Watch how the bout outside the ring develops!

From now on, Indian sports scribes will have to use a strange abbreviation_BI (TBOTR)_when they report on boxing in the country!

The International Boxing Federation (AIBA) has granted “provisional” recognition to a new body named Boxing India (The Bout Outside the Ring) that is expected to govern the sport in India,  if a claim made by the new body is to be believed.

The Indian boxing administrators are in a tizzy and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) officials smell a rat.

The new body, with the craziest of names for a National Federation, seems to have been formed by a group of officials in Maharashtra owing allegiance to none of the factions at the national level, but with the support of two business houses which were earlier connected with sponsorship of boxing.

Ostensibly, the nomenclature (The Bout Outside the Ring) seems to be to pre-empt a clash of names with another ‘Boxing India’ mooted and supported by a group that had been claiming majority.

The Indian Boxing Federation (IBF, formerly Indian Amateur Boxing Federation) had been in the news around the time the IOA was suspended by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in December, 2012, first for being suspended by the AIBA, then for being provisionally suspended by the Sports Ministry before the AIBA “terminated” its status last March.

Manipulation of elections

When initially the AIBA suspended the IBF, it was stated that this was done because of “manipulation” of elections held in September, 2012. Strangely, even though the task seemed to be clear for the ‘suspended IBF’, which was ordered to hold fresh elections by the Sports Ministry also, the Indian body dragged its feet for months together, inviting the calamity that seems to have struck it now.

Or was it the AIBA that contributed to the ambiguity and delay?

For all its pious statements, the AIBA also seemed to be unsure of itself in this ‘suspension drama’. It first said there were manipulations in elections, then it cited the suspension of the IOA by the IOC as the reason for the Indian boxing body’s suspension and still later demanded that the IBF re-draft its constitution to AIBA’s satisfaction.

Things got clouded further thanks to the confusing and contradictory statements being issued by the IBF officials and the schism that seemed to have developed within the boxing fraternity in the country. One group was led by the outgoing president, Abhay Chauthala, and the other by Bengal association chief Asit Banerjee, having the support of the outgoing Secretary, Brig P. K. M. Raja, a well known figure in international circles.

More loyal than the king

The AIBA wanted to be “more loyal than the king” when it said it was suspending the IBF also because of the suspension of the IOA by the IOC. Not many leading International Federations did that nor did the IOC seek such a course of action from them. The IOA had only been suspended, not de-recognized by the IOC.  Yet, the AIBA chief, Dr Ching-Kuo Wu, led the way in penalizing the IBF.

The AIBA rules are such that it can suspend a National Federation without much formalities. “A National Federation may be suspended in accordance with the Code of Ethics, the Disciplinary Code and Procedural Rules by the Executive Committee, the EC Bureau or the Disciplinary Commission, if need be with immediate effect,” say the AIBA rules.

Many sports administrators suspected that the politics involved in the IOA-IOC row had led to the rigid stand that the AIBA had taken though the latter diluted its stand later by allowing Indian boxers to compete under the AIBA flag at international competitions.

After having corresponded with the Sports Authority of India (SAI) initially in the interest of the boxers_rightly so_the AIBA later adopted a stand that it would not entertain any communication from the government or its agencies.

Such public posturing was necessary to show that even as the IOC talked about “government interference” as the prime reason for suspending the IOA, a recognized International Federation controlling an Olympic sport could not have been seen to be hobnobbing with a government agency in preference to, say an ad hoc body formed by it.

In March last the ministry de-recognized the IBF. By then the issue had become so complicated that no one knew exactly what the way forward was for federation. If it was all about elections, then everyone seemed to be ready to hold fresh elections.

If it was about the introduction of a new nomenclature of ‘chairman’, an ostensible ploy to keep Chauthala in the Executive Committee, probably under the mistaken belief that he would require an Executive position within the federation to be eligible to contest the IOA elections, then that stage was over long ago when the IOC annulled the elections.

The fresh IOA elections were eventually held in February this year without Chauthala or Lalit Bhanot being eligible, as per IOC diktats and amended IOA constitution.

