Explained: This article explains the political background, key decisions, and possible outcomes related to Explained : Indo-Bangladesh Face off On and Off Pitch as India’s Cricket Politics Spills Over the Boundaries and Its Impact and why it matters right now.
Cricketing tournaments have always served as great ambassadors for people-to-people contact. Of late, however, they have become barometers on which hyper-nationalism is measured. The hyper-nationalism, in turn, is being honed as political ideology and also being crafted as electoral strategy. The elections in West Bengal—where Mamata Bannerji has stood steadfast against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—let’s not forget, are due in a few months. A new government will have to be in place by 7 May 2025.
But should sports become a pitch for politicians to play on? Should the ‘gentleman’s game’ (it now also belongs to women) be allowed to be hijacked by electoral arithmetic that allows communal divisions to be deliberately deepened?
Saikia is only a functionary of the body that governs cricket. The game had already been converted into a blood sport during last year’s Asia Cup when India and Pakistan faced each other three times; when Indian captain Surya Kumar Yadav refused the customary handshake with his counterpart Salman Agha. And after winning the final, India refused to accept the trophy from Asia Cricket Council chief Mohsin Naqvi because he is also the chief of Pakistan’s Cricket Board (PCB) and Pakistan’s interior minister.
The political ‘sixer’ was hit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi who celebrated India’s victory through a tweet on 29 September 2025, that read, “#OperationSindoor on the games field. The outcome is the same—India wins! Congrats to our cricketers.”
Neither Modi, nor anyone from the BCCI or the International Cricket Council (ICC) were willing to answer the question of why India and Pakistan were allowed to play cricket when the Prime Minister had, while scrapping the Indus Water Treaty, said in no uncertain terms that “blood and water” cannot flow together.
At the time, I had, in a column for this very platform asked why cricketers were being made to carry the weight of nationalism. “The men in blue take the field to play a good game of cricket. Getting them to keep their hands to themselves—while the BCCI has its hand in the till—lacks grace and sportsmanship. Converting cricketers into political missiles is plain wrong. That’s not why they chose to wield the bat or the ball,” I had written.
This time, it has become about the men in green and the ICC will have to decide whether Bangladesh can face off with India in Sri Lanka, just like India and Pakistan’s team will. Actually, it has become about more than just cricket because the sport is coming in the way of a complex India-Bangladesh relationship, at a time when it seemed like the two sides were treading carefully to end the standoff that started with Sheikh Hasina fleeing Dhaka and taking refuge in New Delhi, after a furious Gen Z uprising.
Only last week, foreign minister S Jaishankar had met and shaken hands with Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s (BNP) chairperson Tarique Rahman, son of former Bangladesh prime minister, Khaleda Zia. The son had, in fact, set the tone for rebuilding the frayed relationship between the two countries. He had spoken out against the attacks on minorities (Hindus in Bangladesh) and at a rally said, “This country is home to hill communities and people of the plains, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians. We want to build a Bangladesh where everyone feels safe.”