Eleven days after stepping down as the BCCI president, Shashank Manohar has revealed his decision was based on his inability to implement some of the reforms suggested by the Justice R.N. Lodha Committee, which would “destroy” the fabric of the BCCI.
“I did whatever was good and in the interests of the board even before the Lodha panel was formed,” Manohar said in an interaction at the Cricket Centre, the BCCI headquarters, here.
“If these things are to be implemented, I am not the person who is capable of it. There are many people in the board who are capable of doing it. I can’t see an organisation, which so many people have worked hard for, being destroyed. In the entire world of cricket, India is doing better in administration and infrastructure. What more do you expect? No institution in this world is perfect and it is evolving, and you have to change. I also believe it is the people who make the difference and not the statures or provisions.”
Manohar’s resignation, which was followed by his elevation as International Cricket Council chairman within hours, has been followed by widespread murmur in the BCCI corridors about how the Nagpur-based lawyer has left the BCCI in the lurch. A majority of the BCCI members wanted Manohar to hold on to the BCCI post till the Supreme Court issued or reserved the order with regard to the Lodha Committee recommendations.
Asked if he felt his decision had a demoralising effect on the members, Manohar said: “I did my best. What I could implement with regards to the Lodha panel report, I have looked at the affidavit, briefed the council and state association, and whatever was possible from my side, I have done. It is not just in my hands. It is now with the Supreme Court.”
During his second stint as the BCCI chief, which lasted seven months, Manohar stressed he had implemented most of the Lodha Committee recommendations. “As far as the Lodha Committee report is concerned, I respect Justice Lodha very much, because he was one of the finest judges this country has produced. He is a very honest, upright person,” Manohar said. “In the report he has given regarding the functioning of the board, 75 per cent of the recommendations are very good and, out of that, most of them are already implemented. However, I have my own reservations with regard to a few recommendations, which, according to me, are not in the interests of this board.”
Manohar’s reservations
Manohar also elaborated on his reservations about the Lodha Committee recommendations, cataloguing six of them:
1. No advertisement between games/ overs
“That would destroy the financial structure of this board… If the financial structure collapses, the board will be relegated to the 1980s when there was no money. Today the board has started many schemes for the benefit and welfare of the players, all those schemes will have to be shut down. Because, if the board’s income today is Rs. 2000 crore, it will come down to Rs. 400 crore. Out of that, if we have to pay 30 per cent tax, we are left with Rs. 300 crore… The board has a clout internationally. That clout will disappear. So it would not be wise to stop the advertisements during games.”
2. One state, one association
“That is also not a correct recommendation. It is easy to say the North-Eastern states also exist and therefore they should be full members of the board. Even in our political system, when the members of parliament are elected, the number is not the same from all states… Even in the Supreme Court, the court has judges that are appointed from various states… The report says we are allowed to play Ranji Trophy. However, in the (proposed) constitution itself it is stated that the full members’ territory would be the entire state boundary. So from where are we (other members from the state) supposed to get our players? Are they going to fall from heaven?”
3. Two members from the franchises sitting on the IPL Governing Council
“This entire matter went to the Supreme Court with an issue of conflict of interest because (N) Srinivasan, the owner of the Chennai Super Kings, was sitting on the IPL Governing Council. Now, because of that, the Lodha Committee came to be appointed; the conflict of interest was framed by us. This (recommendation) is a situation that creates a clear conflict because there are decisions taken relating to the franchises at the IPL governing council… I understand that you can have independent people sitting with financial or administrative expertise, but how can you have an IPL franchise sitting on the governing council? It is a clear case of conflict which cannot be implemented by the board.”
4. Inclusion of players’ representatives in Apex Council
“Nowhere in the world do players sit on the board of directors. It is also wrong to tell the board that you find another association which would be created by players. Even with FICA [Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations, an association formed by the players themselves] they share their revenue, their prize money with FICA, and they pay their subscriptions to FICA, and that is how it runs. FICA is consulted by the five boards where it exists. They don’t sit on the management board. They are consulted on cricketing matters.”
5. Number of national selectors
“We have a five-man selection committee. Lodha Committee says three. This is an operational matter. Tomorrow a scenario can happen that all the three selectors can be from one place. Now there are so many matches which are simultaneously held all over the country. It is physically impossible for the selectors to travel to all these places and watch the games.”
6. Tenure of office bearers and cooling off period
“I have no difficulty with the nine-year period, but the issue is with the cooling off period. You can’t have a cooling off period because there would not be continuity in the system. Because you will have five different people each time. Suppose there is a person who is doing very well and the board wants him to continue, he can’t because there is a prohibition, so for a nine-year term the candidate has to come for 15 years because of the cooling off period… It is like saying that if you become a minister you will have to resign as MP because otherwise you would do favouritism. There is no favouritism, there is no conflict. You are here in this board because of your position in your state association. You are not chosen in the board independently.”
Comments
SHARE