IOA resists temptation

Left to the newly-elected IOA it would have quickly recognized one of the factions and recommended to the AIBA for approval. But a compromise seemed to have been struck when AIBA approved the formation of an ad hoc body formed by the IOA to run boxing in the country.

By now, two factions had clearly emerged and one of them, led by Brig Raja, claiming support of a majority of the State units, was ready to go through with a general body meeting and elections when the AIBA delivered its ‘knock-out punch’ in its ‘Bout Outside the Ring’.

The other group is led by Abhishek Matoria, someone unknown in boxing circles till Chauthala brought him in at the September, 2012 elections, to step into his shoes, leading to the chaos that prevail today.

The ad hoc committee, which should have been the body that should have convened the meeting, and held elections under the supervision of the IOA and the Government, seemed to have been taken unawares by this development.

AIBA rules flouted

IOA Secretary-General Rajeev Mehta has talked about the AIBA move being against the rules of the IOC.

It is not just against the IOC rules, it is also against AIBA’s own rules!

An application for a provisional membership of AIBA has to be accompanied by, among others, documents from the IOA as well as the Union Sports Ministry confirming that the “the applicant supervises boxing in the relevant country and which confirms the identity of the members and officers of the applicant.”

In this case, the IOA does not even know that the AIBA has issued such a provisional recognition to a body supported not by a number of state units but formed by a business group or groups.

The Sports Ministry would require a federation to have recognition by the world body as well as by the IOA and the Asian Confederation in that sport before it takes up its recognition.

But was there not an inkling that AIBA could be up to something like this when it said in March last, “It is believed that the only way to get the sport of boxing back on track in India would be for it to be left in the hands of trustful, clean and honest people who love boxing and to give the opportunity to any group of people with passion and love for our sport to submit applications for the establishment of a new National Federation. AIBA will however not tolerate any government or sports authority interference in this process.” 

That last portion betrayed an ignorance of the ‘truce’ that the IOC brokered in Lausanne in May last year to resolve the dispute with the IOA, with the full backing and understanding of the Government of India

It is now certain with AIBA having apparently informed one of the factions that it would not have at least two former office-bearers contesting the elections, and on the basis of an understanding of the above statement, that AIBA would virtually dictate who should be the office-bearers of a National Federation.

From December 2012 onwards the AIBA has behaved in the most autocratic fashion in dealing with the Indian situation, no matter what subterfuge the Chauthala group would have played in the IOA and IBF elections.

A toothless NOC?

Now, with a duly-elected National Olympic Committee which is recognised by the IOC as well as the Government, in place, with an ad hoc body which has the blessings of AIBA as well as the IOA and the Government, and the amended constitution and other documents ready with all groups, a proper democratic elections in which the erstwhile state units of the IBF could be given a chance to vote should have been the proper way forward.

Let us imagine that the Boxing India (Bout Outside the Ring) is going to hold elections. Who will form the electoral college? With the Delhi High Court clearly stipulating in a recent order that the NSFs would adhere to provisions in the National Sports Development Code, a proper electoral college will have to be formed and approved by the electoral officers and circulated before elections are held.

Obviously, the electoral college cannot just comprise a few Maharashtra officials plus a few officers of the sponsoring companies, no matter how deeply they could be involved with the sport of boxing and how simple the AIBA rules could be to deal with such a membership application. Unless of course a major faction is just waiting on the sidelines to join the body that has gained provisional recognition in order to scuttle any plans the other group might have.
The ‘law of the land’ will have to be followed in any case and following the High Court ruling in the IOA case, the Sports Code has become the most important document governing federations in this country.

Before the  proposed new body gets full membership rights at the AIBA Congress, whenever it is held, the IOA and the Asian Boxing Confederation, if necessary, with advice from the IOC, should try to sort out this mess.

The Olympic Movement would lose its credibility if International Federations impose their will in the garb of promoting sport even when groups of individuals or sports bodies are willing to follow laid down procedures and democratic norms.