☰
India's rise or cricket's fall?
In the cold winter of 1933, a Bentley silently paced through the jungle of Gwalior. The scintillating machine from Cricklewood was specially modified for Maharaja Jivajirao’s favourite sporting indulgence; big game shikar. Surging from its top was gentleman Douglas Jardine, captain of the English cricket team (formerly known as the MCC). Jardine was born in Malabar Hill, Bombay, and had returned to India on England’s first official Test tour to the British Raj. With fresh Australian blood on his sleeve from the previous ‘bodyline’ winter, Jardine’s primary focus in these jungles was the prized Indian tiger. He knew that winning the cricket series in India was just a matter of course.
Photo courtesy India Netzone
Cricket in India was owned and run by its Princely states. These semi-independent provincial blocks hired the best players who were almost always marshaled by royal blooded captains. Maharaja of Indore signed swash buckling C.K Naydu and Mushtaq Ali, Nawab of Bhopal employed Major Wazir Ali and Maharaja of Baroda contracted Vijay Hazare and Gul Mohammad. The elite competed amongst themselves and took pride in flaunting their wealth through their star-studded cricket teams. The Maharajas of Patiala at their peak had as many as eight Australian and English first class cricketers playing for them.
A prince also invariably captained the Indian touring cricket team; Mahraja of Porbandar led the 1932 Indian team to England, Maharaja of Viziangram in 1936 and Nawab of Pataudi in 1946. Except for Pataudi the ruling princes were barely club level cricketers but helmed the national team in line with the British policy of maintaining feudal aristocracy through this noble sport.
Jardine couldn’t bag a tiger on his tour but as the state guest of different Maharajas, he returned home with the skinned trophies of a lion, a bear and a panther. In gratitude he included the young heir of Patiala in an MCC side game, seen by some as a political stunt coinciding with Mahatma Gandhi’s anti-colonial movement. In other news, England won the Test series 2-0.
For the next two decades cricket remained the progeny of the amateur gentlemen at the English county circuit and there was little change in the outlook of its social divide. Gentlemen had a separate dining room that offered exotic wine and cheese, while paid professionals ate bangers and mash served with a mug of ale. They even entered the ground through separate gates.
It was Sir Len Hutton who broke tradition and became the first professional English captain in 1952.Through his success and increasing public outcry, the official classification between amateurs and professionals was abolished in 1962.
England captain Len Hutton is all smiles after a five-wicket win over Australia in the 4th Test at Adelaide, February 7, 1955. Photo courtesy ESPN
Even as the world evolved into a more open and democratic system of governance, international cricket was largely controlled by England and Australia. As the originators of the sport they were in-charge of its welfare and operations. The laws were made by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and to date are controlled and amended by them, though, in recent times changes are made through the recommendations of the game’s global governing body, the International Cricket Council (ICC). However, the London-based club at Lord’s still governs and owns the intellectual property of the laws of cricket.
Australia and England conventionally maintained the power to veto any decision at the ICC. But with the rise of sub-continental muscle, this supremacy was relinquished in 1993.
However, the first major shift in power came in 1996. ICC president Sir Clyde Walcott was on his way out having faced an extremely frustrated term of power politics. Australia nominated Malcolm Gray and India put forward Jagmohan Dalmiya as his successor. The cricket world was split in two halves with Australia, West Indies, England and New Zealand on one side and India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe on the other. Ali Bacher, the Managing Director of the United Cricket Board of South Africa (UCBSA) promised both sides of his support but bailed out at the last minute and decided not to vote resulting in a 4-4 tie at the council elections that had turned ugly.
Jagmohan Dalmiya (l) and Malcolm Gray (r) -Photo by AFP
In lieu, the Australian board chairman devised a secret plan called ‘Project Snow’. It was recognized that there was significant money in India; however, the biggest tours for Australia were still England and West Indies. Among other power grabbing proposals, the program saw England and West Indies touring Australia once every three years, depriving India and other sub-continental teams of ‘quality’ cricket. The name ‘Project Snow’ came from ICC CEO David Richards who was apparently snowed in and could not give any input on the subject, his prime aim was to shovel his way out of his house. Better sense prevailed and project snow was shelved.
A compromise was reached and Jagmohan Dalmiya became the new ICC president in 1997. It was the first time the old guards realized that their grip on cricketing affairs was not as strong anymore.
Australia’s Malcolm Gray succeeded Dalmiya after the three-year term that ended in 2000, but it was a bitter pill to swallow for the pioneers of cricket. In the years to come, the influence of sub continental countries increased in leaps and bounds. Even when India and Pakistan did not tour each other amidst political tension, they were always found on the same side of the table at the ICC meetings. They realized that their strength was in their unity.
