BCCI versus CBI - IV
The Rediff Team
The comparative analysis of the CBI's report vis a vis the BCCI's refutation continues.
What necessitated this exercise? Here is a direct quote from the BCCI's document in defence of itself, which spells out the problem in words that cannot be bettered:
"The CBI could have verified the facts and figures from the Board before using these in their report. This could have at least prevented the CBI from stating incorrect facts and figures. It need not be emphasized that erroneous facts and figures would only lead to erroneous conclusions. The members felt that when the report has been furnished by a premier institution like the CBI, the erroneous facts and figures negated the good work done by the Board over the years by a stroke of the pen and degraded its prestige in public eyes."
Right. If the CBI got it wrong, then it was guilty of grave error, it was guilty of misleading the public, it was guilty of damaging the prestige of the BCCI in the public eye.
And if the board in its defence was guilty of fudging facts to present a less than true picture, then it is even more guilty. Such an exercise would imply that the board, when placed in the dock, has resorted to lying, to manipulating facts and figures, to deflect the criticism and, in the process, to fool the public.
So which of the two, the CBI or the BCCI, is actually guilty here? This ongoing series, now into part four, attempts to answer that question.
In part three (see the links below this article), we looked at the appointment of coaches and managers. The CBI in its report claimed that such appointments are made at the whims of individuals. The BCCI in its defence said the appointments are always made by the process of election. However, a look at the BCCI's own records reveals, as pointed out yesterday, that on this, the CBI was speaking the truth, and the BCCI was, to put it politely, fudging.
Part IV picks up from that point.
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.
Till date, the Board did not intentionally appoint a panel of Coaches. Unlike other sports disciplines, there is no organized curriculum of cricket coaching in the country. In fact, even the Sports Authority of India (SAI) under the Government does not have an organized curriculum for cricket coaching. Various former cricketers take up coaching after quitting active cricket. Many of them take up coaching courses in different countries and there is no uniformity in this regard.
In view of this, Coaches appointed by the Board till date have all been former players of repute and there has not been any scope for criticism with regard to any appointment. The performance of the team under a particular Coach might not have been satisfactory. But this did not imply that the Board had chosen incompetent candidates "to curry favours".
Earlier than 1989-'90, the Manager and the Assistant Manager were appointed with the team and such persons who had proper credentials in cricket or its administration were appointed. Some of the names of the Managers of the Indian team prior to 1989-'90 are: Ghulam Ahmed, K.K. Tarapore, Col. Hemu Adhikari, Lala Amarnath, Balu Alaganan, Polly Umrigar, Fatehsingh Rao Gaekwad, C.D. Gopinath, Bapu Nadkarni, Raj Singh Dungarpur, Hanumant Singh, Naren Tamhane, M.L. Jaisimha, S. Venkataraghavan and Chandu Borde.
The concept of a separate Cricket Manager/Coach for the Indian cricket team came since 1989-90. It was decided that for tours abroad, there would be a Manager who would handle administrative and financial affairs of the tour, while the Cricket Manager/Coach would concentrate solely on cricketing matters.
Here is the list of Cricket Managers/Coaches appointed by the Board since 1989-'90 :
1989-90 B.S. Bedi
1990-91 to 1991-92 Abbas Ali Baig
1992-93 to 1996-97 Ajit Wadekar
1996-97 Sandip Patil
1997 S. Madan Lal
1997 to 1999 Anshuman Gaekwad
1999-July 2000 Kapil Dev (resigned)
July-November 2000 Anshuman Gaekwad
Since November 2000 John Wright
For the junior teams, the Board started appointing Coaches on a regular basis from 1993-'94 and the Junior Coaches were :
1993-94 to 1995-96 Sandip Patil
1995-96 S. Madan Lal
1996-97 Anshuman Gaekwad
1997-98 Krishnamachari Srikkanth
Since 1998-99 Roger Binny
If these former cricketers were incompetent or were appointed "to curry favours", the Board is constrained to observe that it does not have better talent available for appointment of Coaches.
From 1998-'99, there was a feeling in the Indian cricketing circles that the senior Indian team should obtain the expertise of foreign professional coaches in order to keep up with the changing pace of the game the world over. Prior to the 1999 World Cup, Bobby Simpson was appointed as the Consultant to the Indian team.
