Vinay Rao
(…..Contd) To understand why none of these questions found their way into the courtroom, one must first understand what many affiliated clubs within the Hyderabad Cricket Association have gradually become.
For a significant section of HCA’s membership, cricket development has ceased to be the primary purpose of affiliation.
The affiliated club is no longer merely a sporting institution. It has become a political unit.
Its value lies less in the cricketers it nurtures than in the vote it carries into the HCA General Body. That single vote helps determine who controls the Association. Those who control the Association decide committee appointments, touring delegations, match allocations, tournament administration and, ultimately, the distribution of financial resources.
The Cricket Development Fund became one instrument in that political ecosystem—not principally as an investment in the game, but as a political dividend distributed in return for loyalty and electoral support.
Justice L. Nageswara Rao’s report documented this disturbing reality with remarkable clarity.
It recorded clubs receiving annual development grants despite having neither cricket grounds nor qualified coaches. It referred to election panels promising increased financial assistance during campaign periods. It noted how positions within HCA’s administration frequently became extensions of electoral calculations rather than appointments based on cricketing merit or administrative necessity.
Taken together, the findings painted a picture that is difficult to ignore.
The Cricket Development Fund was functioning less as an instrument of sporting development than as the currency of an entrenched political ecosystem.
Read this: https://orangenews9.com/three-lakhs-a-year-nine-years-not-one-question-about-cricket-part-i/
Once viewed through that lens, the absence of cricket from the entire controversy begins to make sense.
Whether the fund produced a new turf wicket, financed a coaching programme, purchased equipment for young cricketers or enabled talented players to continue in the sport became almost incidental. Those outcomes, which ought to have been the very purpose of the scheme, were no longer the measures by which its success was judged.
Its real purpose lay elsewhere.
It kept clubs affiliated.
It preserved voting blocs.
It reinforced electoral loyalties.
It strengthened successive administrations.
The players, ironically, became the least important participants in a fund that bore the words “Cricket Development” in its very title.
Most of them continued paying for their own kits, practice facilities, travel and tournament expenses. Many never saw a rupee from a fund ostensibly created in their interest.
Over time, they simply stopped expecting anything.
That, perhaps, is the greatest tragedy of all.
A scheme conceived in the name of developing cricket gradually became detached from the very people it was intended to serve.
Against this backdrop, it becomes easier to understand why these larger issues never surfaced before the court.
The proceedings were concerned with enforcing a resolution, not investigating the consequences of that resolution over the past nine years.
The court was asked a narrow legal question.
It answered that question.
It was not asked whether the Development Fund had actually developed cricket.
It was not asked whether clubs had complied with the accounting requirements prescribed by HCA’s own Bye-Laws.
It was not asked whether previous grants had been properly audited or whether players had received any tangible benefit from the scheme.
Nor was it asked whether distributing public-facing cricket funds to clubs with little or no demonstrable cricketing activity was consistent with HCA’s constitutional objectives.
Those issues remained outside the scope of the proceedings because no one chose to bring them within it.
The consequence is that the political ecosystem surrounding Hyderabad cricket has emerged from the litigation largely untouched.
Nine years of arrears are now set to be released pursuant to a judicial order.
Yet the larger questions—how the money was meant to be spent, whether it ever achieved its stated purpose, and who ultimately benefited—remain unanswered.
For an organisation entrusted with nurturing cricket, that silence is perhaps more revealing than the judgment itself. (To be concluded)
