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.
