In bringing the National Sports Development Bill to the Cabinet, the Union Sports Ministry clearly had an ulterior motive. At one level, the bureaucracy in the Ministry — supported by Mr Ajay Maken, the Minister — wanted to exercise control over the entire gamut of sports federations, many of which survive on public money.
By imposing term and age limits and demanding the federations share not just accounts with the public (which in effect means with the bureaucracy) but also leave themselves open and vulnerable to day-to-day monitoring, the Sports Ministry was essentially attempting to curtail the autonomy that is the sports bodies’ due. While that may have been the general goal, the specific target was the cash-rich Board of Control for Cricket in India.
The BCCI is India’s wealthiest sports body. If anybody is seriously interested in the intricacies of the accounts, the revenue sources and the investments of a sports federation in India — and truly keen on seeking this information under Right to Information or similar provisions — he or she can only be referring to the BCCI. Other sports bodies, whether devoted to football or archery or for that matter kho-kho, have small budgets, limited sponsorship deals and survive on Government grants that are linked to preparations for specific tournaments such as the Olympic or Asian Games or a world championship.
Mr Maken’s Bill has been rejected by the Cabinet as intrusive and possibly ‘bad in law’. It contravenes the principles of the International Olympic Committee. The IOC is very suspicious of Government control or takeover of sports bodies. In such cases, it can suspend a national Olympic association and even take away from it the right to host a sports event.
This is not to suggest that term limits or age ceilings are by themselves prohibited. It is just that the IOC would want the individual sports federation to set the rules by itself, should it so want, rather than have the national Government do so. This is a crucial point relating to the autonomy of civil society institutions that the statist mind-set of Indian politicians — particularly of the Congress — just does not get.
Why is Mr Maken focussing on the BCCI in particular? There are several reasons. The commercial success of cricket has made the BCCI a law unto itself. Far from being dependent on Government hand-outs, it is in a position to distribute largesse to other sports bodies. It has created a situation where a Union Sports Minister or Secretary cannot call up the BCCI or the Delhi and Districts Cricket Association and demand unlimited tickets for a match. He has to wait his turn, like any other self-important person perhaps, and be content with a handful of tickets.
Most societies would welcome such an occurrence as evidence of social and cultural organisations substantially liberating themselves from the state. The bureaucracy in the Sports Ministry sees this otherwise and has been itching to reverse it.
The BCCI has much to answer for and is scarcely a model of corporate governance. Yet does it deserve to be answerable under RTI provisions? After all it receives no grants from the Government and, instead, contributes to the public exchequer by paying taxes. Mr Maken argues the BCCI gets “indirect monetary help”. He says many stadiums used by the BCCI and its affiliates, the State cricket associations, have been built on land received “free of cost or at concessional rates from the Government”. He has also cited entertainment tax exemptions that are granted to select BCCI-organised matches.
This is puzzling. Some of the properties cited by Mr Maken — such as the Feroze Shah Kotla Stadium managed by the DDCA in New Delhi — were set aside for use as sports venues decades ago. At the Kotla or for that matter at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai or the Eden Gardens in Kolkata, the local cricket body has spent millions over the years in upgrading facilities and building anew. Money for this has been raised from sponsors and from the BCCI’s internal accruals. In most cases, the Government is also paid an admittedly nominal rental.
This is no different from social clubs — such as the Delhi Gymkhana Club or the Delhi Golf Club, to give two examples — that have got land at concessional rates from the Government as part of the process of developing civic spaces in a metropolis. Should the Gymkhana Club also come under the RTI Act?
More so, since every major political party is sitting on land given to it by the Government to house its national headquarters, should the internal proceedings of the Congress (and the BJP, the CPI(M) and the Samajwadi Party to take random names) come under RTI provisions? If the deliberations of BCCI selectors as they choose a team to tour England need to be made public, why not the deliberations of the Congress core group as it chooses candidates for the next election?
Obviously that idea is ridiculous. There are structures that are in the state domain and structures that are in the private sector. There are also civil society institutions that sometimes perform a quasi-state role in their limited context — as in the case of a sports body that adjudicates in a dispute or the Gymkhana Club election committee that manages the process by which members vote in their office-bearers — but this does not make them Government or entirely public bodies.
As for entertainment tax exemptions, these have been granted to films of social relevance or simply mass appeal. Does that mean an entity like Yash Raj Films or Mukta Arts is a public body liable to be brought under the RTI Act?
There is more. What happens if the BCCI decides it will no longer organise itself as a registered society but become a business corporation instead? There are precedents. The International Cricket Council routes its commercial transactions through ICC Development (International) Ltd, a company registered in Mauritius.
If the BCCI becomes a business corporation, it will pay higher taxes. It can afford to do so, passing on much of the burden to sponsors. It can be argued State Governments will then charge local cricket bodies (BCCI daughter companies?) exorbitant rates for stadiums. Will they?
The fact is, they will have no use for the cricket stadiums if the BCCI does not host matches in these — unless the Union Sports Ministry then sets up the public-sector Maken Cricket Council or MCC. As a monopoly service provider it is likely the BCCI will be able to negotiate favourable rates with stadium property owners in India and abroad, who will all be eyeing a slice of the cricket match revenue.
Where will this leave Mr Maken and his Bill?
malikashok@gmail.com
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Comments