[Author: Ayush Mathur, Student of Law at NLSIU Bangalore]

---

Introduction

In 1984 the first National Sports Policy for India was implemented. It aimed for mass participation and improvement in elite sports performance in the country. Under section 12 of this policy, sports management and development tasks were allotted to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and the National Sports Federations (NSFs). According to the organisational structure, the NSFs and the IOA are to be at the national level, with affiliated associations at the State level and the District level. The former had the objective of forming district and state associations and agencies for different sports and training, while the purpose of the IOA was to recruit, train, and represent elite players in platforms like the Olympics, Asian Games, and Commonwealth, among others.

Both the NSFs and IOA participate in the training of sportspersons. However, the governance and the methodology of the ‘safe sports’ policy applied in these two are starkly different. This piece highlights the reasons for weak safe sports policy in NSFs. In this article, I claim the importance of such a policy for protecting players from sexual or physical harassment. I consider the current wrestling federation issue and conclude that with the gross violation of the principle of political neutrality in sports, India, along with its administrative sports federation, is going backwards.

To seek this, in the next part of the article, I will address the concepts of safe sports and political neutrality in sports jurisprudence in the following manner. Firstly, I will discuss how sports interact with politics and the steps taken by agencies (NSFs and IOA) to regulate this relationship. Secondly, I will examine the implications of politics in sports through the case of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI), highlighting how it has hindered the establishment of safe sporting environments by fostering behaviour such as bullying and imposing unfavourable conditions. Lastly, I will explore the reasons behind the presence of politics within NSFs and argue that they should adopt a similar approach to that of the IOA to mitigate such influences. By aligning themselves with the principles of the IOA, NSFs can ensure that political interference is minimised, allowing for the promotion of safe and unbiased sporting practices.

Politics and Sports: Different Approaches of NSFs and IOA

In 2011, the National Sports Development Code of India (Sports Code) was formulated. It had two objectives. The first outlines the areas of responsibility for the various organisations promoting and developing sports, including identifying National Sports Federations (NSFs) eligible for coverage under these standards. Second, the code sought to ensure that NSFs operated in accordance with the governing principles and goals of the relevant international federation, the Olympic Charter’s tenets, and the Indian Olympic Association’s (IOA) constitution in order to qualify for financial support and sponsorship from Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.

Now, the Olympic Charter follows various safeguarding principles. One of these is the principle of political neutrality (Rule 50). The basic understanding of this principle is that it disallows the interaction of sports and issues of political conflict, and restricts such issues from being represented in a tournament or any game in particular. One such incident was when the IOC sanctioned the famous ‘black power salute’ of the Olympic athletes Tommie Smith, John Carlos and Peter Norman at the 1968 Mexico City Olympic Games. Further, political neutrality’s fundamental principles include refraining from getting involved in “conflicts” and maintaining an impartial viewpoint towards the parties engaged in conflict.  

Given the principle above and the object of the sports code, it is clear that politics and sports were not meant to be interlinked; rather, internationally, it has been understood that the farther they are, the better spirit of the game will be upheld. I argue that in NSFs, this conflict is prone to arise because of the biased viewpoint of the officials of these federations, who are more often than not politically associated. Such is not the case in IOA because the presidents and officials there are selected not with the compliance of the ruling party but rather through elections under the supervision of the Supreme Court-appointed officials.

Both parallels and significant variances can be found in the election procedures for the presidents of India’s National Sports Federations (NSFs) and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA). Candidates must satisfy eligibility requirements and go through a nomination and voting process in both NSFs and the IOA. To ensure fairness, the IOA has a separate Election Commission, whereas NSFs may or may not. The IOA frequently employs former athletes as administrators, whereas NSFs frequently have political figures as presidents. The discrepancy might be traced to the organisations’ various tasks and duties and their nature. At times the constitution of the NSF can also demand experience in administration as an eligibility criterion which in most cases reserves the seat for politicians. It is often said that political leaders are a good fit for NSFs since they are focused on the growth and administration of particular sports and require interaction with stakeholders and government policy. However, we will see in the subsequent sections how this is flawed reasoning. Having administrators with actual sporting experience helps the IOA represent India in international sporting competitions. Depending on the dynamics of the federation and the electoral climate, the precise causes of these discrepancies may change.