During the 1996 World Cup, Australia and West Indies had refused to tour Sri Lanka, fearing a lack of security; in show of South Asian solidarity India and Pakistan sent a combined XI. A team led by Mohammad Azhuruddin and Wasim Akram faced off against Arjuna Ranatunga’s men, who eventually beat Australia in the final and became World Champions.
Left to right: Aamir Sohail, Wasim Akram, Mohammad Azharuddin and Ramiz Raja are seen socializing during the World Cup of 1996. -Photo courtesy OutlookIndia
Next ICC President was again from the sub-continent. Ehsan Mani from Pakistan took office in 2003 and soon another major blow was handed out to the founders of the game. ICC had run cricket from its home in Lord’s for 96 years but the new president had other ideas, “Operating in the United Kingdom under the current system is not in the best interests of our members,” he said. Even though ICC’s finances were handled from tax-haven Monaco, the members felt that Dubai would further increase tax benefits and both wings of ICC could be under one roof.
The move was made after an 11-1 vote in favour of Dubai. A spokesperson from the UK ministry of sport reiterated their sentiments “We are obviously disappointed as cricket has a long history of being based in the UK. We have been in discussions with the ICC over the last 12 months to try and persuade them to stay but it was not to be.”
With the ICC head quarters based in Dubai, the sub continental union led by India soon became the most powerful cricketing block. All policies, financial negotiations and administrative authorities had seeped out of the hands of its traditional masters.
Pakistan’s military-backed government led by General Pervez Musharraf and India’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the Bharatiya Janata Party were able to improve their estranged political relations. The two cricketing boards also shared unprecedented levels of affinity, organizing tours on both sides of the border. For the first time Indians were given Pakistani visas without any background check, all that was needed for a ‘cricket visa’ was a match ticket.
Ex-PCB chairman Shahryar Khan in his co authored book with Indian minister Shashi Tharoor ‘Shadows across the playing field” recalls Shiv Shankar Memon the Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan accurately summing up the improving relations “You received 20,000 Indian fans during the tour. You have sent back 20,000 Pakistani ambassadors to India.” Four full Test series were played between 2004 and 2007 between the archrivals.
In 2008, Asif Ali Zardari took the president’s office in the new democratically-elected government of Pakistan and as the Patron of PCB handpicked Ijaz Butt as its chairman. The next three years saw the country and its cricket fall on an extremely slippery slope.
India had initially backed Pakistan to host the scheduled Champions Trophy when most other countries refused to visit amid security fears. BCCI later retracted support and it was to be the last time PCB received any form of patronage from the big brother of their block.
The Mumbai attack of 2008, the attack on the Sri Lankan team in 2009 and the spot-fixing fiasco of 2010 amplified and exposed the diplomatic and operational incompetence of the Pakistani government and the PCB. Perhaps PCB and BCCI relations had already hit a low when Lalit Modi reportedly confided in Ijaz Butt the prospect of the rebel Indian Cricket League (ICL) merging with BCCI’s Indian Premier League (IPL); the PCB chairman leaked the highly confidential information to the press and never saw eye to eye with BCCI again.
Ijaz Butt then took on English cricket by saying “There is loud and clear talk in the bookies’ circle that some English players were paid enormous amounts of money to lose a match” during Pakistan 2010 tour of England. After an official threat of legal action by the ECB, the PCB chairman had to issue an official apology for his accusations.
Ijaz Butt rubbed BCCI and ECB the wrong way. – Dawn File Photo
BCCI on the other hand, became an unmatched powerhouse in the world of cricket. The money churned up by IPL was previously unheard of in the sport. Bids for television rights at ICC events were dominated by Indian broadcasters and BCCI soon began to generate more money than the rest of the cricketing world put together.
The Woolf Report was drafted by former Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Woolf, in 2012. It called for restructuring of the ICC's executive board so it becomes more independent and less dominated by the bigger countries, making it more democratic in its operations. It also recommended a re-examination of the rights and benefits of the Test-playing Full Member nations, calling for measures to increase transparency.
It also indicated that an ICC director should not concurrently hold any leadership or executive post with their home boards. For example, N Srinivasan was both an ICC director and president of the Indian board; cited as a direct conflict of interest. Interestingly, there is still a case pending in the Indian Supreme court against him for holding a position in BCCI and as the owner of an IPL franchise having direct commercial interest in the matches he governs. He has remained defiant and has held onto his post even after public and media outrage at spot-fixing allegations that resulted in the Mumbai police arresting his son in law, Gurunath Meiyappan.
