Cricket, corruption & configuration of power relations

Politics they say is an art of the possible. It's also a great leveller. If not how come those who bay for each other’s blood day in and day out are in stoic silence when it comes to the Board of Control for Cricket in India or its more popular acronym, the BCCI. It seems that political rivals like the Jaitleys, the Shuklas, the Pawars and many others are in collusive silence.

Politics they say make strange bedfellows. Cricket also does the same, at least in India. Or is it the politics of cricket that turns political adversaries into closest of friends!

James Astill, former South Asia Correspondent of The Economist, has written extensively on Indian cricket. In his book - ‘The Great Tamasha: Cricket, Corruption and the Turbulent Rise of Modern India’ - James argues that the game of great uncertainty as manifested in all its forms in the country is a mirror image of modern India.

Cricket represents rising aspiration, innovation, increased competition, greater opportunities, determination coupled with killer instinct, glitz, glamour, fame, wealth but at the same time reflects consumerism, stark inequality, money and muscle power, sleaze, big ticket corruption and what not. No wonder, many describe cricket as India’s national sports which was incidentally invented by the English.

Sleaze and corruption come with wealth, power and influence and the BCCI is no exception. In fact, India's richest sporting body and arguably the world's wealthiest cricket board has outgrown itself to the extent of being considered a 'cricket bully' among the nations playing the sports. This is, however, a reaction to the unquestionable power and influence that the English and the Aussies enjoyed over many decades. 

In India, the BCCI is enormously influential and it is any politician or businessman's dream to head the coveted organisation. Accumulation of power and wealth have resulted in corruption, defined as dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power. N Srinivasan is not the only top BCCI official who is facing corruption charges, but probably no one else has given the organisation such a bad name and created such public outrage that the country's top court had to intervene. 

The Supreme Court literally booted out Srinivasan from BCCI's top job and asked batting maestro Sunil Gavaskar to lead the show during the time of the lucrative and popular Indian Premier League (IPL), which incidentally has been the bone of contention between disparate groups involving cricket. 

The top court has asked for cleaning up cricket amidst apprehension as to whether it is at all possible. Some are enthused by the elevation of Gavaskar as BCCI's interim head, the first Indian cricketer to do so. The moot question though is whether Gavaskar is qualified to do so or whether the political dynamics of Indian cricket provides him with any opportunity to carry out the task.

Firstly, the legendary Indian batsman, with bundle of contracts with the BCCI is a direct beneficiary of the Srinivasan-regime. If patron-client relationship characterises Srinivasan-Gavaskar equation, there is no reason to believe that the former Indian captain will rock his own boat or that of his sympathiser. 

Those who know Gavaskar well, will appreciate that he is one of the smartest chaps in the cricketing world for many years. Rather than positioning himself for the posts of manager or coach, or selector or any official involved with the Indian cricket team, he chose a different trajectory to avoid 'increased scrutiny'. To avoid public glare he didn't even throw his weight behind son Rohan to get the young Gavaskar in the Indian squad.

Those who saw Gavaskar on television after the Supreme Court floated its suggestion, would probably acknowledge that he was palpably unsettled only trying to camouflage it by talking about the 'incredible honour' that was bestowed upon him. If body language and worldly arguments are any indication, Gavaskar will only try to buy his time rather than taking any initiative to ensure structural changes in the BCCI. 

At a more broader level of analysis, Gavaskar's elevation is a manifestation of 'depoliticisation', probably in an effort to veil the 'murky politics of cricket' in India. As an outsider in BCCI, Gavaskar is not directly involved as an operator in its organisational politics. As a successful player he can be clubbed under the bracket of  technocrats, who are better suited for advisory roles rather than operating at the political level. 

Indian cricket is essentially facing a political crisis and it calls for a political solution. After all, it's about authority which is defined by power relations. Political solutions can only be achieved by re-configuring power relations, as happens during elections, and not by overlooking the political dynamics. By nominating Gavaskar as an interim head of the BCCI, the Supreme Court tried to thrust upon (or suggest) essentially a non-political solution (if any) to a political problem.

The initiative to depoliticise probably reflects the increased apathy about political elements (mostly politicians), which undoubtedly is a cause of concern in India. But a possible way out of the crisis can only happen not by negating politics but by re-configuring the political variables. The government, the judiciary, present and former cricketers and those associated with the physical form of the game and above all millions of cricket buffs have a significant role and high stakes in such reconfiguration.  

All comments are personal.