Olympic muddle

Published : Jan 11, 2013 00:00 IST

Poor administration of sports bodies and government interference in the form of guidelines have led to the International Olympic Committee suspending India for violating the Olympic Charter.

in New Delhi

SEVERAL warnings went unheeded for over two years before the International Olympic Committee (IOC) suspended India for violating the Olympic Charter. It was not an unexpected development when the IOC announced the decision on December 4, but the aggressiveness with which the Olympic body went after the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) surprised many observers.

Was the IOC right in suspending the largest democracy in the world? Has the IOC been intolerant to this extent towards government interference in the functioning of autonomous sports bodies elsewhere in the world? Or was it just its way of telling the IOA and the Government of India that it had waited long enough for these warring parties to reach a settlement and was left with no other option?

Did the IOAs defiant stand precipitate this crisis? Or was it the role played by the IOC member in India, Randhir Singh, as his detractors claim, that eventually brought about this rather awkward sanction that has raised doubts in the minds of Indian athletes about their future? After all, the IOC did not resort to suspension when the Charter was violated for years in India (see box).

Randhir Singhs huge influence as an IOC member and Secretary General of the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA), apart from his stature as a six-time Olympian trap shooter, helped him gain the IOCs support in his fight against the group headed by Abhay Chautala and Lalit Bhanot and backed by the former IOA president Suresh Kalmadi, two years ago. If Randhir Singh could get the IOC to flex its muscle then in support of the IOA against government interference, this time he has swung the vote against India in the battle against the IOA, of which he is the Secretary General.

Opinions differ across the spectrum of sports administration and sportspersons in the country. While the two factions defended their actions, athletes lamented that they may eventually be sacrificed or else may have to compete in the Olympic Games (2016) and the Asian Games (2014) under the Olympic flag, which could be rather embarrassing and upsetting for them. Neither the IOC nor the government would, however, push this issue beyond a point that might jeopardise the athletes careers. And these games are too far away in any case to be of immediate concern.

The central issue in the row is the IOA elections. The IOC wanted the elections to be put off, on the argument that they were being held under the National Sports Code, on the orders of the Delhi High Court, in violation of the IOA constitution and the Olympic Charter. Nothing in the IOA constitution was violated in the end, nor did the Sports Code prevent anyones candidature, factors that exposed the IOCs stand and made one doubt its neutral position in the power struggle. Government interference is taboo in the IOC domain. The IOA and the National Sports Federations (NSFs) are free to pick and choose their options. And more than 40 federations, including at least 23 Olympic sports-controlling federations, have at least agreed in principle to follow the National Sports Code. But when they come to IOA meeting, however, the very same federation representatives make a noise about autonomy being eroded.

Officials of the IOA, however, say that the NSFs are being forced to fall in line since they are dependent on government funding for practically everything, from running coaching camps to utilising training facilities, hiring foreign coaches, importing equipment and providing exposure to athletes at international competitions, among various other aspects.

Principles of good governance, under applicable laws, supported by the IOC and espoused by the Olympic Congress in 2009, demand that federations bring in reforms, change their style of functioning, make transparent rules for elections and allow more representation to athletes.

The IOC wants changes in the constitution to be brought in voluntarily; the government is agreeable provided the sports bodies stick to their promises. The IOA made several somersaults after reaching a consensus on certain fundamental changes at a meeting in Lausanne among Ministry, IOC and IOA representatives in June 2010. It amended its constitution to deprive State Olympic associations of their voting rights and restored these rights to them later under pressure. It has refused to amend the tenure and age-bar rules as required by the government guidelines and argues that it derives its strength from the recognitionnow suspended granted to it by the IOC, and the NSFs too owe their standing to the recognition given by the international federations.

In short, the sports bodies do not need recognition from the government. But then, that argument will not work beyond the meeting rooms or press conferences. Some of the federations have already experienced the de-recognition heat, swimming and badminton in particular; some others are experiencing it now.

They [the sports federations] demand perpetual continuity and control, says M.S. Gill, former Union Sports Minister. It was Gill who dusted the 2001 government guidelines for national federations, amended them and started enforcing them from May 2010.

They were in cold storage for some time after the then Sports Minister, Uma Bharti, reportedly kept them in abeyance from August 2001, assuring the IOA that the set circulated was only draft guidelines and its voice would be heard before finalising the guidelines.

Justice Gita Mittal of the Delhi High Court refused to accept this plea from the Sports Ministry to explain its inability to take action against the Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) for violating the tenure guidelines in having President K.P.S. Gill and Secretary K. Jothikumaran continue beyond the two terms prescribed.

The landmark judgment in March 2009 in the Narinder Batra vs Union of India case brought alive the government guidelines, first framed in 1975, during the Emergency, and subsequently amended and expanded through 1988, 1997 and 2001. Batra, currently secretary, Hockey India, is among the officials questioning the logic and legal sanctity of the IOC sanction; he had filed a writ petition in February 2005, challenging the governments inaction in implementing the tenure guidelines.

The tenure guidelines had remained the same from 1975 to 2010. Initially the IOA and the NSFs had adopted them, but under the stewardship of V.C. Shukla, the IOA threw them out and encouraged the federations to do the same. The 1975 format prescribed two terms of four years each for all principal office-bearers of an NSF, with a comeback possible after a cooling off period of four years. But M.S. Gill amended them. Soon after I took over [as Sports Minister] I was confronted by an angry High Court on this matter, Gill told Frontline.

