Make no mistake about it, there has always been politics in Indian cricket. A phenomenon which has the capacity to induce global rapture, to engage innumerable societies and to intoxicate or enrage countless communities of the country will always have its factional politics. As far back as 1951, commenting on that year’s BCCI presidential elections, The Times of India had declared: "De Mello’s adherents, however, had reckoned without that incorrigible paan-chewing diplomat Pankaj Gupta, who, with his customary thoroughness and resource had utilised the appallingly few days since his return from England to such excellent purpose that on the morning of the AGM the Bengal clique was assured of a majority." On this occasion, through ruse and manoeuvre, J.C. Mukherjee, Gupta’s candidate, scraped through with the thinnest of majorities, 12-11. However, such drama has, so far, always managed to distance itself from the curse of party politics.
Even when the late Madhavrao Scindia was the president of the board (1990-93), political motives never influenced his actions. In fact, when faced with the BCCI’s biggest test—winning the rights to host the 1996 World Cup—he relied on tried and tested cricket administrators. He appointed his adversary, present board president Jagmohan Dalmiya, as coordinator and asked him to work out the modalities and meet his counterparts from Pakistan and Sri Lanka before submitting the bid to the ICC. The result of such prudence: after a gruelling thirteen-and-half-hour meeting on February 2, 1993, the ICC had no option but to allot the World Cup to the three subcontinental nations. It was the successful organisation of this tournament that went a long way towards making India the new nerve-centre of global cricket.
You could even say that BCCI cricket administrators played a central role in India’s economic liberalisation process. The struggle over telecast rights between October 1993 and February 1995 is interesting because it saw the information and broadcasting ministry and Doordarshan, arms of the state, make a mockery of the professed ideals of liberalisation. Had party politics assumed primacy within the BCCI, the I&B ministry would certainly have had its way. Citing the archaic Telegraph Act of 1885, formulated by the British colonial government to control Indian nationalists, the government tried hard to prevent foreign broadcasters from telecasting the Hero Cup in November 1993, but with the BCCI fighting back resolutely, finally failed. This victory of the BCCI, the only Indian sporting federation to survive without government subsidy, led ultimately to the marketing of Indian cricket globally. It also sowed the seeds of a competitive media ambience, which has evolved into what we see in India today. That multiple international channels are competing on Indian soil for telecast rights, generating foreign exchange in the process, will remain a contribution of Indian cricket to the nation.
As Pascal said, ‘How many natures lie in human nature’. Many of their byproducts are to be found in the history of the BCCI: imperialism, nationalism, regionalism, factionalism, violent and non-violent protest, self-serving and self-interest, rivalries and enmities, but it has also witnessed instances galore of cooperation, conciliation, altruism, amity and allegiance, which will certainly be eroded if party politics is now allowed to reign supreme.
It’s been happening for some time now. Farooq Abdullah is chief of the j&k cricket board; Laloo Prasad Yadav is chief patron of Bihar cricket; Gujarat cricket is ruled by former deputy chief minister Narhari Amin. Jaitley and Pawar have headed the Delhi and Mumbai cricket associations respectively. There’s certainly no problem per se with politicians turning cricket administrators. Arun Jaitley and Sharad Pawar may have a lot to contribute to developing India’s foremost passion. If media reports are to be believed, both have announced their intention to leave their political helmets in the dressing room while taking guard on the BCCI pitch. If that be so, one wonders why the two seasoned veterans wouldn’t honour the cardinal cricketing rule that a successful partnership is the essence of great batsmanship. One can only hope that their cricketing acumen will override their political compulsions and that a consensus, which is in the best interest of Indian cricket, will be arrived at in the course of the next few days. One shudders to imagine the contrary. Simply put, if the BCCI suddenly becomes a site for Congress-BJP rivalry, then god help Indian cricket.
(The author is with International Research Centre For Sports, Demontford University, UK. His books include Once Upon A Furore and the forthcoming 22 Yards To Freedom: A Social History Of Indian Cricket.)
