Chetan Sharma Resigns, But Questions Remain

In the midst of chaos and cacophony that has been the Border Gavaskar Trophy thus far, it has been rather easy for the scandal involving Chetan Sharma to slip under the radar. His resignation might have made it easier to bury the chapter, but there are issues that must be addressed and then put to bed.

Team India could have looked back at February in one of two ways. On the one hand, they were only briefly stretched by Australia and saved first by their tail end batting in the first innings and then by the bowling heroics of their spinners of the second Test. On the other, they could have been put under tremendous pressure had it not been for Chetan Sharma making it rather easy on the Indian cricket fraternity in general by tendering his resignation within a week of the scandal involving his decision to open up the proverbial can of worms at the hands of an unsuspecting media outlet.

How ugly it could have gotten is not unimaginable, not in the world where allegations and insinuations about match fixing tend to wreck without a necessary bearing of facts. In that light, it is not only possible but also plausible that the resignation letter of the chief selector might have well been orchestrated behind the closed doors of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) through backdoor channels. What is also possible is that there might have been a quid pro quo involved for buying silence.

The BCCI could have found itself in an awkward situation had the comments made by Sharma about the board’s rift with certain players and captains, allegations of doping and use of masking agents and the all consuming power of the selectors were all put to the test via the necessity of setting up an impartial investigation into the matter as well as a disciplinary committee hearing into the matter to sort out the facts.

Not only would the impartiality of the BCCI been brought into the question because the allegations not only involve the egos of its top administrators but also, the allegations alluding to its complicity when it comes to the use of banned substances for purposes of passing fitness tests, or for hasty recovery from injuries.

There is another disturbing underbelly to this story, one that calls for introspection from a world that usually laps up any news in the name of sensationalism. Why is the sports journalism fraternity rather quiet on the subject? Is the focus on the Border Gavaskar trophy by deliberate design or purported for certain illicit gains and means?

It would not be the first time that the broadcasters and the commentators, or cricket journalists, have tended to stay on target of focus: a particular tournament and deliberately tuning out any controversy in the background. And it was clear it was made at the behest of the board.

While there is no denying a sense of bravado and embellishment of facts for attention on the part of Chetan Sharma, a respected former cricketer who has now put his own reputation in question. He, through his resignation, has taken on the onus on himself to bear facts as well as burn at the stake

The media, apart from reporting the initial scandal, albeit briefly, has chosen to remain largely silent on the subject, neither weighing in nor choosing to look further into the matter, if only to debunk the disconcerting allegations made by the chief selector.

Without the sports media getting involved, or collectively deciding that there is no merit to the matter, it has become all too easy for the BCCI to now sweep this open can of worms under the rug of the IPL, which it cannot be denied, has become centre focus even in the midst of the Test series that is the last of this high profile level before the ICC World Test championship.

At the very least, while nepotism and favouritism in the ranks cannot be factually proven, the issues of injury recovery, the use of banned substances and the complicity of the cricket board must be nipped in the bud, particularly where cricket’s participation in the Olympics is a perennial debate not only about the format in which it is contested but also, in terms of player cooperation when it comes to an umbrella body like the world anti doping agencies.

Had this story stayed in the limelight for even a week, it would have put focus on the BCCI since its practices vis-a-vis the players is also in question which could have only drawn more attention to the Indian cricket team and to certain players coming back from rehab particularly since the name of Jasprit Bumrah was mentioned.

How can an impartial committee be appointed and how can one expect implementations to be carried out with regard to reform when the Lodha Committee report following the IPL scandals of the past has been in limbo in several parts?

The silence from the rest of the cricket world to the usual penchant for sensationalising the subject, particularly when shaking down the powerful house of the BCCI, is deafening in this instance. What does this say? Don't ruffle the feathers of the golden goose that runs the IPL, particularly this close to the IPL? And does silence also mean complicity in the matter or at the very least, awareness which would still make one an accomplice?

This is not a matter to be taken lightly and it would seem that India have successfully avoided a scandal in the public eye by not necessarily nipping the problem in the bud but silencing the problematic voice for starters.

How does the ICC not get involved after what has been a rather public disclosure by a chief selector of a powerful cricket team? What does that say about the sports governing body and does it then legitimise the notion that the ICC is merely a proxy for the BCCI as envisioned by N. Srinivasan when the idea of the ‘Big 3’ was conceived along with a new post rather poignantly?

Was there another agenda to Chetan Sharma, a former celebrated cricketer in his own right and someone not new to the game of cricket administration, besides just garnering attention/importance for himself? Were those statements made, factually or otherwise, to hurt someone or to settle a revenge score which has dragged some cricketers unwittingly into the matter?

Is it possible that Chetan Sharma was partially aware of the consequences of his speaking in the manner he did and did he know his eventual fate? Or was he as naïve as it has been suggested, in making statements about the unfettered power of the selection panel?

Even without a look into the matter or a shred of evidence presented, it has only instigated loud, thought provoking whispers. That it could be tempered only because the focus has been so much on India’s winning performances in a high profile Test series against Australia is both, focus in the right area but also, a disturbing trend of sweeping everything under the rug.

If it was all hot air, why does not the BCCI, which is responsible for the players, come out and clear their name while speaking to the precedent of establishing strict punitive measures for baseless allegations made? By choosing not to address the problem, assuming it will die a natural death, they have left the unsaid hanging in the air, which history has shown, can come back to bite them at a more inappropriate time.

Why not simply lay the facts and put the matter to bed? Despite the emphasis on transparency in the post Lodha reform era, transparency has not been BCCI’s strong suit.

Corollary questions cannot help but ensue from the manner in which this issue could have gotten more attention and possibly spelt more hot water for Chetan Sharma on whom the burden of proving the facts have rested. By trying to put the matter to bed without clearing the facts or coming out with an assertive statement from the cricket board, it does little to clear the unsuspecting Indian cricketers from the blemish now pinned on them and leaving a lot of unanswered questions at the doorstep of the BCCI.