Geopolitical game India playing behind T20 World Cup

Cricket romantics describe the game as a "gentleman's game," where boundaries are marked with ropes and not barbed wire, and where bat and ball are the only weapons. However, times have changed so much that they may wonder while watching the “game” if this is even cricket!

As the next T20 World Cup approaches, the harsh reality of the "gentleman's game" is becoming increasingly clear. World Cups are supposed to be global celebrations of cricket, but instead, they are turning into stages for diplomatic disputes.

Before a major event like the World Cup, the focus is usually on—who are the favourites, who might win, which group is stronger, which group is weaker. But this time, the discussion is whether domestic politics in the host country is suffocating cricket. Questions arise: Is India shooting itself in the foot by politicising cricket?

More regrettably, India is not the only victim of its apparent unwarranted arrogance; the cricketing world is also being impacted negatively. The question of whether this World Cup will be held properly began with the exclusion of Bangladeshi cricketer Mustafizur Rahman from the IPL.

Mustafiz, who has been in discussions for years due to his performances in the Indian Premier League, was identified this year as a "security risk," not for any cricketing reason, but due to the growing ''anti-Bangladesh'' sentiment in India.

This incident has given rise to a contradiction that neither the BCCI nor the ICC can ignore. By labeling a high-profile Muslim cricketer as a "security risk," Indian authorities inadvertently validated the fears they had long dismissed.

If an individual star, protected within the franchise infrastructure, is not safe from the toxic political climate, how can the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) dare send their entire squad, support staff, journalists, and fans there?

When the BCB cited security concerns and refused to tour India, various quarters labeled Bangladesh’s fear as unfounded. Yet, as revealed by a ‘careless’ comment from Bangladesh's sports advisor, ICC’s own security analysis highlighted the risks, which constitutes strong evidence against the host country’s security situation.

The analysis, even according to the sports advisor's claim, mentioned that as Bangladesh’s elections draw nearer, security-related risks will also intensify. It is an indirect admission that India's current environment is so hostile and toxic that it may not be possible to ensure the safety of visiting players—especially Muslim players from neighboring countries.

This crisis is not limited to Bangladesh. American cricketer Ali Khan's visa application was also rejected. Ali Khan publicised the news in a bizarre way—when a player is forced to post on Instagram about his visa rejection, holding nothing but a bucket of fried chicken as consolation, the scene might seem laughable; but in this case, it does not appear funny, because everyone knows the serious reason behind it.

Even Ali Khan’s matter is not an isolated incident. Some reports suggest that England's Adil Rashid and Rehan Ahmed have also encountered similar difficulties. These incidents indicate a worrying trend where immigration policies and religious identities are being used as tools to control access to a sports event. How ridiculous, and at the same time, pathetic!

The ICC tirelessly promotes the spread of cricket globally and offers more opportunities to associate countries. Yet, when the United States qualifies to play in the World Cup, their players must undergo a process that cannot be described as anything other than ‘profiling,’ instead of the usual protocol.

By turning the visa process into a tool for political vetting, the host country sends this message to the world: your religion or birthplace is more important to them than your cover drive. In doing so, it alienates the global community that the ICC has tried to build for so long. A World Cup that excludes a player based on their identity is no longer a World Cup; rather, it becomes a geopolitical gathering with a specific ‘dress code’ to follow.

Why is there such a deep crisis of trust in the security assurances provided by the host country? The answer lies in the blurred lines between India’s cricket administration and the country’s ruling political party, the BJP.
The ICC, which is technically the impartial guardian of this game, is currently led by Jay Shah. He is not just a cricket administrator but also the son of India's Home Minister, an important figure in the BJP leadership.

This connection creates a mountain of conflicts of interest that is impossible to ignore. The anti-Muslim sentiment that has led to security concerns in Bangladesh is widely criticised for being fostered by the BJP.

When the BCB or other boards express their concerns, they are told to trust the ICC’s assurances. But in the eyes of many, the ICC and the Indian political establishment have become indistinguishable. How can Bangladesh trust those security assurances when the global body providing them is so intricately connected to a political machine accused of inciting threats?

In international sports, neutrality is the main asset, and by 2026, the ICC seems bankrupt in this regard.

The uncompromising stance of the ICC’s India-based establishment has created a vacuum, and predictably, geopolitics has filled that space. Pakistan has recently indicated that they might reconsider their participation in the World Cup if Bangladesh’s concerns aren’t addressed, leading to even more dangerously precarious outcomes.

It needs to be clarified that Pakistan's involvement here is likely opportunistic. This does not stem from a deep love for Bangladesh but rather from a strategic desire to put pressure on their ‘archenemy’ India. However, you cannot blame Pakistan for capitalising on the opportunity India has created. By politicising neighbourly security, India has handed its adversary a powerful diplomatic weapon.

But the position Pakistan is rumoured to have taken has not been confirmed by the Pakistani government. This silence from Islamabad might represent a new chapter in a traditional strategy to keep New Delhi on edge. Altogether, India's failure to manage regional relations with courtesy has turned the World Cup into a proxy battlefield for South Asian grievances. The focus should have been on the cricket pitch, but all discussions have now moved to the immigration office.

If Bangladesh is forced to change groups, or if at the last minute the games are moved to Sri Lanka amid chaos, then the beauty of the competition itself will be in question. The World Cup was supposed to be a test of skill based on equality, but it’s becoming a test of diplomatic influence.

The 2026 World Cup could have been a showcase of India’s vast influence in cricket. Instead, it is highlighting the reverse side of India’s largest democratic image. If cricket continues on this path—where security is discriminatory, visas are used as political tools, and the governing body becomes a clear extension of state machinery—then the power of the game will only lead to division, whereas sport is only hoped to bring unity.

#Saif Hasnat is a journalist and writer.

*Email: saifhasnat@gmail.com
*Opinions expressed are the author's own

#This article, originally published in Prothom Alo online edition, has ben rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam