In cricketing gate with Bangladesh, Delhi scores a self-goal

As expected, the Indian cricket board’s decision to eject Bangladesh pacer Mustafizur Rahman from IPL 2026 has triggered a storm. In a quick counter to the snub, Bangladesh has refused to travel to India for next month’s World T20 and, in turn, India has expressed reluctance to cross the border for bilateral games later in the year. After the Pakistan logjam, the cricketing gate to Bangladesh, too, has been slammed shut. Politicians and religious leaders who ratcheted up anti-Bangladesh public sentiment and worked up a spiralling social media outrage in the wake of the deplorable incidents of attacks on Hindus in that country may have dealt a fell blow to cricket in the region. Given the sensitive geopolitical situation and the shared history of using cricket as a platform for diplomatic posturing, it would be naive to assume that it was the BCCI that took a decision that has serious political ramifications. Unfortunately, cricket, caught in a political crossfire, has once again become the first casualty.

Cricket, or sports, shouldn’t be the rope in the tug of war between nations, especially those with longstanding ties. But these are times when the political takeover of sports seems complete. Directly or by proxy, politicians govern cricket in the Subcontinent. The days of apolitical administrators, the incurable cricket romantics, are in the past. There was a time in the Subcontinent when cricket held the power to soothe frayed nerves, open new vistas, give normalcy a chance. But the present-day political quagmires and volatile international relations have pushed the joy of the ordinary cricket-adoring masses down the priority list. Populist decisions, however damaging to the game, are taken without batting an eyelid by politicians-cum-cricket office-bearers. The game is all too often at the mercy of the mob.

In the past, it took wars and terror attacks to snap cricket ties. Now, the goal post has shifted. Cricket has gone from being a calming balm to becoming the gunpowder kept ready to fire at short notice in the name of “public sentiment”, regardless of the costs.