Although this was expected, or rather feared would be the consequence, the news that another of Manipur`s ace boxers, who have also been world champion in her weight category, Laishram Sarita, along with her coaches and chef de mission of the Indian contingent to the Incheon Asiad earlier this year were provisionally suspended by the International Boxing Association, IABA, still came as a big shock. We had imagined the IABA would not be so harsh in its judgment chiefly for two reasons. One, upon the advice of authorities, Sarita had unconditionally apologised for her open rebellion at the widely perceived injustice she was subjected to by the boxing judges at Incheon, and the IABA had accepted the apology. Two, thanks to the widely available video recording of the quarter final match, it is almost universal knowledge now that she was made to lose despite clearly dominating her Korean opponent in at least the last three rounds of the four rounds fight. Commentaries by expert eyewitnesses of the fight also had unambiguously come out in support of Sarita, both in the opinion that the fight should have been awarded to her, and also that her protest was within understandable limits, if not befitting. Under the circumstance, it would not be altogether unreasonable to presume the IABA should have instead been induced to be more keen to set its own house in order, and work towards reforming the rules that govern boxing umpiring, and more importantly, devising measures to ensure umpires come under no influences of the scourge which has been the bane of all sports which command passionate spectators involvement `“ that of match fixing.
It is unlikely, the IABA authorities were unaware of all the suggestions that organised match fixing was very likely to have been the case in Incheon. Consider these statistics from the Incheon boxing ring. The Mongolian team not only lodged an official complaint when one of their boxers lost to a Korean fighters in what they believed was also very unfairly ruled in favour of the Korean, but they also officially threatened a walk out by their entire boxing contingent at the Games. According to reports, they did tone down their protest later, and refrained from such a walk out. Again, another Indian boxer, Laishram Debendro, was also visibly on the receiving end of another “grossly unfair” ruling in a bout with a Korean boxer, but he, although sorely disappointed, unlike Sarita, tamely accepted the verdict. Furthermore, in the case of Sarita, after she made public her strong displeasure, her Korean opponent, Ji-Na Park, honestly conceded that even she was embarrassed by the verdict and she too felt Sarita was the real winner of the bout. Under these circumstances, the IABA, though it is quite understandably upset by the extreme and public nature of Sarita`™s protest, ought to have seen the entire episode as one calling for introspection into its own functioning, rather than think of punishing the victim of its failings for daring to protest. We do hope the apex international amateur boxing governing body is capable of some measure of humility and ultimately withdraws its decision to award this harsh penalty to Sarita and her coaches.
Meanwhile, the Indian Olympic Association must also wake up. For long this has been either a den of corruption, or else an extension of the Babudom, where its executive body, a mix of bureaucrats and elected members, rather than take keen interests in the sports and sportsperson they are in charge of, treat their offices as opportunities to grab free travels to exotic sporting venue all over the world. Had the IOA officials who were at Incheon taken a proactive role in the entire episode, and instead of Sarita having to resort to individually fight the boxing establishment, they had taken the initiative to lodge official protests through official channels just as the Mongolian boxing contingent did, things may not have got so ugly and damaging for the Sarita`s as well as her coaches` careers.
Leader Writer: Pradip Phanjoubam