New Delhi: The Cabinet has not cleared the new Sports Bill, which is meant to increase considerably the transparency of all sports bodies, including the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Sports Minister Ajay Maken has been asked to revise the bill. Hours after the Cabinet meeting he tweeted, "We do not want to be intrusive; but want BCCI and others to be transparent and efficient."
The BCCI is vehemently opposed to the bill as it mandates bringing the rich sports body under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Sources said, at the Cabinet meeting, all the ministers who hold positions in sports bodies disclosed their interest in their respective federations but claimed that there was no personal conflict of interest as they were "elected".
Having said that they grouped together to reject the bill much to the dismay of those who have been seeking more accountability and transparency in sports bodies.
Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdulla, whose father is one such Central minister who also doubles as a sports administrator, tweeted, "Ministers heading sports bodies should have excused themselves from the Cabinet meeting." Soon after this tweet made it to headlines, he tweeted again. This time he said, "And on a different note the next time I plan to tweet on what central cabinet ministers do someone please tell me to shut up. :-)"(Read: Next time, tell me to shut up: Omar Tweet)
Former batting ace Sunil Gavaskar said, "It is upto the BCCI to take a call. I know that the BCCI does not take any money from the government, does not take any grants, so they are entitled to their opinion. But as I said, if you have nothing to hide then you should not be worried about the RTI."
And Kirti Azad, former cricketer and now a politician, said, "The bill that is coming is to regulate and not to control. Age and tenure is something that we could talk about. There's nothing wrong to be in the RTI and the best way to come out of controversy is to ensure that there is transparency. RTI is something which I don't think will be troubling anybody and they should accept it as soon as possible."
At yesterday's Cabinet review of the bill, at least five ministers had a conflict of interest because they head sports bodies. They include Vilasrao Deshmukh, Sharad Pawar, Praful Patel, Farooq Abdullah, and CP Joshi - though all claimed there was no personal conflict of interest.
Concerns voiced reportedly centred upon whether the bill would impinge too far upon the autonomy of sports bodies.
Sharad Pawar, a former president of the BCCI and the present International Cricket Council (ICC) chief admitted to the conflict of interest and questioned government interference. Infact, Mr Pawar reportedly threatened to take the matter up with UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, if the Cabinet approved the bill.
Virbhadra Singh objected to the 70-year-age limit of sports heads. Farooq Abdullah, who is also the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association chief, also objected to age limit for federation heads, and said, "By this yardstick, I shouldn't be a Cabinet Minister."
Union Minister of Rural Development and head of the Rajasthan Cricket Association, CP Joshi, questioned the election process for sports body heads.
Objections from a purely political standpoint were raised by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal, who said it's not the right time for the bill, while Urban Development Minister Kamal Nath questioned how the government will monitor so many sports federations.
The bill's headline lay in its attempt to increase the financial accountability of the BCCI, one of the richest sports organizations in the world. To enable that, the Sports Ministry wanted the Right to Information (RTI) Act to apply to the BCCI, allowing the public to request financial and other details of the cricket board.
On Tuesday morning, Mr Maken said he wanted the National Sports Development Bill 2011 to be introduced in Parliament during this current session which ends on September 8. That is no longer possible. "We need reforms in sports, which we hope the National Sports Bill will bring. I am hopeful that the Parliament will be unanimous on this Bill," he had said.
In addition to its firm stand on the BCCI, the bill wanted administrators of all sports bodies to be 70 or younger; it introduced a limit of two terms for all sports administrators. Features like these have met with stiff resistance in the past by sports federations who are often headed by politicians cutting across party lines. More than 50% of the country's cricket associations are led by politicians.
India has close to 40 sports federations like the Athletic Federation of India and All India Football Federation, as well as the Indian Olympic Association and the BCCI. While the BCCI is an autonomous body, the IOA is the body responsible for selecting athletes to represent India at the Olympic Games, Asian Games and other international athletic meets and for managing the Indian teams at the events.
The BCCI has objected in the past to regulation on the grounds that it is not funded by the government. However, various aspects of the T20 domestic IPL tournament, organised by the BCCI, are being investigated for violations of foreign exchange laws and for tax evasion. A parliamentary committee is also reviewing the IPL's books.
The need for better scrutiny of sports bodies was highlighted rather unsubtly by the graft-drenched Commonwealth Games, organized by a committee headed by Congress MP Suresh Kalmadi. He is now in jail, along with some key aides. Mr Kalmadi and others have been accused of signing up companies who provided the most expensive quotes for their services, rather than the cheapest ones. Massive kickbacks were allegedly involved.
