Cricket teams are expected to build for the future, administrators apparently not

In dealing with N. Srinivasan, the Committee of Administrators (CoA) must acknowledge an important fact: the former President of the BCCI has nothing to lose. The Supreme Court ruling dealt him a triple whammy: he is over 70 (the cut-off age for office-bearers), he has been in administration for over nine years each at the state and national level, and he has not resigned as President of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association. For any one of these reasons he could be expected to bid goodbye to cricket and focus on gardening or golf.

Yet, there is significant support crystallising around him. There are those who believe that he alone can make the BCCI great again — a Trumpian dream common to officials everywhere — for he alone understands which switches to press and when. All speculation might be rendered moot once the Supreme Court rules on his eligibility to represent the BCCI at the International Cricket Council. If recent events are any guide, though, that might not be the end. The ICC might have no objection, after all.

Indian cricket’s coming man might be Sourav Ganguly — who is evolving as a credible alternative to the old-timers — but it is difficult not to have a sneaky regard for the man from Chennai whose thick skin and unyielding ways might have served him well had he been a Test cricketer. Bowlers would have struggled against Srinivasan’s obdurate defence and unexpected strikes for six.

For those who wonder why the Supreme Court is so involved in cricket administration, the answer is: Srinivasan. If there is a loophole anywhere, either in the rules or in the interpretation, he has the nous to both spot it and turn it to his advantage. Nothing seems final. From the outside, we watch in fascination (and some horror) as the drama unfolds.

Meanwhile, the drama that should have unfolded — the rejigging of the state associations, fresh elections and setting up of the system as mandated by the Supreme Court — is nowhere near completion yet.

The wait-and-see policy of the erstwhile office-bearers accompanied by energetic work behind the scenes (orchestrated apparently by Srinivasan), has ensured that uncertainty has ruled.

If board members now feel that Srinivasan is the solution rather than the problem, it is testimony to the governing body’s allergy to creating a line of succession. Cricket teams are expected to build for the future, administrators apparently not. Ganguly representing India at the ICC meetings might not find favour with everybody, but he clearly is the new generation, and his credentials need no special endorsement.

Genuine interest

Srinivasan’s interest in cricket is genuine, he is not seen as financially corrupt (two qualities that place him above most officials), and in recent years has acquired a romantic image as the man who had the cricketing world kowtowing to him.

The Robin Hood impression — robbing the rich to pay the even richer — may not actually fit, but there is a surface attraction to it. Had he not let the “my family, right or wrong” philosophy drag him down, there would have been no Supreme Court in the affairs of the game, no Committee of Administrators, no standoff. But his irrational support of his son-in-law who was later shown to be betting on IPL matches despite being a team owner, initiated the process of cleansing the board.

Indian cricket has reason to be grateful for Srinivasan’s arrogance.

When he was President and kept ignoring the Supreme Court, Srinivasan appeared both haughty and desperate; the new Srinivasan seems to be enjoying the uncertainty and looking for ways of gaining from it.

There are no age or tenure rules (in the home association) that go with the chairman’s post in the International Cricket Council, for example, and Srinivasan sees an opportunity there. If elements in the BCCI (and in the ICC) support him, that is because he is master of the carrot-and-stick policy. In any case, he is the known devil.

The ICC chairman is independent of the country he comes from. Shashank Manohar, who resigned recently, was keen to right what he saw as the wrongs of revenue sharing, and was cheered on for a while till it became clear that his reforms might not have the necessary support. In 2014, the Big Three — Australia and England being the others — took over the ICC, giving themselves a bigger slice of the financial pie.

Manohar’s attempt at a more equitable distribution was supported by the same Australia and England. There are no permanent friends (or permanent adversaries) in the ICC.

And if Srinivasan has his way in the ICC, however unlikely that appears now, then doubtless his two junior partners will be happy to go back to the Big Three system again.

The CoA has, in any case, indicated that India need a bigger share of the pie. So much for equitable distribution, fair play, sportsmanship and all those concepts associated with the game — but obviously not with its administration.

At 72, Srinivasan has nothing to lose. As Kenneth Kaunda, the Zambian leader once observed, ambition never comes to an end.