The Indian cricket team is selected by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). It is the country's national team. But all states do not have representation in the BCCI.
Some states have two or three teams. For instance, Maharashtra has a state team, a Mumbai team and a Vidarbha team. Gujarat has, apart from its team, Baroda and Saurashtra teams. Andhra has the state and Hyderabad teams. There is a team called Combined Universities. No such team plays elsewhere. In all other sports, a state has only one team.
BCCI was registered as a private organisation under the Charitable Societies Act in Madras in 1928 during the British Raj. The members in the then BCCI were various princely states ruled by kings. It was run in a way that new members could not enrol. Times have changed. The BCCI structure needs to be revamped to take into account the current circumstances. A common protocol for running it should be created. Associations should be formed from the district level in all states, in a structured manner. For that, common rules should be drawn up and elections should be held according to the law.
Earlier, BCCI presidents used to step aside after completing their terms. Sharad Pawar, Madhavrao Scindia, I.S.Bindra are all examples of that. But Jagmohan Dalmia and N.Srinivasan have shown a reluctance to do that. Srinivasan is now trying to hang on to the post.
The posts of the top officials of the BCCI are honourary in nature; they get no remuneration. For this reason alone, they should be allowed to stay in those posts only for fixed terms. The board deals with crores of rupees, and there are many possibilities for officials to have other interests.
BCCI has a history of organising tournaments well. A permanent secretariat should be formed for holding such events even when the ruling committee changes.
Another point is to have a public audit system. An independent body should be formed to evaluate the board's functioning and give a public report. This panel can include retired Supreme Court justices, retired CAGs and former cricketers. BCCI should not intervene in subjects such as selection of players.
Srinivasan broke the tradition in this case too. He had interfered in the selection process in favour of Dhoni. Board officials interfering with the selection process is never desirable. Selection panel should be given a two-year term, independence to function, and good remuneration. Only then can they complete their responsibilities fully.
There needs to be a complete overhaul of the BCCI administration. But full government control is not something agreeable; it will only negatively impact the board's functioning. No sports body under government control functions efficiently.
Despite its many faults, BCCI has several advantages. It has grown to its current stature from a simple 2-room headquarters. It has organised many tournaments quite well. Its corporate approach is necessary in several areas. But it also needs transparency and needs to be brought under public control.
(The writer is a former international cricket umpire and a customs commissioner in Kochi)