Judges demand a straight bat for Indian cricket

On the cricket pitch, the umpire is the judge. Now off the field in India, judges are effectively taking a hand at running cricket. Later this month a three-member advisory panel will try to reform this hugely popular sport. The panel was put in place by Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha to clean up the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Long-suspected match fixing and the presence of illegal betting rings burst into the open during the 2013 Indian Premier League tournament. Yet in the face of this scandal, the BCCI and the state cricket associations did extraordinary little to put in place measures that would guarantee the sport’s transparency. Last July, the Supreme Court ordered the management of Indian cricket to sort itself out. There were many fine words but no real attempts at reform. Part of the problem lay with the structure of the BCCI and the state associations. Officials enjoyed secure tenure, generous remuneration and a raft of perks. The risks inherent in such unchanging management structures were demonstrated plainly in the corruption at the International Olympic Committee and FIFA, world football’s governing body. In all such organizations, there are honorable people who start off trying to do their best. But once they have come up against official inertia, indifference or downright obtuse deception, they have the choice of giving up and walking away or staying on, drawing their salary and saying nothing. Six months of spectacular inactivity by the BCCI tried the Supreme Court’s patience. They have ordered the board’s president Anurag Thakur to quit, along with its secretary Ajay Shirke. The precise shape of the reforms have yet to be settled but it seems certain that no person will be able to hold more than one official post and that for only a maximum term, probably three years. There will then be a compulsory period, again probably three years, before an individual can rejoin the management ranks. A compulsory retirement age of 70 is also being proposed. These rules are expected to apply to state associations as well as the BCCI itself. It can be expected that there will still be resistance to change. A significant number of people are going to lose status and positions they had taken for granted. But it is really hard to feel much sympathy for them. Even if they were not themselves involved in corruption, the sport has been disfigured by bribery scandals that happened on their watch. They were given ample warning that they had to change their ways. Instead of overseeing the reform internally, they are having it imposed from outside. A big question now is to what extent the new managements of the BCCI and state associations will want to go through the records in search of wrongdoing. On balance it is surely better to concentrate on the major task of overseeing cricket far more effectively. A transparent BCCI will be in a position to home in on rackets and clean up the sport. Free of the taint of corruption themselves, the cricketing authorities will be in a position to come down hard on the criminals who exploit the sport for apparently huge financial gain. All fans of Indian cricket around the world deserve to know that they are watching enthralling matches where players and officials are beyond reproach and everyone is doing their level best to win.