Follow Us
rohit mahajan
Tribune News Service
chandigarh, july 1
Several uncomfortable questions have risen over the appointment of India’s head coach. This is unfortunate, because among the 57 men who applied for the post, Anil Kumble had the best record as a cricket player. His selection was done by an interview panel that included Sourav Ganguly, Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman. It’s impossible to question their cricketing judgement. It’s impossible to question Kumble’s appointment on cricketing merit, even though he did not meet the criteria for the job advertised by the Indian cricket board (BCCI). It has now emerged that Laxman, who had a significant role in the appointment of Kumble, held a five percent stake in Kumble’s business company, Tenvic Sports, until March this year. In other words, being associated with Kumble’s company benefitted Laxman to the tune of at least lakhs, if not crores, or rupees.
After this revelation, self-appointed certifiers of character have declared that the “legends” of cricket should not be questioned. This is absurd — surely, an extraordinary ability to hit a leather ball with a piece of wood doesn’t make a human being immune from possible misconduct?
Model cricketer
In the case of Laxman, though, we can say with near certainty that he’s likely to be above board in all his public and private dealings. That’s his persona — he’s known to be a straightforward, simple and honest man. This would be the reason that in March, when he realised that he could get into a conflict of interest situation with Kumble, he chose to sell his stake in Tenvic Sports, ending his association with Kumble’s company.
But that action leads to further uncomfortable questions. The Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC) — which comprised Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman — was formed in June 2015. Why did Laxman realise only nine months later, in March 2016, that he should get out of Tenvic Sports? Was he made aware in March 2016 that Kumble could apply for the post of the Indian team’s head coach? Did this — the possibility of having to interview his business associate for India coach’s job — prompt him to sell his stake in Tenvic Sports?
The BCCI advertised for the position only on June 1, 2016. Ravi Shastri had been appointed as the Indian team’s director until this year’s T20 World Cup, which ended on April 3. It was well-known that BCCI was going to advertise for the post of coach after that, and that CAC would play a key role in the coach’s appointment. Did this prompt Laxman to sell his stake in Tenvic Sports in March 2016?
Why did not Laxman sell his Tenvic Sports stake in June 2015, when he was appointed in CAC? That was the right time to do it, because as a CAC member he was going to be involved in key decisions relating to Indian cricket.
Short-list of 21
There are other intriguing questions. When BCCI sorted through the 57 applications, it found that only 21 met the criteria it had advertised for the job. Kumble was not short-listed as, clearly, he did not meet the first and, presumably, the criteria that was most significant to BCCI. This was the first requirement for the post:
Should have successfully coached a cricket team of any of the member countries of the ICC, at the first class or at the International level.
Kumble hasn’t coached any team at the first class or international level. He did not meet the first requirement of BCCI. Yet he applied! Why did Kumble apply despite being not being eligible as per BCCI’s requirements? Had he received an assurance (from BCCI or CAC) that his application would be considered?
Finally, when CAC appointed him as coach, why did not BCCI remind Ganguly, Tendulkar and Laxman that Kumble did not meet BCCI’s first requirement for India coach?BCCI has been making noises about becoming more transparent. However, in the aftermath of Kumble’s appointment, and the ugly war of words that has started between Shastri and Ganguly, it’s clear that BCCI is still wading through truths, half-truths and lies.
Big questions
1
2
7