Shillong, Jun 27: The battle of wits between the Meghalaya Cricket Association President James PK Sangma and Honorary Secretary Rayonald Kharkamni came to a head today when the latter was suspended based on yesterday’s order from the Meghalaya State Commission for Women (MSCW).
The MSCW order pertains to a sexual harassment complaint made against a coach and manager of the U-23 women’s team. The MSCW has already ruled that they both face sanctions but yesterday the commission ordered that disciplinary action be taken against former MCA President Naba Bhattacharjee, former Honorary Treasurer Dhrubajyoti Thakuria, Kharkamni and Operations Manager Shiningstar Lyngdoh for their “failure” to act on the complaint when it was made in December last year, that is, before Sangma took over as the new President.
Bhattacharjee and Thakuria have no role in the current Apex Council and Lyngdoh is not employed by the MCA any longer after his contract expired at the end of March. Therefore, the only person the MCA can take effective action against is Kharkamni and Sangma swiftly placed him under suspension while the Ombudsman decides whether any further action is required. Under the MCA constitution, Sangma explained at a late evening press conference here today, the President has the power only to suspend but not dismiss Apex Council members. “As an association we are taking the matter to the Ombudsman and he will decide on further action (such as filing police complaints or dismissal). That is how our constitution and the BCCI functions,” Sangma said.
He also praised the half a dozen complainants for their “courage” on coming forward. “Many times sexual harassment is brushed under the carpet. I am ashamed that it happened at the MCA. I assure everyone as President that there will be zero tolerance of sexual harassment going forward. Unfortunately we have probably only scratched the surface (of harassment cases) but the bravery of these women players will encourage others to come forward.”
The clash between Kharkamni and Sangma appears to go back to a fight over control of the MCA’s substantial funds. After taking over as President, Sangma questioned certain expenses borne by the association regarding travel and hospitality, which he stated were unreasonably high. He also found fault with the way the expenses were cleared without going through the Apex Council. As such, he insisted that his signature be required on all cheques issued by the MCA henceforth, but Kharkamni was adamantly against this. Past practice was for any of two of the three signatories (the other being the Honorary Treasurer) to be sufficient to issue cheques but now Sangma wants his signature to be mandatory. After much “coercion”, Sangma said, the Treasurer, Eddystone Shylla, did finally acquiesce to the new arrangement. However, Kharkamni’s steadfast refusal has meant that the MCA’s bank accounts are in limbo, with no staff or contractors, etc getting paid for the last seven months.
Sangma did express empathy for the staff who have not been paid their salaries, adding, “There have been years and years of misgovernance in the MCA. If I’m disrupting things now that is part of a natural process to bring about change. We are in a stage of transition.”
The President insisted today that his suspension of Kharkamni has nothing to do with this funding fight but with the sexual harassment issue.
“Being a quasi judicial statutory body we have to comply with the order,” Sangma said. “Accordingly, as president of the MCA, we have taken the decision to dismiss the coach and manager and we are also placing a lifetime ban on them working with the MCA or any cricket body in the country. We believe in zero tolerance. We will not leave any stone unturned in acting against any complaint and we will set an example to deter anyone thinking of taking advantage of our women players ever again.”
On yesterday’s order by the Women’s Commission, Sangma said that those named were found “not to have carried out their duties when having knowledge of the sexual harassment complaint. They took no action. For that the commission recommended strict action against all of them. In my capacity, and in compliance with the order, I am placing Rayonald Kharkamni under suspension and the matter is being forwarded to the Ombudsman.”
The office of MCA Ombudsman, to be filled by a retired judge, had been vacant for nearly two years before one was appointed in March at the instigation of Sangma. A mandatory internal complaints committee, however, was not formed at the same time, though the process is on.
Sangma added that if Kharkamni approaches the court to challenge the order he will have to do so in his personal capacity and not through the MCA. The President also said that it was “preposterous”, “disgraceful and shameful” to accuse him of using the sexual harassment issue to target Kharkamni and the others.
It is unclear now what Kharkamni’s next step could be. He had earlier today called for a special general meeting on July 3 but Sangma said that this is now “redundant” given his suspension. All five elected members of the Apex Council had earlier this month written to the BCCI and nine of the 12 district associations had also done so separately to spell out the problems in the MCA. Though they did not mention the President by name, their obvious implication was that he was causing the disruption. Sangma did not seem troubled by this at all, saying that the BCCI “has its hands full” with far bigger issues than the MCA’s “internal matter”.
Sangma also went after Bhattacharjee quite forcefully. The latter has had a very prominent role in Meghalaya cricket for many years and was instrumental in getting the state full affiliation with the BCCI just under a decade ago. He is also Co-Convener of the North East Cricket Development Council (NECDC) and an Advisor to the Meghalaya government. Sangma said that he will formally inform the NECDC of the MSCW’s findings against Bhattacharjee and he also felt sure that the Meghalaya government would examine whether it is appropriate for him to be kept on as Advisor as doing so might send the wrong message about how seriously the state takes sexual harassment.
