I am neither batting for anyone nor bowling fierce bouncers against anyone.

I am neither batting for anyone nor bowling fierce bouncers against anyone.

‘The complete Lodha Panel report on Reforms in Indian Cricket’ made me introspect on certain issues especially more because as usual some media houses have chosen to cherry pick and selective project only certain aspects of the report. I too decided to do a counter cherry picking, if you may call it as I do not have the in depth legal expertise to even fully clearly understand all the implications of such an elaborate and excellent report made by legal luminaries.

 

Is there any particular authorized version of arbitration of interpretations or specifically prescribed ideological or intellectual approvals for all activities/every activity/institution? If we stretch it to the logical extreme it could include the Rajya sabha consisting of unelected parliamentarians enjoying all, if not more privileges than the elected representatives which is the essence of parliamentary democracy.

 

Why everyone is so obsessively bothered about cricket administration? Is it because of the passion for the game? Or because of the money it generates? And/or the mileage it gives in terms of popularity?

 

The width of  aspects covered, the depth of details looked into and the many balanced observation obviously after wading through huge amount sane, sensitive, serious, superficial, solicited ,unsolicited observations, suggestions, comments, criticism etc is indeed really a tough task and it has resulted in the delivery of an elaborate and  excellent report taking into consideration mainly to ensure that justifiable and justified means of operation and functioning take place in the arena of cricket administration in tune with and assuring moral correctness, ethical standards, social obligations not but not the least the importance and improvement of the sport-cricket – around which all the other things are centered.

In India everybody who is somebody has at least a view on the game irrespective of participation or knowledge and is also very passionate, sometimes highly sensitive in their opinions both sensible and stupid. So it is all the more difficult to give a details report on the working of such an issue like cricket administration in India.

So it has become imperative on this report to address question of moral correctness, ethical standards, social obligations, sporting importance and since such a wide spectrum of factors are involved had to look into consideration the influence, importance, impact etc either positive or negative of all political undercurrents and regional socio-cultural overtones manifesting as various forms of bias.

All these demand that a report that intends to review and revamp the existing structure of existing institutes needs to be methodically and properly taken care of in such a way without much foul play, less partiality and more justifiable means of operation etc

To overcome all these through legal scrutiny makes the job all the more difficulty.

However, one is tempted to cherry pick certain aspects of the report and view them in the light certain other bigger institutions in India of greater importance as to find out are they functioning in a justifiable manner or the very existence of such institutions justifiable, a la planning commission?

Are we not encountering too many undefined or not easily definable or vaguely defined and highly relative and abstract terminologies which refer to certain presumed lofty ideological sign posts?

The terminologies that beg a definition with unquestionable clarity:-  

Moral correctness needs to define what is moral and more precisely what is correctness in that morality .

Ethical standards –what is ethical and what yardstick of measurement determines the standard as reference point.

Social obligation as majority of Indian population if not the whole society is involved/interested/connected in some way or other in cricket and therefore concerned about all its aspects.

Sporting importance, one of the international sports with enough publicity in which India has achieved enough in all aspects of this sport, namely cricket.

So in the interest of  all we may have to prioritize certain main issues involved here i.e cricket , its funding , sustenance, quick , efficient decision making which may not be hampered with too many stumbling blocks spoiling the smooth functioning of the whole game.

How do we define the terms in the above  sentence with specific reference to BCCI?

Page 6 of the report observes, “Most of those the Committee interacted with, were eager that the game of cricket be governed and administered conforming to the highest standards of management, ethics ,accountability and transparency worthy of the game, and that efficient decision making process should be institutionalised.”

Page 7 “Many officials of the various State Associations hold power without adhering to the basic principles of accountability and transparency by converting them into regional fiefdoms.” 

Is our constitutional body of gubernatorial post accountable, justified/justifiable with all its sprawling real estate space in many states and all its other paraphernalia followed by extraordinary post retirement benefits?

In fact if at all anything has to function effectively and sustained with some amount of continuity finance and power the wheels on which it can move about so political and corporate involvement is necessary but at the same time the wheels that move must be provided also with appropriate brakes [in the form of certain checks and balances, not hindrances].

Can any panel/commission ensure the conduct of Rajya sabha itself ?

Centuries ago, a great thinker called Plato had stated what has now become a real-life scenario in india, “good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”

All politicians are neither bad nor inefficient. Let us not generalize, what is wrong if they lead sports bodies?

We all must refrain from resorting to emotional populist reactions.

Sports persons need not necessarily be great administrators;

Bureaucrats need not necessarily be expected to be free of corruption;

All politicians need not necessarily be corrupt, criminal, ineffective, insincere there are /have been many exceptions;

Institutional rules and frameworks must ensure proper administrations, less corruption, less partiality, recognition of pure merit!

Advantage of politicians of all hues and colors is that some of them have a natural knack of decision making and administration because they can feel the pulse of situation much better-they only need to learn or be properly guided about the nitty-gritty of nuances of the domain;

All these are because politicians have wider contacts and connect because of their social activities and interactions at all levels and also move along with a clout, foot soldiers, and faithful followers

Besides, politicians do not hesitate to wield power to get things done.

Many politicians are sincere and serious about whatever they do at least for the mileage that they derive out of whatever they do and incidentally some of them are educated and concerned about certain field which are close to their heart and also are aware such activities contribute to some aspect of social welfare.

I am forced to bring in another player, the eternal pseudo chaps who poke their nose and try to capitalize on any/all populist issue.

They have resorted to cherry picking certain observations of the report and projecting it as if all politicians must become like detached monks to every activity while these worthies speak as if they are paragons of virtue, poster boys of moral and ethical standards and know all and judge all impeccable descendants of a superior species, I mean the media persons.

While politician bashing is always preferred filler for all media houses because it always pleases some section of the population.

Media, especially main stream media, to be more precise most 24/7 news [nuisance] channels, have to realize that social media is exposing all their lies, partialities, puerile priorities, putrefied projections , petrified prejudices, sensationalism seeking, their dubious designs, hidden agenda and arrogant anchor room arm chair struck verbal churning masquerading  as know-all and judge –all experts.

Business people who help feed so many families, politicians who help address many social issues are far better than many media persons who secrete only negativity, sensationalism, scandals and have forgotten positive news at all.