There is no relenting from either side on the one-upmanship regarding the sports ministry’s guidelines for national sports federation chiefs. After the International Olympic Committee (IOC) wrote a strongly worded letter reiterating the much discussed points of the Olympic Charter, the ministry has questioned the logic of IOC’s stance.
The issue threatens to intensify just five months before the country is set to host the Commonwealth Games, with the government opening a channel directly to IOC chief Jacques Rogge.
In a letter dated May 10, the IOC’s National Olympic Committees Relations director wrote (on Rogge’s instructions) that the issue was not whether the guidelines were appropriate or not, rather the freedom of concerned bodies.
“Our point is that such measures (which relate to the internal operations of those organisations) must not be decided or imposed by law or an external body’s decision but must be decided freely and democratically by the competent organs of these organisations, on a case-by-case basis, and this must be reflected in their respective statues/constitutions.
“This is our understanding of what autonomy of the Olympic and sports organisations means, and it is one of the basic principles that govern the Olympic movement, which everyone, including the public authorities in each country, must respect if those organisations wish to continue belonging to the Olympic movement.”
The letter further states that the IOC is open to the dialogue with the ministry, as proposed by the latter earlier this month and hopes that any mandatory sanctions would not lead to the IOC considering drastic protective measures, which include the suspension of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA).
Officials of the IOA and various sports federations have joined hands in their opposition to the guidelines. But if they were hoping that the Indian government would soften its stand in fear of the possible sanctions, they were in for a surprise as Injeti Srinivas, joint secretary (sports), took a dig at the world body in a letter sent on Wednesday.
Srinivas has pointed out that the IOC itself had made certain changes in its rules (in 1999) similar to the controversial government guidelines that puts a cap on a president’s tenure to a maximum of 12 years and those of the secretary and treasurer to two successive terms of four years each, apart from a retirement age of 70.
“This has been done perhaps, keeping in mind, that in the recent past, you have had office bearers whose tenures had invited world comment. However, your present position seems to indicate that what is eminently desirable for the IOC and has been put in place by the votes of the National Olympic Associations (NOC) need not be followed by the NOCs themselves.
“You have indicated that therefore, the sole interest you have, is to let them function as they may, elect as they will, and the national governments, or the courts of the countries, should not restrain them, or guide them, in any manner whatsoever. This is to say the least, a very strange position.”
The letter from Srinivas, which has been addressed directly to Rogge, further states that is surprised that the IOC is unable to take any position and that the ministry itself has to present itself in a Public Interest Litigation before the Delhi High Court on May 19 in furtherance of the case. It also states that no immediate action is required as the present tenures will not be affected with the guidelines and hopes that the national concerns and sentiments would be respected by the IOC.
