To be fair to the board, the fears of the Indian cricketers about invasion of privacy and threat to security can’t be put down as the isolated whingeing of superstar egos. There have been protests worldwide by sportspersons against the new WADA regulations, which stipulate they must be available for a random drug test for an hour each day of the year. With cricket being played almost round the year, cricketers are available for testing most of the year. By contrast, a shooter or a sprinter trains in isolation most of the year, with a coach and a doctor, thus becoming more likely suspects of doping, and probably need to be policed more heavily than holidaying cricketers.
The BCCI, effectively, is showing defiance when 571 sporting bodies and 192 countries haven’t—it is rejecting the WADA as “just a private body”. Why is the BCCI thus risking an end to cricket’s dream of being part of the Olympics, or being kicked out of the 2010 Guangzhou Asian Games?
Perhaps the BCCI doesn’t really want to be part of global sporting events. “There’s no money to be made there for the BCCI,” says a source in the Indian Olympic Association (IOA). “And going to the Asiad or the Olympics would bring the BCCI under some control, even if nominal, of the government or the IOA.” For instance, all sporting associations must get their teams and staff cleared, through IOA, by the sports ministry. “They’ll have to follow IOA regulations, which are based on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) charter,” says Randhir Singh, the IOA secretary-general. “This takes effect from the day the team leaves for the event until it gets over.”
Board president Shashank Manohar says the BCCI rejects the WADA code because some cricketers face a security threat, and because “the Constitution of India gives a guarantee to every citizen regarding his privacy”. A BCCI official, unwilling to be named, laughs, “Don’t other countries’ constitutions guarantee this?” More seriously, Manohar also claimed that until now, the BCCI wasn’t aware of the testing system. “He’s a lawyer, yet talks like an amateur!” says the official. “Why did he agree to the deal with WADA without doing any homework? Why was the WADA resolution accepted unanimously at the ICC (International Cricket Committee)?”
Manohar isn’t available to answer these queries, but there’s frustration in the ICC over the board’s apathy towards the WADA procedures. “The ICC did everything it could do to educate the IRTP (International Registered Testing Pool) players of the processes,” an ICC source told Outlook. “There was a ‘whereabouts’ pilot phase in June and July. No Indian player participated in the project. They rejected it without trying to learn anything about it. It’s very frustrating.”
Tim May, CEO of the Federation of International Cricketers’ Association (FICA), confirms this. May also says that the FICA believes that the WADA process, though intrusive, needs to be tested for a few months before it’s evaluated. “We’d be comfortable if the position is equitable and the Indians sign up too,” he told Outlook. “I’ve urged the ICC to urgently address the matter, and they’ve assured me they would.”
But does cricket, a highly skill-based sport, need such drastic testing? Yes, says Ashok Ahuja, former head of the department of sports medicine, National Institute of Sports, Patiala. “The role of steroids has increased in cricket, especially among pace bowlers, to build up the muscles and recover from injuries,” he told Outlook.
Ahuja also talks about the use of recreational drugs by sportspersons. “Some superstar athletes, moving in seven-star society, use recreational drugs,” he says, adding that the BCCI’s suggestion that it could produce a player for testing on a 24-hour notice won’t be acceptable because these drugs can be washed out of the system in that time. May agrees that recreational drugs, which carry a WADA penalty only if detected during competition, are a concern, for there “indeed is a temptation”.
So, what now? The BCCI has suggested the formation of a cricket-specific code, and the ICC will discuss it. The equations among ICC members mean that the BCCI could have its way, especially because most players feel the rules are intrusive. Back home, though, it could get difficult. Ahuja says that though the board is a rich, independent body, it might have to pay heed to the government. “The BCCI is a society registered with the government, which supports the WADA regulations. Maybe there’s a strong case for government intervention here.”
Could the government step in? “At the moment I see no reason to,” Union sports minister M.S. Gill told Outlook. Generally, the BCCI sports a mighty swagger, caring but a fig for the barbs hurled at it. This time, though, it might be in for a fight, especially if the government explores serious means to make it abide.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT