Contracts for Indian women: better late than never

It is not every day that you wake up to the news that the biggest miser you have ever known has got religion and decided to donate a part of his fortune to charity. A Christmas Carol anyone? Jokes and exaggeration aside, it was how I felt when I heard that the BCCI was mulling landmark reforms in women's cricket, most notably introducing contracts for international players. Faced with the possibility that we might see history being made in Indian women's cricket, I overlooked the key word "mulling".

As a woman cricketer, I have been here before. I was never more optimistic about pursuing cricket as a career than in 2006, when the BCCI was set to take over women's cricket. Nine years later, having almost given up the sport, I wrote about how I would have preferred it if women's cricket went back to being under the Women's Cricket Association of India. Things have been tough in the last decade. A lot of indifference and borderline sexism has been endured, and false dawns have come and gone. It is tough not to receive this latest news with a hint of scepticism. Regimes have changed but the attitude towards women's cricket has largely remained the same.

Better late than never is the dominant thought among my cricket colleagues. However, a senior cricketer from my state team did say that nothing is concrete as of now and the required approval of the BCCI's working committee is no laughing matter. She also felt that maybe the BCCI was waiting on the Indian women's team's performance on the upcoming series against New Zealand before deciding on the matter. It does fit well with the impression we all have of the BCCI as hesitant and reluctant to do any more than the bare minimum required in women's cricket. It is easy to be cynical because of past experiences under the BCCI.

This time, however, there has been a departure from the established behaviour of the BCCI. We had an actual media release from the board on the matter and not just informal assurances to fall back on. The reforms being contemplated by the BCCI have been demanded by successive women's committees, and they are necessary for women's cricket.

It is rumoured that the initiative in this instance was taken by BCCI secretary Anurag Thakur and general manager, cricket operations, MV Sridhar, and as these are men high up in the BCCI hierarchy, one gets the feeling that there has been a change of mindset at the top. This is a proactive step, in sharp contrast to the earlier reactive policy of the BCCI.

Thakur deserves special mention here as he is one of the few men who has shown a genuine interest in women's cricket. He comes from Himachal Pradesh, and their women's team is one of the better-treated teams on the circuit. Nikita Chauhan, a Himachal Pradesh cricketer, has vouched for this, saying the facilities provided by the association were better than those of others. The Hyderabad Cricket Association, which Sridhar belongs to, boasts of one of the strongest women's cricket teams in the country. The involvement of such men lends credence to the notion that this time it might be for real.

The reforms proposed are by no means enough to fix what ails Indian women's cricket, but they are a good start. It remains to be seen whether the amounts eventually set as match fees and contracts are enough for players to make respectable careers out of the sport. The BCCI cannot use lack of finances as an excuse, and the amounts laid down will be the greatest indicator of their attitude towards women's cricket.

The other proposed initiatives include introducing Under-16 and U-23 tournaments. My fear is that while the BCCI might introduce contracts and increase domestic match fees, it might reduce the number of games in other formats or age groups make up for the expenditure on the new tournaments. This could be counterproductive. What is most needed in women's cricket today is more matches across all formats and age groups.

When I discussed the proposed reforms with my team-mates, one of them felt that the BCCI was only trying to protect its image by doing what other boards have already done. (India is the only country among the top-eight-ranked women's teams that does not have annual contracts for its women cricketers.) Personally, I cannot help but feel a bit ambivalent about the news, especially the announcement of the Under-23 tournament. Having turned 24 just days ago, I will not be able to avail the benefit of more matches.

As I wrote earlier, there is an entire generation of cricketers that has been lost to the game because this age-group category was not introduced before. I am curious about why the BCCI decided to have 23 years as the limit, as opposed to the more traditional U-25, which was in force earlier. Even though they recently lowered the age limit of the CK Nayudu Trophy to 23, a higher age limit would have covered a larger ambit of girls and helped stem dropouts. It might seem like nitpicking but it is small tweaks like these in the current policy that can go a long way in improving the situation of women in the sport.

Criticising the BCCI had become a hobby of mine. If the BCCI sticks to its word and the reforms go through, I will have to look for a new pastime.