Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Over the past week, political and legal reporters have written more cricket-related stories than the hapless sports correspondent. The cricket fan is confused and disgusted, caught between intricacies of politics and technicalities of law.
So just what is going on? Here8217;s a primer on the BCCI8217;s mess.
WHAT IS HAPPENING:
Jagmohan Dalmiya has been locked in two simultaneous battles. He8217;s won one by ensuring the defeat of Sharad Pawar and the election of Ranbir Singh Mahendra to the Board presidency.
The second battle, in the Supreme Court, involves Zee Telefilms 8212; which initially won the TV rights for all cricket in India between 2004-08 8212; challenging Dalmiya8217;s cancellation of the bidding process.
The two battles are inter-related. Zee batted for Pawar in the Board election. Dalmiya perceived a ganging up of his rivals within the BCCI, of the Zee empire and of Pawar and a section of the government. He ducked one bouncer, they8217;ll want to get him with number two.
WHAT COULD HAPPEN:
The government could get nasty with Dalmiya; this may already be happening with the Law Ministry. Here8217;s why.
The Zee-BCCI battle is centred on Zee8217;s contention, before the SC, that the BCCI is a public body and so answerable to 8216;8216;writ jurisdiction8217;8217;. As such, the court can and must ask it to explain its bidding system.
Article 12 defines 8216;8216;the State8217;8217; as: 8216;8216;The government8230;of India and the government8230;of each of the states and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the government of India.8217;8217;
It is a fair argument that, as the body regulating India8217;s most popular sport, the BCCI comes under the ambit of 8216;8216;other authorities8217;8217;.
Since it gets benefits like cheap rentals for stadia built on public land, free police bandobast, it does owe something to the people 8212; at least morally.
On September 30, the government presented its case to the court. The BCCI was amenable to writ jurisdiction because it was 8216;8216;under control of the government of India8217;8217;.
If upheld, this can have grave repercussions. Zee has argued that, as a state body, the BCCI8217;s tender process must conform to the rules of the CVC. This means post-tender negotiations can only be entered into with the best bidder. Post-tender negotiations can get dirty, but corporations from ITC to IBM resort to them. Why single out the BCCI?
There8217;s more. If the government8217;s rules apply to the BCCI, what stops reservation in the selection panel, quotas for SCs, STs and OBCs 8212; not to speak of 8216;8216;the socially and economically backward among the minorities8217;8217; 8212; in Team India?
One BCCI functionary took the matter to its illogical absurdity: 8216;8216;To drop a player on form, I8217;ll have to institute an inquiry. To sack a coach for favouritism, I8217;ll have to issue a show-cause notice. If the Left protests about foreign consultants, I8217;ll have to send John Wright home.8217;8217;
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN:
It appears the court was not impressed by the ASG8217;s contention. Indian cricket may yet be saved from 8216;8216;sick PSU status8217;8217;. Even so, the BCCI may have to live with a hostile UPA government.
Adversity spells opportunity. In 1993, the BCCI faced an unfriendly Congress government that insisted the BCCI could not sell TV rights to anybody other than Doordarshan. It refused to let foreign crew bring cameras into India or uplink from here.
The 8216;8216;Hero Cup case8217;8217; began as the BCCI8217;s quest for more revenue. It ended up posing a larger question: are the airwaves a government monopoly or in the public domain? The government had to cede space. In a sense, the satellite TV revolution in India owes a lot to that seminal legal battle.
Dalmiya now has a chance to play a second innings. He can take things further by, in effect, corporatising the BCCI and cutting whatever links it has with the government. Reducing dependence will advance civil society8217;s cause, and also the BCCI8217;s.
How can this be done? It8217;s not rocket science really. 8216;8216;The Board has to now see itself as a company,8217;8217; says a cricket official, 8216;8216;running a business called cricket.8217;8217;
Land rented from the government at institutional rates may need to be re-negotiated at higher rates. Rather than ask policemen to manage crowds, BCCI could hire private security agencies, probably more efficient anyway. 8216;8216;Policemen come free,8217;8217; points out a DDCA official, 8216;8216;but in Delhi they make up for it by demanding of tickets.8217;8217;
Lesser sports bodies, which need dollars from the Sports Ministry before a foreign trip, are vulnerable. The BCCI, as a net forex earner 8212; even the projected 308 million for its aborted TV rights deal was to be paid in foreign currency 8212; can afford to call the government8217;s bluff.
Finally, writ jurisdiction or no writ jurisdiction, the BCCI owes something to the citizen. 8216;8216;It needs an HQ,8217;8217; admits a cricket administrator, 8216;8216;it needs a professional CEO. Above all it needs a transparent tender system for building stadia, buying equipment, selling rights.8217;8217;
To keep away the outsider, get your house in order. The BCCI needs corporate governance. The alternative is in political battles, siding with Pawar8217;s rivals here, non-Congress parties there. Expediency or principle: the option is Dalmiya8217;s.
