'The BCCI takes positions based not just on its own interests but also on its view on cricket. In England, everyone could see the problems with Hot Spot, so we took the matter up again. We made a presentation of the decisions that clearly showed that Hot Spot was lacking accuracy. That is what convinced the members to revert to an optional DRS,' Srinivasan said.
In its executive board meeting in Dubai last week, the ICC had reversed its earlier decision of making the DRS mandatory by leaving its use subject to bilateral agreements between the participating boards.
The ICC's decision was a reversal from the agreement reached between the world body and its member boards at the annual conference in Hong Kong, when Hot Spot was made mandatory subject to its availability, though the use of ball-tracking was left to the playing boards to decide.
In England, Hot Spot failed on more than one occasion, with Rahul Dravid falling victim three times. Another controversy erupted when former England captain Mike Atherton alleged that VVS Laxman might have used Vaseline on the edge of his bat to avoid detection by the technology.
Srinivasan reiterated that the BCCI remained unconvinced about Hot Spot and that it was not a bully of world cricket.
'We are not at all the bullies of world cricket... but on the contrary we go out of our way to assist other member nations. It's difficult to dispel the notion that we are (bullies) because it is constantly referred to, but it is not a fact,' he told a news channel.
Srinivasan also refused to accept the claim that India's crammed calendar led to a number of injuries during the England tour, where the they were whitewashed in all three formats of the game, and said India are playing the same amount of cricket as all other countries.
'If we had won on the England tour no one would have brought up the packed schedule. It was a tour where we had bad luck. A number of players got injured during matches. Also, cricketers are highly paid professionals and are expected to take care of themselves,' he said.
'The board would look at the schedule again, critically to see if anything can be done but I don't accept the criticism that there is too much cricket being played. It's not so much the IPL and the Champions League, we have now got one ICC event every year ... on the whole it is a crowded calendar,' he added.
Srinivasan denied the fact that BCCI is solely into money-making business and should be taxed.
'We are not a profit-driven organisation. As a professional, I would naturally like to get the best value for the product I have.
'Beyond that all the income we have is applied to cricketing activities: 26 per cent goes back to the players, we spend on infrastructure, 70 per cent of our income goes to the State cricketing associations and we also give them subsidies to build stadiums, plus the National Cricket Academy has a budget of 10 crores every year. So, the 190 crores is a surplus, not a profit.
'By our own charter we have to spend 85 per cent of the money we make in a year on cricket activities. If we don't we can keep it in a fund but that needs to be spent in five years,' said Srinivasan.