N Srinivasan: The evil that this man did lives after him

Dileep Premachandran
Wisden India


The wisecracks and the jibes have already begun. Some on social media related N Srinivasan's removal as International Cricket Council (ICC) chairman to the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Mission).


The general sentiment was along the lines of “good riddance“ and “close the door behind you“. It was indicative of how short public memory tends to be. All the good things that Srinivasan did as a cricket administrator have been overshadowed by the scandals of the past two years, most of them relating to the now-suspended Chennai Super Kings franchise.

Was Srinivasan guilty of conflict of interest? Of course he was. But it's undeniable that every heavy hitter at the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), including several now positioning themselves as paragons of virtue, was party to the constitutional changes that allowed board members to own a stake in Indian Premier League franchises. Where were these voices then? We certainly didn't hear any dissent at the time.

The other accusations against him are more to do with perception than re ality. There is not a shred of proof that Srinivasan had anything to do with M Gurunath, his son-in-law, betting on the outcome of IPL matches. India Cements, as an organisation, might have attempted a cover-up when the story came out ­ a botched exercise that has ended up costing Srinivasan everything ­ but we have yet to see even one document that shows he benefited in any way from Gurunath's transgressions.

T he he -must-have known argument is utter nonsense. Many of us enjoy cordial relations with our in-laws, without them knowing any great detail about how we live our lives.Srinivasan has never been a Twenty20 aficionado, so it's even less likely that he kept an eagle eye on what Gurunath was up to in the Super Kings dugout.

The great pity is that the positive steps he took will all be forgotten given the nature of his exit. In a country increasingly in thrall to the shortest format, and where other administrators have gone on record to say that they wouldn't mind a nine-month-long domestic (IPL) season, Srinivasan was the main reason Test cricket stayed relevant. In 2011, India, who had only played three-Test series in England since 1982, played a four-Test series. Last summer, it was five. Series against Australia, both home and away, are now four Tests.

In the five-and-a-half years since Lalit Modi was given his marching orders on he sidelines of an IPL final, India have played 55 Tests. Only England (68) and Australia (60) have played more.

It remains to be seen if his successors have the same kind of commitment to the ive-day game.

Srinivasan also ensured that former players the world over were envious of heir Indian counterparts, who received whopping one-time payments and also a monthly pension. That largesse didn't begin with his ascent to the highest pedestal n the BCCI either. A generation of Indian cricketers, especially from `weaker' states ike Kerala, owes their careers to the generous contracts given to them by Indian Cements, to play for various teams in the Chennai league system.

Some of these measures might have been recognised if there had been even a hint of a charm offensive. Instead, we got terseness and arrogance. The staged interviews on official broadcasts were noth ing more than awkward. In the modern age, where social media and networking play such a part, the media-management and fan-engagement strategies seemed inspired by the erstwhile Soviet Union, where a head of state could be dead for months without the world knowing.

He didn't endear himself to the rest of the world either, being central to the Big-Three carve-up of the ICC. If the new dispensation were truly different, they would begin a process to make the global administration of cricket a more representative exercise. That isn't going to happen. Whether it's Srinivasan or Giles Clarke, Cricket Australia or the England and Wales Cricket Board, the big boys are only interested in one thing--consolidation of power.

“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones,“ wrote William Shakespeare a couple of centuries before cricket was first played seriously. Unfortunately for Srinivasan, the brusque exterior--the players often spoke of a very different, caring, individual--has more or less ensured that those lines from Julius Caesar are destined to be his cricketing epitaph.