The Heavy Ball

BCCI set to join the UN

If this application is anything to go by, the cricket board may pip the country of its origin to the Security Council

R Rajkumar

In an unprecedented move for a sport governing body, the BCCI yesterday applied for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Governments, think tanks, and other observers were generally in agreement that the power-hungry cricket board's move was inevitable in hindsight, and that, in the words of one diplomat who wished not to named, "we're all pretty much f****d now".

Loading ...
"And as an added bonus, you can remove Sri Lanka and Bangladesh from the General Assembly, because we make all the decisions for them anyway"  Bangladesh Cricket Board

The following are excerpts from the petition letter.

To Whomsoever It May Concern (But let's be honest here, who wouldn't it?):

The BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India, not that we really have to spell it out to you) hereby submits its application for permanent member status at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

It is our opinion that, given how much the BCCI has grown as an entity which holds absolute sway over the lives of pathetic little ordinary people, it is only natural that the next logical step is to join the UNSC, from where we can expand our hold over a much larger swath of the world's population.

It should be noted that while the Republic of India has been kept waiting for inclusion into the elite clique of five nations that holds veto powers in the UNSC, experts have long tipped the BCCI to be successful where the country it purports to work for has failed:

"This organisation, if I can use the term loosely, has all the requirements and characteristics required to be a successful permanent member." We quote none other than Henry Kissinger, a patron and old friend of the board, true, but also, we're sure you will agree, a man whose integrity and honesty can never be called into question.

We have also taken the liberty of listing a few characteristics that any nation or entity worth its name must possess to even be considered a permanent member on the UNSC, points the BCCI already adopts as a matter of course:

  • Plenty of experience dealing with the ICC (International Criminal Court).

  • A healthy disregard for the interests of any entity other than one's own. Case in point: making cricketers play as many matches as they can, fitness and performances notwithstanding, as long as they bring in the dollars.

  • A constructively hypocritical attitude towards which states to help and which to leave to their own devices come crunch time (example: Pakistan, the SLPL)

  • A trigger-happy veto finger when faced with scenarios a member state is not convinced will benefit itself enough (example: Implementation of the DRS as and when we like it)

    • Furthermore, you will be pleased to note the BCCI has already started to formulate resolutions for the UNSC to consider adopting once it becomes a permanent member:

    1. We find there are more effective ways than sanctions or military action for getting reluctant states to do your bidding. If any of the other member states (say, the UK) was to veto a resolution we supported - say, for argument's sake, doing away with Test matches altogether in favour of holding the IPL every other month instead of once a year - we would persuade the offending state to see our way by naming a hastily drafted IPL team after them (the Queen's XI UK, anyone?), only to promptly threaten to sever their participation in future editions of the tournament. Of course, sadly, we would also have to fine them for subsequent non-participation. This has worked very well for us in the past. (Please refer to Case History #23461: Kochi Tuskers)

    2. A resolution that makes it illegal for rogue states to brazenly display their unrecognised name or flag. A cricketing analogy would be forbidding the national team's name ("India") from being more than half the size of the sponsor's name on team jerseys. Regrettably the name of the country can still just about be seen on camera, even if it is dwarfed by the name of the sponsor. This is not fair to the sponsors, who deserve to see their name and their name only. Besides, it's not like India paid to have its name visible. If India wants to talk about working out a fair deal for having its name displayed, then we can talk. Fair is fair, after all.

    3. Finally, we promise to use our veto power sparingly and only when needed. For example, we might use it to negate a certain team's claim that they are the No. 1 team in Test cricket. We intend to accomplish this by banning Test cricket altogether (see No. 1). We sincerely believe the security and prosperity of the world will benefit immeasurably from the absence of Test cricket.*

    We are confident you will agree that we are primed to be accorded full membership status and privileges at the UNSC, more so than our pretender, India.

    Should you deny us, we will name an IPL team after you.

    Sincerely,

    Jaywant Lele
    (former BCCI secretary, current Chairman and Commissioner of UNSC Application)

    *You're welcome, Obama.

    India

    R Rajkumar hopes that writing about cricket helps justify his watching it as much as he does to the people in his life who wonder where the remote control's disappeared to. All quotes and "facts" in this article are made up, but you knew that already, didn't you?