There can be no doubt, discussion or debate that the only reason Jay Shah is set to become the next boss of the International Cricket Council is because his father is the junior partner in the old, faltering ruling firm of Shahenshah and Shah.
Finally, the beginning of the end is here.
At first glance, the “election” of Jay Shah as the next chairman of the International Cricket Council seems like a mere reaffirmation of the old, old principle of nepotismin every single area of our national life. And, since we are prone to celebrate every minucule milestone, let us note with pride that Jay Shah, who is only 35 years old, will be the youngest chairman of the controlling body of the international cricket. After all, cricket is one of the few arenas of contest where India tends to perform well, and, therefore, it is only befitting that an Indian should, once again, be heading the international regulator. Thus, when on December 1, 2024 Jay Shahformally takes over the ICC position, India will get confirmed as an authentic vishwaguru. A truly great achievement to mark the beginning of the Amrit Kaal.
Admittedly, there can be no doubt, no discussion or debate that the only reason Jay Shah is set to become the next boss of the ICC is because his father is the junior partner in the old, faltering ruling firm of Shahenshah and Shah. True, Jay Shah happens to be the current secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and is deemed to be the boss of Indian cricket. But, again, he is in that influential position only because of the power and influence of his father – a quintessential political boss, and someone to be feared by friends and foes alike.
It has been pointed out that Jay Shah has had no achievement or experience that would qualify or prepare him for a global role. Not much is known of his educational qualifications nor of any substantive assignment in public or private sectors; his one and only asset seems to be his father’s name and position. This is that familiar pre-Naya Bharat family name working its magic in mysterious ways.
Fifty years ago, our politics got intractably roiled when “the system” contrived to ensure that a prime minister’s son would venture to set up a plant to manufacture a small car. Sanjay Gandhi got recognised as the embodiment of a creeping nepotism, just as opposition to him and his entrepreneurship was deemed as a minimum obligation to our own sense of public morality. The ‘Sanjay Gandhi phenomenon’ became a black mark in the purists’ book.
Once again, however, a new, clean, corruption-free “system” has contrived to ensure the elevation of a son. Though there is no evidence that the father has played any role whatsoever in promoting his son, that seamlessness is precisely what “the system” is meant to ensure. The truly powerful rarely allow themselves to get entangled in advancing a child’s ambitions; there are enough eager-beavers among the darbaris to “do the needful”. What is remarkable is the near absence of any sense of public dismay or disapproval at such a naked demonstration of nepotism.
Yet the question that needs to be raised about the Jay Shah affair is this: Why have the managers and the minders and the drum-beaters of “Naya Bharat” lost their voice and their capacity for moral outrage?After all, their New India was supposed to be a better, more virtuous proposition than the old. Jay Shah, admittedly, is not the solitary case of unseemliness. From the Securities and Exchange Board of India down, every area of regulation and governmental discretion in these last ten years has witnessed a return of all the old corrupt and corrupting practices and protocols – albeitwith new justifications and with in-your-face brazenness, with the Great Demagogue providing protection.
In many ways, this regression represents a familiar syndrome. All ‘revolutions’ become routinised; all revolutionary leaders fall prey to the darbari syndrome or lock themselves in their bunkers. Each ‘revolution’ develops its own vested interests, creates its own expedient standards, incites its own slate of opponents, and, eventually sows the seeds of its own destruction.The Jay Shah business is yet another reminder that the so-called ‘Modi Revolution’ has run its course.
And, it would not be a misplaced assumption to suggest that perhaps the Modi establishment too realises this unpalatable reality. A sense of tiredness and spiritual exhaustion prevails atop Raisina Hill. Too many crooks and too many conmen crowd the corridors of power. There is no desire to chase idealism and ideology. The BJP of the Narendra Modi era is as imperfect an instrument of power and pelf as the Congress party ever was; even those supposedly uncontaminated pracharaks headquartered in Nagpur have discovered the benefits of expediency and other vices. The prime minister himself has no moral capital left to inspire an increasingly critical polity. Of course, the voters at large have already called his bluff. The Indian masses saw through the sleight of hand that was bunched as the promise of ‘Modi’s Guarantees’.
The Jay Shah Project needs to be talked about because it points to the crisis of governability in the making: the political regime has run out of steam but it remains subject to furious manipulation and machinations by vested interests, who insist on getting returns on their investments. On the other hand, the deprivations and demands of the masses will make them raise questions about how national resources are distributed and allocated. Unhappy days lie ahead for the republic.
The court’s chief prosecutor has also sought arrest warrants against Israeli defence minister Yaov Gallant and Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri (Deif) and Ismail Haniyeh.
New Delhi: The International Criminal Court has sought an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Arrest warrants have also been sought for Israeli defence minister Yaov Gallant and three Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri (Deif) and Ismail Haniyeh.
The court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, has released a statement detailing the charges against these leaders, and said that his office has collected evidence in support.
War crimes by Netanyahu and Gallant
The statement says:
“On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).”
“We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day,” Khan’s statement continues.
