Sports code seems to be the hottest topic of discussion, the biggest bone of contention and the sole reason why IOA has been suspended. The International Olympic Committee has been squarely blaming the interference of the Government by way of bringing the National Sports Code for suspending India.
What's the debate all about? A quick look at the two shows that they are virtually identical. Here is the decoded version of the sports code:
The tenure guidelines for the President in both are for a period of 12 years. In the Sports code it's for 12 years with or without a break and in the Olympic charter, it's for 8 years with a possible extension of 4 years.
For other office bearers the tenure guidelines state that the office bearer can hold the post for two consecutive terms of 4 years, with a cooling off period of 4 years before contesting again.
The age cap meanwhile in both the Olympic charter and the sports code for all officials is 70.
The International Olympic Committee and the Olympic Council of Asia have been urging the IOA to incorporate the sports code in their constitution for the last two years, but the Indian body wasn't willing to budge.
And here's why.
Several federation heads have been flouting the guidelines for years.
80-year old Prof VK Malhotra has become the President of the Archery Association yet again. He been in office for 33 years and will complete 37 years by the time his current term ends. He has exceeded his term by 21 years.
Jagdish Tytler has been at the helm of the Judo Federation for 16 years, flouting the guidelines. He has exceeded his term by four years.
And JS Gehlot of the Amateur Kabaddi Federation has held office for 26 years, exceeding the term by 14 years
Along with the cap on tenure, some like VK Malhotra have flouted the cap on age as well.
Incorporating the sports code, which is a mirror image of the IOC charter in the IOA constitution, could have saved India from suspension, but can there ever be a majority decision to usher in these changes?