Will BCCI wilt in light of transparency?

The BCCI and other government-run sports bodies spend a lot of time and effort in keeping the media and consequently the public in the dark about their failings.

By Norris Pritam

The other day media persons covering the telecommunications sector were barred from entering Sanchar Bhawan where a crucial meeting between the private cellular operators and top
officials of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) was taking place. The Reason? The Government did not want the deliberations taking place following a tussle between the GSm and CDMA groups to be made available for public consumption. Now what has this to do with a sports story?

Just the plain similarity of might that is misused by power mongers in the Government and sports establishment.

Now consider this. Dilip Vengsarkar, Chairman of the cricket selection committee, has been barred from writing his column in a newspaper. Initially Vengsarkar resisted the attempts to get him to stop publishing his column and flouted the code of conduct that bars selectors from writing newspaper columns. However, finally the Colonel, as Vengsarkar is popularly known, had to bow in front the General of Indian cricket – Sharad Pawar. Like DoT, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was not happy with Vengsarkar letting out BCCI’s working to the public through his columns.

Not that Vengsarkar was letting out any national secret in the Marathi daily Sakal and Hindi newspaper Amar Ujala. But there was always a chance of Vengsarkar using exclusive information that only he was privy to as the chief selector. But what must have sparked off the controversy was the annual Rs 40 lakh booty that Vengsarkar reportedly earns for writing the columns. It is plain truth that the syndicating agencies were shelling out the amount to Vengsarkar for sitting on the hot seat of the chief selector rather than his writing skills. And some members of the BCCI were obviously not ready to digest this.

It is often reported in the media that selectors, even at the domestic level, do accept favours both in cash and kind for favouring some not-so-deserving players. Some selectors are of the ‘dial-a-quote’ variety and some have even been known to phone and send text messages to newspapers and TV Channels asking to be interviewed for a price. But what is BCCI’s problem if a certain selector carries a price tag? Why does the code of conduct apply only to selectors and players? How about a code of conduct for the ever-willing wide-mouth vice presidents and other office bearers of the BCCI? Are they governed by any rule or they are just like bulls in a china shop?
Now imagine if what ever Vengsarkar was writing began appearing in a newspaper under a different byline? Wouldn’t it be worse if Vengsarkar or some other selector leaked news and information to a newspaper or TV Channel for a price? Will the BCCI be in a position to stop it? Will it apply a code of conduct on the media as well? Perhaps the biggest loser in the whole controversy is the man who was ghostwriting the columns for Vengsarkar. He will now have to look for new employment.

The pressure tactics applied on Vengsarkar are not just confined to cricket. Indian sport is full of such instances where organisers or the office bearers of national sports federations try to keep media in the dark with the sole objective of protecting their misdeeds. Recently mandarins in the Organizing Committee of the New Delhi Commonwealth Games took the media for a ride. The occasion was the signing of the MoU between the Committee and the Organising Committee of the forthcoming London Olympic Games.

Sitting on the dais next to double Olympic champion Sebastian Coe, head of the London Games, Suresh Kalmadi explained the virtues of a MoU between the two bodies. He even told the journalists present to collect copy of the MoU. But all that the journalists got was tea and snacks at a five star hotel. There was no sign of the MoU. Despite several requests no one could lay hands on the copy of MoU.

Later though, some officials of the Organizing Committee of the New Delhi Commonwealth Games let out to some journalists that there was no MoU. It was just a verbal exchange between Kalmadi and Coe minutes before the media conference which was being referred to as a MoU. Interestingly Ken Livingston, Mayor of London who accompanied Coe, also signed a separate MoU with Delhi Government. Where then was the need for Kalmadi to sign a MoU with Coe? It all turned out to be a Memorandum of Misunderstanding!