On February 28, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) announced the 2024-25 cricket contracts for players. Much of it was in the ‘no-brainer’ space. But there were some big questions as well. The answers to these questions have either not been given, or are hazy and contradictory. So, why this continued lack of transparency in the running of our favourite sport?
Let’s discuss the obvious first question – Ishan Kishan.
In December 2022, Kishan hammered the fastest 200 on One Day cricket history, getting to the mark in just 126 balls, shattering Chris Gayle’s record by 12 balls. The 24-year-old may have hoped that this ferocious double century would keep him busy in 2023, especially in the ODI and T20 formats. He may have expected a place in the Test side as well, since Rishabh Pant was injured, and K.S. Bharat wasn’t doing much with the bat.
But that was not to be. Kishan spent all of 2023, sitting on the bench, in all forms of the game.
Ishan Kishan – many questions, no answers
Why wasn’t he getting picked? Why was Bharat preferred to him? It could not have been about his batting. If it was his keeping, was Kishan told it was not upto the mark? While he was repeatedly not being picked, was he being counselled? We don’t know.
When Kishan finally exited, citing mental fatigue, half way through the South Africa tour in December 2023, and then he also skipped the Ranji trophy games for his home state Jharkhand, he was overnight dubbed a ‘bad boy’. Was his mental health assessed at any point? We don’t know.
Jay Shah, BCCI’s secretary and ‘de facto boss’, targeted Kishan (without naming him) in a public speech in Rajkot. A few days later he lost his contract. But was it all Kishan’s fault? Could it be that the shabby treatment right through 2023, being stuck on the bench, affected his mental health and triggered his ‘rebellion’?
Will the BCCI own its responsibility and give us, cricket fans, some idea about what actually happened, and how and why a highly talented, always gung-ho cricketer’s career went down the flush? Has the BCCI killed a career, by mis-managing this talented youngster from Jharkhand?
Dear Jayesh Shah, this is cricket, not politics
The question we are asking is – is this Shah’s BCCI, an opaque dictatorial BCCI? Or a BCCI that reflects the values of cricket heroes like Roger Binny, the current BCCI president, Rahul Dravid, our current coach, or Ajit Agarkar, the current chief selector?
Or even the values of our captain Rohit Sharma, who has also been Kishan’s captain in the Indian Premier League (IPL) for years. The near total silence on Kishan from all these gentlemen, suggests that there is a ‘super power’ leaning on them to say nothing.
Talking about silence, how about Kishan’s own version of events? Shouldn’t he be allowed to speak to the media? Clearly not. He’s been silent for months. Perhaps not keen to rile up BCCI any further. But should that be the nature of a player’s relationship with his sport’s bosses – ‘chhup raho (be quiet), or else…’?
And this is not a debate about whether Kishan should have played or not, or whether he should get a BCCI contract or not. The issue is the utter lack of transparency. The BCCI must be transparent about how they arrived at this decision, what conversations were had with Kishan through 2023, and how, despite all checks and balances, he went off track, if indeed he did.
Ishan Kishan (left) and Shreyas Iyer.
Ishan episode will impact our young guns
The fact is, Team India has many youngsters. Superbly talented. With tough back stories.
We have done well on the back of this bank of young talent. Yashasvi Jaiswal is 22. Dhruv Jurel and Ravi Bishnoi are 23. Shubman Gill is 24. Sarfaraz Khan and Rinku Singh are 26.
They need career management, they need counselling off the field, their mental health should be a huge concern at all times. But is this happening? If Kishan’s case is an indicator, not enough. This episode may have brought uncertainty and fear back into the dressing room.
Also read: Dear BCCI, Deepti Sharma and India’s Women in Blue Deserve Better
We are also compounding the problem with knee-jerk reactions. The sudden tough talk on playing Ranji trophy comes after years of signalling to players that it doesn’t really matter. A lot of team selection decisions seem to have relied on the IPL form of players in recent years. If domestic cricket is a must for every player in Team India, it must be enforced for all, without exception.
