I could not understand the ruthless and vicious attitudes of the BCCI towards the Indian Cricket League (ICL). Only when I read about Lalit Modi, the vice-president of BCCI, could I comprehend the matter.
As Cricinfo states Modi is: "Sharp, brash, ruthlessly ambitious, and admired and reviled in equal measure, Lalit Modi will be known as the man who changed the landscape of cricket. The Indian Premier League (IPL), the multi-million-dollar, football-style, franchise-based domestic league, which Modi conceived and executed with spectacular success, has hurtled cricket to the fast lane, forcing the traditionalists to follow suit even while squirming. The tournament, first held in 2008, consolidated India's position as cricket's economic powerhouse, and consequently, its premier agenda-setter."
In his Mumbai office, surrounded by tall bookshelves and autographed cricket bats, Modi sits up from his slouch and begins yelling when asked about Subhas Chandra, owner of ICL: "All of a sudden, for the first time in India, a broadcaster is coming in not because he wants to develop the game," he says. "He wants to develop the content for his channels. Every sports broadcaster knows that to survive in this country, you need cricket content."
Modi responded last year by forbidding any team in the world with ICL contracted player from entering any BCCI tournament. Tony Greig, a former captain of England and ICL board member, says Modi's protests are about power: "He doesn't like the ICL because it's encroaching on the BCCI's monopoly of cricket in India."
In a recent rating of most powerful sportsman and sports organisers worldwide by an US finance magazine Modi has been rated at No. 17.
Former England cricket captain Mike Atherton has called Modi "ruthless." And Lalit Modi responded by saying: "I am ruthless without doubt, otherwise we won't get [sic] where we were."
Nobody expects an elected body to be so monopolistic and confrontational normally. The aggressiveness and winner takes all attitudes come from Modi. Thirteen Bangladeshi cricketers who joined ICL have been banned from all national and domestic tournaments for 10 years. I will not bet on it, but I have a feeling that the president of BCB might have got a telephone call from Modi or some side-kick with the suggestion to teach the Bangladeshi players a lesson so that other players will think not twice but one hundred times before volunteering for ICL.
After all, let us not forget that although the Twenty20 format is been played in England among the counties since 2003. In fact, they were the pioneers although it was not a commercial venture. But in India, the background of ICL is known to all.
It started when Subhas Chandra's Zee Telefilms bid for the telecast rights of the 2003 Cricket World Cup. Although the highest bid, it was not successful. In 2004 Subhas Chandra again bid for the telecast rights and ended up in an inconclusive court battle. He made another bid for the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy rights and once again lost. So its hardly surprising that he decided to go it alone. On April 3, 2007 with a kitty of Rs.100 crores he announced a break away cricket series to be called the Indian Cricket League.
Let us not forget that ICL was the pioneer but it was only on January 15 this year that it was announced that a consortium consisting of India's Sony television network and Singapore-based World Sport Group secured the global broadcasting rights of the Indian Premier League of the BCCI.
Since in India all the state cricket boards are affiliated to BCCI, naturally they will have to strictly comply with the directives of BCCI (read Modi). The fact is, the different states in India hardly receive any assistance financial or technical from BCCI. This has restricted the growth and development young cricketers in India.
After all, a country with a population of over a billion has hardly produced a few dozen cricketers of international standard, although cricket is like a religion in India. So who is likely to lose with the monopolistic attitude of BCCI? It will be cricket, cricketers, and the cricket viewers.
Several factors have played a role in formulation of ICL which may run parallel to the current official IPL of BCCI. There is a wide disparity between the facilities enjoyed by the national team and the regional ones. This makes the regional players far from being of international standard and not fit to represent their country, preventing a huge country like India from having players ready to replace when key national players retire or are injured. Also, the regional cricket boards depend on the BCCI for infrastructure and grass root development.
The BCCI being the richest cricket board has completely dominated ICC in the recent years, otherwise why the ICC should step to ban players in a tournament played in India raises questions. A meeting was held in Dubai earlier this month between the ICC President David Morgan and ICL owner Subhas Chandra to discuss about the ban on ICL.
"There is nothing wrong in that meeting. Mr. Morgan will give details of what was discussed at his meeting with Mr. Subhas Chandra at the ICC meeting," said BCCI President Shashank Manohar just hours after taking over from Sharad Pawar in Mumbai on September 27.
ICC President Morgan has a reputation of being a man of principles and ethics. It is just possible that Subhas Chandra may get a fair hearing. Haroon Lorgat, the recently appointed ICC CEO is a chartered accountant from whom one can expect a "true and fair" treatment. But whether they will be able to carry the board of ICC with them remains to be seen.
In the recent years, the performance of Indian cricket team has been disappointing. The question of "why can't a nation with millions of cricket players produce even a reasonably competent national eleven" has been hotly debated across newspapers and news channels.
One of the answers which has gained wide acceptance is that the BCCI, the cricket control body of India, has failed miserably in its job and needs a major overhaul in its working and organisation. Millions of Indian fans who hero-worship their cricket team are finding BCCI, with its image already mired in scandal, favouritism, and political influence, an easy target to blame for this debacle.
Showing some realism towards ICL ban problem, the Sri Lanka Cricket Board has lifted the ban from five of its top players who joined ICL last year. The players have been allowed to participate in domestic cricket, representing their clubs.
ICL has been subjected to all types of restrictions and prohibitions conceivable. No state is allowed to let their cricket grounds to be used by ICL. Presently, ICL has to be contained only to those grounds which are not under the discipline of BCCI.
The first ICL tournament with eight teams participating had to be played in two venues located in remote areas: the Tau Devi Lal Stadium, Panchkula near Chandrigarh and the Lal Bahadur Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad.
The first phase of Season-II of ICL, featuring nine teams to be staged over four venues, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Gurgaon, and Panchkula started on October 10. The restriction of venues is only depriving cricket match spectators all over India from watching the matches live.
Why ICL and IPL cannot co-exist is quite baffling? Zafar Sobhan has admirably summarised the case for ICL in his article in The Daily Star entitled "Rebel Warriors" published on September 19.

K.Z. Islam is a former President, Bangladesh Cricket Board.