Games people play

Sports organisations gang up to thwart the government’s move to bring transparency in their shady functioning

by HARPAL SINGH BEDI

FOR several decades, governments have tried to rein in the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and National Sports Federations (NSFs) but failed to reform their arbitrary, feudal functioning. Now, against the backdrop of the Commonwealth Games scam, the Government is trying to bring in legislation to break the stranglehold of the chieftains heading various sports organisations. But backed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), these desperate elements representing different parties have closed ranks to thwart any move to bring changes or transparency in their functioning.
The moot question is: Will Union Sports Minister Ajay Maken succeed where others have failed? Will the government back him to the hilt or chicken out at the crucial moment? Recently, a delegation of IOA and NSFs called on the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to protest what they described as “illegal, unconstitutional and draconian” draft of the proposed National Sports Development Bill. They alleged that an attempt was being made through the proposed legislation to take away the right of the states to legislate on sports, which is a state subject. The delegation comprised an interesting mix of people representing divergent hues — Vijay Kumar Malhotra, Anurag Thakur (BJP), Jagdish Tytler, K P Singh Deo, Rajiv Shukla (Congress) Abhay Singh Chautala (INLD) and Tarlochan Singh (Independent).
Malhotra held the view that though several other bodies were registered under the Society’s Act, only sports administrators were being targeted by proposing restrictions over their age and tenure. Tytler warned his own Congress-led UPA Government against interfering in sports administration. Sounding bewildered at this united show by desperate politicians, Maken said, “The Government is doing nothing wrong, we want transparency, proper elections and tenure limits, which are a must in international sports federations. So, why is there so much hue and cry against the bill?” Maken is not off the mark. Sports administrators in India have been successfully selling a myth that they function under the Olympic Charter and are answerable only to the IOC. Perhaps in no other democratic country in the world, IOC charter has been misused so much for personal use by sports administrators.

The reason behind this façade of unity and stability in the IOA and NSFs is simple: everybody gets his pound of flesh. One just has to get into the National Sports Federations or IOA; the rest is taken care of, mostly at taxpayer expense.

Now, the IOC has issued a diktat to the Indian Government via the IOA that the organisation, administration and management of sport must be controlled by independent sports organisations. Further, belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic Charter and recognition by the IOC. The National Olympic Committee (NOC), in this case IOA, must preserve its autonomy and resist all pressures of any kind, including political, legal, religious or economic, which may prevent it from complying with the Olympic Charter.
The IOC has further threatened that it may take any appropriate decisions for the protection of the Olympic Movement in the country, including suspension of or withdrawal of recognition from the NOC. According to the Olympic Charter, the recognition of an NOC is, in essence, derived from the IOC (and not from the concerned government authorities).
Intriguingly, these so-called rules and regulations are not applicable in the case of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran or even North Korea. Where were these upholders of Olympic charter when former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussain’s son Uday Hussain headed his Country’s Olympic committee and treated the losing sportspersons with utmost disdain?
Coming back to India, the reason behind this façade of unity and stability in the IOA and NSFs is simple: everybody gets its pound of flesh. One just has to get into the National Sports Federation or IOA, the rest is taken care of, mostly at the tax payers’ expense. Any enterprising official can avail so many unnecessary foreign trips in a single year that as a frequent flyer he will earn free air tickets for his whole family.
And, most of these trips are not known to people. For example, India hosted the most wasteful sporting extravaganza in 2003 — the Afro-Asian Games (if you don’t remember it is not your fault). Billions were spent to provide free boarding, lodging and air fare for the participating sports persons. In the build up to these farcical games, a 100- plus Indian delegation even went to Brazil, the Latin American country which had ostensibly nothing to do with these games. During the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games, the IOA hosted a party which hardly consisted of any Australians (for whom the party was purportedly held). It was attended by a galaxy of Indian elite comprising politicians, bureaucrats, artists, who were all flown there by IOC.

They alleged that an attempt was being made through the proposed legislation to take away the right of the states to legislate on sports, which is a state subject.

In 2009-10 after the IOA suspended the Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) and took charge of it, the maverick officials virtually hit the jackpot. The Indian team, under the pretext of training and preparation for the World Cup, Commonwealth and Asian Games, flew to every part of the planet except South Pole and Antarctica. In a conspicuous example, the team was taken to Argentina to prepare for a four-nation tournament — Punjab Cup, which was to be played in Chandigarh. After squandering millions, India finished 7th in the World Cup, was thrashed 8-0 by Australia in the final of Commonwealth Games in Delhi and failed to directly qualify for the London Olympics as they finished third in Asiad. And, less said the better regarding the tainted Delhi Commonwealth Games.
TILL late seventies, few politicians were involved in sports management and it was only in a “glamour” game like tennis that union ministers were associated as ceremonial heads. It all changed in the mid-1980s with the opening up of the economy and tremendous media growth as reflected in the advent of TV channels. The influx of the politicians in the sports associations started in a big way as sports took the centrestage.
In fact, politicians were lured to become the office bearers by shrewd sports officials who wanted to take advantage of their position to protect their own interests in the federations. Secretaries and junior officials manipulated to get influential ministers/politicians to become heads of sports associations, while retaining real power with them. Though some politicians came and went away after sometime, but others having tasted the blood (power) refused to exit. However, time has now come when sportspersons of all hue should rally behind the proposed legislation to tame the autocratic sports bodies.