One step forward,two steps back

This Thursday,Humado was a relieved man as the International Olympic Association set aside a suspension to clear the way for Ghana to participate at the 2012 London Olympics. The IOC had suspended the African nation this January for what it called government interference in the Ghana Olympic Committee. Their fault: Ghana government wanted to appoint a person of their choice as the head of the GOC. Kuwait remains suspended for a similar violation.

Though Maken and India are yet to cross the dreaded ‘in-contravention-of-Olympic-Charter’ line,this threat was very real as Maken unveiled the first draft of the National Sports Development Bill amidst public fanfare.

Had the National Sports Development Bill got the Union Cabinet’s nod,it could have invited similar censure.

At the centre of it all is the contentious 1999 Lausanne session of the IOC,which voluntarily declared “any IOC member may retire no later than at the end of calendar year during which he reaches the age of 70” and in subsequent sessions limiting the “presidential term of 12 years,and an office bearer’s term of 8 years,to be followed by a break.”

For some reason,babus in the sports ministry believed that the declaration was binding on all NOCs and have been using it in defence against all criticism for trying to limit the tenure and put a retirement cap.

Opposition at home and away

But as explained by IOC’s NOC relations department director Pere Miro who wrote a letter supporting the Indian Olympic Association concurring that according to Olympic Charter “such measures must be decided freely and democratically by competent organs of those organisations,” the decision wasn’t binding.

This was days after the Board of Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) had thrown its weight behind NSF chiefs,who were vehemently opposed to the ministry’s twin-stance of 70 years retirement and three terms-tenure.

BCCI vice president Arun Jaitley tore into the draft in an open house called to discuss the suggestions towards fine-tuning the draft before the Justice Mukul Mudgal panel,saying,“the motive behind the bill may be noble,but the remedy suggested seems to be worse than the disease. Not only does the bill seek to create two sources of power in the government and the concerned world governing body,it also interferes in the jurisdiction of states,as sports is a state subject.”

That July afternoon set the tone and the final nail in the coffin was struck this week when the Union Cabinet,including ICC president Sharad Pawar,MCA president Vilasrao Deshmukh and JKCA president Farooq Abdullah outrightedly rejected the tabling of the bill this monsoon session.

Bizarre logic

Privately,Maken knew the risks involved in taking on his powerful cabinet colleagues. But the idea of setting a retirement age for administrators is bizarre,if one looks at the various international bodies,including the IOA,FIFA and several others.

IOC chief Jacques Rogge’s predecessor Juan Antonio Samaranch had reigned for over two decades. Rogge himself is leading IOA since 2001. FIFA chief Sepp Blatter is at the helm since 1998. International Tennis Federation boss Italian Francesco Ricci Bitti is about to enter his fourth term in office.

“We don’t have a problem in limiting our members’ age to 70. But even our international body,the ITF doesn’t run on these foundations. If their president (Bitti) seeks another term he will be 73. So I don’t know what’s the merit of limiting age,” Anil Khanna,secretary general,AITA,says.

But others like Badminton Association of India (BAI) secretary Punnaiah Chou-dary mince no words tearing into the Bill.

“The 70-years age-limit is unacceptable,and I want to ask why is this being stipulated only for sports administrators. It’s not applicable to ministers,so why put a cap on sports officials? Frankly most people can devote more time to sports administration only after they are done with service,otherwise they hardly have time to spare for sport so 70 cannot be a limit,” Choudary says.

The BAI,under Akhilesh Das Gupta is now returning to the government fold,and will agree to most of their regulations,but the 70 years and 3 terms cap are both impractical and unnecessary,he reiterates. “It’s not even a part of Indian Societies Act,” he adds.

Barking up the wrong tree

Besides,the age and tenure norm is hardly a full-proof solution to end the politicos’-and-administrators’ stranglehold on federations. For,examples of how to get around the said rules,abound. Though it isn’t an indictment on the National Rifle Association of India (NRAI),they still have Baljeet Singh Sethi on board as its advisor after relinquishing his post of secretary general. Similarly,Harish Sharma has now been appointed as Basketball Federation of India CEO,after ending his tenure as the secretary general. Designations,then,seem to matter little.

“Sports administration has changed after the Commonwealth Games and if someone is not performing,he will be thrown out. But I still don’t agree with the three-term tenure. These are mostly unpaid,honorary posts,and not many volunteer to spend so much time on this job,” Choudary explains.

Another grouse is that officials have failed to understand that not all sports can be regulated under the same stick. What is right for Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) may not be applicable to the National Rifle Association of India (NRAI). The nature of the shooting sport is such that there are few administrators with its knowledge and there would come a time when after ending their tenures,there would be few left to administer.

“We want the ministry to treat each sports in their individual light. There is a difference between weightlifting and tennis,we don’t need as many coaching camps,we want the ministry to give prize money for the $10,000 ITF tournaments because the state federations end up paying as much money on referees,ball boys,court management and amenities for seven days. Even the players in these tournaments are not making money out of these events,so government should see to this requirement for promotion of tennis,” Khanna says.

Flexing muscles

The NSF grouse of government trying to control their day-to-day affairs isn’t unreal. In the garb of tightening purses,officials and SAI have been known to arm-twist bodies to agree to their diktats. Take for instance the agreement between the AITA and the sports ministry for the use of the DLTA Complex after it was restructured from ministry funds (Rs 65 crore) for the Commonwealth Games. According to the agreement an officer of the rank of joint secretary will now be a part of AITA’s central council and a director-level officer will sit on the executive board. Though the AITA have said they voluntarily agreed to the clause,it goes a long way in confirming the fears of federations of the government’s intention of taking control.

