'BCCI Will Have To Eat Humble Pie'

BCCI secretaries come and go without being noticed, but not JaywantYashwant Lele, who continues to remain in news even in retirement. Loquaciousbut lively, and always outspoken, he maintains, "I always speak the truth or Idon’t at all. Why should you be afraid of saying what’s right and what’swrong? But it requires courage of convictions to do so and I’m afraid not toomany people have it in India cricket". In an exclusive interview to HareshPandya at his simple but tastefully decorated home in Baroda, a cheerful Lelefired many a salvo in his inimitable style. Enjoy.

Q. The one-man inquiry commission instituted by the BCCI to look into therecent bribery scandal rocking Indian cricket has pronounced Abhijit Kaleguilty, prima facie… Your comments?

A. There’s no truth in the allegations on Kale. He isn’t guilty.He met me in Pune the other day. I asked him about the whole affair and hecategorically denied his involvement. He told me: "There’s no question ofmy offering money to anybody. I don’t have that much money. Neither have Ioffered money to the selectors nor have they demanded it. It’s surprising thatD.V. Subba Rao has jumped to conclusions that since I’ve talked to theselectors concerned, I’m guilty. Yes, I did talk to Kiran More and Pranab Roy.Six times, in fact. Five times with More and only once with Roy. Let me tell youthe fact. I was in the Indian team that toured Bangladesh. There was no cricketfor a long time after we returned. When the next season started, they selected36 players for the Challenger Trophy. I thought I’d get a berth in the 14-manIndian squad. But my name wasn’t there among the 36 players. So I just wantedto ask More what’s wrong with me. How come from figuring in the15-man Indianteam, I wasn’t picked even among the 36 probables?

"They say it’s on record that I’ve telephoned More five times. Butyou go through the recording again. Subba Rao has forgotten that of the fiveconversations that I had with More, three times it was for 20 seconds, one timefor 60 seconds and one time for 70 seconds. So, I’ve talked to him only twicebecause three times he wasn’t available. When he finally talked, I simplyasked him why I was not being included. He told me that the selection committeemembers believed my shoulder was giving me problems and that’s why I wasn’tconsidered. I immediately got myself checked by Dr Anant Joshi and a shoulderspecialist from Pune. I got certificates from them saying nothing was wrong withmy shoulder.

"When my mother was going to Ahmedabad for some work, I told her to getdown at Baroda for a couple of hours and hand over the medical certificates toMore because I wasn’t getting him on the phone. When she went there, More wasreported to be out of station. So she left the documents at his home. Where isthe question of my trying to offer bribe to him through my mother as has beenalleged?"

It’s absolutely nonsense. I’ve seen Kale, known him well, since his under-15playing days. I’ve had interactions with him over the years and I’mconvinced he’s perfectly innocent. Just look at his staggering record in RanjiTrophy. How many batsmen in India have such high credentials? Now, if youdon’t find a place even in India A, naturally you’re surprised, evenshocked. You begin to suspect there’s something fishy going on. 

Q. Rumour mills are busy in the wake of  l’affaire Kale that insome cases players try to bribe selectors and in others selectors themselvesdemand money. Is it possible to believe such talk?

A. I was the BCCI secretary for four years. Before that I was jointsecretary for four years. And I used to convene the selection committee meetingsin the absence of Jagmohan Dalmiya. I must have attended nearly 100 suchmeetings. But I’ve never found reason for even an iota of doubt that selectorstake money from players. No, never.

Q. Supposing that Kale is not guilty of the charges levelled against him, asyou say, why is More doing all this?

A. I don’t know. But More has no answers to Kale’s questions.After making so many runs at a healthy average, and scoring so many hundreds,why is Kale not in the India A side?

