There is an old saying that the pot should not call the kettle black. The latest outburst by a club secretary against a report published in these columns is a textbook example of that adage.
One is genuinely left wondering whether to laugh at the allegations or take them seriously. The person making sweeping accusations against this publication is himself no stranger to controversy, particularly when questions have been raised over the very existence, antecedents and affiliation of the club he represents. Before lecturing others on credibility and propriety, perhaps it would be more appropriate for him to answer the questions surrounding his own club.
Let the facts speak for themselves.
The club in question had reportedly faced serious questions over its existence and identity, including allegations relating to a “duplicate” club. At one stage, its affiliation was removed despite legal efforts to protect it. Yet, remarkably, it subsequently found its way back into the HCA fold. Questions have been raised about how that reversal happened and whether the then office-bearers of the association played a role in facilitating it. There have also been allegations of business links between a former HCA secretary and persons associated with the club. These are not questions invented by this publication; they are matters that deserve scrutiny wherever they arise in the administration of the Hyderabad Cricket Association.
If the club secretary believes otherwise, there is a simple remedy: produce the records and answer the questions.
Instead, he has apparently chosen to attack this e-paper in the HCA Club Secretaries’ WhatsApp group, making allegations that our reports are being “sponsored” by insiders. That is a serious allegation. Therefore, let him produce the evidence.
Who paid for these reports? Who sponsored them? When, where and how was any money or favour exchanged? Let him put the evidence in the public domain instead of hiding behind WhatsApp messages and insinuations.
As a journalist and editor, I have never sought favours, patronage or assistance from anyone to publish a story. I have no reason to do so. My professional credibility is built over decades of journalism, and I have no intention of allowing an individual with his own baggage of controversies to define my professional integrity.
Let me make one thing abundantly clear: the campaign of this publication concerning the Hyderabad Cricket Association is not a campaign against any individual. It is a campaign against maladministration, opacity, alleged violations of rules and the institutional deterioration that has progressively tarnished the reputation of an association that ought to have been serving cricket.
If exposing these issues makes some people uncomfortable, that is hardly the media’s problem.
The HCA does not belong to any particular office-bearer, club secretary, faction or coterie. It belongs to cricket and to the larger sporting community. Those occupying positions of responsibility are custodians, not proprietors. They are accountable for their decisions, their conduct and their compliance with the rules.
Therefore, nobody has the right to question the professional credibility of a journalist merely because the journalist refuses to look away from uncomfortable facts.
I also find it rather curious that the same individual who appears so eager to question the motives of this publication has apparently attracted questions and complaints concerning his own conduct and the manner in which his club came into existence and secured affiliation.
I understand that a complaint has reportedly been made by a senior Congress leader, a former parliamentarian who is also associated with a cricket club, concerning the circumstances in which the club secretary allegedly went on to float his club, secure access to a playground and subsequently obtain HCA affiliation. (Your effort to reach out to the complainant, though known to this author, proved futile.) There are also allegations that the individual had earlier been helped in securing a contract at the Hyderabad Race Course. These are serious claims, and if a copy of the complaint submitted to the Court-appointed Single Member Committee is indeed available, the appropriate authorities are perfectly entitled to examine its contents and verify the facts. The point is not whether the complainant belongs to the Congress or any other political party. The point is whether the allegations contained in the complaint are true.
That is precisely how institutional accountability should work.
If there is nothing to hide, there should be nothing to fear from scrutiny.
More interestingly, the club secretary’s own messages reportedly contain uncharitable remarks against the present HCA secretary, apparently over the latter’s decision to approach the Telangana High Court in matters concerning the association. The High Court has since issued contempt notices to five Apex Council members. The legal proceedings will take their own course, and nobody should prejudge the outcome, but the episode once again demonstrates the increasingly bitter internal divisions within the HCA.
The question now is whether the authorities concerned — the Court-appointed committee and the HCA secretary — will examine the complaint reportedly received from the original club owner and determine whether the formation, use of facilities and subsequent affiliation of the allegedly duplicate club warrant further action.
That is a matter for the competent authorities, not a verdict for this publication to pronounce.
But it is equally not for any club secretary to expect the media to fall silent simply because questions about his club, or about the administration of the HCA, make him uncomfortable.
It is, however, worth noting what the club secretary chooses to take offence at, and what he chooses to overlook. Bye-law amendments and pending payments are apparently serious enough to warrant a WhatsApp campaign against this publication.
Yet the questions that ought to trouble him far more — where the money leaving the system actually goes, money that could otherwise have strengthened grounds, coaching and facilities; what the Anti-Corruption Unit has been doing about the complaints already before it; and what, if anything, is being done for player development and on-field performance, which is the entire point of the association’s existence — never seem to make it onto that same WhatsApp group. If credibility is the yardstick the club secretary wishes to apply to others, he might consider applying it to those questions first.
There is another fundamental point that appears to have escaped him.
Criticism of an institution is not a personal attack. Investigative reporting is not vendetta. And asking uncomfortable questions is not “sponsorship”.
If the facts published are wrong, rebut them with documents. If a particular allegation is false, identify it specifically and produce evidence to disprove it. If a report contains an error, this publication has no hesitation in correcting it. But responding to criticism with personal attacks, insinuations and accusations of hidden sponsorship is hardly a substitute for facts.
Indeed, the most effective way of silencing a newspaper is not by abusing it. It is by disproving its reports.
So far, instead of doing that, the club secretary appears to have chosen the easier route—shooting the messenger.
Unfortunately for him, this e-paper is not going to be intimidated by WhatsApp rhetoric or personal abuse. Nor will it be distracted by attempts to divert attention from the substantive issues confronting the HCA.
The more the internal battles spill into the open, the more important independent scrutiny becomes. The increasing number of court proceedings, complaints and allegations involving different stakeholders only reinforces the need for transparency rather than intimidation.
And if our reporting has indeed created “ripples” within the HCA, perhaps the better question is not why this publication is reporting them, but why there are so many ripples to report in the first place.
A healthy sporting institution should welcome scrutiny. A transparent administration should have nothing to fear from questions. Only when accountability becomes uncomfortable does the messenger suddenly become the target.
As for the club secretary’s personal attacks, he is welcome to continue with them.
We will continue with the facts.
And if he genuinely believes that the reports published by Orangenews9 are false, there is a very simple challenge before him: bring the documents, rebut every allegation point by point, and let readers decide.
Until then, his outburst amounts to little more than the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
