Horse racing is built on competition. Horses compete for prizes, jockeys for winners, trainers for championships and owners for recognition. Yet in some of India’s race clubs, the one place where competition appears to have disappeared is the committee room. When the same people remain in control for years, sometimes decades, elections become predictable, opposition weakens and fresh ideas struggle to find space. Experience brings continuity and institutional knowledge, but it should not become a licence for indefinite tenure, because prolonged control can gradually breed complacency, vested interests and intolerance of criticism, even without any suggestion of wrongdoing.

This is not an argument against any particular individual, but for institutional renewal. At Bangalore and Mysore, the rules provide for two terms of two years, followed by a break before a person can return. Other clubs have no comparable limitation. Even where a cooling-off period exists, however, there is a legitimate question about whether a one-year break is meaningful if the same person can return immediately afterwards and resume the same influence. A genuine cooling-off provision should give the institution an opportunity to develop new leadership rather than simply require the incumbent to vacate the chair temporarily.

The issue becomes more important when elections themselves cease to be genuinely competitive. Former RWITC chairman Vivek Jain made a pertinent observation recently while writing about the club’s committee elections. He argued that opposition is healthy in any democracy because members exercising their vote help prevent complacency. He also referred to the Cricket Club of India’s decision to introduce a compulsory two-year break for the president and treasurer after two successive terms, suggesting that RWITC could consider a similar system. It is an idea worth examining across Indian racing.

There was a time when race-club elections were events in themselves, with candidates campaigning, members debating, alliances shifting and an upset always possible. At some clubs today, however, the result can almost be known before the ballot is cast. An election without meaningful opposition may satisfy the technical requirements of democracy, but it loses its most important feature: choice. A contested election forces those in office to defend their record, gives challengers an opportunity to question decisions and present alternatives, and gives members the power to demand a different direction. When there is no realistic challenger, much of that pressure disappears. The danger is not necessarily that every incumbent is incompetent, but that there is no longer a compelling reason for the institution to change and the status quo becomes the safest policy.

Over time, the effects can be subtle. The same committees continue, the same methods are followed and the same arguments are repeated. New ideas can be viewed as disruptive simply because they challenge established arrangements, while those who question decisions may gradually be regarded less as members exercising their democratic rights and more as troublemakers. That is when concentration of power becomes unhealthy. The longer individuals remain in control, the greater the possibility that institutional relationships and personal loyalties become intertwined. Eventually, the authority of an influential office bearer can extend beyond the office itself, with the institution beginning to accommodate the individual rather than the individual remaining accountable to the institution.

This is why the Lodha Committee’s thinking on tenure in sports administration is relevant to racing. The principle was not that experienced administrators were undesirable, but that power should not remain concentrated indefinitely in a small group. Racing need not copy cricket in every detail, but it could establish its own governance framework combining fixed terms, a maximum aggregate tenure, a meaningful cooling-off period and safeguards against circumventing term limits simply by moving from one office to another. Such a system would not punish experience; it would ensure that experience is periodically complemented by renewal.

Nor should modern voting procedures be blamed for weak competition. Electronic voting can make participation easier, but clubs must ensure that an independent candidate has more than a theoretical right to contest and a realistic opportunity to compete. Otherwise, a cycle develops in which members who believe the result is unlikely to change lose interest, capable people who see little chance of breaking an established arrangement stop offering themselves for election, and the shrinking talent pool makes it even easier for the existing leadership to retain control. The eventual casualty is fresh thinking.

Indian racing already faces enough challenges, from taxation and regulation to changing wagering patterns, attracting younger audiences, technology and the need to modernise club administration. These problems require new ideas, and new ideas are less likely to emerge when leadership becomes effectively closed. There is also a basic democratic principle that racing clubs should remember: criticism is not disloyalty, opposition is not hostility and disagreement is not an attack on the institution. A strong institution should be able to withstand criticism and answer it, and if members feel discouraged from questioning decisions because the same people have controlled the institution for years, democracy has suffered even if elections continue to appear on the calendar.

Term limits should therefore not be presented as a judgement on those who have served for many years, but as protection for the institution itself. No one should become indispensable to a sporting club, because good governance should produce successors rather than permanent occupants. Horse racing understands the value of competition better than most sports, and a race without rivals is a walkover. Race clubs should be careful not to allow their elections to become the same. The objective is not to remove experience, but to ensure that experience does not become entitlement, continuity does not become complacency and stability does not become stagnation. When the committee room stops racing, eventually the institution itself may stop moving.