On the ghats of Banaras, most inhabitants have a philosophical, self-abnegating attitude towards life, barring two indulgences: chillum and cricket. Both are dopes, neither less important than the other. Not a speck of jingoism creeps into the way they discuss cricket. A section puts Ponting and Tendulkar on the same page, another trusts more in the match-winning abilities of the former. The ghats are not an exception. Cricket here is as much a matter of faith as it is in the streets of Hyderabad or the lanes of Old Delhi. And like in all faiths, there are times — as the present one — of doubts and soul-searching. Especially once the gods fail. 
    
Smarting under a seven-test washout abroad including three on a trot Down Under, a nation mad about cricket is searching for answers. There are arguments in the streets. Seniors are ageing (Laxman is suddenly very, very slack and the Wall now has a hole). The advantage of bouncy pitches curiously excludes the Indian pace attack and the deceptive kookaburra seam deceives only the Indian middle-order. There is a sense of loss, shame and a million theories.

One such theory involves the self-governed board of control for cricket in India (BCCI), which in the last few years has emerged as the epitome of opaqueness. Questions and the buck usually fall against the toughened glass panes behind which the BCCI officials work. “The national governing body for all cricket in India”, registered as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, is described as a “private club consortium”, whatever that does mean. The RTI Act does not apply to BCCI “because it does not take grants from the government”. The board, which earns about a thousand crore rupees a year from the Indian Premier League alone, is also not required to make its balance sheet public. But think about the fans who invest so much of time and emotion in the game. Won’t that be fair that they know what goes on behind the scenes?

The board uses government stadiums all over the country at nominal costs — in the name of promoting cricket. Income tax exemptions were granted to BCCI in the past — for promoting cricket, which is considered a charitable activity. However, of late, the board has only promoted private companies, a few players and of course its own interests. I-T exemption was withdrawn from BCCI in 2008 when the central board of direct taxes, under the finance ministry, said the sports body was engaged in commercial activity by organising IPL Twenty20 matches and selling advertisement space and broadcasting rights and making profit. Moreover, in a country like India, you really think cricket, and not hockey, needs to be promoted?

There are other causes of concern. Those in the board also own IPL teams and should be examined for conflict of interests. The board also owes explanation to a country of fans for its decisions regarding selection of players and skipper. The Australian media gives the credit of its team’s recent all-out win against India to the Argus Review, the implementation of which saw sweeping changes at all levels in the country’s cricket 12 months ago. Many in India, including Sunil Gavaskar, believe a complete re-structuring is the need of the hour here also. While that might be too much to ask for, BCCI can surely be more open and accountable to the country’s millions of fans.

And when a radio set with a bad frequency announces that BCCI chief N Srinivasan has defended India’s poor performance in Australia, citing home advantage to the host team, even those high on chillums on the Varanasi ghats brush it off as “bullshit”. The Oz media said the same thing about his statement a day later.