From this year, former New Zealand captain John Wright, who worked as a professional coach with Kent and has been acclaimed for his work, has been appointed the Coach of the Indian team.
Since 1987, the need to appoint a Physiotherapist with the team was felt after consulting the players. It was on the recommendation of the senior players in the team from time to time that Dr Ali Irani was appointed as the Physiotherapist upto 1996-97. Since then, the importance of a more qualified Physical Trainer was felt and the Board decided to utilize expertise from other countries like Australia and South Africa that were more advanced in the science of physical training for sport.
On the recommendation of Bobby Simpson, Andrew Kokinos was appointed as the Physical Trainer of the Indian team from 1998-'99 to 1999-2000. Thereafter, Andrew Leipus has been appointed as the Physical Trainer. The Board has even experimented by appointing qualified medical practitioners such as Dr. Visvas Raut and Dr. Ravinder Chaddha, the last named being a former Ranji Trophy cricketer.
All these appointments were on the basis of election in the Board's General Body and there could be no question of any "patronage system" as alleged in the CBI report.
So much for the two contrasting viewpoints. Now for some facts and figures:
Para three of the board's defense, set out above, says blandly that there is no organized curriculum for coaching in this country. Would it be out of order for us to ask why? The board, after all, is an autonomous body and in fact, throws that autonomy in our face at every turn. As the body in sole charge of developing cricket in this country, then, why did the board not institute, at any point, an organized system to prepare coaches?
The board says that the existing system of former cricketers taking to coaching is haphazard. We know that. What we need to know, though, is why there is a haphazard system in place, despite the presence of an autonomous, very well funded, body to govern the game in this country.
Has the board been negligent in not setting up a proper coaching curriculum, and coaching infrastructure, in this country?
Facts: On 24th and 25th September 1988, the 59th AGM of the board was held at Hotel Connemara, Madras, with President S Sriraman in the chair. Present were familiar figures of the order of Raj Singh Dungarpur, Inderjit Singh Bindra, J Y Lele, Jagmohan Dalmiya, M A Chidambaram, SDA Drabu and C Nagaraj.
Vide Page 28 of the minutes of that meeting, the board took up for consideration a letter from the Government of India setting forth some guidelines for the conduct of the game. The GoI in its letter makes two very important points:
1) That the selection committee of the Board should consist of eminent Test cricketers from each Zone who witness many matches at the international and national level. And the board's answer? "There is no complaint whatsoever as far as the selection of the teams by the board is concerned and so the board will continue to follow the present practise."
2) That the Board should introduce a proper coaching curriculum and appoint coaches with the proper qualifications at all levels of the game, and that the GoI will help in this regard. The Board's answer? A masterpiece of arrogance, which we quote verbatim: "It is being pointed out that the Board has never asked for financial help from the Government for coaching or for promoting cricket nor does it intend to ask. The Board has its own Director of Coaching, besides appointing coaches at association levels."
In other words, the board tells the government that it has no business telling the BCCI what to do. That it has adequate coaching facilities and curriculum in place.
What is the board saying today? And what reason does the board have for showing the metaphorical finger to the GoI, as many as 12 years ago, for making two very valid suggestions?
Still staying with that point -- the board says that former cricketers learning coaching on their own is haphazard. The board says that it leads to incompetence. In other words, the board understands the need for professionalism when appointing coaches, it understands that a coach has above all to be qualified, to have learnt the art and science of coaching, and to be competent.
Is it then in order to ask the board -- What prompted the appointment of Raj Singh Dungarpur to head the National Cricket Academy? What prompted the appointment of Hanumant Singh and Vasu Paranjpe as chief coaches? Which coaching institution did these three gentlemen acquire their know-how in, what are their qualifications for being appointed to those posts?
And if it is true that the three gents named above are no more qualified than anyone who has held the post of Indian cricket coach, then the question begs itself: If not on the grounds of competence and qualification, what prompted their selection? Who were the other names in the panel from which these three were "elected"? Is the CBI right when it says that appointments to prime posts are idiosyncratic, and based on individual whims and fancies?
Right. The board then gives a list of recent coaches, and with righteous indignation fueling every word, says: "If these former cricketers were incompetent or were appointed "to curry favours", the Board is constrained to observe that it does not have better talent available for appointment of Coaches."
