In today’s cricketing world, even the flutter of a butterfly’s wings in Indian domestic politics can unleash a storm that wrecks another country’s sporting future.
In 1993, a young actor launched a legendary Bollywood career with Darr and Baazigar, introducing Indian cinema to the anti-hero. Thirty-three years later, that same cultural moment would — improbably — help trigger Bangladesh’s expulsion from a T20 World Cup.
If the connection seems baffling, it needs unpacking. But at its core lies a troubling reality: international cricket has increasingly become an instrument of India’s ruling Hindutva establishment.
From Mustafizur’s removal to Bangladesh’s expulsion
The chain of events began on January 2, when Sangeet Som, a member of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), publicly attacked Shah Rukh Khan — arguably India’s most prominent Muslim public figure — branding him a traitor. Khan is the owner of Indian Premier League franchise Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR), which had selected Bangladesh fast bowler Mustafizur Rahman.
Som’s incendiary remarks escalated into explicit threats against Mustafizur, coupled with claims that Shah Rukh Khan had “no right to live” in India. What followed was a wave of online abuse and intimidation targeting both men.
Within days, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) stepped in, “requesting” KKR to release Mustafizur, citing vaguely worded “recent developments going on all across”.
The reaction from Dhaka was swift. Bangladesh’s Sports Adviser Asif Nazrul directed the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) to approach the International Cricket Council (ICC) and seek a shift of its T20 World Cup matches from India to co-host Sri Lanka. His reasoning was stark: if a Bangladeshi cricketer could not safely play in India, how could the national team be expected to travel there for a global tournament?
After prolonged negotiations, the ICC rejected the request, arguing that accommodating Bangladesh would “set a precedent” and undermine the organisation’s neutrality. Soon after, Bangladesh was removed from the tournament altogether and replaced by Scotland.
The decision drew strong criticism from Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) chairman Mohsin Naqvi, who denounced the ICC’s “double standards”. Days later, Pakistan’s government instructed its team to boycott its World Cup match against India.
An ‘ocean of vagueness’
The political subtext of the episode is difficult to ignore.
Som’s attack on Shah Rukh Khan and Mustafizur followed a familiar BJP pattern of anti-Muslim dog-whistling, particularly pronounced during election campaigns. The comments came amid campaigning for West Bengal’s state elections — where KKR is based and where the BJP has repeatedly portrayed Muslims as illegal Bangladeshi migrants.
Shah Rukh Khan has long been a target of such rhetoric. His unmatched celebrity and Muslim identity have made him a recurring focal point for Hindutva politics. What was unprecedented, however, was the BCCI’s direct intervention.
Journalists in India and Bangladesh noted the absence of any visible deliberation within the board. A report in The Indian Express revealed that the decision came from the very top, bypassing both board members and the IPL governing council. One unnamed official admitted they learned of it through the media.
Equally striking was the deliberate vagueness of the BCCI’s justification — a tactic that later allowed the ICC to dismiss Bangladesh’s security concerns as unsubstantiated.
Veteran cricket writer Sharda Ugra has described this pattern as an “ocean of vagueness”. She recalled being unable to obtain any official clarification over who ordered India’s team not to shake hands with Pakistan during the 2025 Asia Cup, or who blocked India’s travel to Pakistan for last year’s Champions Trophy.
The Mustafizur episode followed the same template. There was no paper trail, no formal warning, no documented security assessment. As Ugra noted, there was simply “no evidence of procedure — just whisperings”.
Power, politics and revenue
If the BCCI’s independence appears compromised, the ICC’s credibility fares little better. The global body is chaired by Jay Shah, son of India’s Home Minister Amit Shah — a fact that loomed large as the ICC expelled Bangladesh while previously agreeing to shift venues away from Pakistan for the Champions Trophy.
As Guardian journalist Taha Hashim observed, the ICC’s defence of “sanctity” rang hollow, given that the hybrid model imposed on Pakistan had already set a damaging precedent.
Naqvi was the lone dissenting voice among major boards. Yet Bangladeshi journalist Mohammad Isam urged caution in expecting a united front. Bangladesh’s geopolitical reality — encircled by India and bound by deep cultural ties — leaves little room for confrontation. Moreover, the crisis unfolded amid an election season, with the sports ministry driving the response.
Isam noted that the BCB initially favoured a diplomatic, middle-ground approach. But economic realities loom large. A single Indian tour can fund Bangladeshi cricket for years, making outright resistance nearly impossible.
This financial leverage is central to India’s dominance of global cricket. While Pakistan has learned to survive without Indian fixtures, smaller boards lack the resources to do so. Meanwhile, powerful boards elsewhere have shown little appetite to challenge the status quo.
A sport held hostage
Academic Sushant Singh warned that Mustafizur’s case would not be an anomaly. “The machinery is now in place,” he wrote, “tested and proven effective.” Without pushback from the ICC, other boards or the global media, players will continue to be sacrificed at the altar of majoritarian politics.
Resistance, Singh suggested, may only emerge if countries like England or Australia are targeted — and even then, financial incentives may silence dissent.
Ugra is equally pessimistic. After three decades covering the game, she described the ICC as “an unserious organisation”, with Australia and England reduced to “sidekicks of the big don”.
That weakness became evident when Pakistan announced it would boycott its match against India — the tournament’s biggest revenue draw. The ICC’s tone shifted instantly, urging the PCB to find a “mutually acceptable resolution”, a stark contrast to its firm rejection of Bangladesh’s plea.
For once, cricket’s power brokers were forced to confront concerns not originating in India.
The cost of control
India’s stranglehold over cricket’s finances and governance has left the sport dangerously exposed. As Hindutva politics tighten their grip on Indian institutions, cricketing decisions increasingly cater to electoral constituencies rather than fans.
The consequences are global. A local election campaign in India can now derail international tournaments, jeopardise player safety and fracture sporting relations. As one Indian observer noted online, it is possible to draw a straight line from Mustafizur’s removal to Pakistan’s boycott.
There is no easy fix. Singh has warned that the game’s ultimate downfall may come not on the field, but through legal battles and collapsing commercial deals, leaving cricket “bankrupt — financially, morally and culturally”.
Until accountability returns, the sport will remain vulnerable — where a single flutter in India’s political ecosystem can trigger a cyclone in another nation’s cricketing destiny.