Live Score
Cricket Teams
Cricket PlayersBCCI CEO Rahul Johri undergoes gender sensitisation counselling, but questions remain unanswered
Rainmaker — a company which specialises in ‘POSH’ (Prevention Of Sexual Harassment at workplace) training for corporates — organised the gender sensitisation workshop at the BCCI headquarters on Tuesday.
After much ado, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) CEO Rahul Johri finally underwent gender sensitisation counselling at the BCCI headquarters in Mumbai on Tuesday. The recommendation was made by lawyer Veena Gowda — a member on BCCI’s three-member independent sexual harassment committee to look into allegations against the CEO — back in November, 2018 to the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA). But even after the one-day workshop, some questions still remain unanswered. The jigsaw stays unsolved.
While the delay in the CEO’s participation in the workshop is a matter of debate and conjecture, one of the female employees of the BCCI supposedly walking off in the middle of the briefing sessions conducted by both Gowda and Rainmaker — a company which specialises in ‘POSH’ (Prevention Of Sexual Harassment at workplace) training for corporates — does raise eyebrows.
Speaking to Hindustan Times, a senior board official questioned if it was a case of old wounds re-surfacing. He went on to add that it obviously is a situation that is painful and the lady must have felt cheated.
“The fact that a lady broke down and stormed out of a session with the Internal Complaints Committee is significant. Does that not fly in the face of those vested interests who insist that the matter was resolved? Does it not show to them that the lady in question is suffering and clearly feels cheated? Do these people not have ladies in their families that they can empathise with her situation? Our heads hang in shame that a woman is being subject to such treatment and because our hands are tied with the directions of the CoA we are unable to correct this injustice,” the official said.
When contacted by Hindustan Times, Gowda refused to comment on the development.
A senior BCCI official questioned the virtuousness of the independent committee itself as one of the members — Barkha Singh — was already a chairperson of Delhi and District Cricket Association’s (DDCA) internal complaints committee when appointed in the panel to look into allegations against Johri.
“We just learnt 4 or 5 days back that Barkha Singh, who was a member of the inquiry committee that was appointed on October 18, 2018 had been appointed as the chairperson of the internal complaints committee of the DDCA on October 10. I wonder why this fact was never disclosed. The original composition of the committee had a person whose son-in-law has been with the BCCI in a professional capacity for some time.
“I think it is Rai who needs to answer as to how did he zero in on the names for the committee. He needs to raise his hand and say that he does not even know the members socially. He also needs to come clean and tell the members what he told the committee because Johri is representing the BCCI and the BCCI is made up of the members constituting the BCCI,” the official said.
Even though the committee comprising of Justice (Retd) Rakesh Sharma, Barkha Singh and Gowda were asked to ‘inquire into and/or probe allegations of sexual harassment that have been made against Rahul Johri, CEO BCCI whether anonymous or otherwise, whether they relate prior to his employment with BCCI or otherwise, in accordance with law’ as per the terms of reference of the committee, one of the individuals who deposed in the matter told Hindustan Times that the person was asked to stay in the present.
“The inquiry committee was well aware of this matter that had been ‘handled’ by the CoA in the BCCI that involved the CEO’s conduct towards a woman employee. The chairman of the committee kept asking whether it would be proper to go into that matter that had been dealt with five or six months back. The terms of reference of the committee were absolutely clear that they had to ‘probe’ all matters. It was their duty to probe matters that would come to their knowledge.
“Another member of the committee was in a way defending the CEO while saying that they were aware of the matter. However, the committee shockingly chose to ignore that issue despite the fact that it had not even been handled in accordance with the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act,” the individual rued.
Interestingly, even as those in the know of developments have said that the CEO agreed to attend the workshop to set an example and not because he was guilty of any ‘unprofessional’ or ‘inappropriate’ behaviour, a senior board functionary begged to differ.
“Why the delay then? Also, why has one recommendation of Gowda been blanked out if there is nothing to hide? Is this gender sensitisation not an acknowledgment of the fact that his conduct had been improper, unprofessional and inappropriate and something that would adversely affect the BCCI’s reputation? Why is this much effort being made to protect him? Why have the gender sensitisation session for just one individual? Why have it on a holiday when no one else is present? This is shambolic,” the functionary told Hindustan Times.
Another functionary echoed the sentiments and said: “I am told that the CEO had written an email that says that gender sensitisation was not binding on him. Does that mean he feels that the decisions of the CoA are not binding on him? Does that mean that the findings of the inquiry committee are not binding? So does that mean that all allegations against him still stand? I fail to understand what on earth is going on there. The arrogance that he has shown with regard to gender sensitisation is nauseating. This may be because he feels he has gotten away despite the matter in the office being handled in violation of the provisions of the POSH Act.
“I don’t think he realises that such behaviour would only strengthen the resolve of people to assail the report of the committee in Court.”
Surprisingly, even as the CoA decided to pay heed to Gowda’s recommendation for gender sensitisation for the CEO, board officials feel that the CoA has ignored the other part where she says ‘the conduct of Rahul Johri at Birmingham, as a CEO of an institution such as BCCI is unprofessional and inappropriate which would adversely affect its reputation and the same has to be looked at by the concerned authorities’.
“This is being attempted to be swept under the carpet. When one recommendation has been acted upon, why is the CoA shying away from the other recommendation? Is there something that someone wants to hide? Will BCCI ever be a safe place for women? However, the most shocking part of the selective publishing of the report is that the recommendation ‘a’ of Veena Gowda has been simply deleted. Just like that. That means it was something incriminating that would have hampered the oft touted clean chit to Johri. That has to come out.
“At least the complainants need to get a copy of the unedited report. If they are not provided that, it would only be because someone wants to protect someone from further embarrassment if the report is challenged in court. That is a clear case of interfering with administration of justice,” the official told Hindustan Times.
Similarly, the conclusion after the committee submitted its report to the CoA — as published on BCCI’s website — reads: “Since there is no consensus between the two members of the CoA regarding what action should be taken against Rahul Johri, the chairman stated that the natural consequence would be that Johri continues as the CEO of BCCI and is entitled resume office. Edulji disagreed with this. However, the chairman reiterated that Rahul Johri should continue as the CEO of BCCI and resume his duties, as a natural consequence.”
Questioning the split decision, a board functionary said: “Questions are being raised that is this only reduced to a matter of convenience? The report has actually not been accepted or rejected by the CoA because of the split. Therefore as far as the BCCI is concerned none of the recommendations whether of innocence or that of guilt are binding and therefore the entire matter against Johri remains pending and the allegations against him still stand.
“He may be right that sensitisation was not binding but that is only the case when a decision on the allegations against him remains pending. And therefore he should not be working as the CEO of the BCCI till such time a decision is taken.”
