I was permitted to be present at the 77th annual general meeting of the Board of Control for Cricket in India for about 15 minutes as I was representing a hopeful union territory to gain at least associate membership. It never came through because powerful people in the BCCI opposed it. The body, since the departure of Jagmohan Dalmiya, is full of powerful people. It would have been nice if the UT had got associate membership and I could have participated in the proceedings. And this is why.

Having taken the permission of the chair, I would have proposed that the BCCI’s senior and junior selection committees have six and not five members. With all the talk of zonal influences in the selection of the Indian teams at senior and junior levels, I think there is a way to make any selection committee truly national. Also, to minimise, if not eliminate, zonal influences.

The new chairman of the senior selection committee, Dilip Vengsarkar has been quoted as saying, "I will try and see that there’s no question of any zonal bias in selecting a player. It (selection) will be purely based on form and merit of the players."

Notice the ‘try and see’ in the statement, which is well meaning and sincere. But Dilip knows for sure that it is easier said than done.

Maybe he could give my proposal a thought and probably take it along to the president, Sharad Pawar. Of course there would be the five zonal selectors, but there would be a sixth, a chief selector. He would be the chairman and it does not matter which zone he belongs to. His choice would be on the basis of his international experience as a player — number of Tests.

A committee of six selectors ensures that the chairman and the chief one, is never embarrassed by his colleagues when and if they gang up. It has happened often in the past when the chairman found that he has been out-numbered by three votes to two. If there are six, the chairman would have automatically a casting vote in the event of the votes being split, three and three.

This prerogative would enable the player, the chairman thinks should be picked, to get the nod.

The last instance of the casting vote being exercised by a chairman of the selection committee was in the case of Vijay Merchant. There were five selectors then too, but somehow conveniently one of them, M. Dutta Ray of Kolkata, was made to stay away from the meeting.

It was the issue of whether to retain Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi as captain. Since the votes were split equally, two in favour of Pataudi and two in favour of the captaincy aspirant, Ajit Wadekar, Merchant exercised the casting vote in favour of the latter and made him the captain.

Choosing a captain is certainly a more serious matter than the selection of a player. However, coming back to the subject of having six selectors, there is a way to get rid of zonal bias. The selector nominated by a particular zone will be involved in watching the players and matches in another zone and would not be able to even a suggest a candidate for selection from his zone, the one that nominated him.

In the existing arrangement this scheme would be a trifle problematic. After all, the chairman of the committee — a distinguished cricketer with 116 Tests experience and a former captain of the country — cannot be treated on par with the other selectors, three of whom have not even played Tests.

In fact his role would be to pick and choose his matches and travel to any zone without warning. Then he could keep an eye on the ‘visiting selector’ who has been allotted that particular zone.

True, there is no guarantee that this proposed system would be foolproof and eradicate zonal bias once and for all. But certainly it would reduce this element in selection considerably. The proposed system would force selectorial aspirants to keep abreast with cricket and its players in all the zones, as they would not know in advance which one they would be sent to.

In the process the quality of selectors and selection would improve. Dilip himself would have a four-year term as chairman and thereafter his successor could be picked on the basis of the number of Tests he has played. Remember there are Sunil Gavaskar and Kapil Dev in the wings with 125 and 131 Tests respectively? Looking at the future, players like Sachin Tendulkar, Anil Kumble and Rahul Dravid have already played in excess of 100 Tests each and should be ready to serve Indian cricket in a new role.

Maybe there is a case for the members of the selection committee to be paid and the chairman a lot more. Is it not something to ponder upon Mr Pawar?