Khan continues that Israel has made it a point to “intentionally and systematically” deprive civilians in Gaza “of objects indispensable to human survival”:
“This occurred through the imposition of a total siege over Gaza that involved completely closing the three border crossing points, Rafah, Kerem Shalom and Erez, from 8 October 2023 for extended periods and then by arbitrarily restricting the transfer of essential supplies – including food and medicine – through the border crossings after they were reopened. The siege also included cutting off cross-border water pipelines from Israel to Gaza – Gazans’ principal source of clean water – for a prolonged period beginning 9 October 2023, and cutting off and hindering electricity supplies from at least 8 October 2023 until today. This took place alongside other attacks on civilians, including those queuing for food; obstruction of aid delivery by humanitarian agencies; and attacks on and killing of aid workers, which forced many agencies to cease or limit their operations in Gaza.”
Israel, according to Khan, had created a plan to “use starvation as a method of war”. As a result, “Famine is present in some areas of Gaza and is imminent in other areas.”
Before resorting to this action, Khan said, he has made repeated efforts to demand “that Israel take urgent action to immediately allow access to humanitarian aid in Gaza at scale”. “As I also repeatedly underlined in my public statements, those who do not comply with the law should not complain later when my Office takes action. That day has come,” he said.
War crimes by Hamas leaders
On the charges against the Hamas leaders, Khan has said:
“On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Yahya SINWAR (Head of the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”) in the Gaza Strip), Mohammed Diab Ibrahim AL-MASRI, more commonly known as DEIF (Commander-in-Chief of the military wing of Hamas, known as the Al-Qassam Brigades), and Ismail HANIYEH (Head of Hamas Political Bureau) bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of Israel and the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 7 October 2023:
Extermination as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(b) of the Rome Statute;
Murder as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(a), and as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Taking hostages as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(iii);
Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity;
Torture as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(f), and also as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity;
Other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(l)(k), in the context of captivity;
Cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; and
Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity.”
These three, he says, are criminally responsible for the killing of hundreds of Israeli civilians in attacks perpetrated by Hamas (in particular its military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades) and other armed groups on 7 October 2023 and the taking of at least 245 hostages.
“It is the view of my Office that these individuals planned and instigated the commission of crimes on 7 October 2023, and have through their own actions, including personal visits to hostages shortly after their kidnapping, acknowledged their responsibility for those crimes,” Khan has stated.
What next?
In the decision to seek arrest warrants and prepare materials, Khan said, he took advice from a panel of experts in international law, all of whom stood by this call.
A panel of ICC judges will now consider Khan’s application for the arrest warrants. “The independent judges of the International Criminal Court are the sole arbiters as to whether the necessary standard for the issuance of warrants of arrest has been met. Should they grant my applications and issue the requested warrants, I will then work closely with the Registrar in all efforts to apprehend the named individuals. I count on all States Parties to the Rome Statute to take these applications and the subsequent judicial decision with the same seriousness they have shown in other Situations, meeting their obligations under the Statute. I also stand ready to work with non-States Parties in our common pursuit of accountability,” Khan has said.
After Hamas’s October 7, 2023 terror attack, Israel initiated a military operation in Gaza. There were 1,200 people killed and 252 people taken hostage by Hamas on October 7. Since then, more than 35,090 individuals, mostly women and children, have been killed in Israel’s military operation in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ignored all calls for a ceasefire.
South Africa has filed a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. In its interim order in January, the court had told Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention. There was no abatement in Israel’s actions, and in March the ICJ issued fresh orders saying that Israel shall take “all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full cooperation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to Palestinians throughout Gaza”.
It is no surprise then that for the ICC, peace and brotherhood is too much to ask for. That’s not cricket. Neither is it humanity.
“What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?”
That immortal sentence from C.L.R. James should be the guiding motto of the International Cricket Council, but it seems farthest from their thoughts in recent years. The latest sign is the case of Australian batter Usman Khawaja who was barred from wearing the words, “freedom is a human right” and “all lives are equal” on his shoes during the first Test in Perth.
Thank you to all those who supported and gave me love this week. It wasn’t unnoticed 💕. Nothing worthwhile is easy. History shows we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of our past. But together we can fight for a better future. 🙏🏾 #freedomisahumanright#alllivesareequalpic.twitter.com/HAhbebDbCT
The 37-year-old had also copped a reprimand for having sported a black armband on Day 2 of the Test match against Pakistan at Perth Stadium last week.
Now, the ICC has gone further and rejected his application to spread his message of peace by sporting a dove with an olive branch on his shoe during the Boxing Day test.
It is a reference to Article One of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that reads, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
Khawaja, who has been vocal about his beliefs, has the support of his cricket board, his captain Pat Cummins and teammates. “We really support Uzzy (Khawaja). I think he’s standing up for what he believes, and I think he’s doing it really respectfully,” Cummins said.
Asked at a presser, Cummins argued that there is no difference between Usman Khawaja displaying a dove logo on his shoe and bat to raise awareness of humanitarian issues and teammate Marnus Labuschagne displaying an eagle on his bat which signifies a personal religious message. Labuschagne displays the symbol of an eagle on the back of his bats which represents a verse from the bible and has long been allowed to have the sticker on his bat in international cricket.
Almost every player in the Australian team, including Khawaja, also have multiple advertising stickers on their bats that represent different companies including their bat/equipment sponsor and a secondary personal sponsor.
