Lodha files: How it could change cricket in the northeast

‘If Gujarat gets Rs 66 crore then why should the northeastern states get only Rs 50 lakh?’

EM Sports Desk

Call it coincidence or the impact of the Lodha Committee’s recommendations; finally the so far neglected northeast region of the country will see some tangible action in terms of development initiated by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
The committee introduced the dictum ‘One State, One Vote’, which means only cricket associations representing the states would be full members and have voting rights in the 30-member general body of the BCCI. This, the committee, said was to ensure an “equitable voting pattern”.
The court said the BCCI voting pattern has been victim to over-representation by some states like Maharashtra and Gujarat while the six states of northeast have none. It was also supported by the Supreme Court where it noted that northeast states are not being given equal opportunity to be a part of cricket in India.
The principle if implemented will mean the northeast, which has little or no cricket representation but which comprises many small states, will suddenly turn into the controlling faction in Indian cricket. If every state is a full member and has one vote, the northeast will end up having six votes while western India, the hotbed of cricket, will end up with two votes: Maharashtra and Gujarat.
On January 5 this year, a Supreme Court panel headed by former chief justice Rajendra Mal Lodha released its report on bringing transparency to the administration of Indian cricket after consulting various parties including late BCCI chief Jagmohan Dalmiya, former cricketers Rahul Dravid and Kirti Azad, and even cricket historian Ramachandra Guha.Among many others the list of recommendations included one-state-one-vote policy, legalising of betting, banning of advertisements in between overs during cricket telecast, age-limit for BCCI office-bearers, a players association funded by BCCI, bringing BCCI under RTI, ban of politicians and bureaucrats from the BCCI hierarchy and introducing a separate law to deal with the menace of sporting fraud.
Many of the BCCI’s affiliated units had filed affidavits on their objections to some of the recommendations. It is undeniable that these suggestions are well-intentioned and meant to improve the administration of the game. However, most of them are not new. The suggestions to include sports bodies within the RTI Act, imposing conditions for office-bearers and limiting their terms, and having professionals or sportspersons in governing councils of sporting associations are all contained in the draft National Sports Development Bill of 2013.
On January 22 again this year, the Supreme Court appointed a committee led by justice Lodha and comprising justices Ashok Bhan and RV Raveendran to look into issues arising out of a spot-fixing and betting scandal during the 2013 edition of the Indian Premier League. It was asked to decide on the quantum of punishment for franchise officials Raj Kundra, Gurunath Meiyappan and the teams they were part of – Rajasthan Royals and Chennai Super Kings – as well to ascertain whether Sundar Raman, the IPL’s chief operating officer at the time, was guilty of malpractice.
On July 14, the committee recommended life bans for Kundra and Meiyappan and the suspension of their franchises for two years. On Monday, the Lodha panel exonerated Sundar Raman, saying it could not find any substantial and clinching evidence of his involvement in betting or spot-fixing.
The Supreme Court on April 6 last was scathing when it said that the members of BCCI had created a “mutually beneficial society”. The BCCI was also slammed for the way it distributed funds to its affiliated units. The SC said that the board should have distributive justice.
“BCCI must have distributive justice. Why are 11 states penniless? Why should these states go begging? If Gujarat gets Rs 66 crore then why should the northeastern states get only Rs 50 lakh? The impression one gets is that once the BCCI gives money to state boards without any rationale for spending, they in a way corrupt them,” it said.
The SC further stated: “Are the state allocations made after looking at people’s face in the cricket board? Out of 29 states 11 are begging for money, this is not good. You allot money without demanding explanation which is basically corrupting them.”
Until now, the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat have had three votes each – the former encompassing the Mumbai, Maharashtra and Vidarbha cricket associations and the latter represented by the Gujarat, Saurashtra and Baroda cricket associations. The verdict uses the equitable representation of the voting structure in other national sports bodies, as well as the geographical representation in global bodies, and applies it to the BCCI. What this means is that traditional powerhouses will lose their voting clout, while hitherto cricketing outposts will get their say.
An apex body, a general body and two separate wings will be formed to run the IPL and other BCCI tournaments. The northeast India has been overlooked by the country, wherein Arunachal and Meghalaya don’t even have an official home ground for cricket. Mizoram Cricket Association is out casted from the board.
As of now, there are only two full-fledged BCCI members from the northeast, i.e. Assam Cricket Association and Tripura Cricket. The three affiliated members to BCCI are Arunachal Pradesh Cricket Association, Meghalaya Cricket Association and Nagaland Cricket Association.
But if the Lodha recommendation is applied, the six states will at least have one member each to represent the association for Board of Control for Cricket in India.