In that context, lets talk about Shreyas Iyer, who has also lost his BCCI contract.
The equally curious case of Shreyas Iyer
Iyer played the first two Test matches of the on-going series against England, till February 5. He was then dropped, even though he actually scored more runs than Sharma in the two Tests. As he left, he also complained of back spasms, a problem that forced him to miss IPL 2023. He had just three weeks before the BCCI contracts were announced.
During those three weeks could he have been given the benefit of doubt about his back pain? Apparently not, since he had to be made an example of. The National Cricket Academy (NCA) have seemed to ‘help’ by rubbishing Iyer’s back pain claim, despite reports that the Mumbai Ranji coach was aware of his back issues.
On February 28, Iyer lost his BCCI contract, for failing to play a Ranji match over a period of three weeks. What then, about KL Rahul, who according to a Hindustan Times report has not played a Ranji match in the last four years. Sure, he’s a proven talent and deserves his Rs 5 core A grade contract. But does Iyer suddenly deserve nothing?
Clearly, the BCCI has a system of ‘different rules’ for ‘different folks’. Even if Iyer ‘deserved’ a rap on the knuckles, could he have just been ‘down-graded’? Why is he suddenly not even in the pool of BCCI’s 30 contracted players? Is he being punished for ‘crimes’ that we are not aware of? And again, Iyer has had to stay silent, so we don’t know his version. This again, is lack of transparency.
And then, there’s Hardik Pandya.
How did Hardik Pandya get away with it?
It seems, everyone except BCCI knows that Pandya is not interested in playing Test cricket. But when touring the SENA (South Africa, Australia, England, New Zealand) countries, as a fast-bowling and batting all-rounder, he would be an asset. So, if he is not keen to put country before self, shouldn’t BCCI have a rethink about his contract?
Interestingly, Pandya has nursed an injury right through India’s red-ball cricket season this winter, playing neither Test matches nor Ranji trophy matches. Equally interesting, he has not said on record that he wants to give up red-ball cricket, which gives BCCI enough of a ‘fig leaf’ to award him a full grade A contract.
On the flip side, there’s Cheteshwar Pujara. Yes, he is in the autumn of his career. But, with India’s young guns yet to stabilise, could Pujara have been retained in the pool of 30 and been given a contract?
Especially since he has been doing exactly what BCCI has prescribed – play domestic cricket, score big and stay in contention – he’s done both this season, only to be overlooked. Talk about ‘confused’ messaging, and double standards yet again.
Pujara, Chahal and double standards
There’s also the story of Yuzvendra Chahal – our foremost spinner in T20 cricket till recently.
A dip in the form cost him his place in the team. Fine. But, suddenly he finds himself without a contract. Surely, he is still good enough to be part of the BCCI’s pool of 30 contracted players. And again, no clear reason shared with the media or the fans.
We also don’t know if he was counselled, or whether as a senior player, did Agarkar and Dravid speak with him and explain their decision to him. And Chahal too, is obliged to stay silent, for fear of upsetting the BCCI’s high priests. Is this fair?
And since we’re talking about spinners – the BCCI has now come up with a good idea of ‘fast bowling contracts’ for pacers on the fringe of the team. So, why not have ‘spin bowling contracts’ as well?
India has always had a wealth of ‘spinning talent’. They could have put Chahal in this category, and even other spinning talent like Sai Kishore who has had such a stellar Ranji trophy season captaining Tamil Nadu, but has got no contract.
In India, we love our cricket, and we thrive on the talent and commitment of our players. We owe them honesty, transparency, consistency of policy, and fairness at all times. We can’t play favourites. We can’t demand performance in an environment of fear and uncertainty.
Perhaps Binny, Agarkar and Dravid need to remind Shah – this is cricket, not politics.
Rohit Khanna is a journalist and video storyteller. He has been managing editor of The Quint, and is a two-time Ramnath Goenka Award winner.
