I have no personal issues with Ms Chennapragada. I met her and she
is a very enthusiastic girl. A girl of that intellect should be in a positive
direction (sic) and support the progress of the sport in the country.”
Khanna also said that his
coaching abilities are being proved every day by the number of Arjuna Awardees
he has produced, the number of medals his students have won and the rankings
they hold in international events.
In relation to his academy
and railways job, he said that his service towards para-badminton is purely on
volunteer basis and that he is grateful for all the support he gets from his
colleagues and his department, which allows him to serve the nation.
While many in the
para-badminton fraternity allege Khanna’s actions are harming the sport, Palak
Kohli, India’s para-badminton star who made history by becoming the youngest
para-badminton player in the world to qualify for the Tokyo 2021 Paralympics,
said that her journey started because of Khanna and all is well in the sport.
No accountability
There are two levels of legislative
frameworks through which the PCI can be held accountable by the law:
state-level legislation in the form of the Registrar of Societies Act of
Karnataka and the NSDCI at the Central level. Neither of these two legislations
mandates regular and structured communication between each other to maintain
accountability and transparency from the national sports federations to the
Government of India.
For example, despite
providing annual funding to the PCI, the MYAS has no direct information
pertaining to coaches appointed in Indian Paralympics and their credentials to
work as coaches in India.
This is evident from the RTI
responses received from the PCI and the MYAS for two questions:
RTI query: Does Gaurav Khanna have a coach
credential / certification / degree to train athletes with disabilities in
para-badminton?
RTI response: Information being personal cannot be
supplied as per Section 8 of RTI Act, without consent of the concerned person.
RTI query: Is Satyanarayana, Mariyappan
Thangavelu’s coach, a Sports Authority of India or National Institute of Sport
certified coach?
RTI response: He is deputed by the Paralympic
Committee of India as Coach.
These responses also reveal
that the ministry has given complete control of the professional credentialing
of technical officials and coaches working in Indian Paralympics to the PCI,
Chennapragada alleged.
Palak Kohli told The Wire
that according to the players, their sport’s national governing body is the
PCI.
“The BWF marks emails to BAI
for open events except for the Paralympics, IWAS and Asian Games and other
major events. Gaurav Khanna coordinates between BAI and PCI, which is very
convenient to us since we want to focus on our game. On a personal level, we
feel comfortable approaching the PCI because they have expertise in para
sports,” Kohli said.
Since it seems evident that
the MYAS has no structure in place to continuously monitor the functioning of
organisations at the grassroots level, Chennapragada contacted the BWF directly
to bring these ambiguities to their attention.
However, the BWF said it had
no jurisdiction over para-badminton at the national level.
“As the world body for
badminton and para-badminton, the BWF does take any governance-related issues
seriously. However, where a complaint relates to issues at a national level, it
is generally the BWF’s position to maintain a level of impartiality and not to
become directly involved,” said John Shearer, Senior Development Manager, BWF.
Inspiration or
exploitation?
“About 99% of disability
sports federations in India don’t have subject matter expertise,” said
Chennapragada. “The sports ministry spends crores every year on sports, by
which it mobilises vote banks at grassroots levels, but there is no verifiable
governance framework.”
K.Y. Venkatesh told The Wire
that since 2001 his only mission has been to develop para-badminton to the same
level as the able-body sport and bring transparency and accountability in its
management.
“To continue the work I’ve
been doing for a decade now, I wrote a letter to the higher officials from all
associations. I requested them to allow me and other members across the country
to form a small committee that would bring more accountability to the sport.
But it has now been three months without an official response,” he said.
For Chennapragada, one of
the worst aspects of the lack of transparency in the management of para-sports
in India is the way the athletes are exploited in the name of inspiration.
“People like Khanna thrive
on pushing para sports from the inspiration porn angle,” alleged Chennapragada.
“I remember speaking to him two years ago. The way he ‘sells’ you the idea of
‘uplifting’ a disabled player, the way he talks of enhancing the quality of their
lives, it reeks of all the variables that work against diversity and inclusion
– casteism, ageism and ableism. India thrives on the projection of success and
empowerment that people like Khanna sell, especially when players with
disabilities are involved.”
Ever since Chennapragada
began to realise that there is a lack of transparency and accountability in
para-sports which may put the athletes at risk, she has been asking members of
the media to investigate the matter for themselves.
“But no one pursued the
story,” she said. “In fact, a journalist from ESPN told me that the story is
not ‘a smoking gun’ and that it would not ‘bring traffic and numbers’ to the
website. This is exactly what is wrong with our society. As long as the medals
come in, everyone thinks everything is all right.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
