In his article India v Australia: Blame ‘pitch-fixing’ for forgettable finale, published in The Times on March 13, 2023, Gideon Haigh makes this observation:

It’s not a coincidence that the BCCI is the only cricket board in the world that maintains the old-fashioned "control" in its title.

He goes on to connect the BCCI’s approach to pitch preparation with its relationship with the Bharatiya Janata Party and what he describes as "Indian hegemony."

I find this framing biased against India. Criticizing a pitch or questioning the BCCI’s decisions is entirely fair. But treating the word "control" in an institution’s name as evidence of its ideology feels like an argument built around a conclusion already reached.

If the pitches were poor, explain what made them poor. If political influence affected their preparation, establish that connection. Moving from cricket administration to sweeping claims about India requires more than sarcasm.

That does not mean politics should be excluded from scrutiny. My disagreement with Haigh’s framing does not remove my own questions about how Indian cricket is governed.

Which brings me to one: why, again, is Jay Shah the secretary of the BCCI?