Najam Sethi the former interim chairman of the PCB pointed out that when the Indian government tried to audit the workings of BCCI, they had ICC issue a ban on government interference threatening to disbar the cricket boards that were under any government supervision. An organization often charged with fraudulent and nefarious activity got further autonomy to operate without any checks and balances.
Ironically, like most recent PCB heads, Sethi was also a political appointment. He was soon forced to govern an organization without the power to make any meaningful decisions. While members of the BCCI enjoyed the benefits of the new ICC ruling, the PCB was made dysfunctional through a Pakistan high court command.
BCCI president-in-exile N Srinivasan returned to the helm of affairs after a two-judge probe panel found no evidence against his team Chennai Super Kings in the T20 spot-fixing and betting scandal which rocked the sixth edition of the IPL. – Dawn File Photo
The Woolf Report was scrapped after BCCI single-handedly rejected all of its sixty-five recommendations and its chief architect Haroon Logart stepped down as the CEO of the ICC. In a chain of events, Logart became the chief executive at Cricket South Africa (CSA) but when India refused to visit South Africa while Logart was still at its helm, he was indefinitely sidelined pending investigations and further deteriorating ties between the two boards.
The natural reaction the Woolf Report was the preparation of the ‘position paper’. Whereas the prior was in the welfare of global cricket, decentralizing power and increasing financial distribution, the latter was only going to benefit its architects, giving them complete control over the sport’s economic and operational bureaucracy.
BCCI is registered as a “private club consortium” that enjoys tax exemptions from the Indian government but is privately owned. Vital decisions that shape the cricket world are made by a body absorbed in its aim of profit maximization, often sacrificing not just the interest of the sport but also skimming its most valuable asset; the Indian public. Cricket crazy Indian fans generate the funds that are at the disposal of the ‘club’ owners and officials. The charges of rampant corruption within its ranks should be of gravest concern to the Indian masses.
History is witness that almost anyone who has had the opportunity to exercise power has done just that. Cricket South Africa and PCB opposed the ‘position paper’ most vocally, but would they have chosen to act as the saviors of global cricket if they weren’t left out of the power sharing deal? Countries, companies, associations and individuals usually work in self interest; cricket boards are no different. It would be unfair to blame the ‘big three’ for the stance they have taken. Given their position of strength, most boards might have chosen a similar route.
Power has never been surrendered by choice; it has always been seized by the strife of the righteous and rebellious. Mahatma Gandhi and Mohammad Ali Jinnah had to struggle before the British Crown was forced to give up control of the sub-continent. BCCI had to force Australia and England to give up its imperial powers over cricket; the same jurisdiction that it conveniently now aspires for itself.
It may be argued that it is unfair for BCCI to get a smaller proportion of the revenues they help generate, just like it would have been unjust for them to become dictators of the sport’s global body. However, the proceedings of the ICC meeting in Dubai did not appear to be about justice, equality or the larger interest of cricket. This house of cards has always been about recognizing your strength, negotiating well and calling your opponent’s bluff. Everyone is out there to gain more ground for themselves.
BCCI has presumably gotten itself in a position where it feels it does not need the support of any of the smaller boards. It has broken away from the traditional sub-continental bond with Sri Lanka and Pakistan that had helped them gain the ascendancy they enjoy today.
India has come a long way from when playing a side game for an MCC team was the greatest honour for an Indian prince. The success of India and its cricket should be admired even by their rivals. Though, intoxicated with power, BCCI thought it was ready to take on the world on its own, which it did.
While Cricket Australia and the ECB found it in their best interest to support BCCI and play second fiddle, it was up to the other cricket boards to combat the attempt of an aggressive takeover of world cricket by its super powers. If the other seven boards had united against the big three, they could have bargained from a position of strength, a far cry from where things stand at the moment.
Four of the seven appear to have reached some sort of an agreement with the ‘big three’. Just one more vote will account for a three fourth majority and give them the authority to make constitutional changes in the ICC. Only Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa stand in the way of a complete seizure. Someone could potentially be offered a deal they will not be able to refuse or one of them might just end up selling themselves short. The biggest challenge faced by the resistance movement will be of trust. The prisoner’s dilemma will incline them to snitch each other out.
The popular Pakistani writer Osman Samiuddin, who was instrumental in the original leak of the position paper, has quoted an insider board member saying he “would be very surprised” if all 10 full members did not ultimately come on board.
Sometimes when you have been bulldozed, bossed and subjugated for too long, you disregard your own potential. Deals are likely to be cut and some sort of a resolution is expected to eventually pass. Unfortunately, cricket, like the rest of the world, has too often been shaped not by the subduing hands of the few but by the compliant minds of the many. The righteous and rebellious is a dying breed, but once in a while, one of them does come along.
Read Comments