The allegations raised by Ramachandra Guha, famous historian and member of the Committee of Administrators (CoA) appointed by the Supreme Court to oversee the functioning of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) while quitting from the panel, are serious ones. Guha's open letter should pave the way for restructuring of the practices of the Board, especially in the area relating to conflict of interest among persons holding senior administrative positions, on account of their private business interests. The officials involved include senior administrators who own Indian Premier League (IPL) sides to players, including greats of a bygone era like Sunil Gavaskar, running agencies managing advertising contracts of their fellow sportspersons.
Read also: Guha raises conflict of interest issue against Dhoni, Dravid, Gavaskar
Usually rules for avoiding conflict of interest apply to government officers and public servants. The BCCI is not a government body or a department, but since it performs the function of selecting national cricket teams, it should be considered that it is fulfilling a public function, involving not only the masses following the game but the entire country. This is precisely the reason why Supreme Court been interfering in the affairs of the BCCI. Hence it is high time that clauses relating to avoidance of conflict of interest are made applicable to office-bearers and functionaries of the BCCI.
The issue of conflict of interest came to the fore with the commencement of IPL when the BCCI president himself became the owner of a franchisee. This unprecedented action soon became the norm as others also followed suit so much so that it affected even Rahul Dravid, widely recognized as one the most greatest gentlemen in this history of the game. Dravid had opted for coaching the Indian A' team and under -19 sides, which showed his commitment to the game and passion for mentoring young players. However, it was wrong on the part of BCCI to have given him permission to be the mentor of Delhi Daredevils in the IPL. This was sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt over the integrity of even Dravid.
Similarly Sachin Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly and V.V.S. Laxman are members of the Cricket Advisory Committee of the BCCI, which is tasked with the responsibility of selecting the coach for the national side. Tendulkar and Laxman are also mentors of certain IPL sides. Presently, Tom Moody, coach of Hyderabad franchisee in the IPL, has applied for the post of national coach, which makes the position of Laxman uncomfortable as he is the mentor of the same side. Would Laxman choose to stay away from the process of selection of coach for national side to avoid allegations of conflict of interest?
Gavaskar's case
The case of Gavaskar is different. He is not an office-bearer of the BCCI nor employed by the Board in any capacity. However, he is one of the members of the commentary team employed by ESPN-Star Sports with whom BCCI has a contract for telecasting international and domestic matches. It would be far fetched to say that a commentator can influence the game. However, it remains a possibility that a commentator can promote the interests of a player who has a contract with a firm he is directly associated with. A commentator should be neutral and objective and should not be amenable to any influence as commentary of any sporting event is, in the final analysis, a sublime art. It is this neutrality and objectivity that gets challenged when Gavaskar associates himself with a firm that manages advertising and other contracts of players.
The BCCI should urgently frame guidelines for administrators and officials to ensure that there is no conflict of interest involved in their actions as public authority. This should be done by making it clear that they should not be part of any private business enterprise involved with the game. The BCCI should suitably compensate the administrators and officials who stand to lose financially due to not taking part in the IPL or on account of sacrificing their personal business interests while holding office. All agencies contracted by the BCCI, including telecasters, should be brought under the ambit of these provisions. Only through such stringent measures would the BCCI be able to regain credibility in public eye on matters of financial propriety.
(The author is a former international umpire and a senior bureaucrat)