A religious cause is acceptable, commercial gain is welcomed but a message for peace and humanity is not. The message is about Gaza where Israeli military action has killed more than 20,000 Palestinians, including 8,000 children. Khwaja is not wearing a Palestinian symbol or an Islamic motif. He is reminding the world of what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted after the horrors of the Holocaust, states.
The hypocrisy of those who constantly shouted, “Never again” and pledged to uphold the “rules-based global order” is laid bare by this simple gesture by Khwaja. It is way short of what was done to Russian athletes after Putin invaded Ukraine; or when the Indian cricket team wore camouflage pattern caps in support of the Indian Army.
That the ICC should feel uncomfortable with Khwaja’s request is hard to comprehend. Cricket is a game mainly played by countries of the Global South, barring England, Australia and New Zealand, where the Palestinian cause has overwhelming support. South Africa and Ireland have been at the forefront of those speaking against the horrors being inflicted upon the Palestinians in Gaza. India is the outlier here – Modi has embraced the US position rather closely and supported his friend Bibi Netanyahu.
Now, he is sending Indian workers to replace the Palestinian labour working in the construction sector in Israel. His supporters remain in thrall of an Islamophobic narrative, which is reinforced by the Israeli state narrative about Gaza.
Modi’s party is a staunch supporter of Israel and avoids asking for peace and justice for Palestinians in occupied areas. It controls the BCCI, which seems to be the spiritual and material boss of the ICC. Is that the reason Khawaja’s request has been denied by the ICC? What else could be the reason? Meanwhile, here in India, forget current or former cricketers, even sports journalists are unwilling to underline the Khawaja episode lest it forces people to wonder why Indian cricket superstars are such cowards – and are subjugated into submission by those who now have parasitic control over Indian cricket.
It is no surprise then that for the ICC, peace and brotherhood is too much to ask for. That’s not cricket. Neither is it humanity.
Sushant Singh is Senior Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.
This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.
Supporters of Israel in the US and Western Europe have done everything they can to shut down or criminalise nonviolent action by Palestinians and their supporters, from international legal cases to the BDS movement.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz offered a devastating judgement on the country’s leader after the biggest crisis in living memory erupted last Saturday:
The disaster that befell Israel on the holiday of Simchat Torah is the clear responsibility of one person: Benjamin Netanyahu. The prime minister, who has prided himself on his vast political experience and irreplaceable wisdom in security matters, completely failed to identify the dangers he was consciously leading Israel into when establishing a government of annexation and dispossession, when appointing Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir to key positions, while embracing a foreign policy that openly ignored the existence and rights of Palestinians.
Netanyahu’s cabinet allies Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir are both far-right politicians from settlements on occupied Palestinian land. Earlier this year, Smotrich claimed there was “no such thing” as the Palestinian people, while the US State Department rebuked Ben-Gvir for his “racist, destructive comments” about the supposedly inferior status of Palestinians in the West Bank.
The Haaretz editorial accused Israel’s longest-serving prime minister of deliberately seeking a violent confrontation with the Palestinians:
In the past, Netanyahu marketed himself as a cautious leader who eschewed wars and multiple casualties on Israel’s side. After his victory in the last election, he replaced this caution with the policy of a “fully-right government,” with overt steps taken to annex the West Bank, to carry out ethnic cleansing in parts of the Oslo-defined Area C, including the Hebron Hills and the Jordan Valley. This also included a massive expansion of settlements and bolstering of the Jewish presence on Temple Mount, near the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as boasts of an impending peace deal with the Saudis in which the Palestinians would get nothing, with open talk of a “second Nakba” in his governing coalition.
Haaretz could have broadened its indictment to include the Western governments that have egged on Netanyahu and his allies at every turn. No matter how often the leading members of Israel’s political class insisted that they would never allow a Palestinian state to come into being, the United States and the most powerful European countries continued to support Israel unconditionally while pretending that there was some kind of meaningful peace process in existence.
At the same time, US and European leaders did everything in their power to block or even criminalise nonviolent forms of pressure on Israel, while telling Palestinians that they must not under any circumstances use violent methods against the occupation of their land. Now the same leaders have given Netanyahu a blank check to wage war on Gaza, when they know from past experience that this will result in massive, lethal violence against civilians.
Burning Bridges
Let’s remember how Israel’s Western allies have responded to various forms of nonviolent action by Palestinians and their supporters in recent years. In 2021, the Palestinian Authority (PA) asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate alleged Israeli war crimes in the occupied territories, including the attack on Gaza in 2014. The US government immediately condemned the move, and Joe Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued the following statement:
The United States believes a peaceful, secure and more prosperous future for the people of the Middle East depends on building bridges and creating new avenues for dialogue and exchange, not unilateral judicial actions that exacerbate tensions and undercut efforts to advance a negotiated two-state solution.
We will continue to uphold our strong commitment to Israel and its security, including by opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly.
This statement was a calculated insult to the intelligence of those who had to read it. Blinken knows perfectly well that there are no “efforts to advance a negotiated two-state solution” that might be “undercut” by an ICC investigation. In practice, the Biden administration wants Israel to be shielded from any legal accountability for its actions from here to the end of time.