For starters, it is interesting that the Board lists its coaches in chronological order from 1989-'90. During the decade the board itself has put in the spotlight, India playing away from home won two Test series -- in 1993 against Sri Lanka, and in 2000 against Bangladesh. No cricket fan would ever count those victories as amounting to anything -- the more relevant statistic is that India's last away win of any consequence was in 1986, against England in England. We are into our 9th coach in 10 years, and still to find that elusive win abroad. Would it then be fair to say that if the Board has picked the most competent coaches it can, then said coaches have not delivered? And that the responsibility for collective failure has in some measure to fall on the board itself?
Put simply, the question is: If the board says, 'We pick the best coach we have and the best players we have and we are not responsible for the results', then why do we need a board? If the board does the picking, should it not then answer for the results?
What in fact have been India's results under various coaches? Here is the information, in tabular form (and do remember, when studying the win-loss columns, to take into account the fact that the wins especially in Tests were at home):
Right. Those are the records, on paper. Do a bit of extrapolation, find out when the wins came, where, and against who, and you will find those records looking even shabbier.
But never mind that. Take the board at face value, when it says: "In view of this, Coaches appointed by the Board till date have all been former players of repute and there has not been any scope for criticism with regard to any appointment."
Really? If there was "no scope for criticism", when then did the board sack its own appointee, Madan Lal, before the completion of his term in office? Why did the board sack Anshuman Gaekwad, before his first term had expired? Why did former president Raj Singh Dungarpur say, in course of a television debate a week ago, that "Appointing Kapil Dev as coach was the biggest mistake the board ever made"?
Interestingly, the appointment was made at a board meeting that had Dungarpur in the chair, as president. It was in that meeting that he then handed over to the incumbent, Muthiah.
In this context, would it be fair to ask Dungarpur, and the board, a couple of questions? (1) Since Dungarpur was president when the appointment of Dev was finalised, and since he now calls it the biggest mistake the board has evermade, is he taking responsibility, and resigning from the board and its various committees? Of course not -- the man who "made the biggest mistake" is now heading the National Cricket Academy!
(2) Dungarpur made the statement after the CBI exonerated Kapil Dev. And that begs the question -- if Kapil is not guilty, as the CBI says, what then is the nature of the mistake made by Dungarpur and the board? Why was Kapil's appointment a mistake? What does Dungarpur know, that he is not telling us?
One thing is clear -- the board is way off base when it says there has been no scope to criticize the various coaches it appointed. As seen above, the board has itself criticized its appointees, arbitrarily dropping them before the expiry of their natural terms of office.
Interestingly, no board official has ever been sacked before his term ended.
Did the board say that managers and coaches have been duly "elected"? An election, by definition, happens when there are several qualified candidates, and a voting panel then votes for the candidates, the one with the most votes getting the post. The CBI for its part says that the names of the appointees are decided ahead of time, and the board merely rubber-stamps the decision.
Which of the two statements is right? For an answer, we turn to the minutes of various board AGMs. Since the board decided to parade its coaches starting with Bishen Singh Bedi in 1989-'90, let us look at the relevant extract from the Special AGM of the board, dated December 16, 1989, at Hotel Krishna Oberoi, Hyderabad. We quote: "Shri A W Kanmadkikar was proposed by Shri P M Rungta and seconded by Shri K K Mehra for appointment as the Manager. Since no other name was proposed, Shri A W Kanmadikar was unanimously appointed the Manager. Shri B S Bedi was proposed by Shri P M Rungta and seconded by Shri Raj Singh Dungarpur for appointment as cricketing manager. Since no other name was proposed, Shri B S Bedi was unanimously appointed the cricketing manager."
Does that present a picture of an "election"? Or of a rubber-stamp validating the decision of certain individuals? And that is not a random pick -- on every single occasion, the selection of the coach and manager have followed the identical pattern -- one name is proposed, and the board unanimously rubber-stamps -- um, accepts -- it. How then is the CBI wrong in saying what it did?
