BCCI's old guard stands firm against key Lodha reforms

The stubborn resistance of the BCCI's old guard towards the implementation of the Lodha Committee's recommendations may have swayed the board's member units into buying more time at the special general meeting on Monday. A number of state association officials told ESPNcricinfo that the board was forced to form a committee to revisit some of the recommendations, as the majority of the members did not want to be rushed into implementing the reforms. Many officials, led by veteran administrators like N Srinivasan and Niranjan Shah, reportedly felt that some of the concerns identified during the October 1 SGM haven't been addressed.

In the lead-up to the SGM on Monday, the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) had repeatedly urged the state associations to narrow down their objections to the Lodha recommendations to a point or two. The CoA had hinted that there was a good chance that recommendations like 'one-state, one-vote' and the restriction on the number of selectors might be overturned. The committee, however, had indicated that the court was unlikely to change governance-related clauses, such as the age-cap of 70 years or the tenure-cap of nine years.

According to a state association head from the west zone, a majority of the member units were in agreement with the CoA's suggestion on the eve of the SGM, and wanted to adopt the recommendations. After the CoA's meeting with the state associations, the BCCI authorised Abhay Apte, the Maharashtra Cricket Association president and a member of the board's legal committee, and Vinay Mrutyunjaya, the spokesperson of the Karnataka State Cricket Association, to prepare a working paper on the recommendations for discussion at the SGM.

However, by Monday morning, the mood had changed dramatically. "Everybody that had remained united started fizzling out by the morning," he said. "Many member units wanted to go ahead and ensure we could move forward, but by the time the meeting started it became clear that there was no way implementation was going to happen."

It is understood that Srinivasan insisted that the objections raised in October should stand. In that meeting, the BCCI had "unanimously" adopted some resolutions while leaving out key ones like the age cap of 70 years, the tenure cap of nine years with cooling-off periods in between, and the one-state-one-vote policy, among others. "The argument was that we should not agree to anymore more than what we had already conceded," the official said.

With Srinivasan and Shah coming together - they had fallen out during Shashank Manohar's time in charge - there was reportedly a stronger voice against implementation. Srinivasan and Shah, incidentally, are disqualified under the Lodha recommendations on a few counts, including being over 70 years of age. There were also whispers that a couple of former BCCI office-bearers were strongly exhorting state units to resist the implementation of the reforms.

"Srinivasan was very clear in his opinion. Why should only we shortlist a few points of objection? By removing one point we are hurting some member or the other," another official said. "He felt we shouldn't budge from any of our objections on October 1. And, 19 members have filed an affidavit, so no member can go back on it. It is unethical to take it back."

A south zone official claimed that Srinivasan had asked the members to not do anything that would hurt the contributions of former board president and secretary Anurag Thakur and Ajay Shirke, who were removed by the Supreme Court. "Also, there is nothing in writing from the CoA that if we agree to adopt the recommendations, the court will agree to the one or two changes [to the court order]," the official said.

All the three officials agreed that the formation of the Rajiv Shukla-led committee gave the state units enough breathing space before the next course of action could be firmed up. The south zone official said he wasn't hopeful of the report being tabled by July 10. "The committee will have to speak with all the member units," he said. "It might not be easy to arrive at a solution by then. We will wait for the dispensation of the honourable Supreme Court on July 14."

The west zone official, however, conceded that he was uncertain of how the court hearing would pan out. "I don't know what the court is going to do," he said. "That is what I mentioned in the SGM - look at the public perception. They see us as a cosy club. Look at the court - they will look at us and feel we are antagonising everyone. Remember, our actions should not send the message that we are very arrogant and adamant. "