How low can they go?

The night before the members of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) brace themselves for another fight to retain or acquire control over the most lucrative game in the country, a confidential letter written by the Indian coach to the board president finds its way to a local newspaper in Kolkata. Portions of the content are sensational: the coach has said in no uncertain terms that the captain isn't fit to hold a place in the team, let alone lead it. The story is certain to dominate the headlines in the newspapers next day. Coincidence? Or a cynical ploy to divert attention from the sordid goings-on? Draw your own conclusions.

But even if we were to accept that the leak was merely routine, it is impossible not to be aghast by the impropriety of it. To say Greg Chappell should have known better is cynical at the best and a shameful abdication of moral values at the worst. First, the captain finds an opportune moment to make public a private conversation between him and the coach. And then a sensitive confidential letter written to the board president is made available to the media. As betrayal of trust, this must rank pretty low. Can we blame Tom Moody for saying a quiet prayer of thanks that he didn't get the job that Chappell did.

Sourav Ganguly, if he believed he commanded a place in the team, can't be faulted for feeling incensed at the suggestion from the man appointed to help him with his job that he didn't belong. He would have been within his rights to rail and remonstrate, and indeed take up the matter strongly with the board. Yet he felt compelled and emboldened by a century against the softest bowling attack in the world cricket to let the world know that his feat was achieved against great odds. God knows what was he trying to achieve? Gain public sympathy? Turn the tables on Chappell? Precipitate action from the board?

There are those who believe Chappell exceeded his brief. And that he failed to work within the system. But what was his brief? It was a brief that he wrote for himself, and the one that got him the job: a vision statement that made it clear that he was looking to build a team for the future, a team that was fit in body and mind, a team with an ambition to win. Should he be crucified for being true to his belief, and showing the courage to stand up for it? It is no secret that Ganguly backed Chappell for the job. What could Chappell possibly gain from antagonising him? And what can Indian cricket gain from Chappell being obsequious towards Ganguly?

Of course, little of this will matter to men for whom Indian cricket is a ticket to power and fame. And that's putting it the best possible way. As the sham carried out in Kolkata over the last two days has underlined once again, the welfare of cricket is generally the last item on the agenda, if it is there at all, when BCCI's powerbrokers meet to stake their claim to the booty.

That the BCCI elections are a farce has been no secret. What is an election where there is no deadline for nominations and worse, no voter list? But thanks to the ever present and prying eye of the television camera, this ridiculous charade is now played out in the public. Honesty can rarely exist without independence, and since every office bearer in the Indian board depends on a few others to cling on to his position, every major decision taken by the board is motivated by reasons beyond cricket. Indian selectors, despite their best intentions in some cases, are hostage to their zonal politics while picking the team, and are literally at the mercy of the higher powers in the matter of choosing the captain.

It's a vicious cycle. The system is rotten to the core, but who can reform the system but the system itself? Much was expected from Jagmohan Dalmiya in his second stint as the board president. He was possibly the only man with the clout and the skills of manoeuvre, but alas, not the will or vision, to lead Indian cricket out of the cesspool. To liberate Indian cricket, he would have to let go of it himself. Events in the last two years have shown that it's beyond him. Indian cricket must await its deliverer.

Meanwhile, power-broking will continue. Compromises will be made, deals will be struck, quid pro quos will emerge, and yesterday's rivals will pose happily for pictures claiming friendship. That's the rule of power politics. Nobody believes in anything, nobody stands for anything.

Now, would Indian cricket be better served by a coach who became a part of this system? Is Greg Chappell the wrong man for Indian cricket? Or is Indian cricket the wrong place for Greg Chappell?