After the formation of Netanyahu’s new government with his partners Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, Blinken told a J Street conference in December 2022 that US support for Israel was “sacrosanct.” As Peter Beinart noted, Blinken’s speech gave Netanyahu a green light to do whatever he wanted in the occupied territories:
Blinken didn’t even pledge to undo the gratuitous humiliations imposed on the Palestinians by Donald Trump. He didn’t promise to reopen the PLO mission in Washington or the US embassy in East Jerusalem, which was established in 1844 before being closed in 2019 by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a man who once called Barack Obama an ISIS sympathizer. Blinken didn’t say that settlements violate international law — another longstanding US position that Trump overturned and the Biden administration has failed to restore.
In the same month as Blinken’s J Street speech, there was another attempt to hold Israel accountable through the international legal framework. The UN General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion on “the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory.” The United States voted against the referral, along with European states like Britain and Germany. In July of this year, the British government submitted a forty-three-page legal document to the ICJ urging it not to hear the case at all.
Speaking to the Guardian, a senior Palestinian source described the document as “a complete endorsement of Israeli talking points.” Antony Blinken had previously objected to the ICC case on the grounds that the Palestinians “do not qualify as a sovereign state.” Now his British allies turned that argument on its head by presenting the occupation as a “bilateral dispute” between states. The only consistent principle at work was the demand that Israel should enjoy complete impunity.
Clampdown
Israel’s backers in Europe and North America are equally hostile to the idea of pressure being applied through civil society. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is an attempt to compensate for the refusal of governments to impose any sanctions on Israel for its oppression of the Palestinians. However, there have been repeated attempts to outlaw that movement, from France to the United States.
The hostile, authoritarian response to legal and civil society initiatives from Israel’s Western allies shows us what they really want from the Palestinians.
Most recently, the UK parliament passed a bill that bans public bodies such as local councils from making any decisions about procurement or investment based on “political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct.” In theory, this would oblige councils to do business with any state in the world, not just Israel, regardless of “political or moral disapproval.” But the bill allows the British government to grant a waiver from this rule in almost every case, with the exceptions of “(a) Israel, (b) the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or (c) the Occupied Golan Heights.”
In other words, the British authorities make no distinction in law between Israel as it was before the 1967 war and the occupied territories beyond the so-called Green Line. This is certainly the way the way Israeli politicians see things: they have made it clear time and time again that they consider the West Bank settlements to be an integral part of the Israeli state and have no intention of dismantling them at any point in the future.
The hostile, authoritarian response to legal and civil society initiatives from Israel’s Western allies shows us what they really want from the Palestinians. They don’t just want the Palestinian national movement to refrain from using violence against Israeli civilians, or even to refrain from using violence at all. They want it to renounce any form of action whatsoever that might compromise their ability to support the occupation and all the violence needed to enforce it.
Having encouraged Netanyahu along the road to disaster, politicians in Washington, London, and other Western capitals are now supporting his attack on Gaza in the name of “Israel’s right to defend itself,” which Israeli governments have always interpreted as the right to use violence against civilians on a massive scale. The attack has already killed hundreds of Palestinians and will kill hundreds or even thousands more if it is allowed to continue. Stopping that onslaught is the main priority today.
The world cup gets underway on October 5. For a cricket-obsessed nation, this should feel like going to the moon. But does it not quite feel that way?
“The Cricket World Cup is happening in India?” asked my cousin, who is one of those people who say, ‘I do not watch cricket, but I follow the World Cup.’ Although he does not pay much attention to cricket, my cousin was taken aback that he was not aware that India was hosting the 50-over or ODI Cricket World Cup.
My cousin’s surprise about who is hosting the World Cup is not his fault alone. There are enough reasons to believe that the run-up to the 2023 Cricket World Cup has been underwhelming. From the impossible task of buying match tickets to the fiasco involving a last-minute change of venues and an increasing sentiment that the 50-over format has become “redundant” among new audiences – who have made IPL the number one cricket tournament. The 2023 Cricket World Cup does not carry the same charm it did back in 2011 – when India last hosted it.
Fading relevance of 50-over cricket?
Gaurav Kapur, the mainstream face of India’s cricket broadcast, admitted that the 50-over format is the “most boring” and “soon to be redundant” on the Grade Cricketer podcast on YouTube. He spoke about the “pointless” three-match ODI series losing their importance. Kapur summarised the opinion of those who want to do away with the 50-over format as such: only the first 10 and the last 10 overs of an ODI match interest the audience; the overs in between are like “a government job”, where the batting side and bowling side take it easy and agree to go at a run rate of five runs per over.
At a personal level, I do not agree with the opinion that ODI cricket must be done away with. But one cannot look away from what is unfolding. With the constant bombardment of T20 cricket and the fast-paced nature of the IPL and other similar tournaments, the game of cricket has changed a lot since the early 2000s. The new audiences want to watch sixes and fours or quick 5-wicket hauls – if there are still any fans of bowling. Patience for a 50-over match is diminishing.
Why, Ranveer Singh?
