HI president Dilip Tirkey (ANI Photo)

BENGALURU: What began as a controversy over the Indian hockey team’s 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’s 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’s response to Srivastava’s 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’s administrative leadership, deepening the controversy.Describing the DG’s four-page reply as largely off the point, Tirkey wrote: “…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’s governance framework, and whether appropriate institutional processes were followed.”The former India captain added: “Hockey India is a custodian of a legacy. Decisions affecting such symbols must therefore be approached with the highest standards of governance, transparency and accountability.”Tirkey 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: “The 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.”The 412-cap India veteran also took exception to a section of the DG’s reply that detailed HI’s high-performance initiatives.“The 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,” 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.“A 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,” he said.Tirkey has sought a comprehensive reply from the DG, supported by documentary evidence, by 5 pm on Tuesday.Signing off, he wrote: “Hockey India does not own Indian hockey. We are trustees and custodians of a national sporting legacy”.Key clarifications sought: