Explained : Cricket and politics and Its Impact

Since the fall of Sheikh Hasina in August 2024, the relationship between Bangladesh and India has been on a downward slope, initially very hostile but moderating a bit toward a thaw. The thaw is presumably toward Indian interest in a possible change in government after the upcoming elections in Bangladesh. 

But even in this thaw, despite provocative remarks from an apparently unfriendly media in India prone to pleasing the ruling government there, and occasional incendiary rhetoric from some of Bangladesh’s youth leaders, the relationship appears to be in a see-saw. Hot and cold. 

This see-saw occurred with the cricket fiasco centring the T20 World Cup. 

All of this happened not at the behest of either government or hostile conduct of the leaders of either country. This was triggered by Indian Cricket Board’s instruction to Indian Premier League (IPL) to drop Mustafizur Rahman, Bangladesh’s star bowler who was selected after a bid, to play for one IPL team, Kolkata Knight Riders.

Reason? There was a demand from the militant wings of India’s ruling party BJP to drop Mustafizur Rahman from IPL teams. Apparently the demand was made in protest against the killing of a minority member in Bangladesh. 

The demand of these groups obviously turned a blind eye to numerous incidents of violence against minority Muslims and Christians in recent days in India itself. 

This argument never appealed to the people raging against Mustafizur Rahman, because the rage was against Bangladesh. 

At least, that is how people outside viewed the Indian Cricket Board decision. Understandably, a deeply anguished Bangladesh Cricket Board took the decision not to play in Indian cities (two) in the upcoming T20 series citing security concerns. 

They viewed the Indian political groups’ rage against Bangladesh as a threat to its players’ security. They wanted the matches moved to another country, Sri Lanka. This decision of course was a serious concern to the International Cricket Council (ICC), the organizer of the T20 World Cup. It asked its security team to assess the threat situation and guide their decision on Bangladesh Cricket Board’s request.

Meanwhile, Asif Nazrul, Bangladesh’s sports adviser to the interim government, said in a press conference that a letter from the ICC security team indicated it would be “impossible” for the Bangladesh cricket team to visit India for the T20 World Cup due to security concerns. 

He asserted this communication showed the situation in India was unsafe for the team. In support of his decision, he cited three risk factors, quoting from an alleged letter from the ICC Security Team. Nazrul said the alleged ICC security letter outlined that three factors that could heighten security risks for the Bangladesh team in India were:

1) Inclusion of pacer Mustafizur Rahman in the squad could raise the threat level.

2) Bangladeshi fans wearing national jerseys in India might increase security vulnerabilities.

3) The proximity of Bangladesh’s national election could further escalate risk.

He described these as unreasonable conditions and said expecting Bangladesh to avoid these was “absurd, unrealistic, and unreasonable.” He strongly criticized the situation as making it unsafe to play in India. 

Nazrul framed the issue not just as security, but as national honour and dignity. He said Bangladesh would “not compromise” on the safety of players, supporters, and journalists, and called for Bangladesh’s matches to be moved to Sri Lanka or another neutral venue if necessary. 

He also criticized the ICC for not acknowledging the seriousness of the situation as he sees it and suggested that India’s “communal atmosphere” and sustained anti-Bangladesh sentiment made it unsafe to play there. He insisted that no single country should dominate decisions about global cricket. 

In his haste, and perhaps due to strong emotions, Asif Nazrul did not have time for actual communication from ICC such as whether it was an official letter from the organization or an internal exchange between BCB and ICC on safety concerns for Bangladesh players. It was not a formal letter from ICC nor were the factors cited by Nazrul conditions set out by ICC. 

BCB later clarified that the communication referenced was an internal exchange between the BCB and the ICC’s security department, not an official directive making such claims. In other words, Asif Nazrul was more driven by emotions than actual facts when he wrongly termed an unofficial exchange between BCB and ICC Security Team as an official letter and blamed the latter for partisanship. 

The ICC has publicly refuted claims that it flagged specific security risks that would prevent Bangladesh from playing in India, calling some aspects of the reported claims a “complete lie” and reiterated that there has been no change to the tournament itinerary. ICC has denied issuing such security warnings, and the BCB has clarified the communication was internal and not an official security advisory.

The accusation and its latter denial from ICC put BCB and Bangladesh in an awkward situation. But the die was already cast. The sentiments in Bangladesh became very strong by the perceived Indian “insult,” first when Mustafiz was dropped from IPL, and then from the statement from Asif Nazrul on the security threats allegedly (but wrongly) communicated by ICC security team to BCB. 

The combined reaction was Bangladesh authorities firmly refusing to play in Indian cities and seeking a neutral place.

Leadership in a country comes from a variety of people and sources, whether in politics, business, or even sports and entertainment. But irrespective of the platform, leaders prove their leadership through utterances that are made carefully, respecting their positions. 

Leaders or people in authority are responsible for each statement they make. They are not like a populist media which seeks to provoke people with taunting news to spread misinformation or mislead people. 

A more studied and careful response from the sports adviser, who is also in charge of law in Bangladesh, would have been appropriate.

Bilateral relationships depend on trust, respect, and mutual understanding. Mature leaders on both sides of the border understand and appreciate this dictum, despite provocations and inflammatory remarks from people who are not stakeholders in their countries future.

The current administration has a few weeks before it hands over to a new government. Hopefully, the new administration will be able to steer the country toward a better relationship with our big neighbour, with whom we have lived for over five decades in both happy and adverse times. 

John F Kennedy had remarked that Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners, and necessity has made us allies. Those whom God has so joined together, let no man put asunder.

Ziauddin Choudhury has worked in the higher civil service of Bangladesh early in his career, and later for the World Bank in the US.