The BCCI is vehemently opposed to the bill as it mandates bringing the rich sports body under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Sources said, at the Cabinet meeting, all the ministers who hold positions in sports bodies disclosed their interest in their respective federations but claimed that there was no personal conflict of interest as they were "elected".
Having said that they grouped together to reject the bill much to the dismay of those who have been seeking more accountability and transparency in sports bodies.
Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdulla, whose father is one such Central minister who also doubles as a sports administrator, tweeted, "Ministers heading sports bodies should have excused themselves from the Cabinet meeting." Soon after this tweet made it to headlines, he tweeted again. This time he said, "And on a different note the next time I plan to tweet on what central cabinet ministers do someone please tell me to shut up. :-)"(Read: Next time, tell me to shut up: Omar Tweet)
Former batting ace Sunil Gavaskar said, "It is upto the BCCI to take a call. I know that the BCCI does not take any money from the government, does not take any grants, so they are entitled to their opinion. But as I said, if you have nothing to hide then you should not be worried about the RTI."
And Kirti Azad, former cricketer and now a politician, said, "The bill that is coming is to regulate and not to control. Age and tenure is something that we could talk about. There's nothing wrong to be in the RTI and the best way to come out of controversy is to ensure that there is transparency. RTI is something which I don't think will be troubling anybody and they should accept it as soon as possible."
At yesterday's Cabinet review of the bill, at least five ministers had a conflict of interest because they head sports bodies. They include Vilasrao Deshmukh, Sharad Pawar, Praful Patel, Farooq Abdullah, and CP Joshi - though all claimed there was no personal conflict of interest.
Concerns voiced reportedly centred upon whether the bill would impinge too far upon the autonomy of sports bodies.
Sharad Pawar, a former president of the BCCI and the present International Cricket Council (ICC) chief admitted to the conflict of interest and questioned government interference. Infact, Mr Pawar reportedly threatened to take the matter up with UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, if the Cabinet approved the bill.
Virbhadra Singh objected to the 70-year-age limit of sports heads. Farooq Abdullah, who is also the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association chief, also objected to age limit for federation heads, and said, "By this yardstick, I shouldn't be a Cabinet Minister."
Union Minister of Rural Development and head of the Rajasthan Cricket Association, CP Joshi, questioned the election process for sports body heads.
Objections from a purely political standpoint were raised by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal, who said it's not the right time for the bill, while Urban Development Minister Kamal Nath questioned how the government will monitor so many sports federations.
The bill's headline lay in its attempt to increase the financial accountability of the BCCI, one of the richest sports organizations in the world. To enable that, the Sports Ministry wanted the Right to Information (RTI) Act to apply to the BCCI, allowing the public to request financial and other details of the cricket board.
On Tuesday morning, Mr Maken said he wanted the National Sports Development Bill 2011 to be introduced in Parliament during this current session which ends on September 8. That is no longer possible. "We need reforms in sports, which we hope the National Sports Bill will bring. I am hopeful that the Parliament will be unanimous on this Bill," he had said.
In addition to its firm stand on the BCCI, the bill wanted administrators of all sports bodies to be 70 or younger; it introduced a limit of two terms for all sports administrators. Features like these have met with stiff resistance in the past by sports federations who are often headed by politicians cutting across party lines. More than 50% of the country's cricket associations are led by politicians.
India has close to 40 sports federations like the Athletic Federation of India and All India Football Federation, as well as the Indian Olympic Association and the BCCI. While the BCCI is an autonomous body, the IOA is the body responsible for selecting athletes to represent India at the Olympic Games, Asian Games and other international athletic meets and for managing the Indian teams at the events.
The BCCI has objected in the past to regulation on the grounds that it is not funded by the government. However, various aspects of the T20 domestic IPL tournament, organised by the BCCI, are being investigated for violations of foreign exchange laws and for tax evasion. A parliamentary committee is also reviewing the IPL's books.
The need for better scrutiny of sports bodies was highlighted rather unsubtly by the graft-drenched Commonwealth Games, organized by a committee headed by Congress MP Suresh Kalmadi. He is now in jail, along with some key aides. Mr Kalmadi and others have been accused of signing up companies who provided the most expensive quotes for their services, rather than the cheapest ones. Massive kickbacks were allegedly involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment