Autocracy at the Helm Pushes BTC to the Brink
By Sharan Kumar
There has been a steady and disturbing stream of
letters from senior functionaries of the Bangalore Turf Club, men with decades
of experience on the Managing Committee, all pointing to the same uncomfortable
truth: the Club is drifting into a governance crisis of its own making. These
are not casual complaints or personal vendettas, but repeated red flags warning
that unless corrective action is taken immediately, racing at Bangalore risks
acquiring a reputation that may prove difficult, if not impossible, to reverse
At the centre of this turmoil is Steward Uday Eswaran,
whose conduct has increasingly come to symbolise the club’s slide from
collective governance to personalised authority. His aggression towards
officials and colleagues alike is no secret. He made no attempt to hide his
intent when he declared that upon his re-election he would ensure the removal
of Secretary Kiran, against whom he bore a long-standing grievance, unless the
latter resigned voluntarily. That threat, astonishingly, was not checked by the
institution but instead allowed to hang over the administration like a loaded
weapon.
This pattern has repeated itself. Eswaran’s openly
hostile letter against the Chief Stipendiary Steward culminated in yet another
forced exit. Officials at the Turf Club now function not under clearly defined
rules or institutional safeguards, but at the whim of individuals who wield
power without accountability. When officials survive by guessing whose
displeasure to avoid rather than by following protocol, democracy within an
organisation is already buried.
Uday Eswaran’s earlier term was equally notorious for
his tendency to take on anyone he perceived as hostile, including initiating
legal proceedings against those who wrote about the club’s internal
shenanigans. The inevitable result was not vindication but financial loss to
the club, which bled legal fees in battles it could neither morally nor legally
sustain. Litigation became a tool of intimidation, striking at democratic
rights and free expression rather than addressing the rot within.
This autocratic mindset is not new. In his earlier
stint as steward, Eswaran had even suggested that anyone questioning the
Managing Committee should be punished. That thinking has since hardened into an
administrative culture where dissent is crushed, officials are routinely turned
into scapegoats, and even fellow committee members and former colleagues are
treated as expendable. He is ably assisted by Ashok Raghavan and Aravind
Raghavan, whose relentless, coordinated letter-writing campaigns have earned them
an unenviable reputation. Together, they have succeeded in creating a toxic
environment where survival depends less on competence and integrity, and more
on staying in favour of those who believe they own the club.
Predictably, such dominance flourishes only because
others remain silent. There are stewards who are either too meek or too
compromised to intervene. Mahesh Medappa, who headed the disastrous Veterinary
Sub-Committee, stands out for his steadfast support of a Chief Veterinary
Officer whose tenure has coincided with the current catastrophe engulfing the
club. Under this regime, the Chief Vet has been granted unbridled authority, to
the point where his word is treated as law.
The consequences of this concentration of power have
been devastating. As publicly highlighted by Dr Dinesh, no fewer than 13
veterinarians have quit the Club, not in search of greener pastures, but to
escape a toxic work culture. The Chief Vet, by all insider accounts, knows
exactly whom to please and whom he can afford to target, depending on the
signals from his political masters. Certain trainers aligned with him enjoy
remarkable latitude, reinforcing the perception that rules apply selectively.
The institutional collapse is more evident in the
Veterinary Department, arguably the most critical arm of any turf authority.
What should be a system governed by checks, balances and independent regulatory
oversight has instead been reduced to a one-man show. There is no clear power
structure, no independent regulatory veterinarian, and no separation between
treating authority and oversight. This lopsided arrangement has directly
contributed to the paralysis now gripping the Club.
The glanders outbreak has brutally exposed these
failures. Horses exhibiting symptoms were treated repeatedly with antibiotics
without a definitive diagnosis, reportedly leading to secondary fungal
infections and worsening the situation. Despite clear warning signs, samples
for glanders testing were sent only on December 2, and that too after sustained
insistence from members of the Veterinary Sub-Committee, particularly Dr Dinesh.
By then, the damage was done. Racing will be shut down for a minimum of three
months, with the denotification process involving government agencies likely to
stretch the timeline further. Optimism would mean hoping for racing to resume
by May.
This is not merely a temporary setback. It is a
systemic failure with long-term consequences. Racing has come to a standstill,
administration is paralysed, confidence among stakeholders has been shattered,
and the Club’s credibility with government authorities is under strain. If
these governance failures, personality-driven vendettas and the absence of
regulatory oversight are allowed to continue, the consequences will be
disastrous, not just for Bangalore Turf Club, but for the very survival of the
sport in the region.
The crisis has arrived. Whether the Club chooses to
confront it or continue sleepwalking into deeper damage will determine its
future.
Comments
Post a Comment