Remove individual sports bodies!

Moving to the second topic, I came across this article recently. I had earlier talked here and here about BCCI and other sports. Let us get a few things straight:
1. In my opinion any organization which claims to do anything representative of the nation has to be open to public scrutiny irrespective of the source of its funds.
2. Cricket is the richest sport and BCCI - India's richest sports body - claims to select an Indian cricket team.
3. There is a sports ministry which is responsible for sports overall.
4. Various key positions in sports organizations today are manned by politicians.

In such a scenario I propose that there be modifications made to the overall structure.
1. There will be a sports minister and ministry above all.
2. Let there be IAS officers in-charge of the day-to-day administration of individual sports. These should be assisted in an advisory role by a respected sports player.
3. However for selection only experienced sportsperson should be present. Further they should also play a clear and prominent role to decide the training needs of the sportspersons.
4. There should not be any individual purses for the various sports bodies. Let there be a common pool for all funds. This might sound unjustified to some. Why should the funds obtained through sponsorship rights of say a cricket match be used for tennis? Well, I pay tax to the government. Do I have the right to claim that the government provide solely for my needs only? Is it justified (I am pretty sure Ayn Rand is turning in her grave)? However sportspersons represent the nation on the global stage. It is the government's responsibility to ensure they are properly trained. Let us not participate for participation's sake.
5. The news article mentioned above talks about funds being given to sports bodies run by PT Usha et al. This is a great idea. These are people who have won laurels for the country and themselves. Let there be all possible help for them.
6. However in all cases there should be accountability. This is zero today. Suresh Kalmadi was never penalized during his entire tenure as head of India's Olympics Committee for our dismal performance year-after-year.
7. We cannot avoid politicians in India. Let them be the overall bosses only if required. Please let our boards not be populated by them unnecessarily.

What right do the likes of Sharad Pawar, Arun Jaitley and Rajeev Shukla claim to be on the boards of cricket bodies? Today there is money in cricket. We find politicians in profusion there. Tomorrow if there is money elsewhere we will find them there.

I will tell Mommy!

Ajay Maken, our Sports Minister had a good thought. A lot of sports bodies receive crores of rupees, so why not get them under greater public scrutiny? Even though the BCCI does not receive government funding directly, it deals with hundreds of crores and as reported on the NDTV website, it is under investigation for foreign exchange violations during the IPL. The BCCI is a private organization but claims to select India's "national" cricket team. So it makes perfect sense to bring it under public scrutiny. Further logically speaking if there are no skeletons to hide the organization then there should ideally be no panic reaction to Maken's proposal.

Did the cabinet agree to this proposal? Well, there are no prizes for guessing the answer. Farooq Abdullah among others opposed an upper age limit clause. He said by that yardstick he should not have been a cabinet minister too (hmm, is that such a bad idea?). If the esteemed minister uses his good judgement it would be perfectly obvious that for a minister's post age can actually be advantageous because of the experience carried with it. For sports on the other hand, I do not think most would agree that the younger the administrator and the more related to that sport the administrator is the better it is.

Another clause seeks to restricts terms to 2. For as long as I remember, Kalmadi has been the head of the IOA. See where he is today (and where for that matter our Olympic performance is). Apparently a very significant portion of sports bodies are headed by politicians. This is not restricted to any one party, but is common across the political spectrum.

Thus in my humble opinion it makes perfect sense to have some government oversight on our sports bodies and to bring all of them under the RTI. However if members of the cabinet already hold positions on sports bodies does it make sense to expect the cabinet to come to an impartial and objective conclusion? Sharad Pawar, our Agriculture Minister actually asked the Prime Minister to reduce his work load so that he could spend more time on cricket! Is it any wonder that food inflation is so high and Indian agriculture is said to have stagnated in its growth? Now coming to the title. Sharad Pawar is reported to have said in the cabinet discussion that if the bill was approved by the cabinet he would take up the issue with Sonia Gandhi, the chairperson of the UPA. Keeping aside the practicality of this when she is supposed to be recovering from surgery, doesn't this sound childish? It is like two kids fighting, one kids hits the other, and the hurt kid bawls, "I am going to tell mummy!"

Dear people, this is the Indian government!

Food for thought

There is a food crisis facing the world today and the world bank has warned that 100 million(more than 4 Australias) people can be forced into extreme poverty. There have already been food riots in Egypt and the Philippines and a viewer poll on NDTV's 60 Minutes said that these are possible in India also. West Bengal has already seen PDS shop owners being attacked after being accused of hoarding.

What has the government done? It has banned the export of certain items like rice and pulses. The PM has sent out a request to states to check hoarding. What is the agricultural minister doing? He is probably trying to ensure that the upcoming IPL series will receive sufficient media coverage (the media has been threatening to boycott the event due to some restrictive clauses put forward by the BCCI)!! Before the economic reforms of the early 90s India had what is referred to as the 'Hindu growth rate'. Fortunately the same cannot be said to be the case today. But agriculture still is languishing. Farmers are committing suicide on one hand and on the other hand, consumers are complaining of increasing prices. Today agriculture employs more than half of India's workforce while producing less than 20% of the GDP. Steps need to be taken to ensure that the productivity is commensurate with the employment figures. This does not mean indiscriminate use of fertilizers and the likes, which bring their own set of problems. Instead there should be better irrigation facilities, consolidation of small holdings, very importantly, better farmer education etc. When will these materialize?

Some might suggest that privatization is the key. But we have to remember one thing. The main objective of a business organization is profit. As Milton Friedman said, "The business of business is business". Hence it is only normal to assume that private businesses will have an eye on more 'valuable' crops. Whatever they do in their five (or fewer) years in power, governments lose no opportunity to tomtom their 'achievements'. It would be a welcome change if a government actually did something and left the judgment to the masses. This is the land of Annapurna. I wonder how she would feel if the nation which was once the world's most prosperous were to descend into rioting for food!