Special Correspondent
Speak Up, Don’t Just Cheer
Reforms in the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) will remain a distant dream unless every stakeholder who claims to be concerned about the game finds the courage to speak up. Sitting on the sidelines, applauding those who raise uncomfortable questions and privately agreeing with them, will not clean up the system.
The irony is that a large section of Hyderabad’s cricket fraternity appears to want reform, yet only a handful are willing to actively demand it. Some have chosen legal remedies; others restrict themselves to “wah-wahs” when somebody else takes on the system. If they genuinely believe that something is wrong, why not join the chorus and make it impossible for the judiciary, government, investigating agencies and the cricketing authorities to ignore the concerns?
Orangenews9 has deliberately provided space to stakeholders who believe they have been wronged or have concerns about the functioning of HCA. The platform has never claimed that every allegation is established fact. On the contrary, allegations remain allegations until independently verified or judicially established. But allegations supported by documents, official records or other credible material deserve scrutiny—not silence.
The HCA is certainly not the only cricket association to have faced allegations of financial irregularities, internal politics, conflicts of interest or questions over administration. Other state associations have gone through difficult phases and, in some instances, judicial or administrative intervention has resulted in significant course correction. Jammu and Kashmir cricket is an example often cited in this context. Its subsequent emergence as a competitive domestic cricketing force, producing players capable of challenging established teams and earning national recognition, demonstrates what can happen when talent is allowed to flourish beyond entrenched interests.
That is precisely why those who merely sit on the sidelines and applaud should be challenged. If sections of the cricket fraternity believe there are irregularities, they should use every legitimate platform available—media, courts, BCCI mechanisms, government agencies and appropriate investigative authorities—to place their concerns on record.
After Orangenews9 began its campaign highlighting concerns surrounding HCA, sections of social media, a few television channels and some mainstream publications also started reporting on aspects of the controversy. Yet, by all appearances, much of the mainstream media has been reluctant to aggressively examine HCA affairs. The reasons are best known to individual organisations. But when journalists covering sport are dependent on access, accreditation and institutional relationships, questions inevitably arise about whether professional independence is being compromised by considerations of job security.
More disturbing are the questions surrounding the enormous cost of prolonged litigation. The issue is not whether courts should intervene—judicial oversight is sometimes indispensable. The larger question is whether the institution should continue bearing the financial consequences of disputes arising from the conduct of individuals. If HCA funds are used extensively to defend office-bearers in litigation, the ultimate burden is borne by the game and its stakeholders.
There have also been allegations—yet to be conclusively established—that elections within the association involve enormous expenditure. If contestants are indeed spending crores of rupees to secure office, the obvious question is: where is that money going and what is the return expected from such an investment?
The electoral structure itself provides a reason to ask uncomfortable questions. Club secretaries and affiliated clubs constitute the electoral constituency. There have long been allegations concerning the legitimacy, control and ownership of certain affiliated clubs, including claims involving former institutional or GHMC-linked clubs and alleged proxy or benami control. Such claims require proper verification by competent authorities; they cannot simply be treated as established facts.
But if even a fraction of these allegations is found to be true, it points to a structural problem far bigger than an individual election.
Yet no electoral system, however flawed, can run without voters. HCA’s electorate is not faceless. It is made up of clubs, district associations, institutions and former players, people who have lived through every one of these cycles. If they remembered, at the moment of voting, what the previous tenure cost them and the game—leagues delayed, selections questioned, grants withheld, courts and committees taking charge—HCA would not keep walking back into the same loop. Memory is the cheapest reform available, and the one most often forgotten.
Too often it is forgotten in exchange for a little personal gain. A committee post here, a manager’s assignment there, a grant or a favour in the weeks before polling, and the wrong vote gets cast. The 2023 report of the Supreme Court-appointed Single Member Committee recorded exactly this pattern: funds distributed to clubs “in keeping with their election promises”, club secretaries promised committee seats and manager roles, and contesting panels offering up to Rs 5 lakh per club. A voter who trades his vote for personal development at the cost of cricket is not supporting the game. He is putting a price on it.
That is why the very idea of HCA posts as rewards must be done away with. Committee memberships, team manager assignments, selectorships and other roles should not be handed out as favours to voters or their nominees. Each should have published eligibility criteria—relevant cricketing or professional qualifications, no conflict of interest, and a fixed term—and be filled through open applications and proper interviews, with the reasons for every appointment placed on record. When a post can no longer be promised, a vote can no longer be bought with it.
The stakes are substantial. HCA reportedly receives tens of crores of rupees annually through various BCCI-related allocations and revenues. That inevitably creates an ecosystem in which control of the association can become financially attractive. The question, therefore, is not merely who wins an election. It is whether the electoral system itself is sufficiently transparent to ensure that cricket—not money, influence or factional interests—determines who runs the game.
This is why reform cannot be cosmetic.
If allegations of financial irregularities, conflicts of interest, questionable club affiliations and selection-related manipulation persist, the BCCI cannot indefinitely remain a passive spectator. If necessary, it should examine whether extraordinary administrative intervention is warranted, including a temporary restructuring of HCA administration through a professionally credible committee, subject of course to applicable legal and regulatory processes.
Such intervention should have clear safeguards.
First, financial allocations should be subjected to strict accountability and independent audit, with legitimate grassroots cricket protected from collateral damage.
Second, clubs found to be non-genuine or improperly controlled should not be allowed to become electoral instruments. Any action, however, must follow due process and documentary verification.
Third, the BCCI or the competent judicial authority should consider an independent, time-bound examination of outstanding allegations, involving credible cricket administrators and former players of unimpeachable standing wherever appropriate.
Most importantly, institutional accountability cannot become selective.
Justice L. Nageswara Rao, as the Supreme Court-appointed Single Member Committee, disqualified 57 clubs in 2023 on conflict-of-interest grounds. That action itself demonstrates the seriousness of the underlying structural problem. Subsequent allegations that additional clubs may be controlled through proxy or benami arrangements must, however, be independently verified rather than treated as established fact.
And here lies perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all.
If investigating agencies such as the ACB and CID have gathered material in connection with alleged irregularities, why have the proceedings not reached their logical conclusion? If there are legitimate reasons for delay, they should be placed transparently on record. If there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, prosecution should follow. If there is insufficient evidence, the matter should be closed. Indefinite limbo serves neither justice nor cricket.
The same question must inevitably be asked of every institution entrusted with oversight—including the judiciary and court-appointed mechanisms. Judicial intervention cannot become an end in itself. It must ultimately produce accountability, transparency and institutional correction.
Nine years of intervention, litigation and committees cannot become a permanent administrative model.
That is precisely the point Orangenews9 has been making repeatedly: if judicial intervention has not produced meaningful course correction, something in the system of intervention itself needs examination.
The ultimate casualty cannot be Hyderabad cricket.
The young cricketer waiting for a fair selection, the district player hoping for an opportunity, the genuine club trying to survive without political or financial patronage, and the parent spending hard-earned money on a child’s cricketing dream have nothing to do with power struggles.
They deserve a system where performance matters more than proximity, merit matters more than money, and cricket matters more than those who control it.
Fair play cannot remain a slogan. It has to become the operating principle of Hyderabad cricket.
