Spokesperson problem in Indian cricket

The ODI at Lord’s will not be Rohit Sharma’s last India captaincy, BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia said late on Friday (July 17) amid growing speculation that Rohit no longer figures in the selectors’ and team management’s plans. Reports claimed that India had decided to move on from the veteran opener ahead of the 2027 ODI World Cup, with the curtain on his career coming down after the Lord’s ODI.

Saikia allayed those fearsputting rumors to rest. OK. Large. But why is the Indian Cricket Board secretary talking about Rohit Sharma’s retirement plans?

It sounds like a stupid question. But the more you think about it, the weirder it gets.

Perhaps Rohit had no intention of retiring at all. Or maybe it does.

But that’s not the point.

Devajit Saikia is the BCCI Secretary – the board’s top administrative officer. He is not the man who calls in the Indian dressing room. Yet there he was, assuring everyone that Rohit’s ODI career does not end at Lord’s.

You have to wonder what goes through the administrator’s mind when they suddenly want to set the career plans of one of India’s greatest cricketers.

Shouldn’t cricket be left to cricket’s merits? India has a robust ecosystem for this built by guess who? BCCI.

There are selectors who judge form, coaches who manage players, captains who lead the team and players who decide when enough is enough. The administrator’s job is everything around cricket: paperwork, broadcast contracts, logistics, administration and budgets.

At this point you may be wondering: what’s the harm in one harmless comment?

I would like to argue that there is.

ONE MAN RULES ALL

Devajit Saikia, BCCI secretary, addresses a post-selection conference with Ajit Agarkar, chairman of selectors (PTI Photo)

It’s no secret that the BCCI has traded in its old, chaotic democratic guise for a much sleeker, much more absolute philosophy of ‘one man rules all’. Notice the difference here. Rule all, not rule all.

Administration requires separation of powers. Recognizes roles and responsibilities. Control simply requires one person with direct access to the microphone.

Ever since Sourav Ganguly was pushed out of the president’s chair, public communications around Indian cricket have increasingly flowed through the secretary’s office. During Jay Shah’s tenure, almost every major development surrounding the Indian team was communicated by him. The pattern certainly continued under Devajit Saikia.

Maybe it will make communication easier. Perhaps it even keeps Indian cricket running smoothly. But it leaves behind a nagging question. Why are capable men and women, many of whom have spent decades in the game, silenced? And if they are not capable enough, why are they in positions of power in the first place?

If a head coach or chairman of selectors can’t address the speculation surrounding a modern-day great, why are they filling those positions in the first place?

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

Why are we talking about secretaries today?

Because we’ve seen this game before.

Flash back to September 2021. Rumors were rife that Virat Kohli would lose India’s T20I captaincy. Responsibility is part of top sport. Even a player of Kohli’s stature has not been immune to scrutiny following India’s many failures in ICC tournaments.

But while cricket debated Kohli’s future, the administrative machinery intervened.

“There is no such proposal to replace Kohli and the team is led by Virat and we support him,” Jay Shah stated.

“We are sensitive to the fact that such a proposal is not in the interest of the Indian team when they participate in the World Cup.”

Forty-eight hours later, Virat Kohli resigned. It was a master class in institutional gaslighting.

Who exactly was the public supposed to believe? The BCCI secretary who categorically ruled out such a move? A head coach who has never publicly commented on the issue? Or the injured Virat Kohli himself, quietly stepping down from the seven-year captaincy?

That was September 2021. Five years later, we’re back in the exact same place.

The administrator has once again become the face of cricket decision making. Again, the voters remained silent. The coach was silent again. Once again, the player himself did not speak.

At this point, someone will inevitably ask, and should ask: What was Saikia supposed to do? He shoved a microphone in his face.

Simple. He could only say: “It’s not my place to comment on a player’s future. Please ask the captain, coach or selectors.”

That’s all. End of the matter.

God save INDIAN CRICKET

Whether Rohit Sharma retires after Lord’s, after the Asia Cup, after the World Cup or in two years’ time, it hardly matters.

The bigger question is: why has Indian cricket reached a point where the secretary is at the center of power? Why can’t he pass the baton to the relevant department heads who are in their positions because they are capable.

If the administrators become the spokesmen, then the people who actually run the cricket team will slowly cease to matter. The institution is slowly, almost imperceptibly, emptied from within.

Cricket deserves better. Institutions too.

God save Indian cricket.

– The end

Issued by:

Akshay Ramesh

Published on:

19 Jul 2026 12:43 IST