E-Paper
BCCI must draw up a fresh to-do list
NEW DELHI: With the Supreme Court accepting most of the recommendations made the Justice RM Lodha committee, the cricket board is braced for a root-and-branch change
NEW DELHI: With the Supreme Court accepting most of the recommendations made the Justice RM Lodha committee, the cricket board is braced for a root-and-branch change in its functioning.
It anticipated the Supreme Court to pretty much go by the report of the committee it appointed in January, 2015, making some reforms.
The Lodha panel’s recommendations are aimed at loosening the grip of individuals with influence and certain pockets that effectively control cricket in India. Still, cricket administration is way ahead of other sports federations.
FIRST MISTAKE
A quick glance at what triggered the chain reaction that led to Monday’s firm stand by the Supreme Court shows that tweaking the BCCI constitution in the first place, ahead of the 2008 launch of the IPL, to let a senior office-bearer own a team paved the way for conflict of interest. N Srinivasan, who was allowed to own CSK while holding a senior post while the then BCCI president was Shashank Manohar.
Although the Lodha committee has laid out a lot in black and white, real transformation will come only when senior BCCI members decide to usher in change for the better. BCCI secretary, Ajay Shirke, had told HT in an interview during the Supreme Court hearings on the Lodha panel report that the time has come to make BCCI a ‘process driven organisation’.
“It definitely has tremendous room for improvement… My goal now is to make the Board more of a process-driven organisation than a person driven one,” Shirke had said.
Shirke acknowledged the past failings. “Certain decisions were taken that have affected BCCI’s image. These decisions were taken because the structure at the time permitted it. So, I feel a system-driven protocol needs to be implemented. The focus will be to help restore BCCI’s image.”
In Australia, reforms were ushered in by a panel tasked by the board. And its recommendations were promptly implemented. Same was the case with England.
In India, the Lodha panel had to pore through those reports and include the salient points. That shows there is much gap to bridge between recommendation and implementation.