The Wrestler’s Protest: Questioning the Absence of India’s Safe Sport Policy

The recent case of the wrestler’s protest against the President of Wrestling Federation of India, Mr. Brij Bhushan Singh, has made multiple stakeholders question their power against a politically armed official. The case is related to multiple sexual harassment allegations. Unfortunately, it is not the first time that the athletes have felt powerless against the power of the members of Parliament. A female gymnast protested in 2022 that her coach had recorded her during a fitness test without her consent. However, the Indian Gymnastics Federation did not censure the coach for this harassment, prompting the Sports Authority of India (SAI) to create a three-member panel and launch an investigation. In any case, the coach was appointed to lead India at the Commonwealth Games and wasn’t changed until the very last moment.

This helplessness of the athletes makes one wonder about the recourses that an athlete can practically claim. It must be clarified that the issue does not come with the legislations. There are multiple legislations, including IPC, POCSO, POSH etc., that deal with the issues of bullying, sexual harassment, and violence, among others. What rather lacks here is a firm policy and adherence to principles like that of political neutrality, the absence of which infringes the whole concept of safe sports. Safe sports policy in India is only seen in the IOA because the IOC charter mandates the countries to have such policies. In the case of NSFs, only a few federations, like the fencing federation of India, have enacted guidelines for safe sports. The others function by either the guidelines enacted by the SAI or the provisions in the federation’s constitution. For instance, Article XXVII of the WFI constitution provides for the establishment of the Ethics Commission to inculcate practices that eliminate instances like sexual harassment. 

The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) has a thorough safe sport policy that addresses every facet of protecting athletes, including prevention, reporting, investigation, and response. The policy is in line with global best practises and founded on child safety principles.

The IOA’s safe sports policy is more extensive than that of NSFs. The NSFs’ safe sport policies fall short in a number of ways. First, although NSFs’ policies frequently place a strong emphasis on prevention and reporting, there is a lack of a clear inquiry and reaction process in their rules. As a result, it could be challenging to defend athletes who have been mistreated. Second, not all aspects of athlete protection are always covered by the NSFs’ policies. For instance, the issue of hazing is not addressed in the policies of several NSFs. A comprehensive policy that applies uniformly across different sports would help fill the gaps that exist in the safe sports policies of different NSFs.

Additionally, what clearly lacks in India is a safe sports policy in the NSFs that touch the level of not just the elite players but also of federations at the district and state level. Weak implications of guidelines demotivate players to pursue sports for their advancement, as seen in Haryana, where akharas- seen as a road to glory- are missing their young girl athletes, given the present turmoil. 

Internationally, strict adherence to the safe sports policy is a norm. In Bhutan, a comprehensive safe sports policy was launched last year. It mandated the tasks and scope of authorities, the structure of the federations and the division of power. In the USA and other western nations too, the policies play an essential role to implement the law. They oversee the tasks to create a safe environment by screening the officials and coaches and monitoring the safety of athletes and the courts along with the equipment. In India, this precision is absent, which poses serious questions about the safety of athletes on the ground level.

Moving forward, the paper discusses the second grave aspect that must be read with the safe sports policy i.e., political neutrality. It is important to note that presidents of federations have always been politicians, and the reason for such administration is said to be that these federations require coordination with local bodies and government. However, is this the correct approach? In this next section, I argue how political influence in sports does more harm than good. I put forward the idea of sportspersons being the administrators, or at least a division in power wherein NSFs maintain their autonomy.

Empowering Athletes through Political Neutrality and Autonomy in NSFs

The previous section stated that we have a sufficient legal framework to protect athletes. There are numerous judgments and legislations that adequately cover the fundamental and legal rights of all athletes. The challenge lies in the practical implementation of these laws. For this, policies are developed, as they ensure effective implementation of laws and regulations. An approach that adheres to safe sports must remove political actors and abide by the principle of political neutrality. We’ve seen that IOA’s role alongside NSFs was laid down by the 1984 sports policy. However, IOA is often presided over by an athlete, while NSFs are crammed with political influence. This difference creates a power imbalance between the athletes and the officials in NSFs.

