Shastri's blind loyalty to the BCCI is not an admirable trait

The BCCI is an easy mark. The secrecy and silence; the scandals; the power politics - all make it a soft target. At the same time, the board is also the most effective sporting body in India (though that is not a high bar to meet). Its coffers are bulging, India won the 2011 World Cup, is the no 1 ranked ODI team and is ranked in the top three in Tests and T20s as well. It is those achievements that prompted Ravi Shastri to defend the board in his Dilip Sardesai lecture last week. “You have got to see what they have done for the sport,” Shastri said. He went on to add that it is the board that is there for aspiring cricketers long before they reach the international stage and play in front of thousands of fans. So it is to the board that the players owe their allegiance. “No matter how much you want to criticise, you have to remember, if they had not given you that first stepping stone, you would not have become the cricketer you went on to be.” [caption id=“attachment_1103529” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Shastri seems to be suggesting that without the BCCI, the players would’nt have played for India. AFP[/caption] While loyalty is an admirable trait, blind loyalty is not. Shastri seems to be suggesting that the players must subsume their individual consciences to the will of the BCCI simply because without the BCCI, they would not have played for India. This is an extraordinary claim, and if the same logic were applied to each one of us, would imply we could never criticise our schools or colleges, for example, because they equipped us to be successful in the world. It would mean the Edward Snowdens and Dinesh Thakurs (the Ranbaxy whistleblower) of the world should just shut up and do their jobs rather speak out against wrongdoings. Besides, selection is supposed to be based on merit. Shastri earned his place in the Indian side. He was not picked as a favour or because he had a nice smile. He was picked because he was one of the best XI players in the country. It is the BCCI’s obligation and duty to pick the best players in the country, nurture and develop them. That should not buy the BCCI immunity from past or present players. Shastri went on to pay tribute to Sharad Pawar, Shashank Manohar and N Srinivasan as presidents of the BCCI. Pawar had the vision to promote and encourage the IPL, Manohar was a no-nonsense man whose performances in IPL governing council meetings “bordered on genius” while Srinivasan is a genuine lover of cricket and sports. Yet there is no mention that it was under Manohar’s watch that Lalit Modi allegedly committed all those crimes for which he is on the verge of receiving a life ban from the BCCI. If Manohar was in “total control”, as Shastri claims, then how was it that Modi was able to operate with such impunity? He also launched a stirring defense of Srinivasan, saying “there was no fricking way I would have resigned” had he been in Srinivasan’s position after the IPL spot-fixing and gambling cases appeared to implicate his son-in-law. You have to take responsibility and set your house in order, Shastri said, which is fine in principle. But Shastri made no mention of the IPL probe-panel that did not even bother to meet with the police before preparing their report exonerating everyone – a panel whose very legitimacy has been questioned by the Mumbai High Court. It is on the Decision Review System that Shastri was the most coherent. A number of controversial decisions during the recent Ashes series highlighted some of the flaws in the system. While human error accounted for some of them, there is an inconsistency in how the technology is applied, which does go some way towards vindicating India’s stand on the matter. If there is going to be human error, it might as well be the umpires on the field making the mistakes. To be fair to Shastri, the board does do a decent job of taking care of India’s cricketers. But is that enough for it to be slapped on the back and handed a cigar? He did concede that the BCCI should communicate more effectively and openly but that there are more serious problems is obvious from the way the IPL spot-fixing scandals of 2013 and 2012 have been handled. Even the Supreme Court said the board had not been vigilant enough. The BCCI has also been less than diplomatic in the way it deals with the ICC, choosing the heavy-handed use of power over negotiation and consensus. On these fronts, the BCCI should not be immune to criticism, despite its other accomplishments. Finally, Shastri might feel it is not for those who have been helped by the system to challenge it, but the rest of us thankfully have no such burden. We do not owe our places in the world to the BCCI, and that leaves us free to be critique it, whether the board likes it or not.