Implementation of Lodha panel's reforms not a problem, their working might be: Kirti Azad

Interview with former cricketer

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court - acting on the recommendations of the Justice R M Lodha Committee - ordered sweeping changes at the Board of Cricket for Control in India (BCCI), a move that may go a long way in turning around the body's ignominious reputation and restoring its credibility. Among the changes ordered, no minister or bureaucrat can be involved in cricket management, persons over 70 can no longer be a part of the BCCI, and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India will keep a watch on the Board's financial dealings. Kirti Azad, former cricketer and someone who intervened in the case supporting the recommendations, speaks to Dhruv Munjal about the implementation of these reforms and if they can salvage the inglorious reputation of cricket administration in India. Excerpts:
 
The Supreme Court has acted on the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee and finally asked the BCCI to clean up its act. Given the notorious ways in which the BCCI has worked over the years, how important is this verdict?

It is a massive step that was long overdue. I, along with Bishan Singh Bedi, batted for the Lodha Committee reforms in the Supreme Court, stating the examples of the Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA), Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association, and the Goa Cricket Association.

The DDCA has built a nefarious reputation for itself, where corruption has become a shameful norm. The Central Bureau of Investigation is investigating the charges levelled against it. Ditto for its Goa counterpart, whose office bearers were recently arrested on charges of misappropriation of funds that were allocated by the BCCI. Moreover, with politicians and bureaucrats at the helm of cricket bodies, the sport itself has taken a back seat. It was about time we got rid of such harmful elements.

Will the implantation of the "one state, one vote" recommendation have any bearing on the players?

Now, why does the state of Maharashtra - with Mumbai, Vidarbha and Maharashtra - have three cricket associations? Or why does Gujarat have the luxury of four? This is unfair to all the other states. The court does not want a monopoly where one or two states have an almighty say in the voting process. And, this is how it should have been all along.

Also, some states - Bihar, for example - did not have full membership for so long. Now, with the court approving all the recommendations, the Bihar Cricket Association can vote in the BCCI elections and its team can compete in the Ranji Trophy and other domestic competitions. And as far as the players are concerned, I don't think this will affect them. Cricket is a great sport and the players who are good enough will always find a way to make it to the top. Voting patterns have no role to play in that.

How do you view the decision to bar people over 70 from holding a post in the BCCI? Chandu Borde, for example, has said that he can still meaningfully contribute despite being more than 70 years old.

You don't have to be a member of an association to contribute to the sport. Many of us still go up to Bedi for advice; he will be 70 very soon. And, he doesn't hold any post. So if Borde wants to help, he can do so by mentoring young players. You don't need to be a part of the administrative set-up for that.

But the Supreme Court has left the decision on legalised betting and Right to Information (RTI) Act to Parliament.

I don't endorse betting. Betting isn't really a part of the social fabric of this country and maybe we should stay away from it. We saw what happened with single-digit lotteries in India: lives were ruined and people were rendered homeless. Several households did not even have food to eat. So, we should maintain a safe distance from this betting menace.

But yes, RTI is a must. The Board uses the "India" name; the tricolour is hoisted at public functions. There must be something that can hold them accountable. RTI is the right way forward.

The BCCI is unhappy with the recommendation that it set up a players' association and also pay the players. It argues that it already pays former and current players, and provides them a number of amenities.

What's the harm in a players' association? Some players may have grievances that this body could address. The pension that the BCCI pays former players is for the playing services they provided to the country. But this will be a professional job. They are two completely different things.

How difficult will be the implementation of these reforms?

The implementation part should not be a problem. The court has given the BCCI six months to set everything right and I'm sure it will obey the order. My worry is the effective working of these proposals. Several associations across the country are being investigated by a number of agencies for some wrongdoing or the other. Till these cases reach their conclusion, the effective working will be hampered.