It is a comment on the standards of morality and ethical conduct existing among sports administrators in the country that the International Olympic Committee should spell out what is acceptable and what is not.
In one fell swoop, IOC has proposed a thorough cleansing process by which those administrators chargesheeted in criminal or corruption cases, which would be punishable with imprisonment were they to be convicted, would not be eligible to be office-bearers of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA).
While it is an accepted principle of natural justice that no one is to be presumed guilty until s/he is proven to be so, it is also clear that Indians have used such a provision to cling to office in the public sphere. The ponderous justice system plays right into the hands of those who enjoy total freedom from the moment they come out on bail to the conclusion of a trial that has often been known to take forever. The brazen manner in which those facing serious charges stick to office has brought about this much-needed prompt from abroad.
As the IOA may not have the freedom to resist the provisions of the draft constitution becoming official, it is already apparent that the likes of Suresh Kalmadi, Lalit Bhanot and V.K. Verma, who have all been charged in connection with the massive Commonwealth Games scam of 2010, cannot seek office. Notwithstanding the fact that Kalmadi had already decided not to seek office again, it was the defiant election of Bhanot as IOA secretary-general last December that led to IOC derecognising the national body for a while.
It must remain a mystery why posts in sports administration are so sought after in India even though the entire tribe of administrators are supposed to be serving in an honorary capacity. It is hard to believe that the faux celebrity status they get — with star sportsmen having to kowtow to their whims and fancies in order to ensure their careers are not destroyed by administrative intervention — would alone impel men to lump all indignity and seek office repeatedly.
It is a different matter that IOC has left it to the discretion of IOA whether to accept age and tenure restrictions on office-bearers, which may run against the sports code that the government wishes to impose. Certain autonomy is required for sports federations to act in the best interest of sport and governments have little knowledge to be seen interfering or running the sports system themselves.
By the same token, it would be ideal if sports administrators appointed professionals to run their federations on a day-to-day basis while they look after broad policies and the like. In any case, tainted officials should be the last ones to be allowed to remain in sports administration.