BCCI so powerful that it has reached the status of being untouchable

No sympathy for the devil

Why is the BCCI so powerful that it has reached the status of being untouchable?

But what's puzzling you/ Is the nature of my game

I was a young 12-year-old when I saw my very first Test match. It was Bombay, December 2, 1960, India vs Pakistan, and I took leave from school (with my father's permission) to watch what would turn out to be one of the most boring Test matches the world has seen, and possibly one of Test cricket's most boring series. But I enjoyed it all; all my idols were there — Polly Umrigar, Ramakant Desai, Subhash Gupte — and I saw Hanif Mohammad and Saeed Ahmed score centuries.

There was pride at stake in the series, India and Pakistan had just separated a decade earlier, and for the Indian cricket board, BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India), not losing was all that mattered, the hell with the cricket, and therefore they prepared pitches to make sure every match was a draw.

It was to be 22 years later, almost to the day, when I saw my second Test match, this time in Bangalore. There was much anticipation because India had defeated England in the first Test in Bombay. But that was a clue — the BCCI, having gotten lucky in the first Test on a turning pitch, decided it was time to close shop, and decided to dis-entertain the cricketing world with the second most boring series of all time.

It still didn't matter for, as attributed to former Australian PM John Howard (by James Astill in his book The Great Tamasha), I remained a cricket "tragic". And cricket tragics enjoy any match (almost!). A few years later, in 1987, so obsessed with this most beautiful game, I wrote my first book — Between the Wickets, a book that I will say most immodestly, anticipated Moneyball, which came some 20 years later.

I shouted out,/ Who killed (Test cricket)?/ When after all/ It was you and me

But then the fun stopped, and I began to recover from my "tragedy". In 1998, I found out about the realities of Indian cricket administration. There was match-fixing, a far more dangerous invention than pitch-fixing of an earlier era. Indian and Pakistani players were allegedly at the centre of cricket corruption. And as part of Rahul Mehra's legal suit against the BCCI, I helped discover that this non-profit NGO had, via its important subsidiary, the Delhi District Cricket Association, received more revenue from the sale of used liquor bottles than it had spent in coaching expenses. This was more than a decade before Suresh Kalmadi, and just a decade after Bofors. Relevance of liquor consumption and no coaching? A society is granted no-tax status on the grounds that it is doing a public "good" and that its income or wealth is ploughed back into the work of the society. And what was/ is the work of the BCCI?

Just as every cop is a criminal/ And all the sinners saints

In 2007-08, the tax exemption for the BCCI was withdrawn by the Union government. But this may have been no more than a token victory for honourable taxpayers. The BCCI allegedly only paid tax amounting to Rs 41.91crore against its tax liability of Rs 413 crore in the 2009-10 financial year (as reported in The New Indian Express, February 20, 2012).

Lately, it appears that the BCCI has successfully protected itself, and its revenue-expenditure mix, from any public scrutiny via the RTI act. The excuse widely (and wildly) offered by BCCI representatives: we cannot afford to allow the aam aadmi to select the cricket team. Arrey Bhai — kahan se kahan pahunch gaye?

Over the last few years, as revenue from cricket has grown, so has the BCCI's unaccountability. The Competition Commission has no effect on its arrogance, and public opinion in India is spurned like a cur out of its way. Worse, cricket is affected. India has been the only country not supporting the DRS system in Test cricket. One explanation — the richest cricket body in the world cannot afford to spend $30,000 per Test match. And despite the International Cricket Council mandating its use, the BCCI has rejected all attempts to introduce it in India.

As heads is tails/ Just call me Lucifer/ Cause I'm in need of some restraint/ So if (Lorgat) you meet me/ Have some courtesy/ Have some sympathy, and some taste/ Use all your well-learned politesse/ Or I'll lay your soul (cricket) to waste

And now this. India's tour of South Africa is being called off. Why? Because the BCCI cannot come to terms with the fact that Cricket South Africa (CSA) has chosen as its head Haroon Lorgat. Why should that matter? Not clear, but when the Big Boss speaks... This is what one commentator had to say — Firdose Moonda, ESPN Cricinfo, (September 3, 2013): "It's clear to even the casual observer that CSA are being pushed around and that it is not right, but given India's clout through cash, it is also perhaps unavoidable". Being "unavoidable" makes it okay?

The manner in which the grudge match between BCCI-Srinivasan and CSA-Lorgat is being played out is nothing short of embarrassing for both, humiliating to Lorgat and, at a minimum, humiliating to all the cricket tragics of the world. If cricket is played to be enjoyed, surely everybody, including the Indians and Tendulkar, would rather play against South Africa than virtually any other team in the world. Steyn, an up and coming among the greatest bowlers of the world, Kallis, possibly the best all-rounder ever, versus Tendulkar, possibly the greatest batsman India has produced, and one who the greatest batsman, (appropriately named Don), considered to be the closest to his own style and temperament.

One tragic outcome of the BCCI decision: Tendulkar's 200th Test match will not be against Steyn on the fast pitch at Johannesburg (or Cape Town), but very likely against possibly the weakest West Indian bowling attack in history. And obviously, there is much anticipation about this historic event. As Sarang Bhalerao writes in cricketcountry.com, the decision to cancel the SA tour "sounds a tad bizarre but it just highlights the impact of Tendulkar for whom this special treatment has been meted out. The people are ecstatic; every single cricket aficionado would want to be part of the special occasion." Count me out — I was a cricket tragic, I no longer am.

Because of the feudal and political nature of the BCCI, we, the cricket citizens of the world, will be denied this greatest of career endings. Are there no checks and balances against the monopolist BCCI? Is there no shame left?

Why is the BCCI so powerful that it has reached the status of being an untouchable? Could it be the presence of several leading politicians in the country as heads of the various cricket associations? There is something that can be done. We have development politicians who are heads of cricket associations. Narendra Modi is the most likely PM candidate from the BJP. He can make a difference by resigning from being the head of the Gujarat Cricket Association. He will reaffirm his non-corrupt status, and he will reaffirm his dedication to economic development. And who knows, this might just be the beginning of the revival of fair cricket — and born-again cricket tragics.