Accountability,transparency — yes

It’s not that the Bill has no positives. The inclusion of sportspersons’ on executive body,accountability and good governance principles are needed. Many including the WFI,have all former players on its executive body starting with president Dushyant Singh.

And except for the BCCI,which is not an NSF,no other federation has refused to adhere to the accountability clause. Some like AITA have been replying to RTI queries from the past one year. Besides as a rule,any association that gets Rs one crore and upwards from the government will have to be audited by CAG. All other expenses by SAI on players’ participation are also accounted for.

“The existing government watch is enough and laws are adequate to keep a check on federations and ensure transparency. If someone is corrupt,he should be brought down by honest opposition which is willing to step into the shoes of those officials and take responsibility,” Choudhary concurs.

Regarding players’ inclusion,boxer Akhil Kumar have an interesting take: “One positive is that sportspersons can understand and run the organisation in a better way,but is everybody qualified enough to do that. Someone like Anil Kumble knows what it takes to be as good an admin leader as a world class player but there should be criteria for players to enter into admin.”

“Humne bina is bill ke tarakki payi hai. (Most medals have come inspite of the system,hardly because of it.) But times are changing; people are talking about BCCI but the fact is they have delivered even without the government support,” Kumar says.

When Govt failed players

It’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. While the ministry calls for cleansing of sports bodies,it has on many occasions failed to put its own house in order. SAI has been guilty of failing to provide to the players’ needs on a number of times,but no action has been taken. Take for example Jaspal Rana’s case. Rana’s comeback trail was halted by the officials on the pretext that he wasn’t part of shooting’s core group for the London Olympics. Having won the trials to represent India,he was denied the clearance from the ministry and SAI to travel for the ISSF World Cup at Fort Benning,USA. If a player of Rana’s calibre is meted out this treatment,think about those who are not famous.

The moment focus shifted from helping sportspersons to picking on the reign of powerful politicians over federations,the bill that promised so much and could have achieved even more,had failed to deliver.

(With inputs from Nitin Sharma,Smriti Sinha and Shivani Naik)

‘Maken’ it Work’: Maken has vociferously argued for the Bill,stressING that the government is NOT interested in controlling sports federations. The minister defends the contentious points of his pet-plan:

On need for reforms

We need reforms in sports,which we hope the National Sports Bill will bring in. I am hopeful that the Parliament will be unanimous on this Bill which will bring in transparency in NSFs.

It is a step to reform sports. If this bill had been enacted earlier,the CWG scam would not have happened,because all these people who have been involved,none of them would have been office-bearers in their federations or IOA.

Corporate bodies are hesitant to put funds in sports because they don’t know whether the money they invest,would be spent on athletes or sports administrators,hence they demand transparent functioning.

On transparency in sports bodies

We want sports bodies to be accountable to the people of India through RTI,follow the basic principles of good governance. We have to make it clear that the government was not trying to control them. We are just saying that information regarding accounts and functioning of the organisation should be given to citizens,particularly when you are sending Indian teams outside for tournaments. What is the problem in giving information to the public?

How bringing a sports body under RTI is tantamount to controlling it,I fail to understand.

On having an age limit

In bureaucracy,we have 60 years as age of retirement,in judiciary it is 65 and in others it is 62-63,we have kept the age limit at 70 years for sports federations. If you talk about administrative provisions,they should compare themselves to the bureaucracy and judiciary which are good examples.

The logic behind having 70 years age bar is that IOC itself has 70 years as age bar for its own office bearers. Since IOC is the parent body of IOA,we have adopted it from them. Their own basic principles of good governance is 70 years of age limit and 12 years tenure for president. We have also taken these two provisions from the 13th Olympic Congress in 2007 in Beijing where they adopted the Basic Principles of Good Governance.

On objections raised by BCCI

The BCCI should point out what provisions are intrusive in nature and which clauses will have government control. We will remove all that but they should not oppose 25 per cent representation of sportspersons in the Executive Board,and the RTI clause.

On cricket not taking government support

If you talk about resources or grants,there are some indirect benefits. For example,did the DDCA have to pay for the land for Ferozeshah Kotla Ground? Whenever matches are organised,they earn in crores (of rupees). They get so much money from tax benefits which is just like a grant.

On alleged government interference in sports bodies

We don’t intend to have our own representatives in any way in any of the managements of these sports bodies,we don’t want to direct them but their accounts should be known to public through RTI,after all they are using government funds and sending teams,so we want them to be accountable.

What we are saying is that 25 per cent of the executive body should constitute sportspersons of the same game,we are not saying government will appoint that 25 per cent. What we are saying is that sportspersons who have played at the national level,should among themselves select,elect sportspersons who should represent 25 per cent of their executive body.

On the failure of the bill

We will place the bill before the cabinet again. We will consult the ministers to know their specific objections and address those as much as possible in the bill. Hopefully we will be able to get the cabinet’s clearance next time around. On compromising on the contents of the bill I am sure I will be able to reason out with people who are opposed (to the bill) because I am clear on one thing,we do not intend to control or be intrusive. I am willing to have a re-look without compromising aspects like efficiency and transparency by bringing sports bodies under purview of RTI. BCCI has already been talked to by our committee,so I would be talking to cabinet colleagues,I will try to convince them and discuss with them.