Q. Do you suspect that More may have some old grievance against Kale or hemay be trying to settle an old score?

A. Could be. I suspect that since Yajurvindrasinh Bilkha of theMaharashtra Cricket Association had been contesting for a West Zone selector inthe last elections for the national selection committee, More might be trying totake revenge against the MCA. Let him do it. But why single out a particularplayer, who had nothing to do with those elections, and make him a victim?It’s unfortunate. I’m not saying More is doing this deliberately. But it’sclear that Kale is being victimised. There’s no question about it.

Q. What’s your opinion on the stand taken by the BCCI on the whole issue?

A. I’ve very high regard for Dalmiya. He’s an absolutely brilliantadministrator. But I’m sorry to say he hasn’t acted in a proper way in thisparticular case. It’s somebody’s words versus somebody’s words. Therecan’t be any proof whether Kale offered the bribe or whether he was asked forit by the two selectors concerned. You just can’t prove this. We’ve so manylawyer friends within the BCCI, like Shashank Manohar and others, and they’recertain this matter couldn’t be proved in a court of law.

I’ve inside information that some of the BCCI bigwigs are convinced thateven if you sling mud on Kale or others, it’s impossible to prove in any courtof law anywhere in the world. I just fail to understand why they are goingthrough all this nonsense. They should have cut the matter short; or sorted itout amicably without making it public. This is too much of washing your dirtylinen in public. But I can tell you that nothing will come out of it. Nothing isgoing to happen. The BCCI will have to eat humble pie. Kale is bound to win thelegal battle in the end.

Q. Don’t you think the BCCI should have appointed a neutral person toconduct the inquiry as Subba Rao was manager of the Indian team that toured theWest Indies in 1996-97 and has attended many BCCI meetings as president of theAndhra Pradesh Cricket Association?

A. I fully agree with you that the BCCI should have appointed someoneelse. At the same time, I must say I’ve known Subba Rao very well over theyears. He’s a thorough gentleman and a man of integrity. But you’re right.Why give people a chance to cast aspersions on somebody, howsoever honest thatperson may be? The BCCI should have appointed a neutral person.

Q. Vanka Pratap, the former Hyderabad and India A all-rounder, has namedShivlal Yadav as the selector who demanded money from him to buy him a place inthe national side. Yadav’s name has figured prominently in several otherrevelations since. Keeping this in mind and also considering Yadav’s overallreputation, don’t you feel the BCCI should have immediately called him backfrom Australia where he is currently managing the team?

A. No, I don’t think so because it’s his personal matter. Theremay still be many people in the BCCI who may be doing something nonsense intheir personal life, but that has nothing to do with cricket. As far as cricketis concerned, Yadav is a good person. I’m sure he’ll do well as a manageralso. Whatever he did off the field, whatever has been reported about him in themedia, true or false, is his personal matter. It isn’t that the BCCI didn’tknow about Yadav, but it’s nothing to do with cricket. He’s been made themanager because his cricketing credentials are so good.

Q. Wasn’t Yadav caught, red-handed, along with his so-selector SambaranBanerjee, with call girls when they were trying to enter the Garware Club Houseat the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai?

A.Yes. Of course, I wasn’t a witness to the disgustingepisode. But a young Mumbai player who was present there told me everything.What happened was that Yadav and Banerjee were either taking the girls or comingout of their rooms with them in the Garware Club House at about 11 p.m. Theywere absolutely drunk with the girls in tow. Then something happened and theybegan to fight with the receptionist and beat him up. In retaliation, Yadav andBanerjee also took a couple of blows in the presence of several people.

They were eventually thrown out of the premises. The receptionist complainedto the GCH manager who, in turn, reported the incident to the Mumbai CricketAssociation. Since I was in Mumbai at the time, the MCA asked me to intervene.It was not in a good taste --  the conduct of the two selectors. So I metthe GCH manager and requested him to put an end to the whole incident because,after all, at stake was the reputation of the BCCI. He said he was helplessbecause the receptionist had given a written complaint and was determined toteach the two gentlemen a lesson. Eventually, in connivance with the MCAsecretary, I approached the receptionist and asked him to withdraw hiscomplaint.