In the past, World Cup theme songs have been used to drum up anticipation for the tournament. I remember the 2011 World Cup theme song, ‘De Ghuma Ke’, playing on almost every channel for weeks before the games began. The 2023 edition’s theme song, ‘Dil Jashn Bole’ – composed by Pritam and starring Ranveer Singh on an animated train – hasn’t gone down too well with cricket fans. The top comment regarding the song, shared on the ICC’s official YouTube channel, perhaps sums up the feeling: “This song hits different on mute.”
While previous Cricket World Cup songs featured the sport, this time around it felt like watching a Bollywood movie song – filled with dancers and having zero regard for the other teams that are competing in the tournament. For example, how is a cricket fan in Cape Town expected to relate to ‘Dil Jashn Bole’?
Honestly, it is not just the song. The run-up to this World Cup seems pretty dry. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) which is often, in a derogatory way, labelled to be an event management company, does not look comfortable managing this mega sports event.
The ‘impossible’ task of buying tickets
Planning to watch a cricket match requires a lot of planning. First, you need to purchase a match ticket and second, a flight or train ticket to travel to the host city. The BCCI has made both tasks incredibly difficult. First, nine games were rescheduled, accounting for one-sixth of all group-stage matches, including the highly anticipated first-round match between India and Pakistan. England, the reigning World Cup champions, were worst affected – three out of their nine matches were rearranged.
Second, only a limited number of match tickets were made available on the BookMyShow website. Fans complained about the harrowing experience of attempting to purchase tickets for the main event. They reported hours-long waits in online queues and claimed that tickets were already ‘sold out’ before the official sale even commenced. To put things in perspective, only 8,500 tickets were made available for the India-Pakistan game at the Narendra Modi Stadium – which has the capacity to seat more than 1.3 lakh people.
“Either the ticket partners are incompetent to handle the ticket and traffic or this is another eyewash in the name of releasing tickets. Hope there is a proper audit and identification of how the tickets are sold and to whom and what platform,” wrote former cricketer Venkatesh Prasad on X (formerly Twitter).
Not finding tickets or mismanagement is one thing, but the real problem of the BCCI, as sports journalist Sharda Urga – who hosts the programme ‘Out of the Park’ on The Wire‘s YouTube channel – writes, is that “its core is hollowed out by abuse and exploitation of domestic players across age and gender”.
‘BJP’s Control of Cricket in India’?
The above statement was part of Sharda Urga’s September 2023 cover story for the Caravan magazine. At the heart of this story is the new revenue model of the International Cricket Council (ICC).
In the meeting that concluded on July 13 this year, the BCCI secured a significant increase in its share of ICC’s annual earnings, which totals $600 million dollars for the cycle between 2024 and 2027. The Indian board’s share has risen by a staggering 72%, resulting in an estimated earning of about $230 million, accounting for 38.5% of ICC’s new financial model for the next cycle.
In comparison, other cricket boards are far behind. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Cricket Australia (CA) will earn single-digit percentages, specifically 6.89% ($41 million) and 6.25% ($37.53 million) respectively. The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) is fourth on the list, earning 5.75% ($34.51 million) of the total earnings. The former ICC president Ehsan Mani told Forbes that the new model would be “giving the most money to the country that needs it the least.”
The former England cricketer Michael Atherton expressed his displeasure towards this new revenue model. Writing for The Times, he said, “There is a deeper malaise at work here. The economic transformation of India in the past three decades and the growing importance of television revenues have distorted cricket’s landscape, making it more unequal.”
Other than that, there has been no regard for the recommendations given by the Supreme Court-appointed Lodha Committee. The most significant recommendation was that no office bearer can have two consecutive terms in office – but despite that, Jay Shah, the secretary of BCCI and the son of Union home minister Amit Shah, has remained in the position for more than four years now.
This was made possible when in September 2022, the Supreme Court allowed the BCCI to make amendments to its constitution. Subsequently, any BCCI office-bearer can serve up to 12 years in the same post, without any cooling-off period between two terms in office.
Sharda Urga highlights the glaring irregularities within the BCCI in detail. From the bullying of the PCB over the scheduling of the Asia Cup to the changing of three kit sponsors in a short span, Jay Shah’s BCCI has acted as an extended arm of the government of India, she says.
A senior cricket journalist, Chander Shekhar Luthra, told me in 2021, “You cannot look at cricket and corruption separately.” By that, he did not only mean instances like that of spot-fixing but also the brazen outlook of modern-day cricket as solely an instrument of money-making.
In 2015, BCCI president Shashank Manohar commissioned an audit by the British firm Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu to scrutinise 27 state cricket associations. His aim was to investigate discrepancies, as despite equal funding, some associations were facing financial challenges.
Ramachandra Guha, a historian who was one of the three members chosen by the Supreme Court to clean up the BCCI, documented this in his book The Commonwealth of Cricket. According to Guha, the audit revealed disturbing findings, including mismanagement. Examples ranged from extravagant purchases like 18 cars, dubious accounting methods, misuse of funds to buy flats for officials, false travel reimbursements, and even agricultural activities persisting on land meant for constructing cricket stadiums. The findings of the audit were so stark that the report was kept confidential – emphasising the scale of financial irregularities in state associations.
Let me explain this by giving the example of the Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA). Amongst all cricket boards, the DDCA has been considered the most opaque of all the cricket boards in the country. Questions were raised in 2000 by an Outlook magazine report suggesting that some members used proxy voting during internal board elections.
