BCCI versus CBI - III

Before getting into Part III of our ongoing series, a rather amusing incident needs to be narrated. A BCCI functionary, who makes these nocturnal calls to pass on insider information about what is happening within the board, called last night and, inter alia, asked: 'Hey, your BCCI versus CBI series is amusing, but what are you guys actually trying to do?'

We told him, 'Your poor Mr Madhavan is so knocked out by the effort of analyzing the CBI's case against cricketers, that he needs a month's rest to recover. Meanwhile, the case against the BCCI remains unanalyzed. So we thought we would spare Madhavan the trouble and do it ourselves.

Our response was flip, but beneath that flippancy, there is some truth. The BCCI, we figure, hoped, by quickly settling the issue of the cricketers, to deflect attention from its own culpability. We believe, though, that if there is to be a clean-up, it has to be total, and complete. And hence, this series, as a step towards the goal of highlighting the facts.

Now for part three of the series:

1) The CBI case against the BCCI:

There is no transparency even in the appointment of Coaches, Managers, Physiotherapists, etc. who are elected in the AGM after their names are suggested by some of the members. There is no panel available with BCCI, from which names can be discussed and thereafter ratified on merit.

Basically, these appointments are an extension of patronage system to persons who curry favour with the office bearers of BCCI.

2) The BCCI's arguments in defense:

There is full transparency in the appointment of Coaches, Managers and Physiotherapists. For tours at home, Managers are not appointed. For tours abroad, Managers, Coaches and Physiotherapists are elected in Annual General Meeting or in Special General Meeting of the Board. There can be no question of "currying favours" especially in case of appointments of Managers, Coaches and Physiotherapists because the entire process is by election. These appointments are not determined by the whims and fancies of individuals in the Board.

The facts of the matter

The BCCI's contention is refuted by its own records. We will cite just one example: On file with the board are minutes of the various annual general body meetings. These minutes should be, but are not, easily available to the public for reference. We managed to get hold of a few. One such, pertains to the 69th Annual General Meeting held at Hotel Taj Bengal, Calcutta (a favourite venue for board AGMs, despite its headquarters being in Mumbai) on September 23 and 24, 1998.

Incidentally, Raj Singh Dungarpur was president, N Venkata Rao, Samiran Chakravarthy, Kamal Morarka and SDA Drabu were vice presidents and Lele was secretary at the time.

We quote, directly and verbatim, from page 10, Item 9, of the Board's minutes for the year in question: "The chairman informed the members that since there was no time to convene a General Body Meeting before the visit of the Indian team to Kuala Lumpur for the Commonwealth Games and the Sahara Cup in Toronto, he as the BCCI president, had appointed Mr Chitrak Mehta as the Manager of the Indian team for the Commonwealth Games and Mr A N Singh as the Manager of the Indian team for the Sahara Cup in Toronto. The decision of the BCCI president was ratified by the members.

"Mr Anshuman Gaekwad was appointed the coach and Dr Ravindra Chadha was appointed the doctor/physiotherapist of the Indian Cricket Team till 30th September 1999."

What did the CBI say? That managers and coaches are appointed by individuals, depending on their whims and fancies. And that the board as a whole merely rubber-stamps the decisions of various individuals.

What did the BCCI say? That the managers and coaches are elected, that these decisions are not the whims of any individual, and that there is total transparency (while on transparency, why not try calling up the board's office in Mumbai and asking for the minutes of their AGMs, or their annual financial statements, and see how far you get?).

What does the Board's own minutes say? That the manager of the Indian team for the tours in question were appointed by the President, on his own, and there was no election. Similarly, the coach and physio were appointed, not elected.

So which of the two, the CBI or the BCCI, is telling the truth?

The BCCI will, in its turn, say that the minutes give the reason why the BCCI president appointed the managers -- namely, there was "no time" to summon an AGM. Really? The dates of the Sahara Cup in Toronto, and the Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur, were in fact finalized a full year before the tournaments themselves -- are we to believe that in 12 months, the board, busy with so many pressing matters, never found an opportunity to convene a meeting?

To further underline the BCCI's functioning in this regard, here is another quote, from the same page: "Regarding appointment of the Manager for the Indian Cricket Team's tour to Sharjah in April 1999 and to England in May/June 1999 for the World Cup, it was decided that Manager be appointed by the President of the Board, or if he decides, by convening a Special General Meeting of the Board."

This is from the minutes of an AM held in September 1998. And it says that the manager for a Sharjah tournament, fully 8 months away, and the manager for the World Cup, 9 months away, will be appointed by the President. A general body meeting will be summoned only if the President sees fit.

