Citing Security, India Moves Cricket Matches

After weeks of playing sudoku with match schedules and wrangling with the Indian government over scheduling clashes with the upcoming general election, the powerful Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) announced Sunday it would hold its billion dollar Indian Premier League (IPL) outside India. The decision marks an unexpected climax to a weeks-long dispute between the BCCI and the Indian Home Ministry. Dates for the IPL, which features the best players from around the world, had long been set for April and May, the only time available for a 45-day tournament during the 2009 cricket calendar. But that clashed with India's election. After much dilly-dallying, the Home Ministry and some state governments told IPL organizers they would be unable to provide adequate security for the 45-day tournament. Given the heightened security concerns since the Lahore terror attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team earlier this month, that made holding the IPL in India impossible. (See pictures of the deadly attack on Sri Lanka's cricketers.)

Related

Photos

Deadly Attack on Sri Lankan Cricketers

Stories

• After Attacks, Cricket Fights for Life in South Asia

The new hosts are likely to be either England or South Africa, officials say. A final decision could come as early as Monday. To keep the IPL in India, BCCI officials have spent weeks trying to win over state governments and launched a media blitzkrieg that equates holding the IPL with upholding the country's honor. But in the end nothing worked. "Because of the attitude of the government, that they are not ready to spare security forces for the cricket tournament ... We are forced to take the decision to move the event out of India," BCCI president Shashank Manohar told the media in Mumbai on Sunday. Bollywood superstar actor Shah Rukh Khan, who owns Team Kolkata and was part of the IPL governing council meeting where the decision was taken, was more magnanimous: "We need to respect the general elections, they are much bigger than our issue. This is an attempt to resolve our problems [rather] than create more." (See pictures of cricket.)

Commentators have already dubbed the IPL the "NRIPL" — Non-Resident Indian Premier League and fans are outraged that the games will be played off shore. "Imagine an 'Indian' Premier League in South Africa," says self-confessed cricket diehard Nikhil Lodaya, a Mumbai-based public relations executive, "It's just too desperate!" Lodaya says he planned to watch the matches on television, so it doesn't matter if the matches are played in Mumbai or London. "But for a sport I love, it's painful to see what has happened." (Read a TIME story on the worst sporting attacks.)

Like many cricket enthusiasts, Lodaya says he's surprised that the BCCI assumed the government would provide security for its matches during a general election. "One can't be blamed for thinking of this as a sign of hubris," agrees New Delhi-based Vaarunya Bhalla, who works in advertising. "It's almost as though they were trying to make some sort of statement by pushing the government endlessly." Indeed, many have welcomed the development as a sign that the enormously wealthy BCCI has been cut down to size. "In cricket, the BCCI has become an all-powerful bully," says New Delhi-based cricket commentator Pradeep Magazine. "It tramples on anyone who challenges its might — be it players or cricket boards of other countries. Now that it has checkmated the Indian state, it better get the IPL on course in a foreign country. It might just have bitten off more than it can chew." (See TIME's Pictures of the Week.)

But some also blame the ruling Congress Party for playing politics with sport. IPL chairman Lalit Modi is known to be close to the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party. Some BJP leaders have pointed out that states where the Congress or its allies are in power were the ones that denied security for IPL matches. "Cricket could have done without such politicization," says New Delhi-based cricket commentator G. Rajaraman, who holds Congress responsible. "Only Congress-ruled states said they could not provide security," he says, citing the examples of Delhi and Andhra Pradesh. "Only one match would be played at a time," he points out, "It's not as if every city was going to be besieged and security agencies stretched." Rajaraman says given cricket's popularity in India, the move will backfire for the Congress. "There was no other entertainment slated for that period, no Bollywood films were due for release, all TV serials were heading for a close just before IPL. People will be angry," he says. In a country where the price of onions has determined election results, messing with cricket might prove costly at the ballot box.

See pictures of the deadly attack on Sri Lanka's cricketers.

Read a TIME story on cricket in South Asia.