Modi's Wings Clipped?

• Against expectations, he's not made chairman of the marketing committee.
  
• Will have to share power with Niranjan Shah in IPL's governing council
  
• IPL decisions would have to be ratified by N. Srinivasan, Modi does not get along with BCCI president Shashank Manohar

***

Conflict Of Interest

• BCCI secretary N.

  Neither Manohar nor Srinivasan, BCCI prez and secretary, like Modi. He's tolerated only for bringing in money.

  Srinivasan is MD of India Cements, owner of the Chennai Super Kings team of the IPL
  
• At least two teams are owned/partly owned by people related to Modi
  
• BCCI trying to legalise officials' personal stake in IPL, Champions League

***

Have the the wings of Lalit Modi, the powerful creator of the IPL and harbinger of the change of pace in Indian cricket, been clipped? Has he soared so high so quickly, Icarus-like, that his wings have been singed? The regime change at last week's Mumbai AGM of the Indian cricket board (BCCI) makes these questions relevant. No surprises, for it had been known for a year that Nagpur lawyer Shashank Manohar would take over from Sharad Pawar as president. The proceedings of the AGM were enlivened, however, by Manohar's deep antipathy for Modi, which is no secret in cricketing circles.

There is evidence to suggest that a circle of antagonistic forces now surrounds Modi. He was expected to be named chairman of the new marketing committee, but Pawar retains that post. Modi still heads the IPL governing council, but will have to devolve some power and authority to Niranjan Shah, who occupies the newly-wrought chair of vice-chairman. Finally, according to BCCI sources, Modi's decisions as IPL commissioner would require to be ratified by BCCI secretary N. Srinivasan.

The portents, in fact, had been there before the AGM. First, Ratnakar Shetty, the BCCI's chief administrative officer, criticised the Rajasthan Cricket Association—of which Modi is the president—for giving the visiting Australian team excessive support at its academy in Jaipur. "We won't get this kind of facilities if India went abroad...we would have got the bare minimum," Shetty said. Newspapers reports, quoting BCCI sources, claimed Modi would be censured at the AGM over the role of his home association, though that didn't happen.

Then, indicating a possible realignment of powers, Modi issued a welcome to an old foe, former BCCI chief Jagmohan Dalmiya, who was to attend the AGM as CAB boss, saying "we have all moved on" and that Dalmiya would have "constructive suggestions" to make. This was very uncharacteristic of Modi, who has all the appurtenances of swift success—he's highly visible in the media and aggressive to the point of being arrogant, or being perceived so.

In contrast, Manohar is an old-school operator, a stolid lawyer with an aversion to publicity and ostentation. "Modi is efficient, focused and gets decisions made fast," a BCCI source told Outlook. "But he and Srinivasan are not on good terms with each other. Manohar does not like Modi's style of functioning. He's tolerated because of the vast amounts of money he's brought into Indian cricket."

Perhaps Modi realises that relationships formed when you enjoy limitless power could be marred by insincerity. So, is he only tolerated because of the money he's brought in? Modi, surprisingly, reacted with uncharacteristic placidity when Outlook put this question to him. "What can I say!" he laughed. "People have their own views and I don't really care. I care about my work, and I'll continue to work the way I've been working." He also said that sections of the media have been trying to project that he's been removed from a BCCI post. "I was never the chairman of the marketing committee so there's no question of being removed," he said. "Mr Pawar was the head earlier too, I was the head of the marketing subcommittee, which meets more often." Modi claimed Manohar's ascent wouldn't change matters. "He's a pragmatic man, he's been around for so long and he's contributed immensely to Indian cricket, and I expect that it will continue," he said.

"Modi has been hedged—on the one hand, Pawar is there to check him in the marketing committee," a source familiar with Manohar's views told Outlook. "On the other, there's Shah in the new post. And then there's Srinivasan." Sources say this is why Modi is attempting to build bridges with old enemies like Dalmiya. And though Dalmiya told Outlook that he doesn't know what to make of the warm welcome, sources in the Dalmiya camp insist that Modi has made overtures to the former BCCI supremo.

"The IPL exists. It's seen as a success. Advertisers and money will come to it, whoever is in charge. No one is indispensable," a source told Outlook. "Remember the days when Dalmiya was the power centre and everyone flocked to his court? So it's no surprise that Modi is wary, especially as Manohar and Srinivasan are very close to each other and averse to him."

Srinivasan himself could be in trouble over whether he can hold office. Clause 6.2, Rule 4 of BCCI regulations for players, team officials, managers, umpires and administrators says: "No administrator shall have, directly or indirectly, any commercial interest in the matches or events conducted by the Board". This rule clearly makes Srinivasan's position untenable—he's the managing director of India Cements, which owns the Chennai Super Kings in the IPL. A.C. Muthiah, former BCCI president, cited this conflict of interest to Pawar in a letter dated September 5. However, a two-member committee of Manohar and Shah recommended a change in the clause during last week's AGM, supending the rule "for events like IPL or Champions League Twenty20"

Muthiah laughs at this "ham-handed attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes." He told Outlook, "I'm certainly going to fight this in court. They are trying to do this in an underhand manner. In the agenda of the general body meeting at AGM, there is no mention at all of this very significant item! Yet they're trying to pass this very substantial amendment! These people are taking law into their own hands."

Ironically, said Muthiah, it was Manohar who had drafted the rule. "I had appointed him to draft the rules when I was BCCI president," he said. Dalmiya supports Muthiah's contention on the rule change. Incidentally, the two were bitter enemies when they were contending for power earlier in the decade. Now, caught in the extreme fluidity that governs BCCI relationships these days, they seem to have come to a working arrangement, testifying to the impermanence of enmities and friendships in this board game.