The return of an elected administration to the Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) after almost a decade was expected to mark the beginning of a new era of transparency, accountability and democratic governance. The intervention of the Supreme Court of India paved the way for the election process and the eventual takeover by the elected body.
Unfortunately, that optimism has quickly faded. Instead of allowing the elected administration to function independently, allegations of interference, internal power struggles and regional imbalance have come to define JKCA’s functioning. The result is an association trapped in uncertainty while the real stakeholders—the players, clubs and aspiring cricketers—continue to pay the price.
An Elected Body, But Is It Really Governing?
Soon after assuming office, JKCA President Javid Ahmed Kitab found himself facing resistance from within the very body he was elected to lead. Important meetings were allegedly convened without the concurrence of the President, key administrative decisions were reportedly taken without his approval, and the constitutional authority attached to the office of the President appeared to be repeatedly undermined.
To many within the cricket fraternity, the message seemed unmistakable:
“You may be the President, but we remain the real authority.”
Whether that perception is entirely accurate or not, it has gained significant currency among clubs and stakeholders who believe the elected administration has not been allowed to function independently.
If an elected President cannot exercise the powers vested in his office, it naturally raises the most fundamental question:
Who is really running JKCA?
The Background: A Story That Began Before The Elections
The newly elected body came into office without a contest, as every post was filled unopposed. While the process complied with the election schedule, the composition of the Apex Council immediately raised concerns regarding regional representation.
Kashmir secured only two positions—the President and the Joint Secretary—while the overwhelming majority of office-bearers belonged to Jammu.
Even before the elected body formally assumed charge, the outgoing administrators announced the inclusion of two representatives from the Indian Cricketers’ Association in the Apex Council.
The decision raised eyebrows across the cricket fraternity.
Questions immediately emerged.
Who nominated them?
What procedure was followed?
Why was there no public communication?
Why were clubs and stakeholders never informed?
Those questions have largely remained unanswered.
Their inclusion further consolidated the numerical majority of one region within the Apex Council, reducing Kashmir’s effective representation to only two members in a ten-member governing body.
Whether intentional or otherwise, the perception of regional imbalance became difficult to ignore. It also became the first indication that those who had controlled JKCA during the unelected era were perhaps not ready to relinquish their influence.
The Real Battle Began Afterwards
It increasingly appears that the individuals who controlled JKCA during the unelected era found it difficult to let go of that influence. Having run the Association for years with little internal opposition, they seemingly expected the new Apex Council to function through elected proxies while real authority continued to remain elsewhere.
That expectation, however, appears to have met resistance in Javid Kitab.
Instead of merely endorsing decisions placed before him, Kitab reportedly insisted that major policy matters should be discussed in the General Body—the highest decision-making authority under the JKCA Constitution.
That, by every democratic standard, is exactly how an elected body is supposed to function.
However, it appears that such an approach did not sit well with those believed to be influencing matters from behind the scenes.
Rather than allowing institutional mechanisms to resolve differences, JKCA soon became embroiled in court cases, conflicting notices, competing meetings and administrative paralysis.
The real question today is not whether Javid Kitab is right or wrong.
The real question is whether an elected President is actually being allowed to discharge the responsibilities entrusted to him.
If every major decision is effectively dictated elsewhere, if meetings can be convened without respecting the authority of the Chair, and if legal battles become the preferred response whenever differences arise, then the obvious question becomes:
Mehbooba Mufti Raises The Issue
The controversy has now moved beyond cricket administration.
Former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti publicly questioned the prevailing situation inside JKCA and expressed concern over what she described as the inability of the elected President to function independently.
Her intervention brought wider public attention to an issue that had largely remained confined to cricket circles.
Irrespective of political viewpoints, the fact that JKCA’s governance has become a subject of political discussion reflects the seriousness of the institutional crisis.
Amid Regionalism And Dictatorship, Cricket Suffers
For nearly ten years, JKCA functioned under an unelected administrative setup where decisions were often criticised for lacking wider consultation.
The expectation after elections was simple.
Democracy would replace centralised decision-making.
Consultation would replace unilateralism.
Constitutional procedures would replace informal power centres.
Instead, many within the cricket fraternity believe that the culture has changed very little.
Only the faces have.
Players remain uncertain.
Clubs are confused.
Grassroots cricket has taken a back seat.
Instead of discussing infrastructure, coaching programmes, district cricket, talent identification and player welfare, JKCA continues to be consumed by governance disputes.
The biggest casualty is not any individual.
It is J&K cricket itself.
Regionalism Has No Place In Cricket
Jammu and Kashmir has consistently produced exceptional cricketing talent from both regions.
Players have represented India and IPL franchises because of merit—not geography.
An institution entrusted with nurturing sporting excellence cannot afford to be viewed through the prism of regional politics.
JKCA belongs equally to every cricketer in Jammu, Kashmir and every district of the Union Territory.
The irony is difficult to ignore.
Those who today enjoy overwhelming numerical strength inside the Apex Council appear unwilling to accommodate even a single dissenting voice from Kashmir. Despite enjoying a comfortable majority, they seem uncomfortable with an elected President insisting on constitutional procedures.
If an institution cannot tolerate internal disagreement, it ceases to function democratically and begins to resemble exactly what it claims it has moved beyond.
BCCI Cannot Remain Silent
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has remained largely silent despite months of uncertainty.
That silence has only added to the confusion among players, clubs and stakeholders.
The individual widely perceived within cricket circles to be operating from the background today occupies a far bigger and more influential office outside JKCA. One would have expected his focus to shift towards that larger responsibility. Instead, the continued perception that he seeks to influence the day-to-day functioning of JKCA only deepens mistrust and prolongs uncertainty.
If that perception is incorrect, there is a simple way to dispel it.
Allow the elected body to function independently.
Allow the President to exercise the authority vested in him by the Constitution and by the election.
BCCI must also come out with a clear position on where authority rests inside JKCA. An elected body cannot remain accountable if it is simultaneously prevented from exercising its mandate.
Institutional democracy cannot survive if invisible power centres continue to dictate visible decisions.
The Way Forward
J&K cricket possesses immense talent.
Its administrators should be discussing academies, infrastructure, grassroots competitions and pathways for young cricketers—not court cases and constitutional conflicts.
Those who genuinely care for cricket should allow the elected administration to function freely while remaining accountable to the General Body and the Constitution.
Democracy cannot survive if elected representatives are reduced to ceremonial figures.
J&K cricket does not need invisible power centres.
It needs transparent leadership.
It needs institutional democracy.
Most importantly, it needs administrators who understand that elections are meant to transfer power—not merely change faces.
