Action reaction

- Prem Panicker

On Friday, I spent part of my time watching game two of the finals of the Carlton and United triseries, between West Indies and Australia. Quite a corking game it was, too, with Australia demonstrating its incredible confidence by shrugging off a slow start to post a record total. And then like an expert boxer, leaning against the ropes to absorb some early counter-punching by the West Indian batsmen before pushing for the win.

But more than the cricket, it was the Channel 9 coverage that intrigued me -- after every other over, there came announcements about the Gujarat earthquake, and appeals to the viewers to contribute towards the relief fund.

Announcing the move -- a joint effort by the Australian Cricket Board and World Vision (represented by CEO Lynn Arnold) -- ACB chairman Denis Rogers said, "The Board and the players want to demonstrate in a practical way our support for the people of India - another cricketing loving country and our sister nation in the Commonwealth. We are hoping that by focussing the spotlight on the earthquake victims this week we can enlist the practical support of cricket followers across Australia."

Rogers himself gave a cheque of 10,000 dollars to kick start the campaign -- which has, as its goal, a sum of one million to be raised for the cause. The move is announced at a press conference -- with players of the order of Glenn McGrath and Damien Fleming participating, to underline the fact that the Australian team is backing the effort en masse. "When you realise the scale of the tragedy, with 50,000 people killed and 200,000 homeless, it puts the game of cricket into perspective," Fleming says.

"If Australian cricket is able to assist in some way through this initiative, then it is well worth the effort."

The Channel 9 team flashes images of the tragedy. The commentators connect, via telephone, to the likes of Sunil Gavaskar and through this means, attempt to present a full picture of the tragedy for the viewers. Obviously, a lot of thought and effort has gone into the planning, and the execution. Equally noteworthy, is the fact that the ACB found the time for all that planning and execution, even while it is in the middle of an international series.

Meanwhile, the All India Football Federation -- a body that, in terms of the size of its exchequer, is a very poor country cousin of the BCCI -- announces that it will donate all gate collections of four National Football League matches towards the Prime Minister's Quake Relief Fund. Badminton is, if anything, an even poorer sport than football, in this country. And yet, world number six P Gopichand announces that the Rs 40,000 cheque he got, as prize money for winning the national badminton singles title for the 5th successive time, will be handed over to the relief fund. Meanwhile -- this is being written at 4.30 PM, on Friday, February 9 -- there is no word from the BCCI about what it plans to do. The subject, we are told, is being discussed.

It is, in fact, amazing the amount of discussion going on in various quarters on the subject. Remember Jagmohan Dalmiya? Who, a few days back, was so filled with concern that he attempted to move heaven and earth to bring about a triangular tournament in Sharjah, featuring India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

That initiative came from Dalmiya the head of the Asian Cricket Federation. But what of Dalmiya, president of the Cricket Association of Bengal? Two days ago, my colleague Rifat Jawaid asked him what if anything the CAB intended to do in aid of the victims of the Gujarat quake. "We are discussing it," was the response.

The BCCI, too, is "discussing it".

Why should that surprise you? The BCCI, after all, is a very big organisation, with a thousand demands of its time. A football federation can take a quick decision. A Gopichand on his own initiative can decide to donate his prize money for the cause. Even an ACB can make and implement decisions. But it is not so easy, you see, for the BCCI to do something similar -- first, the executive committee has to meet (in some five star hotel somewhere, with each member of the committee getting his one-day-before-one-day-after allowance), it has to study the magnitude of the disaster, assess the extent of the losses suffered, and then come up with some constructive proposals. A special committee set up for the job has then to evaluate these proposals. The general body has to then consider them, and put forward its own recommendations. Which then have to go to the executive committee for study. And then...

Never mind -- you get the idea.

It is not, you see, easy to be giant-sized sports body. People who point fingers at it, people who criticise it for not having reacted in time, people who say it is both headless and heartless, do not know what they are talking about, they have no clue just how difficult it is to arrive at a decision.

And so they crib. While the BCCI "discusses the situation". But do not, ever, be under the impression that the BCCI does not act. It does. After due deliberation. After having considered all the pros and cons of the situation. After having consulted all available sources, after having obtained expert opinion.

Let me give you a case in point. Do you remember the endless debates about the composition of the selection committee? The unnumbered experts who have written lucid, well reasoned articles pointing out that the zonal system of selection should be abolished? That, at the least, only former Test cricketers of merit should be appointed to the national selection committee? Do you remember, a year ago, the BCCI informing you that its executive committee was reviewing the selection process, and that decisions would be announced soon?

Did you, like me, hope on hearing that statement that things were going to change for the better? And do you, like me, feel like a complete fool now, for hoping as you did?

For what does the BCCI do? It not only retains the zonal system of selection, but it goes one step further, and reduces the minimum eligibility requirements for potential selectors.

You argued, didn't you, that only Test cricketers of proven merit should be selectors? Well, the BCCI thinks otherwise -- and has now decreed that anyone who has played 20 first class games can be a selector.

The BCCI has a logical reason for this: How, it asks, can you have selectors who have played Tests, when some regions in India just do not have enough former Test cricketers to call upon?

The counter-question -- how, then, can you give a voice in the selection to a region that has not, in over 50 years, produced a single player of calibre is, of course, neither here nor there.

Why belabour the point? Read for yourself what, to my mind, is the most depressing news story of the past one week. And then, just for fun, read this other story. The contrast could not be clearer, could it? But shush -- let us not rake up such needless issues just now, and distract the BCCI. They are, you see, busy discussing the Gujarat earthquake.