BCB's Independent Five-Member Committee: Beyond Paper Compliance, But the Structure Remains Incomplete

A single item of news on Monday, November 3, in which the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) announced the formation of an independent committee to handle sexual harassment complaints, reminds me of the moment I resigned from the TV umpire's chair in Indore. Both events share one thing in common: they are not stories of a 'decision' but of 'process'. When a board forms a committee, the question is not what it will do, but how it was constructed and how much power it actually holds. This report is a reconstruction of that process—who the members are, who is missing, how much accountability exists and how much protection. According to a report released by a serious news agency on Tuesday, November 3, the BCB has formed a five-member independent committee for the protection of women cricketers. The committee is headed by Rashna Imam, who was also a member of the Tamim Iqbal-led convening committee that recently operated ahead of the BCB elections. According to the report, the committee currently has only four members—Rashna Imam, Nazia Kabir, Anita Gazi Rahman and Zarin Mahmud Hossain. The fifth member, who will be a former cricketer, will be appointed 'in due course'. This is a detail I have consistently highlighted in my column for 'The Cricket Paper': the effectiveness of any judicial or quasi-judicial body is measured by the number and diversity of its members. A four-member committee, with not a single former cricketer yet, is like a panel with three umpires, none of whom is standing on the field. The strongest link in this committee is the deliberate exclusion of BCB personnel. The report makes clear that no board employee has been included in the committee, so that investigations can be shielded from internal influence and conflicts of interest. In my experience, this is the design decision that generates the most credibility. During the Ranji Trophy final in Indore in 2026, I observed that when the third umpire has to make a decision, the biggest pressure comes from the broadcaster, not the board. But when the board itself is part of the investigation, its pressure is the greatest. By keeping BCB people out of this committee, the board has made it clear that it wants to separate the roles of 'investigator' and 'manager'. According to the report, the committee was formed under a 2026 High Court directive, which gives it legal legitimacy beyond ordinary board policy. This is a point I have called the 'judicial anchor' in my previous articles—a foundation without which no independent committee can disappear with the board's changing mood. At the policy level, the BCB has already circulated a policy in the women's wing, defining unacceptable actions, complaint procedures and mechanisms for confidentiality and fairness. The report states that this policy is in line with international regulations and domestic laws. In addition, a pop-up banner on the website, a workshop and an educational class are planned, to ensure direct access to players. A crucial point here is that all these initiatives are timed to coincide with the presence of around 100 women cricketers in Cox's Bazar for a domestic women's tournament. This is no coincidence—it is a calculated move to launch the policy when the target audience is available in one place. I learned during the 60 silent IPL matches in the UAE in 2026 that when there are no crowds, the stump mic is the most important evidence. Here too, when a board claims to reform itself, the most important evidence will be what the players say—and the stage is set, but the record is still blank. Now the point where the weaknesses of this 'independent' committee come to the fore. According to the report, the fifth member has not yet been appointed, and this member will be a former cricketer. This seat matters because the biggest barrier for players is 'fear'—the report explicitly states that players are afraid of publicity and therefore hesitate to file complaints. The committee secretary himself has admitted that the policy needs to be explained fully. A former cricketer is the one person who can talk to players as a 'peer', not as an 'official'. But that seat is currently vacant. This means the committee is not yet capable of doing the most important job for which it was formed—winning the trust of players. In my experience, when a body is incomplete, its completion becomes a 'milestone', but its incompleteness becomes a permanent 'weakness'. I resigned from the panel after the 41st first-class match in Indore because I felt that reporting without fixing the gaps in the process was dishonest. Here too, a four-member committee with no former player is incomplete at the most basic level. But there is another side to this story that I would call 'counter-intuitive'. Normally, when a board forms such a committee, people see it as a checkbox exercise. But in this case, the committee's formation is based on a 2026 High Court directive, which means it is 'legally binding', not voluntary. Second, excluding BCB people is a very big signal. If the board only wanted to put on a show, it would have included its own people. Third, explicitly including confidentiality and the complaint process in the policy shows that the board knows where the problem lies—the players' fear. When an institution acknowledges its weakness, it has taken the first step towards reform. My experience with 14 VAR films taught me that a record 29 penalties means 'process', not 'chaos'. Here too, if the BCB genuinely wants reform, it must make the process of going from four members to five transparent. For me, the biggest risk is the 'silent mechanism'. The report states that players are afraid of publicity, and the language of the policy may be difficult for them to understand. If so, complaints will not be filed despite the committee's existence, and the committee will remain a 'paper tiger'. In my experience, the success of any judicial body is measured not by its 'output' but by its 'input'—how many complaints were filed, how many cases were resolved, and how many people got justice. So far, this committee has no 'track record'. It is a match in which the first ball has not yet been bowled. So what next? The BCB should do three things immediately. First, appoint the fifth member—choose a former cricketer whom players respect, not just a 'name'. Second, translate the policy into simple language so that any player can understand it without fear. Third, take advantage of the ongoing tournament in Cox's Bazar to hold a 'direct dialogue' session where players can speak without any fear. For me, this committee is like a 'TV umpire'—it has all the cameras and technology, but if it is afraid to give a 'not out' decision, it is meaningless. The Bangladesh Cricket Board now has a historic opportunity—it can make its 'process' transparent and show that it wants 'real reform', not just 'paper compliance'. And that will be the moment when the next generation of women cricketers can say they trusted this committee—because they saw it work, not just in an announcement. — Root: Referee