Former cricketer Kirti Azad questions why the DDCA and other state associations can’t utilise their funds and facilities to establish training centres. He points out the prevalence of private academies which charge high fees for coaching, leading to a system where influential individuals can get their children selected through personal selectors. Azad alleges that the BCCI makes allocation of funds to states in mysterious ways which he likens to the “mystery of the Bermuda Triangle”.
Domestic cricketers alerted me to the fact that there are no records for local DDCA tournaments. “I scored 1,400 runs in 15 matches in the league and still wasn’t selected,” said a domestic cricketer, who wishes to be anonymous.
If there are no records, on what basis are players selected? This environment gives room for nepotism and corruption. “I know a player who paid Rs 36 lakhs to get in the domestic team,” the domestic cricketer alleged. The same player hasn’t been able to score a century despite batting in the top order for Delhi for three years.
Illustration: The Wire
Rich league, poor players
Earlier this year, reports showed that the IPL pays just 18% of its total revenue to players – a lower percentage than what the BCCI allocates to its players (26% of gross revenue). Unlike other major sports leagues, the IPL does not follow the principle that players should earn at least half of the league’s revenue. For instance, the English Premier League allocates 71% of its total revenue to football players, while American baseball, basketball, ice hockey, and rugby leagues pay players around 50% of their total revenue. This highlights a significant disparity in revenue-sharing practices between the IPL and other major sports leagues.
But things get worse at the domestic level. Sharda Urga’s Caravan article points out that the BCCI money distribution system reveals issues of accountability in states where funds are distributed and highlights the stark income disparity faced by domestic cricketers. One example cited a domestic cricketer earning an average of Rs 7.5 lakh per season, with earnings fluctuating widely from season to season. The disparity in income poses significant challenges for domestic players, especially those not part of the international or IPL elite, leading to financial instability and uncertainty in their cricketing careers.
Cricket, alas
But all things said and done, the Cricket World Cup, with all its flaws, will continue to garner love and attention. At the end of the day, the sport will continue to have passionate fans. Only the actions of the 22 players on the field will matter to the fans, not what happens outside of it. It will be the historic moments and performances that will be remembered – unlike the present India regime’s decision to delay visas for Pakistani players.
The complaint appears to be at a stage of ‘preliminary examination’. This means the office of the prosecutor at the ICC must first determine whether there is sufficient evidence of crimes of sufficient gravity falling within the ICC’s jurisdiction.
London: A ‘crime report’ attached as a supporting document in a complaint lodged with the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague in the Netherlands names Indian “armed forces” for being involved in a “hostile boarding of a US flagged yacht in international waters, armed assault and grievous bodily harm, conspiracy to commit murder, threatening life, kidnapping and unlawful detention, trespass, theft and unlawful damage to property and human rights violations and torture”.
The charge refers to the March 2018 abduction of Princess Latifa, daughter of the ruler of Dubai and prime minister of the United Arab Emirates Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid al Maktoum, in the Arabian Sea. The princess had run away from her father and her family in Dubai and was heading for India to seek asylum. The Sheikh is himself named as an accused.
The complaint to the ICC was filed by Jonathan Levy, a lawyer and solicitor who practices both in Britain and the US on behalf of Herve Jaubert, a former French naval intelligence officer who captained Latifa’s yacht. He charges Sheikh Mohammad of ‘Crimes Against Humanity in the Matter of the Nostromo Incident and “Princess” Sheikha Latifa Al Maktoum’.
Nether India or the UAE are state parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC but France – the country Jaubert is a citizen of – is.
The crime report based on witness statements says: ‘On the evening of the 4th of March 2018 and without warning, UAE and Indian forces unlawfully boarded Nostromo (name of the yacht). As it was anchored in international waters. The military raid began with fully armed forces with face covers launching stun grenades and waving military assault weapons.’
It claims: ‘Shamsudheen Mohidheen, the (Dubai) palace manager, lobbied the Indian Prime Minister (Narendra Modi) to help.’ Mohidheen, who is said to be Indian, is also an accused in the complaint.
The complaint corroborates the ‘Opinion’ of the United Nations Human Rights Commission Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) issued in March 2021. This said:
“The detainee (Latifa) was extradited (to the UAE) by the Indian forces, which had intercepted her yacht in international waters off the coast of Goa in March 2018, after the Prime Minister of India had made a personal telephone call to the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates and the ruler of the Emirate of Dubai (Sheikh Mohammed).”
Since Modi, according to WGAD, was the one to ring Mohammed – and not the other way around – the question arises: what due diligence did he do to order Indian armed forces to forcibly return Latifa to Dubai?
The London high court ruled in December 2019 that Latifa was thwarted in her attempt to leave the UAE by Indian armed forces in international waters in the Arabian Sea. The judgment said:
“The description of the way in which Latifa was treated by the Indian security services and also, once the Arabic man (her father’s agent) had identified her, does not give any indication that this was a ‘rescue’ rather a ‘capture’.”
In lieu of the favour extended by Modi, Dubai allegedly renditioned British national Christian Michel to Delhi, where he has been imprisoned for four years and nine months without a trial. According to Michel, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in India has repeatedly pressured him to sign a confession to say he bribed Sonia Gandhi in the 2010 AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal.
