Bangladesh’s exclusion from the ICC World T20 in India is a governance crisis that much of the cricketing world appears determined to ignore.
Yes, the issue has been dissected endlessly on South Asian television. Beyond the region, however, there is a conspicuous silence. This silence, like Bangladesh’s removal from the tournament itself, has a single explanation: India’s overwhelming influence over international cricket.
The International Cricket Council is supposed to act in the best interests of the global game. Yet what critics have argued for years has now become impossible to deny. The ICC no longer governs impartially; it governs with one priority — India first.
There is no ambiguity in how this plays out. One set of rules applies to India, another to everyone else. This double standard persists not because it is justified, but because it is enabled by the passivity of other so-called cricketing powers.
India has long taken political decisions to avoid bilateral cricket with Pakistan. It has refused to tour Pakistan and imposed onerous restrictions on Pakistani players and those of Pakistani origin seeking to participate in events on Indian soil. These decisions are openly political, yet the ICC remains silent.
When Bangladesh adopts a similar position — declining to play in India — the response is immediate and punitive: exclusion from a world tournament.
The merits of Bangladesh’s argument, like India’s arguments against Pakistan, are beside the point. Both are political. If India is allowed to pick and choose where and whom it plays, why should Bangladesh be denied the same discretion?
The answer is obvious. Bangladesh does not drive the financial engine of world cricket. It does not dominate television markets or command decisive influence at the ICC board. India does.
Equally troubling is the ICC’s dismissal of Bangladesh’s security concerns. The controversy began with the removal of Mustafizur Rahman from the IPL after threats were received that promised to disrupt matches involving him. If those threats were credible enough to justify his exclusion from an Indian domestic league, it is hardly unreasonable for Bangladesh to express concern about playing international matches in India.
Yet the ICC has insisted that there are no valid safety issues. Given India’s stranglehold over the organisation, such assurances ring hollow. India cannot afford to have teams cite security concerns to avoid playing on its soil — even as it reserves the right to do precisely that elsewhere.
This hypocrisy is not new. During Pakistan’s prolonged exile from hosting international cricket, security concerns in other countries, including India, rarely featured in ICC calculations. The pattern is consistent: one rule for India, another for everyone else.
Where does this leave Pakistan?
Pakistan should participate in the World T20, having already agreed to play its matches in Sri Lanka. At the same time, it should continue to support Bangladesh’s case within the ICC and highlight the starkly unequal treatment meted out to different nations. The Bangladesh episode is yet another illustration of a system built around India’s interests.
What is most disappointing is the broader silence. This is a significant governance failure, yet the cricketing world appears eager to look away. Where are the game’s leading voices? Where are its former greats, its commentators, its self-styled custodians of cricketing values? They are largely absent.
Money, it seems, speaks louder than principle.
If the tournament proceeds with Pakistan’s participation, the inevitable India-Pakistan group match will once again be marketed as the centrepiece. That a world tournament cannot function without this fixture says everything about how completely the sport has surrendered to commercial imperatives.
When revenue is at stake, politics and principles are quickly sidelined. What truly matters is the financial windfall that an India-Pakistan clash delivers to the ICC and the Indian cricket board.
International cricket’s governance is in disarray. The game is being eroded by greed and political calculation. Yet no one appears willing — or able — to challenge the imbalance. India is placed first because doing so allows everyone else to look after themselves.
As the bully continues unchecked, the rest of the world looks on in silence.
Sound familiar?