Ex-BCCI panel chief Neeraj Kumar's book talks of 'malpractices' in Indian cricket
New Delhi (PTI): Former IPS officer Neeraj Kumar, who strayed into the world of cricket when he was appointed head of BCCI's Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU) in 2015, says during his stint, he realised fixing is the proverbial tip of the iceberg of corruption in cricket and a "minuscule percentage of the large-scale chicanery that cricket administrators indulge in".
Published by Juggernaut Books, "A Cop in Cricket" is an account of Kumar's personal trials as ACU chief (June 1, 2015 - May 31, 2018) at the BCCI and his "witness statement of the three critical years of the national cricket body caught in the throes of change".
Kumar says in his book, he has attempted to give the readers an "overview of the malpractices that take place in the name of cricket in our country".
At the same time, he says, having witnessed the goings-on in the BCCI in the wake of the Supreme Court interventions following the Mudgal Committee and Lodha Committee reports, "I am also able to write about the 'agents of change', appointed by the Supreme Court to clean up the Augean stables that is the BCCI".
"In the three years that I spent at the BCCI, I realised that fixing was the proverbial tip of the huge iceberg of corruption in cricket. Fixing is, in fact, a minuscule percentage of the large-scale chicanery that cricket administrators indulge in," he writes.
"The handsome revenues earned by cricket in India - thanks to the IPL - are parcelled off to state cricket associations, where the money is mostly misappropriated. The 2015 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case against the top bosses of the Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) for embezzlement of crores of rupees given to them by the BCCI is a case in point," Kumar claims.
He also goes on to allege that many "unsavoury things also happen at the grassroots level" during team selections. "Those happenings remain a matter between the selector and the aspiring cricketer or his family."
He claims during his tenure at the BCCI, his unit had to look into several such complaints, including a few where sexual favours were sought from young cricketers.
"We were frequently approached by players and their guardians complaining that they were cheated of lakhs of rupees by coaches or officials who promised them a place in an IPL or Ranji team and then disappeared, leaving them high and dry," Kumar writes.
In the book, Kumar also mentions that Vinod Rai, head of the Committee of Administrators (CoA) of the BCCI appointed by the Supreme Court to take over the governance of the BCCI in 2017, and the then BCCI CEO Rahul Johri enjoyed a 'father-son' relationship, where the "father didn't wish to hear anything against his prodigal son".
Kumar claims he brought several issues connected with Johri to the notice of Rai.
"He always gave me a patient hearing and made me feel he was on my side and would discipline Rahul Johri suitably. But I noticed he did nothing of the sort," he writes.
"Looking back at the sequence of events, I continue to be appalled and outraged. The defaulting CEO had conspired with the chief administrator to embarrass me and pass on the blame for his own misdoings to me in a meeting and had shared his plans with a journalist.
"Even more hurtful was that Rai pretended to be on my side only a couple of hours earlier and conducted himself in the meeting along the lines his CEO had scripted for him, even when he knew all the facts," he says.
Kumar also writes that with "Anurag Thakur, who had a tight leash on Johri, gone, the CEO gradually came into his own. Johri, who had political clout with a powerful central minister backing him, became the blue-eyed boy of Rai".
According to the author, the main focus of cricket administrators in India should be to ensure that help - monetary or otherwise - for struggling players at the lower level needing aid reaches only the deserving.
Kumar also writes that Indian fans really get a raw deal.
"There is hardly a stadium that can boast of a world-class spectating facility with clean toilets, availability of hygienic food and refreshments, clean drinking water, parking facilities, smooth accessibility, firefighting equipment, and so on. End of the day, it is on account of the fans that the Board generates enormous revenue, but sadly nobody cares for them.
"The so-called cricket administrators, most of whom have never held a cricket ball or bat in their lives, end up as the main beneficiaries of the monies earned by cricket in this country, at the expense of the fans of the game and the players," he says.
On legalising betting, Kumar writes: "I have always had reservations about this point of view. First, no political party in power would risk legalising betting in sports. It would be widely perceived as giving legal sanction to gambling, which is otherwise a criminal offence.
"But the political fallout of such a move would be substantial and, therefore, it is unlikely to happen any time soon. More importantly, even if the government legalises betting, how many bettors would come forward to place their wagers using 'white money'?"
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
