The enduring charm of the Bangalore Derby

 Unity at the Top, Questions Left Unanswered

 

By Sharan Kumar

 

Only two members spoke at the recent annual general body meeting of the Royal Western India Turf Club (RWITC) held recently. Vivek Jain spoke at length, while another member praised the committee and sought improvements in facilities for members. Ram Shroff, Chairman of Stewards, declared that the committee was completely united in its actions, with none of the dissent that had marked earlier committees.

 

Unity may be reassuring, but it is not necessarily a measure of good governance. A committee that reaches consensus after vigorous debate is one thing; one that faces little opposition is quite another. When only two members speak at a general body meeting, the silence is as significant as the declaration of unity.

 

Does this professed unity reflect satisfaction with the committee’s performance, or has the absence of dissent made it easier for individual agendas to prevail? Shiven Surendranath, for instance, appears to enjoy a free hand, risking further damage to the club’s reputation, while individual subcommittees seem free to act as they please. If unity becomes an excuse to suppress dissent and avoid scrutiny, it can do more harm than open disagreement. The crucial question is whether effective checks and balances exist to protect the club’s collective interests.

 

A Clubhouse While Racing Struggles

 

One issue that deserved far greater attention was the proposed clubhouse project. If the club's core racing activity is suffering losses, should a major building project intended to generate additional revenue be a priority?

 

The questions are unavoidable. What is the projected investment? What returns can realistically be expected? How long will it take to recover the expenditure? And could the money be put to better use strengthening racing and improving facilities for professionals and racegoers?

 

There is nothing wrong with seeking additional revenue. But a project of this scale requires a convincing business case, transparent financial projections and a clear explanation of how it will benefit the club as a whole. Revenue generation alone is not sufficient justification, particularly when the principal activity is under financial pressure.

 

The reported proposal to raise funds through new memberships priced at ₹1 crore or more adds another dimension. If the clubhouse is to be the principal attraction for prospective members, the club must consider what kind of membership it is creating and how that might affect its future.

 

Deep pockets do not necessarily translate into a commitment to racing. Some prospective members may be attracted primarily by the clubhouse, its social facilities and the status of membership, rather than by the sport itself. That is not to suggest that every wealthy entrant would lack an interest in racing. But the club must guard against a situation in which its social appeal gradually eclipses its sporting purpose.

 

A turf club is not merely a social club with a racecourse attached. Its identity rests on the sport it exists to promote. The general body should have demanded answers on the project's viability, the proposed membership structure and the safeguards to ensure that racing does not become secondary to commercial and social interests. The apparent lack of debate on these fundamental questions was disappointing.

 

Letters That Disappear Into Silence

 

Vivek Jain also raised a valid concern about the Managing Committee's failure to reply to letters. This is not merely an administrative lapse. It reflects an approach to communication that deserves serious introspection.

 

The experience is not confined to members. Media representatives who write to the Chairman of Stewards seeking clarification have encountered the same silence, without even the courtesy of an acknowledgement.

 

No institution is obliged to agree with every question put to it, and there may be occasions when a detailed response is not possible. But acknowledging correspondence and explaining a position, where appropriate, are elementary responsibilities. Silence is neither an answer nor a substitute for accountability.

 

The committee appears to regard its authority as sufficient reason to make decisions without meaningful dialogue with those affected, including the media. Questions go unanswered, correspondence receives no response, and decisions risk becoming faits accompli. The impression conveyed is that others are expected to accept the committee's decisions without question.

 

The media is not an extension of the committee, nor is it required to endorse every decision the club takes. Its responsibility is to report, question and scrutinise. The committee, in turn, has every right to explain its position, correct inaccuracies and defend its decisions. That exchange is essential to a healthy sporting institution.

 

Refusing to engage does not strengthen authority. It creates the impression that scrutiny is unwelcome and that submission is preferred to dialogue. Whether or not this is the committee's intention, its conduct risks conveying precisely that message.

 

Democracy is not demonstrated merely by holding a general body meeting or having a governing committee in place. It is demonstrated by a willingness to listen, explain decisions and accept scrutiny. Authority may command respect, but it cannot demand unquestioning submission.

 

Committee Members in Name, Stewards in Absence?

 

Vivek Jain's observations about the non-participation of some committee members in committee meetings raise another fundamental question: why seek election to a committee if one cannot devote the time required to discharge its responsibilities?

 

A committee position is not a badge of prestige. It carries an obligation to attend meetings, participate in deliberations and take responsibility for decisions affecting the institution. Those who seek office must be prepared to give the club the time and attention their positions demand.

 

The concern extends to the conduct of racing itself. During the Pune season, the full quorum of Stewards is reportedly rarely present. Potential conflicts of interest pose a further challenge when enquiries involve trainers whose horses may be connected through ownership interests to members of the body responsible for adjudicating such matters.

 

An ownership interest does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing. However, any interest that could compromise, or appear to compromise, impartiality must be handled through transparent declarations, appropriate recusals and arrangements to ensure that a properly constituted and impartial panel is available.

 

A racing enquiry is not a mere administrative formality. A trainer's reputation, livelihood and right to fair treatment may be at stake. Every enquiry must inspire confidence that it has been heard impartially and that personal interests have not influenced the outcome.

 

If Stewards are frequently unavailable or unable to participate in particular enquiries because of conflicts, the club must ensure that its procedures can deal with these situations without avoidable delay or doubts about fairness. The integrity of racing depends not only on the rules on paper but also on the manner in which they are administered.

 

Unity Must Not Become a Substitute for Accountability

 

Ram Shroff's declaration of committee unity may have been intended to convey stability. But cohesion alone is no guarantee of sound governance. The real test is whether decisions withstand scrutiny, committee members fulfil their responsibilities, and the interests of racing take precedence over individual preferences.

 

Constructive dissent is not a sign of weakness. It can expose flaws in proposals, prevent costly mistakes and improve decision-making. A committee that welcomes questions is not necessarily divided; it may simply be performing its duties properly.

 

The same responsibility rests with the general body. Members cannot expect accountability from the committee while remaining indifferent to the opportunity to question it. Yet the committee must also recognise that its authority carries an obligation to communicate, explain and engage, rather than treat silence as consent.

 

The issues confronting RWITC go beyond a clubhouse, expensive new memberships or attendance at meetings. They concern the club's priorities, the quality of its governance and the confidence that members, professionals, racegoers and the media can place in its leadership.

 

Before pursuing ambitious plans to attract wealthy members and expand social facilities, the club must demonstrate that racing receives the attention it deserves, that its finances are managed prudently, that committee members discharge their duties and that Stewards can perform their responsibilities impartially.

 

A clubhouse can be built with money. A committee can declare itself united. Neither achievement, however, guarantees a healthy future for racing.

 

A committee seat is a responsibility, not an ornament. A Steward's position is a duty, not a privilege. And a general body that fails to ask questions risks surrendering the very oversight for which it exists.