Indian Olympic Association (IOA) chief P T Usha defended her appointment of an ad-hoc committee for boxing, citing the national federation’s failure to fulfill its responsibilities over the past year. This decision is aimed at restoring order and governance amid criticism from IOA vice president Gagan Narang, who called Usha’s move “arbitrary” and detrimental to athletes. Usha stated that the Boxing Federation of India (BFI) has neglected crucial duties, especially with the Asian Games approaching. Despite a Delhi High Court stay on her order, she maintains that the ad-hoc committee is essential for prioritizing athlete development and improving India’s medal prospects.
The chief of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), P T Usha, defended her choice to set up an ad-hoc committee for boxing on Tuesday. She stated that the national federation has not met its “fundamental responsibilities” over the past year, making her action essential to “restore order and ensure appropriate governance.” This statement followed a letter from IOA vice president Gagan Narang on February 28, where he accused her of making “arbitrary” decisions and jeopardizing the welfare of athletes.
Despite the Delhi High Court’s stay on the IOA’s decision, Usha remains firm in her stance. The court has requested a response from the IOA regarding a petition from the Boxing Federation of India (BFI).
“…there is no truth in your (Narang) claim that athletes are suffering because of this decision or any purported arbitrary actions on my part. The choice to appoint an ad-hoc committee was not arbitrary; it was a crucial move to restore order, ensure good governance, and focus on athlete development,” Usha replied to Narang, who is also part of the IOA’s Executive Council.
“The unfortunate reality is that the BFI has neglected its fundamental responsibilities, such as organizing national championships over the past year.
“With the 2026 Asian Games on the horizon, little to no effort has been made to scout new talent, select promising boxers, or create structured training programs that would improve India’s chances of winning medals.” Usha, who has had ongoing conflicts with Executive Council members on various issues, accused them of being more concerned with “personal preferences” than the broader interests of Indian sports.
Narang had reached out to her to request the withdrawal of her “arbitrary” decision to form an ad-hoc committee to manage the activities of the BFI. He mentioned that “because of such arbitrary orders, our athletes are suffering, and we are receiving negative attention both domestically and internationally.”
On February 24, the IOA established a five-member ad-hoc committee to supervise boxing in the country, citing the national federation’s failure to conduct timely elections.
The BFI described the IOA’s action as “illegal” and has filed a petition with the Delhi High Court to invalidate the order.
Narang also asserted that Usha’s decision to create the ad-hoc committee for the BFI was made “without consultation or approval from the EC of the IOA.”
He urged Usha to revoke the order and convene an emergency EC meeting to discuss various urgent matters.
In response to Narang, the IOA president mentioned that she had made numerous attempts throughout the past year to bring the Executive Council together to tackle key issues.
“Sadly, these endeavors have been repeatedly hindered by members — including you — who have consistently obstructed meaningful dialogue,” she charged.
“I find it difficult to recall any occasion when the EC has actively participated in discussions aimed at improving athlete performance or initiating strategies to boost India’s chances of winning medals.
“The ongoing reluctance to confront these vital issues raises genuine concerns regarding the priorities of certain individuals within the IOA,” she stated.
The IOA has experienced internal divisions ever since Usha appointed Raghuram Iyer as the CEO in January 2024.
The majority of EC members opposed his appointment, arguing that they had not been adequately consulted and that his salary was excessively high for an organization like the IOA. The EC members have refused to approve Iyer’s appointment.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Topics mentioned in this article