I am responsible for the delay: Kamal Morarka

On Thursday, we published an exclusive report on the confusion relating to the itinerary of the Australian tour of India in February.

In a bid to find answers, we spoke to Kamal Morarka, vice-president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India and, more pertinently, the man in charge of the BCCI's Schedules Committee.

As happens so often when you seek enlightenment from Board officials, the end result is that the initial confusion is merely compounded.

For starters, we were told that the schedule would be finalised only on, or around, January 22. In other words, a little over a fortnight before Australia lands in India to start its tour.

More interestingly, Morarka gave us the impression that the present chaos in scheduling could continue for two, three years more.

The reason, apparently, is that the Board has decided to rethink its policy of allotting games to various centres. At this point in time, there are 9 Test centres, and 22 ODI centres, in the country.

Under the existing system, each zone was given a match, in turn. The concerned zone would then decide which of the venues in its jurisdiction would get to host the particular game.

At some point, the Board woke up to the realisation that there were more centres in the South, than in the North Zone. Which, logically, meant that a zone that had developed fewer venues was getting an equal share of the pie.

Also, the division of venues on 'Test' and 'ODI' lines meant that the Test grounds, which logically are the best equipped in the country, were not getting to host ODIs, which are the real money-spinners.

The new system, Morarka explained, would ensure that Test matches would be rotated among the Test centres. When it came to ODIs, the Test centres would also be considered eligible to host them.

As per Morarka, what we are seeing now is the confusion that results when you shift from one system to another. "This is a period of transition, an old system is being replaced by a new one, and therefore there will be some confusion for a while," Morarka says. "Obviously, in the initial phase, some associations will lose out. Those associations are upset, and have been protesting the change in the system. It is going to take us two to three years for the issue to be resolved."

It is this confusion, compounded by the protests lodged by various associations, that have caused the delay in finalising the Australian itinerary, Morarka explained. "I am responsible for the delay. We had a meeting earlier this month, and the members began protesting during that meeting. So then I suggested that we delay the decision, and postpone it to January 22, when the Working Committee meeting is scheduled -- any decision taken by the Working Committee will be final and binding."

Given the importance of finalising the schedule and allowing the various host associations to begin preparing for the crucial tour, did the Board consider advancing its Working Committee meeting to an earlier date? Or even calling an emergency session of the committee to take a quick decision?

Apparently not.

Is it true that the Australians have refused to play at certain centres like Goa and Indore?

"That is rubbish," Morarka told rediff.com, "all foreign teams, whether it is Australia, or South Africa, or whoever, just love to go to Goa."

So then, I asked him if he could show me the preliminary schedule, which was agreed to by both Boards. "I don't remember that. Ask (honorary BCCI secretary Jayawant) Lele. He charts it out according to the rotation policy and then sends it to the concerned Board," was the response from Morarka, who it needs to be pointed out again is head of the Schedules Committee, but who apparently is not even given a list of the preliminary schedule by Lele.

But whether Morarka has a copy of the tentative schedule or no, he is pretty sanguine about the existing situation. "The Australians will have no problem with the venues," he assures us. "Let me assure you that we have taken special care of the itinerary for them."

Unfortunately, the ACB is not quite as happy as the Board officials believe them to be.

In the course of the interview, Morarka agreed that the facilities at Gwalior were far better than those at Indore. The latter venue, famously, was embroiled in a controversy not so long ago, when a game had to be called off because the pitch was found unsatisfactory. But Lele, on the Board's behalf, has been trying to get the Aussies to play in Indore, and not Gwalior as was originally agreed upon.

When we asked Morarka why the Indian Board never sends its Schedules Committee to other countries to check the facilities and venues and ensure the best possible deal for our team, as the foreigners do, Morarka put a surprising spin on it. "All this is part of the colonial hangover sections of the Board are suffering from, this constant talk of what they do and why we don't do the same thing. "Firang logo ko khuda maante hai (Foreigners are considered gods)," he remarked.

Morarka, in fact, is openly against the idea of appointing a media manager. Strange, given that Board president A C Muthiah has announced that the appointment will be finalised within the next 30 days -- and a further pointer to the kind of political divisions that exist within the BCCI, with the president pulling in one direction and one of the vice-presidents giving an exactly opposite point of view.

"Why do you need a media manager anyway? If Lele is talking rubbish, why not just replace him with someone more competent?" Morarka asks.

