Recently, Pakistan hockey legend Islahuddin Siddique came heavily against the powers that be in Pakistan. He was furious that his name from the FIH Rules Board has been replaced by some other Pakistani, without his knowledge.

Islahuddin is not alone. In India also voices are heard on the choice of our men in the various FIH Committees. If those voices are not loud enough, it is because hockey is on its low both in public psyche and in media.

Gone are the days when Indians contested FIH Election in absence, yet won vital posts. Indians count nowhere in the global electoral calculus nowadays, and it is not surprising given the way we run our home hockey affairs.

There are four Indians in the recently constituted FIH Committees.

Olympian Pargat Singh regained his spot in the HRB where he was in the late 90s till one day KPS Gill thought he is unworthy. Pargat’s comeback was overdue, no one can point a finger at on his choice.

S. Thyagarajan of The Hindu is in the Communications and IT Committee. Writer of his standing is still enough for Member is something beyond comprehension. He is not Chairman of this Committee because of his skin, nothing else. On merit and contribution to hockey, he should have been elevated long before.

Md. Aslam, Convenor of the Hockey Ad-hoc Committee, is in the Equipment Committee. Aslam is de facto Secretary, Indian Hockey Federation. We are not sure of his track record on Equipment matters. What we know for sure is he is well equipped to garner posts for him and his cronies. His inclusion is self-made, political, as he deals with the FIH on men’s hockey matters. He is there because he can. He got the IHF without ever sweating for it – and the stars are with him.

Shakeel Qureshi, former international umpire from Bhopal, a blue-eyed boy of the adhoc committee, is in the Umpiring Committee.

Qureshi comes in place of Kukoo Walia. We have a strong opinion here. With due respect to the new incumbent, one should see the track record of Kukoo Walia before one decides whether merit or lack of it is behind his exclusion.

Not long ago, India hardly had its umpires in World Cup and Olympics. Now, India is not in the Olympics, but our umpire is.

According to a statistics in the latest Hockey Year Book, there are 12 Indian umpires in the FIH list. It includes World Panelist Satinder Kumar to new entrants Navtej and Harsha Vardhan. Raghu Prasad and VB Singh are Grade I umpires while Javed Sheikh is graduated to ‘Promising’ slot.

12 umpires from a single entity is a very good number for any FIH member country, especially for India which neither respects umpires nor accord importance to umpires development. This apathy is despite the fact that in no part of the world do umpires face wrath of players on the turf as Indian umpires routinely undergo.

Still, there is a new crop of umpires who reckon with in the FIH. This is a credible development in an otherwise bleak national hockey scenario.

Secondly, the profile of the new crop of umpires, who sprouted when Kukoo was in FIH, evokes interest. They are young, not coming to umpiring at the fag end of their career. Therefore, they have a long way to go, long career ahead of them. This augurs well for Indian hockey.

Interestingly, Kukoo was appointed for four years term to end only in 2010 Congress.

One can easily surmise therefore that his curtailment has more to do with merit than others.

Kukoo is nowadays active in IHF politics. He is believed to be a key advisor to JB Roy Group that seeks early election for the Indian Hockey Federation.

Election, a constitutional necessity, is anathema to the new dispensation. There is no surprise in this that nobody wants to leave the chair. This is true for KPS Gill or their tormentors the Indian Olympic Association which formed the adhoc committee.

So, the Aslam group got a sadistic pleasure in showing Kukoo off the FIH corridor.

The culprit here is the FIH. It calls itself a world body but cannot save its own appointees from the clutches of ever-changing national political scenarios.

When it has appointed a person for four years the FIH has to honour it. Question of the replacement should arise only when the tenure expires.

For example, FIH Secretary Peter Cohen is for four years – and he continues despite change in the FIH president. He is there because two more years are left in his tenure. Why can’t the same logic apply to others in the FIH?

Adhoc committee could have scored a point had it been able to push an extra slot for India, instead of replacing one with the other. This is cowardice. The country does not benefit by such narrow politics and tunnel vision. More so, it is anybody’s guess these people must have compromised some Indian interests while bargaining for this avoidable change.

When will our administrators, old or new, have the country in their mind, transcending beyond petty politics and personal egos. Sorry, this writer lives in his world of own.