With his administrative background and sports knowledge, plus his experience as the Chief Election Commissioner, Gill not only brought in changes in the basic guidelines but also formulated model election rules.Dont call it guidelines; it was an order, said Gill. I told them to have a retired High Court judge as the returning officer, have electoral rolls well in advance, and adopt secret ballot. That is the essence of democratic elections, he said. For the first time, Gill brought in an age bar of 70, extended the tenure of the president of a federation from a maximum of eight years to 12 years, and retained the 1975 clause for secretary and treasurer to two terms of four years each.

I borrowed the rules from the Olympic Charter, Gill said of the 70-year cap plus the 12 and eight years given to the office-bearers. The Charter has the same rules for the IOC too.

The present impasse has been caused by a combination of factors and circumstancesthe long-standing dispute about tenure guidelines, the eagerness of the government to exercise more and more control over autonomous bodies, the frustration of athletes at being governed by an age-old, corrupt system that refuses to improve, and the obduracy of the IOC, coupled with the role played by its member Randhir Singh.

The IOC and Randhir Singh might well say in the end that they just needed reforms to kick in and they achieved precisely that. For, it is now more or less certain that the IOA would be forced to hold re-elections since the IOC has declared the elections null and void.

It is a winless situation for the apex Olympic body in the country, but many believe the opportunity should not be lost in giving sports administration the much-needed image makeover.

They cannot defy the IOC, and they cannot defy the government, said Gill. They will come on board.

The government has started cracking the whip more damagingly than in the past, mainly because of court directives. The man who triggered an upheaval of sorts is Rahul Mehra, a lawyer-activist whose writ petitions in the Delhi High Court have plugged any escape route that the NSFs might have been looking for.

In every case that had been brought up before the court by Mehra on elections to the NSFs or the IOA or related clauses in the constitutions of these bodies, the court has directed that elections should be held as per the constitution and bye-laws of the federation concerned as well as the Sports Code of the Government of India.

Then there is the presence of Clean Sports India (CSI), an NGO, and its campaign to cleanse sports administration. Founded by B.V.P. Rao, a former IAS officer and equestrian competitor, CSI today functions as a watchdog over unethical and monopolistic practices in the NSFs.

Our main agenda is to create an environment wherein a former sportsperson with managerial acumen and interest can come forward and contest for various positions in federations. We are at the moment creating awareness among former sportspersons on the one hand and exposing the bad governance of the current sports administrations on the other, said Rao, who is the convener of CSI. He recently lost the Archery Association election to the octogenarian Vijay Kumar Malhotra, whom the IOC still considers as the acting president of the IOA.

The court intervention has put the IOA and the NSFs in a bind. The Archery Association has been derecognised by the government. The recognition granted to the Indian Amateur Boxing Federation (IABF) has been suspended by the Ministry, which has also directed that elections to the post of principal office-bearers in the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) be held afresh. All these orders have come about because of violations of guidelines. The IABF was dealt a double blow when the international federation also suspended it because of potential irregularities in its elections in September.

The guidelines are now part of the broader National Sports Development Code of India 2011, a set of government orders, circulars and notifications compiled to bring the NSFs under stricter scrutiny. The then Sports Minister, Ajay Maken, who relentlessly pursued the path Gill had shown, even tried to bring forward a National Sports Development Bill. But the draft was put on the back burner when it failed to muster support in the Cabinet. The opposition to bring the Board of Control for Cricket in India under government regulations, especially the Right to Information (RTI) Act, mainly contributed to the failure of the draft Bill to go beyond just a single meeting of the Cabinet.

The IOC and the IOA may well have reservations about a few more provisions in the Sports Code, especially those relating to the right of the IOA (and the NSFs) to select and field teams representing India in international competitions or to use the word India in its name. The government can withhold this right in case of a breach of the code, though the point is still debatable and open to legal challenge.

Malhotra says the code has no legal sanctity, though government officers say executive decisions, unless thrown out by the courts, are enforceable through administrative orders. Justice Gita Mittal ruled in the Batra case that the guidelines were valid and enforceable. Subsequent High Court decisions have concurred with this view.

In case the IOA or any federation goes to the Supreme Court and the latter upholds the rulings of the High Court, there is the possibility of the guidelines being considered as law until an Act of Parliament is brought forward. In that case, the government will have practically all provisions proposed in the draft Sports Bill in operation except the 25 per cent representation to sportspersons in sports bodies.

The lack of a policy to provide such representation has for long exposed the NSFs to criticism, though on the last count by the government in November 2010, the federations controlling the following sports did have a number of athletes in management positions: athletics (20), badminton (37), wrestling (18), shooting (19), gymnastics (28), judo (30), squash (14), tennis (15), table tennis (12), volleyball (11) and yachting (15).

Several federations, notably in athletics and wrestling, have sportspersons in key positions though public perception is about professional administrators hanging on for their personal benefits and to the detriment of sports. Those who have played long innings like Malhotra in archery for four decades, Randhir Singh for 20 years, Bhanot (in AFI) for 26 years, and several others have given the impression that administrators are reluctant to move on.

The issue is debatable when achievements in certain sports are assessed against the backdrop of long-serving sports administrators. The popular belief that those who have stuck to their chairs for decades have ruined their respective sport is not always correct.

If ethical issues have dealt blows to an already-tarnished image of Indian sports administration following the last Commonwealth Games, infighting in the IOA has brought things to a terrible pass. Barring Bhanot, who was elected unopposed as Secretary General along with Abhay Chautala (President) and whose candidature could again come into question because of the recommendation of the IOC Ethics Commission, the Chautala group is expected to sweep the polls again as and when they are held.

For the polls to happen again, however, several other things have to fall in place, most importantly amendments to the IOA constitution.

The final T will be crossed now, said Gill. He quoted Lord Tennyson to drive home the point that change has to come sooner than later:

The old order changeth yielding place to new And God fulfills himself in many ways Lest one good custom should corrupt the world

Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment