Just when it seemed that, after a year and a half of strain, the slate-grey sky over India–Bangladesh bilateral relations was beginning to clear slightly, an astonishing decision by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) regarding Mustafizur Rahman turned everything upside down. In a single stroke, initiatives to improve relations have been pushed back a hundred paces.
An angry Bangladesh has decided it will not travel to India to play the ICC T20 World Cup. The Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) has requested the International Cricket Council (ICC) to relocate its matches to Sri Lanka. Bangladesh’s interim government’s adviser for youth and sports, Asif Nazrul, has asked the adviser for information and broadcasting to halt the broadcast of the IPL in the country. This has already been implemented. It is abundantly clear that the BCCI’s decision has left not only Mustafizur, but Bangladesh as a whole, feeling humiliated and disrespected.
One cannot help but wonder whether India’s external affairs minister, S Jaishankar, is now clutching his forehead in despair.
The thought is not far-fetched. The decision to send Jaishankar to Dhaka to attend the funeral of former prime minister Begum Khaleda Zia was highly significant. There was no obligation to send anyone at all. A far less important representative could easily have been deputed. Instead, the foreign minister himself was sent. Not only that, prime minister Narendra Modi also sent a letter to Tarique Rahman through him.
In that letter, Modi referred to his personal meeting with Begum Zia, paid tribute to her leadership and role in democracy and for the people of the country, and expressed hope that the BNP would move forward in line with the ideals of the late leader. Placing his trust in Tarique Rahman’s leadership, he further expressed the hope that the deep and historic partnership between the two countries would grow stronger.
Jaishankar, the standard-bearer of neighbourly goodwill, has little choice but to clutch his forehead in despair. The burden of repairing relations will once again fall on his shoulders.
In addition to handing over the letter to Tarique Rahman, Jaishankar held a 20-minute conversation with him and indicated a willingness to move forward together on the basis of cooperation with a future government. Bangladesh clearly understood the message as positive.
The impact of this brief visit’s “positive vibrations” was visible even afterwards. Speaking at an event at IIT Madras in Tamil Nadu, Jaishankar, responding to a question about the situation in Bangladesh, said that he had conveyed his good wishes to Bangladesh for the election. India hoped, he said, that once the post-election situation stabilised, neighbourly goodwill would increase. While he launched a barrage of criticism against Pakistan at the event, he made not a single inappropriate remark about Bangladesh.
Around the same time, India’s defence minister Rajnath Singh visited the Bangladesh High Commission in Delhi to sign the condolence book. That too was another clear and positive signal from India of a desire to normalise relations. India appeared to be signalling that it was merely waiting for the election.
In short, after a long time, a touch of positivity was being felt amid the acrimonious atmosphere of bilateral relations. Like a gentle spring breeze, a comforting cover seemed to have descended. The BCCI tore it away in one sweep.
Why the BCCI’s decision is so astonishing needs to be explained. Since the July uprising, Bangladesh-India relations have been in free fall. After Sheikh Hasina took refuge in India, relations became even more toxic. The BCCI was well aware of this deterioration over the past year and a half. Precisely because of this, it had postponed the Indian cricket team’s tour of Bangladesh scheduled for August 2025. Yet, despite knowing everything, the BCCI did not stop Bangladeshi players from participating in the IPL auction.
Even more astonishing is that such a major incident has occurred, bilateral relations have once again sunk into a dark abyss, and yet the central government has remained silent.
Since 2009, following the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Pakistani cricketers have been barred from the IPL. No such step was taken against Bangladeshi cricketers. On the contrary, apart from Mustafizur, six other Bangladeshi players were allowed to enter the auction this time. Why were they allowed? Why did the BCCI not intervene? Why did it not say that, in the changed circumstances, Bangladeshi players were no longer desirable in the IPL?
India has been accusing Bangladesh of the “killing and persecution of Hindus” for the past year and a half. For the same period, the ruling party in India has been holding protests in various states against alleged “persecution of Hindus”. For a year and a half, the Indian government has also largely stopped issuing visas to Bangladeshis. Diplomatic statements between the two countries have continued without pause. Why did it not occur to the BCCI all this time that the situation would become complicated if Bangladeshis played in the IPL? Why this sudden awakening only after threats from a few leaders such as former BJP MLA Sangeet Som or Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Nirupam?
The surprise deepens when one recalls that, in the past, the BJP did not heed even the threats of Bal Thackeray, founder of its oldest ally Shiv Sena, when it came to stopping cricket with Pakistan. In 1999, Shiv Sena activists had dug up the cricket pitch at Delhi’s Feroz Shah Kotla ground. Towards the end of 2012, Bal Thackeray again attempted to stop Pakistan’s cricket tour of India, writing in the party mouthpiece Saamana that allowing the Pakistani team to tour India would be a “national disgrace”. The central government did not accept his demand. Nor did the BJP support Thackeray. The party’s national spokesperson Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi had said, “Cricket and politics should remain separate.” Most importantly, the BCCI was not then part of politics.
What do we see now? Bangladeshi players were allowed to participate in the auction. Shah Rukh Khan’s team, Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR), bought Mustafizur for INR 92 million. The BCCI did not utter a word! Suddenly, as soon as demands were raised by one or two leaders like Sangeet Som, the board sprang into action, and KKR bowed its head to the BCCI’s order regarding Mustafizur. It is not unreasonable to think that policy on Bangladesh-India relations is now being dictated by the BCCI rather than the South Block!
Even more astonishing is that such a major incident has occurred, bilateral relations have once again sunk into a dark abyss, and yet the central government has remained silent. This gives rise to two possible interpretations. First, that the central government plays no role in institutional decisions and allows autonomous bodies to act as they please—letting cricket administration follow its own will, as if BCCI decisions are entirely its own, with the responsibility resting solely with it, not the government. Second, that the BCCI’s decision was taken at the government’s behest. The son of the union home minister is at the leadership of the Indian cricket board. It is difficult to believe that such a major decision could be taken without Delhi’s knowledge—especially when, as former cricketer Madan Lal has said, there is no one in the country who can question the board.
One of the major reasons behind Sheikh Hasina’s fall was accumulated anti-India sentiment. Over the past year and a half, that sentiment has manifested itself in various ways and has grown rather than diminished. Asif Nazrul’s words on social media are telling: “We won’t stand for any insult to Bangladesh’s cricket, cricketers and the country. The days of slavery are over.” The BCCI’s decision is akin to pouring oil on the fire of anti-India sentiment.
Cricket is not merely a game. To borrow the words of political psychologist and sociologist Ashis Nandy, cricket is the subcontinent’s only secular religion. It is the one game that unites rather than divides, that connects hearts to hearts. As Shashi Tharoor has said, Bangladesh, unlike Pakistan, does not send terrorists into this country. Jaishankar, the standard-bearer of neighbourly goodwill, has little choice but to clutch his forehead in despair. The burden of repairing relations will once again fall on his shoulders.
* Soumya Bandyopadhyay is the New Delhi correspondent of Prothom Alo.
* The views expressed are the author’s own.