Q. Who was that Mumbai cricketer who briefed you about the Yadav-Banerjeeescapades?

A. Amol Muzumdar.

Q. And poor Muzumdar has never represented India for all his talent andperformances…

A. It has nothing to do with what he saw or told me.

Q. Did you say anything to Yadav and Banerjee or reproach them afterwards?

A. I didn’t think it necessary. In fact, I wonder if they know thatI had saved them from further humiliation. But, former BCCI treasurer KishoreRungta knows about it.

Q. Do you support the existing five-man selection committee representing thefive zones?

A. No. We’ve actually borrowed this five-man selection committeeconcept from other countries. Most of them have now reverted to the old systemof three or four selectors. Australia has only four men on the selection panel.All of them are interviewed. And it doesn’t matter even if all of them arefrom the same state. They’re paid as handsomely as the Australian cricketers.

India, too, should have only three but dignified cricketers heading theselection committee. I’d recommend Sunil Gavaskar, Kapil Dev and Ravi Shastri.They are men of total integrity. If they are appointed and also paid well, justlike the players, say, Rs 50 or 75 lakhs a year, I’m sure they’ll do afantastic job. Nobody will doubt their decisions or speak against them. In theevent of these three being unavailable, the BCCI should interview other formercricketers and select the three best candidates.

In Australia, someone like Allan Border also had to go through the entireselection process. There’s nothing wrong in testing or interviewing formercricketers for these responsible positions. But I feel they should have playedat least 10 Tests and also toured some major cricket countries like Australia,England, South Africa or the West Indies, with the Indian team. You may haveplayed a couple of Tests in India but unless you are part of the team on aforeign tour and have a firsthand experience of playing a Test at Lord’s orMelbourne or Kingston, you won’t realise what kind of players should beselected. The point is there must be a certain criterion for the selection ofselectors also.

Q. Your suggestions appear good. Hasn’t the BCCI ever thought on theselines?

A. During my tenure as BCCI secretary, we had constituted a four-mancommittee, along with office bearers, to review the constitution on thisparticular matter. Presently, it is during the AGM that the selectors areelected, which isn’t a proper way. The four-man panel was headed by Subba Rao,Shashank Manohar, Ranbir Singh and Sudhir Nanavati. They suggested many changesin the constitution and the foremost was on the procedure of the selectioncommittee. They suggested the selectors should have played a minimum 10 Testsand also visited a foreign country with the Indian team. But somehow, wedidn’t approve of those suggestions at that time.

Q. Haven’t the national selectors been unfair to Nayan Mongia for the lastfew years despite the fact that he is the best wicketkeeper in Asia today?

A. He should have been the first choice wicketkeeper for the currenttour of Australia. He has been very unfairly treated by the selectors over thelast few years. I was a witness to the disgusting drama on the morning of thethird Test against Australia in Chennai in 2001. Mongia, who was hurt on hisnose in the second Test in Kolkata, was in the Indian team for the seriesdecider at Chepauk. According to Mongia and captain Saurav Ganguly, he was 100per cent fit. But a few selectors, including the chairman, Chandu Borde, thoughtotherwise. Mongia was trying to convince everyone, on the first morning of theTest, that he was perfectly fit. I remember Ganguly asking Mongia twice, and inmy presence, whether he was completely fit to play. "Yes, sir, I’mcompletely fit," assured Mongia.

His name was included in the playing XI. But later Borde told Mongia: "Whyare you taking chances? You may not be100 per cent fit. You may still have someproblem related to your injury." To which Mongia said: "No, sir, I’mabsolutely fit. I’ve no problem whatsoever. You can hit me on my nose to knowfor yourself. Nothing will happen because there’s no crack, no fracture, nopain at all. I can assure you that this injury won’t affect my performance asa wicketkeeper."

