Cricket has always had this exalted air to it. Cricketers who had jobs never went to work and spoke about it as if that is how it was meant to be. It wasn’t the employers who were doing them a favour, they were permitting themselves to be employed. Very few learnt new skills and very very few could become successful in another world. And so, the one reaction we are getting to what happened with the Bangalore Royal Challengers is “but cricket is different”.

Sadly, it isn’t. And as cricket moves into the era of corporate management, and profitability, image and return on investment become key criteria, everybody will have to become accountable. At one level the cricketers are, because they get dropped if they don’t score runs or take wickets and that will be extended to coaches and managers. It happens in football all the time. But it is a different story with India’s cricket administrators who know what the word means but who are enjoying looking the other way.

And so ticket scams have been brushed under the carpet, balance sheets are closely guarded secrets, stadiums continue to be mediocre and officials who do things that hinder India’s progress towards becoming a cricketing power continue in office long after their incompetence has become common knowledge. Which is why I must reiterate my great desire; that cricket be slowly corporatised so that first all limited-overs cricket and in course of time, all cricket is run by franchises. I am not suggesting that all corporate houses are perfect or that everything the BCCI and its affiliate bodies do is wrong but corporate entities have to worry about things like image, return on investment, profitability and the consumer and often when that happens, you are forced to be right most times because otherwise you don’t survive.

Related to this, more as a second cousin than as a brother, is the issue of taking the moral high ground with discipline. Harbhajan Singh has now been issued a five-match ban and I think he will be relieved, more than anything else. I am not sure I agree entirely with penalising a person twice for the same offence but I am absolutely certain I disagree with the manner in which the most recent investigation was conducted.

Those that sit in judgement on moral issues, or those related to conduct, must ideally do so from a position where no fingers can be pointed at them. That is why a dishonest judge is a menace to society. So, without passing judgement on the quantum of punishment, we need to ask whether Harbhajan got a fair trial; whether those that questioned his conduct were men of unquestionable conduct themselves.

Sadly, the investigator had made public his views on the incident long before he had heard Harbhajan or Sreesanth. He had told people what he saw in the footage of the incident, which in itself violated the confidentiality that had been asked of everyone, and he told journalists what he thought of Harbhajan’s conduct. Surely, Harbhajan would be entitled to ask if he could get a fair trial from someone whose mind was made up. To my mind the conduct of the investigator was inappropriate, nobody needs to rush before the cameras all the time, but I do not hear a single statement from the BCCI about it. Why, the morning after he appeared on national television proudly displaying his report, extracts from it were already in the newspaper.

This system of leaking confidential information is a hallmark of the BCCI. Everybody knows who does it but presumably that is not improper conduct. So players are not allowed to speak to the media, they are not allowed to release confidential information but BCCI officials are allowed to do both. Tell me if it seems right to you.

That is why we need to embrace accountability and that is why those that sit in judgement must have the stature to do so.