We wind up for the day with a look at yet another of the board's appointments. What did the board say about physiotherapists? We quote: "Since 1987, the need to appoint a Physiotherapist with the team was felt after consulting the players. It was on the recommendation of the senior players in the team from time to time that Dr Ali Irani was appointed as the Physiotherapist upto 1996-'97."
The facts are simply told:
On January 4, 1989, there was a Special General Body Meeting of the Board at Hotel Taj Mahal Palace, Jaipur. Put up for consideration was a letter addressed to the then chairman, and signed by Dilip Vengsarkar, then captain of the Indian team, setting fourth four requests. The relevant one reads: "Appointment of Dr Ali Irani as physiotherapist".
The board is right -- Ali Irani was appointed, in 1987, on the recommendation of a senior player or players, and that player or players (one would presume that the captain speaks the consensus of his team) were still rooting for him two years later.
But what did the board think of Ali Irani? And what did it do to Vengsarkar's request? Quoting again from the minutes of the same meeting: "A physiotherapist should accompany the Indian touring side (Editor's note: this discussion, at the Special AGM, relates to the tour of West Indies, Feb-April 1989) but it should not be Dr Ali Irani as his services were not found satisfactory by the secretariat."
In other words, on January 4, 1989, the board placed on record the findings of its secretariat, that Ali Irani's services were unsatisfactory.
And then? The scene shifts, to the Taj Palace, New Delhi, and the Working Committee Meeting of the BCCI on June 2 and 3, 1990. We quote, from page 19 of the Minutes as recorded and ratified by the board itself:
"After a lot of discussion on the appointment of a Physiotherapist, it was ultimately decided that Dr Ali Irani be appointed as Physiotherapist for the Indian team on its tour of England on the following terms:
(1) Dr Ali Irani will get exactly the same remuneration as the players for the tour.
(2) Accommodation along with the players. However, before the appointment:
(a) Shri P M Rungta and Shri M K Mantri would speak to him about his behavior in the past and to see that this would not happen again.
(b) Dr Ali Irani will give a letter of apology to the Board for his conduct in the past."
Did we, and you, read that right? Ali Irani is appointed. Then sacked. His performance is rated unsatisfactory. He is then reinstated by the Board -- at the same salary as the players! And he is asked to furnish an apology to the board for his conduct of the past?!
Ali Irani first worked with the Indian team in the 1987 World Cup. And then stayed on for the New Zealand tour of India. What was so reprehensible about his conduct during this period that it forced the board to place its displeasure on record? Obviously, it had nothing to do with his duties as a physiotherapist, since during the period in question there were no major injuries reported, or mistreated. And if the board found Irani's conduct so heinous as to officially drop him, why then was he reinstated? At whose behest?
Did the board say the integrity of its appointments cannot be questioned?
From then on, it was smooth sailing for Ali Irani. The next time the question of physio came up, was in the Annual General Body Meeting of date September 25, 1992 at Hotel Blue Diamond, Pune. Extract: "Dr Ali Irani was proposed by Shri Ranbir Singh Mahendra and seconded by Shri Raj Singh Dungarpur for appointment as physiotherapist. Since no other name was proposed Dr Ali Irani was unanimously appointed as physiotherapist."
Interestingly, in every succeeding year, P M Rungta, the man deputed to speak to Ali Irani about his misbehaviour, was the official who either proposed, or seconded, Irani's name for the post of physiotherapist, at the various board AGMs.
Do you see the pattern? Misbehavior gets Irani sacked. Then reinstated conditionally. And suddenly, it is smooth sailing -- to such an extent that from then on, the board does not even find it necessary to discuss alternative candidates.
In passing, check the board's defence at the start of this story. How was that again? In 1998-'99, cricketing circles began talking of the need for a foreign coach? You don't even need facts to refute that -- as cricket fans, think back to when you, we, first began talking of the need for professional coaches. How many years ago was that -- four, five?
So why does the board mention 1998-'99? Simple -- the board is in effect saying, see, in 1998-'99 cricketing circles began talking of the need for a foreign coach, and we immediately appointed one, see how quick we are off the blocks?
Right.
The Series
Part I - One dayers versus Test cricket
Part II - International players and their domestic commitments
Part III - Transparency in appointment of coaches and managers
Part V - The Sharjah Syndrome
Part VI - Keeping it in the Rungta family.
Back to top
Mail your comments