Ganguly, too, supported Mongia and told Borde: "Ok, sir, since he assuresus of his fitness, we should play him. After discussing the matter with theother selectors, Borde said: "We can’t, we shouldn’t take chances. This isa very important Test. Mongia is only 75 per cent fit and we must replacehim." Ganguly’s reply was a glowing tribute to Mongia’s class. "Well,sir, even an only 50 per cent fit Mongia is a better wicketkeeper than any othergloveman in India." You can understand how much faith Ganguly had in Mongiaand his ability.

Q. But they still didn’t allow Mongia to play in the Chennai Test, didthey?

A. They didn’t. It was unfortunate. This is what happens in Indiancricket. The selection committee is supreme. The captain and the coach have nosay in the final XI. Mongia hasn’t played for India after the Kolkata Testversus the Aussies.

Q. It may have something to do with Mongia’s alleged involvement in thematch-fixing scandal…

A. Not at all. Even the Central Bureau of Investigation has exoneratedhim because they couldn’t record a single telephone call (to bookmakers)against him. I’ve seen the CBI report and Mongia has been given a clean chit.

Q. What’s your opinion of the Indian selectors?

A. I’m afraid they don’t perform their duties well enough. Istrongly believe they should govern themselves, before they attend the selectioncommittee meeting, by only one fact that they won’t bring their likes anddislikes while picking the national team.

If Mongia has played the same number of Tests as one of the presentselectors, he shouldn’t say: "How can Mongia play one Test more than me?I’ll see to it that he never represents the country again." This is a fact.You can take it from me. This is exactly what’s happening. There’s noquestion about Mongia’s class or attitude as a player. He’s done everythingthat he’s been asked to do for the sake of the country -- he’s opened theinnings, he’s played the role of a pinch-hitter, he has sacrificed his wicketwhile trying to make quick runs -- without ever saying "No" or uttering aword of complaint. He’s played many important innings against the world’sfastest bowlers in a hour of crisis.

You just can’t point a finger against Mongia. He is totally innocent. Butit’s a fact that today he isn’t liked by certain cricketers and selectors. Idon’t understand why. But something is wrong somewhere. There’re some peoplewho aren’t go-getters. If Mongia prefers to go to his room after the match orthe day’s play and reads or watches television and doesn’t mix with theother players, it doesn’t mean he is a bad person.

Q. While the selectors have been overlooking Mongia, they are picking andplaying players regardless of their poor form. How do you view this?

A. Sentiments. Players should be judged on merit. Likes, dislikes andsentiments should have no place in such matters. The selectors seem to wonder:"Why should we drop player X after he has played so much for India? How can wedrop him?"It’s very simple. If he isn’t performing, he shouldn’t bethere.

Q. Why do you think they select injured players like Harbhajan Singh in thefirst place?

A. It’s a tragedy that in-form players like Murali Kartik areignored while injured and non-performers like Harbhajan Singh are givenfive-star treatment. Harbhajan has erred. I remember when he came back from theWorld Cup, there was a suggestion that he should get his injured finger operated.But someone warned him, in the guise of a suggestion, that he might never beable to bowl well and consequently never play for India again. This scaredHarbhajan and he didn’t go for the operation. He continued playing and theinjury forced him out of the current tour.

Indian cricketers in general suffer from the fear syndrome. Let me give anexample but please don’t get me wrong. Suppose I’m a Rahul Dravid or aZaheer Khan, I’ll be a certainty in the team. Suddenly I injure my finger andI’m not 100 per cent fit. I can bat, bowl and field with a littlediscomfiture. So, I hide my injury. Why? Because I’m afraid that if I discloseit, I’ll be dropped. But my worst fear is that if the player replacing mecements his place in the side, I won’t be recalled. This isn’t the case withplayers from other countries. Brian Lara, Glenn McGrath and others aren’tknown to hide their injuries. If they’re unfit, they themselves ask theselectors not to pick them.