The persistent issue at hand revolves around the difficulty faced by ordinary individuals, when confronted with politically entrenched figures assuming positions of authority in cases where impartiality is crucial. The recent Brij Bhushan case has again shed light on this inherent vulnerability. The concept of political neutrality within Indian federations is severely limited due to the close association between political party members and these organisations, often resulting in political party members assuming leadership positions within these agencies themselves. Thus, the autonomy of these agencies is frequently compromised as they become subject to control by the State. Given that ministers derive benefits and authority from the ruling party, it is challenging to envision a scenario where they act contrary to the State’s interests.

Consequently, the agency loses its autonomy and becomes subservient to the State. Similarly, if agency members or players challenge the politically entrenched leaders of these agencies, they often find themselves unsupported by the State, despite the inherent difficulty in proving such occurrences. This situation is particularly relevant when considering criminal cases, such as sexual harassment allegations, where public prosecutors back the interest of the government, while representing the athletes. In such instances, where the prosecution is not free from bias, prosecuting a politically empowered individual can become arduous, potentially impeding progress.

This raises the question of why it is necessary to appoint ministers from political parties, particularly the ruling party, as heads of these agencies when it fundamentally contradicts the principle of political neutrality. Although the focus of political neutrality may not be air-tight, the paradox becomes glaringly evident in the case of ministerial appointments. One may argue that such appointments effectively impose political ideologies and conditions upon the members and players of these agencies.

Rahul Mehra, who has ardently fought for the adherence to the sports code by NSFs, contests the assertion made by insiders within these federations that sports administrators possess superior competence. He challenges the lack of empirical evidence supporting the notion that players are inherently incapable of assuming administrative roles. Mehra emphasises that without affording players a fair chance, it remains impossible to definitively ascertain their capabilities. He contends that athletes exhibit a genuine dedication to advancing the field of sports and are less driven by political motivations. As a matter of fact, there are numerous Indian athletes that went on to become successful administrators. One of those is Adille Sumariwalla, the current president of the Athletics Federation of India was the first Indian to become a member of International Amateur Athletic Federation. Sumariwalla competed as a 100m runner in several international competitions including the Olympics.

Conclusion

In this paper, I’ve demonstrated how in the sports framework, there is an urgent need to add a comprehensive and robust policy that strengthens and supports the difference between politics and sports administration. I’ve argued that if not outright, it should be minimum to an extent where the division of authority is such that a clear imbalance is not created between the federation and the athletes. For this, taking the present wrestler’s protest as a final lesson is essential to pave the way for a safe sports policy. The sports code distinctly provides that NSFs should adhere to the charter of the IOC. The distance between politics and sports is clearly kept reasonably apart in the charter. Following the rules of the code, it should not be hard to devise a policy wherein administrators are chosen not just because of their political affiliations but where the athletes can also stand for the position. The elections then can be held under the supervision of SC retired judges or any authority at a similar level as done in IOA.

The mitigation of political influence and the establishment of an administration that prioritizes the welfare of athletes will result in increased autonomy for both the sports federation and the players. This autonomy will enable them to make informed decisions, lodge complaints, and foster a safe and secure environment. By addressing power imbalances and eliminating undue influence, the sports community can strive towards a sustainable and equitable system.

---

*For any query, feedback, or discussion, the Author can be contacted at [ayush.mathur@nls.ac.in]

*NOTE- The opinions and views expressed in this article are that of the Author(s) and not of SLRI- the expressed opinions do not, in any way whatsoever, reflect the views of any third party, including any institution/organisation that the Author(s) is/are currently associated to or was/were associated to in the past. Furthermore, the expressions are solely for informational and educational purposes, and must not be deemed to constitute any kind of advice. The hyperlinks in this blog might take you to webpages operated by third parties- SLRI does not guarantee or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any information, data, opinions, advice, statements, etc. on these webpages.

PREFERRED CITATION: Ayush Mathur, Power Imbalance in Wrestler’s Protest: Depoliticizing National Sports Federations, SLRI <https://sportslawreviewindia.blog/?p=3278&gt; August 08, 2023.