Ponder for a moment the import of these words. Consider the fact that the BCCI is a monopoly; in finding Jadeja guilty and banning him for five years, it gave the cricketer no alternative means of playing cricket. It is the sole administrator of the game in this country. So it has robbed a person of his primary means of livelihood.

Even at the time of announcing the judgements against Jadeja and some other Indian cricketers, the BCCI chose to follow its own sense of justice, which had little or no connection with what we know as the law of the land.

The Board appeared to be in an unholy hurry to be seen as the patron saint of cleansing the game when its counterparts in Australia, South Africa and Pakistan seemed to do precious little in similar circumstances. The Australian Cricket Board allowed Shane Warne and Mark Waugh to continue playing long after it had fined them for accepting money from a bookmaker. In fact, the ACB did not do the game’s cause any good by keeping the fines under wraps. The United Cricket Board of South Africa reprieved the likes of Herschelle Gibbs and Henry Williams.

The BCCI has down the years conducted most of its affairs entirely arbitrarily, and often in a fascist manner. The contracts issue is the latest example where it has assumed the rights of the players in taking important decisions on their behalf.

But returning to Jadeja, let’s look at some of the more grievous damages the BCCI had caused by doing what they did in November 2000. They banned Jadeja when he was 29 years old, with a number of years of international cricket ahead of him, and a chance of leading the side.

It’s tragic that he has lost two-and-a-half years of the prime of his cricketing career. For someone who will turn 32 next week, a two-year span is a long time indeed. Such time can never be made up. More than this, being his own loss, Indian cricket has been poorer without his bubbly presence. And the blame lies squarely at the BCCI’s threshold.

Why should the Board take 90 days to take a decision on Jadeja. Remember, it did not take long to convene a Special General Meeting in December 2000 to make a call on the Madhavan inquiry report and on the Disciplinary Committee’s recommendations.