And yet, the BCCI in its refutation of the CBI charge sheet claims that managers, coaches et al are always elected. Do we need to quote from more Minutes, of other general body meetings, to underline the fact that there is never, ever, any election?

The BCCI then goes on to set out the facts -- as it sees it, that is -- relating to the appointment of coaches et al. This aspect will be discussed in Part IV of the series, tomorrow. Meanwhile, we go off at a tangent, to discuss another issue relating to the AGM in question, in order to throw further light on the issues of individual whims, fancies, patronage, et al.

Take a look at the minutes of the Annual General Body Meeting of November 6 and 7, 1997, held at Taj Coromandel, Chennai. This, you will remember, is the famous meeting wherein two factions within the board fought each other to a standstill, where politicians of various hues entered the fray quite openly, where the likes of Chandraswami made their presence felt, and where, in the final analysis, the board meeting was adjourned without the scheduled election of office bearers taking place.

We quote, an interesting excerpt from the minutes of that meeting: "At this juncture, Mr Bindra circulated the excerpts of a document containing pages numbered 17, 18, 19 and 20 which he claimed to be the Rules of the ICC. He observed that a person holding the Office of the ICC President cannot hold any other cricketing authority. He further observed that Mr Dalmiya being the present President of the ICC, his holding the office of the President of the CAB and representing CAB in this meeting might have serious repercussions for India and the ICC."

There follows some debate. Then comes the details of what the BCCI did to solve the conundrum. Again, we quote verbatim:

"The Chairman informed the members that on Mr Dalmiya's ascendancy to the position of ICC President, he had personally sought clarification from the ICC Chief Executive regarding Mr Dalmiya's role in the Indian cricket administration. He further mentioned that the ICC Chief Executive had amply clarified to him that being the ICC President, Mr Dalmiya cannot hold any executive position in any National Sports Federation, (for example, the BCCI) but there is no constraint whatsoever on any other activity on his part."

And finally, comes the verdict: "Mr Jyoti Bajpai observed that Mr Dalmiya was present in the House as an authorized representative of one of the BCCI's constituent units and that the BCCI is governed by its own rules. He stated that according to the BCCI rules, there was no bar on Mr Dalmiya's attendance in the meeting."

And, finally, the famous unanimity: "It was unanimously agreed that there was no bar on Mr Dalmiya's attending the meeting on behalf of the CAB and that he was also within his rights to exercise his voting powers, if necessary."

So, there you have it. Remember, this was the meeting that was scheduled to elect office bearers. The voting was stalled, various irregularities were committed, the meeting was adjourned with nothing decided. Or no, that is not quite right -- one thing was decided, namely, that Dalmiya could attend and vote.

To briefly sum up the arguments, pro and con: Dalmiya, by then already installed as chairman of the ICC, wears his other hat, of President of the CAB, and attends the BCCI's annual general body meeting as an executive committee member.

A member, Bindra, points out that as per the ICC's rules, the ICC Chairman cannot hold any other cricketing office.

Board President Raj Singh Dungarpur says that he checked with the ICC's chief executive, David Richards. That Richards told him that the ICC Chairman cannot hold any other executive office.

Jyoti Bajpai, as Joint Secretary, then says that the board functions by its own rules and not those of the ICC, and that there is nothing in the BCCI's rules to prevent Dalmiya from attending the meeting.

The general body meeting then unanimously permits Dalmiya not only to attend, but to exercise full voting rights. And Dalmiya, as the minutes will show, then proceeds to exercise his vocal chords, and his franchise, to the fullest.

When Dalmiya took office as ICC Chairman, he vowed to uphold the rules of that body, and its paramount position as the global governing body of the game. Barely weeks later, he then sits in at a meeting where, according to the rules of the body he is chairman of, he has no right to be. He listens, while a Joint Secretary says the BCCI's rules are paramount and the ICC's rules do not matter. And he approves, as the Board as a whole decides to say the hell with the ICC and its rules.

Does this little incident give you the answer to one question asked often in recent times -- to wit, why is the ICC such a toothless body? Why would it be otherwise, when its own chairman has never cared for the rules when it conflicts with his personal interest?

And does that in turn raise another question -- to wit, is the Bengal Cricket Association, and the BCCI, so shorn of management talent that it needs to ignore or circumvent rules in order to retain Dalmiya in the ranks? Or is there any other reason?

The Series

Part I - One dayers versus Test cricket

Part II - International players and their domestic commitments

Part IV - A question of appointments

Part V - The Sharjah Syndrome

Part VI - Keeping it in the Rungta family.