Recently an article was carried in the In-Focus column of this news paper commenting on the striking similarity between the UPA government and Team India (Cricket). Having likened Manmohan Singh to Rahul Dravid both in temperament and leadership quality and as respective captains of their two sides, the writer even went to the extend of comparing Sonia Gandhi and Greg Chappell—coach, mentor or the guiding personality so to say. Since politics and cricket in India are so passionately followed, one is tempted to attempt another such comparison—this time on the selection of the UPA nominee for the high post of President and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) fumbling and tumbling on the vexed question of selecting and appointing a full fledged coach.
One of the biggest problems in both cases of Presidential and coach selection has undoubtedly been the flawed process, which invariably has led to poor outcomes for both highly prized jobs. In all of this, the biggest concern has been the manner in which one or two individual have been vested with a virtual power of veto. Nothing illustrates this better than the manner in which a certain Sonia Gandhi and Sunil Gavaskar have single-handedly determined the outcome of what could have actually required collective wisdom and broad-based consultation. Whether it is politics or sports, such kind of monopoly in decision making is quite unacceptable. While both Mrs Gandhi and Mr Gavaskar may command respect in their chosen field, it is quite appalling for the UPA and the BCCI to actually allow individual preference to ride rough shod over what should in essence be the best for Indian politics or cricket. But that has not happened and in the end, we may have to live with the second best.
In the case of the BCCI and the embarrassing situation of South African Graham Ford turning down the offer for the post of Indian coach, let alone the ridiculous short term of one year, which was in any case tantamount to serving a life sentence, even the manner in which former Australian Dave Whatmore was treated shabbily has all but ruined the image of the BCCI as a professionally run world class sporting body. Initially the BCCI had virtually endorsed the selection of Whatmore and it was indeed ridiculous that he was not even allowed to make his presentation to the BCCI coach selection committee. Apparently, Mr Gavaskar did not like the coaching credentials of Whatmore or was it actually the formers’ known dislike for the Australians. And anyway who is this John Embury and with what qualification was he called by Mr Gavaskar to apply for the job. There were at least two other Indians—Mohinder Amarnath and Sandeep Patil who could have been given an opportunity. Why weren’t they called? And because of one man’s judgement, Indian cricket may have lost the best choice of a coach for team India.
Similar has been the case of Mrs Gandhi and the UPA on finding a Presidential nominee. While some may describe the nomination of the UPA-Left nominee Pratibha Patil as a master stroke of Mrs Gandhi still others will say that it is at best a convenient choice wrapped in tokenism and sycophant politics. And when such politically motivated decisions are taken, one cannot expect consensus, which the UPA and the Congress are now trying so desperately to forge. Because of this flawed process, even the high acceptability factor of a woman candidate drawing support from across the political spectrum is quickly vanishing. At the end, a keen contest between Mrs Patil and Vice-President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat is highly likely and who knows how much of cross voting will be there, which may only further embarrass the Congress and Mrs Gandhi.