Sounds like a simple solution -- but it does not take into account the fact that for three years running, Lele has been elected to the secretary's post, on two of those occasions unanimously, and unopposed. Obviously, the Board has no intention of replacing him, given the backing he enjoys.

That is the gist of the conversation I had with Morarka on the subject of the Australian tour schedule. However, when dealing with the BCCI or even trying to understand its functioning, you have to realize that there are two truths -- one version is what they tell you, the other is what actually happens.

So what is the real reason behind the confusion, and is the confusion in fact as serious as it is made out to be?

To answer those questions in reverse order, yes, scheduling is now a serious issue. Following the ICC knockout tournament in Kenya earlier this year, the ICC executive had met (Morarka as chief of the Schedules Committee was supposed to attend but again, it was Lele who represented India) in Nairobi and taken a few decisions: 1. That it is mandatory for all Test-playing nations to play all others, both home and away, over a five year cycle and 2. That it is mandatory for all Test-playing nations to finalize their schedules fully a year ahead of time, the finalised schedules to be forwarded to the ICC and to become effective only after the ICC ratifies it (this measure, incidentally, being part of several aimed at checking the preponderance of one day cricket at the expense of Test cricket).

As pointed out, this is a decision taken by the ICC. Lele, as India's representative, was party to, signatory to, the decision. It is this collective decision which India sees no reason to honour. Interestingly, if you look at the full schedules of international cricket, you will notice that it is only in the case of India that schedules have not been firmed up -- Australia, for instance, has finalised the full itinerary of not only its Ashes tour which comes after its India tour, but also that of the Natwest Trophy to follow.

Look at the issue from another angle -- last minute changes in scheduling has in fact caused monetary loss to the Board, and to various local associations. An instance in point relates to the recent Zimbabwe tour of India. When Zimbabwe arrived here, the schedule called for them to play the fifth ODI in Mohali. Halfway through the tour that game was rescheduled, and allotted to Rajkot.

"It was an internal matter of the Board," Morarka told me in response to a question. And that is all he said on the subject.

The truth? Around that point, the Board decided that former BCCI president Inderjit Singh Bindra was persona non grata, and had to be punished. And punishing Bindra means punishing Punjab. And hence, Mohali lost the game, and Rajkot got it.

You would expect the Rajkot cricket officials to be happy, wouldn't you? In point of fact, they didn't want the game, not at that late date. The reason? There wasn't enough time to put things together, especially from a financial point of view. To give you an example, look at those banners spectators wave from the stands, with 4 and 6 on them. These banners carry a sponsor's logo. The sponsor has in turn to pay a certain sum of money to the association staging the match, for the right to distribute the placards to the spectators. That sum varies from Rs 17 lakh to Rs 20 lakh.

Given the lack of time, this deal -- and a few others -- could not be put together by the Rajkot cricket officials. Resulting, right up front, in a loss of over Rs 20 lakh worth of earnings to the association.

But why would that matter? Bindra had been taught a lesson -- which was the whole point of the exercise. And if that lesson cost Rs 20 lakh or more, what difference would that make to a Board that has more money than it knows how to spend?

Officially, the Board will tell you of its rotation policy, its distribution policy, and various other policies. Unofficially, behind the scenes, these policies are merely on paper -- the actual decisions depend on other factors.

Votes is one of them. The BCCI holds an election of its officials every year. This means that every year, the ruling clique needs the support of a majority of the associations. This means that various 'friendly' associations have to be kept happy. Since India plays so little at home, it is not possible to allocate matches to all of them in any given year. So the Board gives matches to the key associations -- key in terms of votes, that is -- and makes the others happy by giving them various grants such as 'stadium improvement grant'.

Take Delhi as an example. Increasingly, the Board's actions are being checked, monitored, even influenced by the Government of India. And it is the Delhi association that has the closest links to the GoI. Besides, scheduling a game in Delhi means the Board has an opportunity to invite influential politicos to be their guests in the VIP boxes, and thus earn valuable brownie points.

It follows, then, that Delhi has to be kept happy. And therefore, if you check the schedules of the last year or two, and also the tentative schedules drawn up for the immediate future, you will find that rotation policy or no rotation policy, Delhi always gets a game -- Test, ODI, whatever.

The associations -- or at least, the influential associations -- are thus kept happy. If, in the process, a few tour schedules are muddled, and if the muddle and the mess give India, as a whole, an unsavoury reputation in the rest of the cricketing world who notices? Or bothers?

With inputs from Prem Panicker

EARLIER REPORT:

Major muddle in Australian tour schedule A Rediff Exclusive!

Mail your comments