The Supreme Court has said in no unequivocal terms that it is tired of seeing N. Srinivasan continue as president of the national cricket board while myriad conflicts of interest remain in the worst betting scandal to engulf the Indian Premier League.
The cricket official’s dogged pursuit of power flies in the face of the need for accountability and moral responsibility for the mess, including the not insignificant contribution of his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan, who was involved in betting and guilty of sharing confidential team information while being a team official of the India Cements-owned IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings.
In casting away the fig leaf of respectability in shedding even his “stepping aside” status when it appeared convenient, albeit with the court’s approval, Mr Srinivasan’s actions seemed even more reprehensible given how close to home the scandal had struck. None of the stigma may have stuck to him personally as sinister matters spiralled out of control. But his Machiavellian management of the BCCI and its acquiescent crowd of administrators, including politicians of various hues, had to stop if a true cleansing process was to be undertaken.
Even now, only a Supreme Court-mandated probe panel can get to the bottom of the sordid affairs into which the names of six Team India players have been tainted by references in a closed envelope handed over by the Justice Mukul Mudgal commission after the former Punjab and Haryana high court chief justice helped conduct a thorough and professional probe. In mocking the legal system by appointing a “controlled” probe by two former Madras high court, the BCCI had only invited further scorn.
The judges’ scathing comments comparing the two probes in their observations are a slap in the face of the world cricket’s most powerful administrator who was due to take over international cricket soon. The cash-rich cricket board’s brazenness in buying over the silence of so many involved in the national sport has to stop sometime if the game is to be cleansed of corrupting influences from within the players’ corral.
The point right-thinking people kept making was that someone who was in the midst of such contradictions and conflicts of interest could not be expected to help with absolute reform of the system. And unless he removed himself truly from the realm of influence it would just be impossible to deal with the complicated matter.
Mr Srinivasan was too blinded by power and his personal financial integrity. His failure lay in his hubris and his ineluctable faith in every man having a price. If he does not step down before a formal order from the court, he will be doing a signal disservice to the game and to himself.
