FROM THE STANDS
S R Khelkoodkar
As predicted, the BCCI vs. Jagmohan Dalmiya controversy has made it to the news again. This time, the reason is the withholding of payments to the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) by the BCCI. As reported by the Asian Age, the BCCI `decided to withhold all its subsidies and payments to the Cricket Association of Bengal for failing to furnish details of the amount transferred to its account from the Bhawanipur branch of the Indian Overseas Bank in Kolkata by its president Jagmohan Dalmiya from 1995 to 2006.`
If you will recall, the BCCI had decided to conduct an inquiry into various money-related matters dating back to when Mr Dalmiya was president. Apparently the CAB didn`t produce the documents asked of them in time.
Says the Asian Age, BCCI secretary ` [Niranjan] Shah, in his letter to the CAB, said that its representative, Mr Chitrak Mitra, who was present at the working committee meeting of the board held in Mumbai on April 9, 2006, had assured the house that all details of the amounts transferred to CAB from the IOB account would be furnished to the board within seven days, but had not kept his word despite repeated notices and the board`s best efforts. Mr Shah said the BCCI has no option but to endorse the finance committee`s decision to withhold all subsidies to the CAB and debit the unexplained amount of Rs 40 crores against the state association.`
The Asian Age, for better or worse, leaves it at that. But you can trust the Telegraph to take the issue further. According to an article, Mr Dalmiya is being cagey. "Let the CAB first receive and go through the letter. Then it will react appropriately," he is supposed to have said. The Telegraph, never shy of mischief-making, has also quoted the city police commissioner apparently taking pot shots at the CAB. "If the BCCI has indeed taken such a decision, then it`s rather unfortunate. It only shows where the CAB administration has come to.`
The Telegraph gets to the heart of the issue though. `No one, however, can miss the fact that this comes only three days before the emergent meeting of CAB affiliates, called by Dalmiya, to ascertain what kind of support he can expect. Obviously, the move is meant to put more pressure on Dalmiya.`
The Telegraph has also run a rather strange article on the Ireland cricket team. Essentially it is a breakdown of the team by profession. That is to say, it explains what the Irish cricketers do when they`re not playing cricket. For your edification, `the Ireland XI which faced England [Ireland`s first real match] included a civil servant and a deliveryman; electricians and schoolteachers. Even somebody unemployed.` Who would have known?
The Hindustan Times this week has preferred to cling to conventional subjects. One article analyses West Indies cricket captain Brian Lara`s post-match press conference. Basic question: why did Lara not enforce the follow-on, deciding instead to bat again? Said Lara: "Our bowlers were tired and we were one bowler short after picking just three specialists. So I thought if India took some sort of a lead, then batting against Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh might not be easy in the last innings."
According to the Hindustan Times, though, this was a `bewildering statement.` What lead, they ask, was he talking about? `Did Lara mean that he was afraid that India would erase the deficit, build a sufficient lead and then exert pressure on the West Indies in the given number of overs?`
But here`s where things get tricky. Says the article: `There were whispers -- these things can`t be screamed out -- that Lara was so unhappy with the selection of bowlers that he tried to prove his point by not showing any faith in them. He had actually gone on record before this Test that his thoughts didn`t match with that of the selectors.`
And then there`s a neat little contradiction. `Yet, it`s still premature and imprudent to interpret Lara`s statement as a hint of his confrontation with the selectors or his utter disregard for the bowlers.
`So one has no choice but to go by what his official explanation was and that was as startling as his decision to allow India even an unrealistic chance to win a Test his team dominated. Not many can be amused by the sheer logic of what he said, but the Indians wouldn`t mind.`