![\"\u2018Who](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-132843481,imgsize-124683,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/dilip-tirkey.jpg\" "\\"HI")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nBENGALURU: What began as a controversy over the Indian hockey team\u2019s switch from its traditional blue jersey to saffron has now snowballed into a governance battle within Hockey India (HI).In a strongly worded letter to the federation\u2019s director general (DG), Cdr RK Srivastava, HI president Dilip Tirkey has raised serious questions over authority, accountability and transparency in the decision-making process behind the jersey change.The letter, accessed by TOI, is Tirkey\u2019s response to Srivastava\u2019s July 31 explanation on the approval process. Questioning who authorised the redesign and whether due process was followed, Tirkey has sought answers from the federation\u2019s administrative leadership, deepening the controversy.Describing the DG\u2019s four-page reply as largely off the point, Tirkey wrote: \u201c…the issue under consideration is not merely the colour or design of a playing jersey. The matter concerns the decision-making process adopted for a change involving one of the most recognisable symbols of Indian hockey, the authority under which such a decision was taken, the consultations undertaken, compliance with Hockey India\u2019s governance framework, and whether appropriate institutional processes were followed.\u201dThe former India captain added: \u201cHockey India is a custodian of a legacy. Decisions affecting such symbols must therefore be approached with the highest standards of governance, transparency and accountability.\u201dTirkey also questioned why the elected Executive Board was bypassed. Revealing that he learnt about the redesigned jersey only through a WhatsApp group message a few hours before its social media launch on July 27, Tirkey wrote: \u201cThe Director General has an important executive and administrative role in managing the affairs of Hockey India and implementing approved decisions. However, administrative responsibility cannot be interpreted as replacing or overriding the authority of the elected governance bodies. Given the importance and national significance of the decision, the Executive Board requires clarification as to why the President and the Executive Board were not consulted before the public announcement.\u201dThe 412-cap India veteran also took exception to a section of the DG\u2019s reply that detailed HI\u2019s high-performance initiatives.\u201cThe Executive Board is fully familiar with the demands of elite sport and high-performance environments. The EB includes several distinguished former international players and Olympians who have personally experienced the demands of preparing for and performing at the highest levels of hockey… and fully recognises that modern sport requires continuous improvement and that every genuine marginal gain must be pursued,\u201d Tirkey wrote.With the controversy erupting less than three weeks before the FIH Hockey World Cup begins in the Netherlands and Belgium on Aug 15, Tirkey also questioned the timing of the change.\u201cA decision intended to improve performance must not inadvertently create uncertainty, distraction or disruption at a critical stage of preparation. It is therefore necessary for the Executive Board to understand how the jersey change was assessed within the overall high-performance plan,\u201d he said.Tirkey has sought a comprehensive reply from the DG, supported by documentary evidence, by 5 pm on Tuesday.Signing off, he wrote: \u201cHockey India does not own Indian hockey. We are trustees and custodians of a national sporting legacy\u201d.Key clarifications sought:<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n