BCCI secretary Devjit Saikia said late on Friday, July 17, that the ODI match at Lord’s will not be former India captain Rohit Sharma’s last ODI, amid speculations that Rohit is no longer in the plans of the selectors and team management. Reports claimed that India has decided to proceed The experienced opening batsman is set to draw curtains on his career after the Lord’s ODI ahead of the 2027 ODI World Cup.

Saikia dispelled those concernsPutting an end to the rumours. Ok. Great. But why is the Indian Cricket Board Secretary talking about Rohit Sharma’s retirement plan?

This seems like a silly question. But the more you think about it, the stranger it becomes.

Perhaps Rohit had never intended to retire in the first place. Or maybe he did.

But that is not the point.

Devjit Saikia is the Secretary of the BCCI – the top administrative officer of the board. He is not the person taking decisions in the Indian dressing room. Yet he was there assuring everyone that Rohit’s ODI career would not end at Lord’s.

You have to wonder what goes on in the mind of an administrator when they suddenly want to decide the career plan of one of India’s greatest cricketers.

Shouldn’t cricket be left to cricketing ability? India has a strong ecosystem for this, built by, guess who? BCCI.

There are selectors to judge form, coaches to manage players, captains to lead the team and players to decide when enough is enough. The job of an administrator is everything related to cricket: paperwork, broadcast deals, logistics, administration and budgeting.

At this point, you may wonder: What’s the harm in a harmless comment?

I would argue that there is.

one man rules all

It is no secret that the BCCI has traded its old, anarchic democratic mantle for a much shinier, far more absolutist “one man rules all” philosophy. Notice the difference here. Rules all, does not rule all.

Governance requires distribution of authority. It accepts roles and responsibilities. Governance simply requires one person who has direct access to the microphone.

Ever since Sourav Ganguly was removed from the chairman’s chair, public communication about Indian cricket has increasingly flowed through the office of the secretary. During Jay Shah’s tenure, he informed about almost every major development related to the Indian team. This pattern has certainly continued under Devjit Saikia.

Maybe this makes communication easier. Perhaps this will also keep Indian cricket running smoothly. But it leaves behind an uncomfortable question. Why are capable men and women, many of whom have spent decades inside the sport, being silenced? And if they are not competent enough, why are they in positions of power in the first place?

If the head coach or chairman of selectors can’t address speculation about a modern great player, why are they in those positions in the first place?

history repeats itself

Why are we talking about secretaries today?

Because we’ve seen this drama before.

Focus your mind on September 2021. Rumors were spreading that Virat Kohli was going to lose the T20I captaincy of India. Accountability is part of the elite game. Even a player of Kohli’s stature was not immune from scrutiny after India’s multiple failures in ICC tournaments.

But when Kohli’s future in cricket was being debated, the administrative machinery intervened.

Jay Shah had announced, “There is no proposal to replace Kohli and the team is being led by Virat and we are supporting him.”

“We are sensitive to the fact that such a proposal is not in the interest of the Indian team when it competes in the World Cup.”

Forty-eight hours later, Virat Kohli resigned. It was a masterclass in institutional gaslighting.

Who exactly were the public supposed to believe? The BCCI Secretary, who had categorically ruled out such a move? The head coach, who never addressed the issue publicly? Or the hurt Virat Kohli himself, who quietly walked away from captaincy for seven years?

That was September 2021. Five years later, we’re back in exactly the same place.

Once again, an administrator has become the face of cricket’s decisions. Once again the selectors are maintaining silence. Once again the coach has become silent. Once again, the player himself has not said anything.

At this point, someone will inevitably ask, and they should ask: What did Saikia have to do? A microphone was thrust into his face.

Easy. All he could say was: “It is not my place to comment on a player’s future. Please ask the captain, coach or selectors.”

That’s it. The matter is over.

God save Indian cricket

Whether Rohit Sharma will retire after Lord’s, after the Asia Cup, after the World Cup or two years from now is almost irrelevant.

The big question is: Why has Indian cricket reached the point where the secretary is at the center of power? Why can’t he hand over command to the respective department heads, who are in their positions because they are capable.

If administrators become the spokespersons then the people who actually run the cricket team will gradually stop mattering. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, the institution becomes hollow from within.

Cricket deserves better than this. Institutions also do this.

God save Indian cricket.

– ends