Even after 11 years of investigation, the CBI has failed to unearth evidence to take him to trial. “I am a political prisoner of Mr Modi,” Michel lamented in a letter last month to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. “Prime Minister,” he added, “you will be in India in September; I hope this will give you time to think on my despatch.”
What the complaint says
In the complaint to the ICC, Levy, on behalf of Herve Jaubert, demands: “Under the provisions of Article 75 of the Rome Statute, the applicant also seeks reparations from the accused to compensate the victims for their damages.”
Another accused is the current president of Interpol, Major General Ahmed Naser Al-Raisi, previously of the UAE’s Ministry of Interior.
He accuses Al-Raisi “of carrying out the orders of Sheikh Mohammad to intercept a US flagged yacht Nostromo, retrieve Princess Latifa, and neutralise the crew”.
The ICC was asked to comment on the complaint. A spokesman replied that it does not comment on ‘communications’ (which is the ICC’s official term for complaints or referrals).
Jaubert testified that after grabbing Latifa from the yacht, Indian armed forces took her on a helicopter to Mumbai, from where she was flown on a private jet to Dubai.
“Shoot me here! Don’t take me back (to Dubai)!” Latifa is said to have screamed when the Indian forces stormed the yacht in the darkness of night.
Before that Latifa contacted Radha Stirling, CEO of Due Process International. There followed a WhatsApp exchange between them:
Latifa: ‘Please Help. Please please there’s men outside I don’t know what’s happening.’ Stirling: ‘Record Stirling: ‘Record what you can and send” Stirling: ‘Are you on a boat? Did you go to land?’’ Stirling: ‘Are guns still firing?’
Stirling commented: “The involvement of Al-Raisi in the Nostromo incident raises serious concerns about the neutrality and credibility of Interpol itself.” She added, the grave crimes in which Al-Raisi “is complicit, undermine public trust in its integrity”.
Stirling was asked how the complainant (Jaubert) hoped to pursue his wrongdoing charges against the accused since neither the UAE nor India is a member state of the ICC.
She answered:
“The complaint is… from a French citizen respecting a US flagged yacht in international waters… enforcement of any order against them is the responsibility of the ICC and assets belonging to the accused are held in ICC jurisdiction (in other words in member states).”
She added: “We have also asked for an oversight committee investigation. The Independent Oversight Mechanism (IOM) of the ICC is authorised under the Rome Statute (which initiated and governs the ICC) Article 112(4) for inspection, evaluation and investigation of the court, in order to enhance its efficiency and economy.”
The complaint appears to be at a stage of ‘preliminary examination’. This means the office of the prosecutor at the ICC must first determine whether there is sufficient evidence of crimes of sufficient gravity falling within the ICC’s jurisdiction.
Interpol was emailed twice for a comment on the accusation against its president Al-Raisi. It did not respond.
Ashis Ray is a former editor-at-large of CNN. He currently analyses international affairs on the BBC.
The foreign ministry also said that Pakistan has “deep concerns” about its cricket team’s security.
New Delhi: The Pakistani government has officially announced that its national cricket team will take part in the upcoming ICC World Cup in India, but also expressed concern about their security during the tournament.
“Pakistan has consistently maintained that sports should not be mixed with politics. It has, therefore, decided to send its Cricket Team to India to participate in the upcoming ICC Cricket World Cup 2023,” said a statement issued by the Pakistan foreign ministry on Sunday evening.
There had been a lot of speculation about whether Islamabad would allow the national team to participate in the ICC world cup in October-November, especially since India had refused to send its team for Asia Cup matches in Pakistan.
Stating that Pakistan has “deep concerns” about its cricket team’s security, the foreign office noted, “We are conveying these concerns to the International Cricket Council and the Indian authorities. We expect that full safety and security of Pakistan Cricket Team will be ensured during its visit to India.”
The statement further claimed that Pakistan believes that the “state of bilateral relations with India should not stand in the way of fulfilling its international sports-related obligations”. It also contrasted Pakistan as having shown a “constructive and responsible approach vis-à-vis India’s intransigent attitude, as the latter had refused to send its Cricket Team to Pakistan for the Asia Cup”.
While relations between India and Pakistan have largely been hostile for the last six to seven years, diplomatic ties were officially downgraded in 2019 when the Indian high commissioner was asked to leave in the aftermath of the dissolution of Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional autonomy.
Earlier, the Najam Sethi-led Pakistan Cricket Board had come to an understanding that the Asia Cup would be held under a ‘hybrid model’, which meant that the matches will be divided between Pakistan and another neutral venue.
This would effectively allow India to take part in the Asia Cup even though BCCI was adamant that the Indian team will not travel to Pakistan. With India’s participation confirmed, there was an expectation that the PCB had given a tacit nod to the national cricket team to go for the ICC world cup.
After a change at the helm in the PCB, there seems to have been a roll back on this understanding. After the World Cup schedule was announced in June, the PCB said that it would still need government clearance for the tour of Indian cities during the world cup.
While Pakistan has now confirmed its participation, BCCI has to still announce the rescheduled dates for the matches, including some of Pakistan’s venues, less than two months before the start of the World Cup.
