Life imitates art, as the saying goes. In recent times, sports imitates politics.
The maxim ‘might is right’ is in implementation wherever one casts an eye. Whether it’s abducting a head of a foreign state, threatening to annex another country’s territory, or doing what one pleases in global affairs, some people can seemingly do anything they please because they hold most of the cards.
The situation is not too different in world cricket at the moment. Decisions are taken not with sporting logic in mind, but to make political points.
The India-Bangladesh-International Cricket Council (ICC) triple threat match with regard to the T20 World Cup could have been easily avoided if all participants had thought things out clearly before saying anything or taking a decision, and had cricket front and centre in their minds.
Pakistan players have not been part of the Indian Premier League (IPL) after the inaugural edition in 2008, There has never been any formal reason given, but there was an informal agreement involving the BCCI and the franchises on not bidding for any of their cricketers in the next auction, in the wake of the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. Subsequently, players from across the western border have ceased to be part of the auction pool and their absence from the biggest domestic T20 league doesn’t even raise eyebrows now.
The domestic turmoil in Bangladesh had been going on for a while, and the alleged targeting of minorities there had been in the news for months, with the Indian government taking it up with the Muhammad Yunus administration. If India and the BCCI were so inclined, they could have kept Bangladesh players out of the IPL in much the same way as they had omitted Pakistanis so many years ago. It may have even been passed off as a decision based on cricketing merit. After all, only Mustafizur Rahman found any takers in the auction despite seven being part of the auction pool.
But picking a player in the auction and then keeping him out of the tournament is akin to inviting someone to a wedding and then conveying that he was not welcome at the function.
In a country and cricket fandom which thinks more with the heart than head, and where India hasn’t been seen in undiluted positive light of late, this was considered a national snub.
Look before you leap
But those responsible for running Bangladesh cricket don’t have that luxury. They could have taken up the matter with the BCCI before taking such a maximalist position – that they will not travel to India for the T20 World Cup, and not broadcast the IPL in the country. Those asking them to consider the consequences of their actions down the line – like national icon Tamim Iqbal – are called names.
The bogey of security concerns raised was a red herring while the real peeve was the humiliation at one of the country’s leading cricketers – who hasn’t, by the way, said anything publicly on the matter despite being in the eye of the storm – being disrespected.
Bangladesh toured India a little over 15 months ago – after the Sheikh Hasina government was overthrown – and apart from the odd incident, there wasn’t much to worry.
The ICC has also come across as a less than unbiased arbitrator, which isn’t totally surprising considering how one member country is so dominant in population, fandom, revenue and decision-making. It could have done better than just throwing the rulebook at the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB). The latter would have some justification in believing that the approach used in totalitarian regimes ‘Show me the man and I’ll show you the law’ was at play here. After all, India got its way when it didn’t want to visit Pakistan for last year’s ICC Champions Trophy, playing their matches in Dubai instead.
Scotland will now take Bangladesh’s place but it means that a lesser – and more importantly, unprepared – team will compete at a major global tournament.
But sport has long ceased to be a utopian level playing field with various stakeholders possessing asymmetrical bargaining power. Bangladesh may be a country of about 18 crore with a passionate fanbase. But its relative lack of success on the cricket field doesn’t lend itself to strong narratives, and it doesn’t bring that much revenue (in fact, nobody does) that it can hope to challenge India’s hegemony in the game.
There have been World Cups in the recent past without the West Indies, and Sri Lanka didn’t qualify for the last Champions Trophy. Bangladesh’s absence may not hit the ICC coffers too badly, but it will hit BCB pockets badly, such is the imbalance in the cricketing ecosystem.
Foregone conclusion
On the other hand, the ICC can’t even dream of holding an event without India as the country drives cricket as a global game. That would have been the reason most other members of the ICC Board decided against changing the T20 World Cup itinerary and staging Bangladesh’s matches outside India. It isn’t feasible to antagonize the BCCI. It was a battle Bangladesh was never likely to win.
Even the push to include cricket in the Olympics is almost entirely to cater to the Indian market and viewership. The details about qualification have not been finalized yet, but whatever criteria they apply, India will feature in cricket at Los Angeles 2028. The match timings have been fixed keeping Indian viewership in mind.
But in any walk of life, if one enjoys such asymmetrical power, it obliges them to not throw their weight around too much. It’s incumbent on a government enjoying a dominant majority to take the opposition along. The most powerful country in the world has to set a good example.
In the given situation, the ICC (which means India, for all intents and purposes) has hidden behind technicalities. The Mustafizur incident may be, as the world body says, a “single, isolated and unrelated development concerning one of its (Bangladesh’s) player’s involvement in a domestic league”, but if they didn’t think it could inflame passions, they’re being short-sighted.
There may be ‘no credible or verifiable threat to the safety or security of the Bangladesh team in India,’ as an ICC statement put it, but an elder brother has to reassure the younger sibling that their interests and feelings will be taken care of.
Bangladesh cricket and its fans may not matter a great deal – in financial terms – for a sport driven almost entirely by an Indian engine, but they are still a vital part of the game.
As far as India is concerned, deciding that a foreign athlete is not welcome to play here is not the message a country with ambitions to host the Olympics can afford to convey.
BCCI’s relations with its Pakistani counterpart are what they are. How many more ties can they afford to sour?