India's grip on world cricket would become more or less total if the 50-50 decision on who succeeds Malcolm Speed as chief executive of the ICC in June favours Inder Singh Bindra, one of the three most powerful men in the sport on the sub-continent. The four senior ICC figures charged with making the choice between Bindra and the rival preferred by two of them must be made soon, probably at the ICC's next meeting, on Monday and Tuesday of next week.

Bindra is highly capable, having put much of his time, money and influence into developing a splendid modern stadium in his native Chandigarh. He was chairman of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and he successfully fought to unseat Jagmohan Dalmiya, his rival from Calcutta. Bindra's competence is not in doubt, but the fact remains that there are other good candidates who have not been closely involved with cricket politics.

If Bindra were to be appointed, he would be joined in Dubai within two years by Sharad Pawar, the Indian cabinet minister who chairs the BCCI and will succeed David Morgan as ICC chairman in June 2010. Such a stranglehold by the country that generates almost two thirds of the world's income from cricket through its massive worldwide television audience could not be in the sport's best interests.

With all their power, more objective Indian observers must surely see the wisdom of appointing the other man, understood to be a former South African with a successful cricketing and business career behind him. A third candidate, Imtiaz Patel, who is chief executive of SuperSport, a South African broadcaster, is being considered as a compromise choice.

The four-man selection committee comprises Pawar, Morgan, the acting ICC chairman, Ray Mali, the ICC acting president, and Creagh O'Connor, the Cricket Australia chairman. None of them is so powerful as Lalit Modi, the architect of an Indian Premier League (IPL) that is reported to have offered retainers to seven more New Zealanders simply to prevent them from following Shane Bond into the rival Indian Cricket League (ICL).

Officials outside India are floundering to make some sense of the IPL and the ICL. The distinction that the ECB and the rest have made between the two - the ECB announced on Friday that any player signing for the ICL, which has not been authorised by the ICC, would face a season's ban from county cricket - makes no sense and the sooner someone tests it in law the better. In India, the BCCI is entitled to make the distinction, but Modi, Bindra and the other movers and shakers must hardly be able to believe how meekly the other administrators of world cricket have played their game for them.

In fact, the second phase of the ICL looks as if it will be stronger than they had bargained for. They have $15million (about £7.4 million) sponsorship this time and a second television station, Ten Sports, to transmit 30 matches. Like the Packer revolution in the 1970s, this started as a battle over television rights, but the Indian civil war should not concern anyone else except in so far as it affects their own players.

Only the fear, probably baseless, of losing their own television contracts with India explains why all the other countries have outlawed the less disruptive ICL while praising the IPL, which, for heaven's sake, is going to last longer than the widely condemned ICC World Cup last year, even though this is Twenty20 cricket, not 50-over. There is no sign, either, that the BCCI intends to limit the competition to six weeks. Modi has talked of exporting it if the first tournament draws big crowds. It has not yet affected county cricket, but it will. Only the Kolpak players who have chosen to make themselves stateless, such as Murray Goodwin, Martin van Jaarsveld and the rest, can have their cake and eat it.