The federation is facing elections after an almost 40-day protest at New Delhi by India’s top wrestlers against the lack of police action on serious allegations of sexual harassment against its chief, the BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has removed the stay imposed on elections to the executive committee of the Wrestling Federation of India by the Gauhati high court.
A division bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice S.V. Bhatti heard a plea by the Andhra Pradesh Amateur Wrestling Association against the high court stay, reported LiveLaw.
The bench also issued notice.
The elections to the WFI were originally scheduled for July 11. It was initially stayed by the Gauhati high court after the Assam Wrestling Association sought to be included in the electoral college as a state unit of the WFI. The court has sought responses from the Wrestling Federation and the Union government by July 26 and set July 28 as the next date of hearing. Meanwhile, the Tripura state wing of the WFI has also petitioned the high court to be included in the electoral college, leading to concerns over further delays.
It is still not clear if the elections can be held.
The federation is facing elections after a 40-day protest at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar by India’s top wrestlers against the lack of police action on serious allegations of sexual harassment against its chief, the Bharatiya Janata Party MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.
Union sports minister Anurag Thakur had promised the protesting wrestlers that fresh elections will be held to select leadership for the federation, which Brij Bhushan headed for 12 years.
Allegations of rampant wrongdoing surround Brij Bhushan and his assistant secretary Vinod Tomar.
Brij Bhushan is supposed to appear before a trial court today, in connection with the sexual harassment allegations.
The United World Wrestling (UWW), the international governing body for amateur wrestling, had earlier said that failure to uphold the deadline for election to the WFI “may lead UWW to suspend the federation, thereby forcing the athletes to compete under a neutral flag.”
In June, the International Olympic Committee asked the Indian Olympic Association to “address a number of ongoing issues affecting Indian Sports Federations,” in a coordinated manner and in accordance with the rules and directives of the International Federations concerned.
It then stressed that this “includes, in particular, the situation of the Wrestling Federation in India.”
This decision was made during the ICC Annual Conference held in Durban, South Africa, and is part of the Council’s plan to achieve pay parity by 2030.
New Delhi: The International Cricket Council (ICC) on Thursday (July 13) said that men’s and women’s teams will now get equal prizes at ICC events. This decision was made during the ICC Annual Conference held in Durban, South Africa, and is part of the Council’s plan to achieve pay parity by 2030.
“Teams will now receive equal prize money for finishing in similar positions at comparable events as well as the same amount for winning a match at those events,” the ICC website stated.
“This is a significant moment in the history of our sport and I am delighted that men’s and women’s cricketers competing at ICC global events will now be rewarded equally,” ICC chairman Greg Barclay said.
“Since 2017 we have increased prize money at women’s events every year with a clear focus on reaching equal prize money and from here on in, winning the ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup will carry the same prize money as winning the ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup and the same for T20 World Cups and U19s too. Cricket is genuinely a sport for all and this decision from the ICC Board reinforces that and enables us to celebrate and value every single player’s contribution to the game equally,” he continued.
The winners and runners-up at the ICC Women’s T20 World Cup 2020 and 2023 received $1 million and $500,000 respectively, which was five times the amount offered in 2018.
The complainant has submitted screenshots of the texts that reportedly show the accused sending her messages on the night of June 23, asking her to come to his house the next day to “help” him.
New Delhi: Arunachal Police have formed a local complaint committee (LCC) and initiated an enquiry against a former Superintendent of Police (SP) after a woman constable came forward with allegations of sexual harassment against him, the Indian Expressreported.
The complainant had approached the internal complaints committee (ICC) of her workplace on June 24, the report said.
The policewoman alleged that she had received a message from the SP’s personal number saying ‘Hi’ in late May, to which she did not respond and assumed that it had been sent by mistake.
After that, she said, she received a set of messages on the night of June 23 in which the cop was “seeking for a sexual consensus blatantly”. He also sent her well as a voice call on WhatsApp, which she did not respond to, the newspaper reported.
The policewoman said that the incident triggered a sense of “fear psychosis” in her. “Ironically, a police officer, being a law enforcement agency, who is supposed to ensure the safety of women in the workplace – he himself (is) committing and encouraging the same crimes against his female staff,” the Indian Express quoted her as saying.
The complainant has submitted screenshots of the texts that reportedly show the accused sending her messages from 11:14 pm onwards on June 23, asking her to come to his house the next day to “help” him, the report said.
The accused’s transfer to New Delhi had been notified by the Union home ministry on June 8 and the complaint against him was made towards the end of his posting in Arunachal Pradesh.
According to the report, it was decided after an ICC meeting that the case will be transferred to an LCC “for further necessary action and for the interest of justice to the victim”, as the complaints were made against the employer and the appointing authority for constables is the SP.
Fifty years ago, our politics got intractably roiled when “the system” contrived to ensure that a prime minister’s son would venture to set up a plant to manufacture a small car. Sanjay Gandhi got recognised as the embodiment of a creeping nepotism, just as opposition to him and his entrepreneurship was deemed as a minimum obligation to our own sense of public morality. The ‘Sanjay Gandhi phenomenon’ became a black mark in the purists’ book.
