Cricket’s new order
READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED: D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.
MEANINGS are given in BOLD and ITALIC
The Supreme Court has named a four-member Committee of Administrators to run the affairs of the Board of Control for Cricket in India as part of a continuing judicial exercise to reform (make changes in order to improve it) the way the body is administering (manage and be responsible of running of) the game. While few will sympathise with the BCCI office-bearers (a person or thing that carries or holds something) who were removed for defying ( refuse to obey) the court’s well-intended reforms, there is no escaping the feeling that it should have found a way of reforming the body without appointing its own administrators.
Only one of the four appointees has played representative cricket, and it is arguable whether a public auditor, a cricket chronicler (a person who writes accounts of important ) or a financial sector executive are the most suitable candidates to administer a body that oversees supervise (a person or their work especially in an official capacity) a competitive sport. In a country where there is no shortage of cricket experts and where many have the experience of having put bat to ball at some point in their lives, it is a glib (fluent but insincere and shallow. ) assumption that a combination of eminence (an important or distinguished person) in some field and a passion for the game are sufficient to run a national sports body.
The court could have asked the Board to come up with suggestions to draw up a committee of interim (meantime; meanwhile) administrators from among former players and administrators with an established connect with the game. Also, by appointing a panel of its own, the court has rendered itself vulnerable (exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed) to the charge of massive judicial overreach.There is an undoubted element of public interest in the manner in which the highest court has engaged itself with the game’s administration in recent years.
The objectives were laudable (deserving praise and commendation.) : cleansing (make thoroughly clean) the administration; bridging the credibility deficit (the amount by which something, especially a sum of money, is too small) built by reform-resistant administrators; and revamping (give new and improved form, structure, or appearance to) a system fraught (causing or affected by anxiety or stress ) with conflicts of interest and unchecked commercialisation (the process of managing or running something principally for financial gain). Last year, the court declared that running cricket in India is a public function. Many felt the intervention was needed to keep the exploitation of cricket’s commercial potential honest, and run the game in accordance with its tradition and values. Then came the panel headed by former Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha and its sweeping (extending or performed in a long, continuous curve) recommendations for reform. The Supreme Court accepted most of the recommendations and made them binding on the BCCI.
Thereafter, the reluctance (unwillingness or disinclination to do something) shown by the BCCI to accept the Lodha panel reforms led to its president Anurag Thakur being held prima facie guilty of contempt of court. The situation is ripe (having arrived at the fitting stage or time for a particular action or purpose) for a new set of administrators and the next election, which will be overseen by the four-member committee, will throw them up. The big question, of course, is whether this will amount to a mere (used to emphasize how small ) replacement of one set of office-bearers with another, or bring about a real and systemic change in the way cricket in this country is run.
