Bangladesh will not play T20 World Cup games in India over safety concerns

[Baibers_1260]

@Baibers_1260

Are IND, PAK, BD (any two-nation combo) at war right now? Wasn't aware of that.

Regards

Russia isn't officially at war with NATO either and the Soviet Union wasn't at war with the EU and USA in 1980. Enmity and a state of war doesn't necessarily have to be at the level of killing each other.. North Korea and South Korea have no sporting ties, even though there is no actual fighting going on.

In the case of India Pakistan and Bangladesh there IS actual fighting going on , Bangladesh Border Guards and Indian Border Security force have frequently exchanged fire with casualties, and over 1000 Bangladeshi civilians have been killed by the BSF over the last decade. With Pakistan, as per India's own claim, it killed 300 "terrorists" in Balakot,(February 2019) and 1000 "terrorists" in strikes in May 2925 across Pakistan.
Why does India want to play cricket with a terrorist nation ?
The USA didn't play sports with Afghanistan with the Taliban regime in power before and after the September 9-11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Both India and Pakistan suspended all sporting and "cultural " exchanges for nearly a decade. In fact going back into history there were no sporting ties between Bangladesh and Pakistan for over a decade and half between 1971 and 1986 with the first ODI cricket held in 1986.
As of now there are no travel, and extremely limited communication links between India and Pakistan, almost like the post-1971. situation.. At that time ALL communications including postal links were blocked. Terrestrial TV and AM radio was jammed on both sides. The only remaining link was shortwave over the horizon commercial radio broadcasts though even these were jammed at the most easily accessible frequencies ( 25 m , 41 m ) of domestic receivers. As of now l think limited VOIP phone communications are still allowed though 90% of digital radio and TV channels are jammed.

This situation is classic to enemy nations in a state of war.
There is a slight difference to a state if war and being "at war ".
India and Pakistan are in a "state of war "

 

[Baibers_1260]

However, though you have not raised the issue, I would like to point out that the IPL is a tamasha cricket league and not some international sports event. The BCB does not have any standing regarding how the IPL conducts itself, just like the BCCI would have no standing regarding private cricket leagues in Pakistan or Bangladesh.

So, while, in principle, I support the right of the Bangladesh government to ask its national team not to play in or against India if it considers it in the national interest, I am perplexed about the premise they are using to justify it in the present instance

RamBharoseji,

There is a bigger picture than just a debate on the IPL's commercial interest and Fizz's compensation. Whether Bangladesh or Pakistan plays in this T-20 or not, the sporting ties between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh can only grow worse and are very likely going to end for the foreseeable future.
I pointed out two instances in South Asia where political situations and enmity play a big role in sports exchanges.

• Pakistan and Bangladesh did not play cricket for over a decade.
• India and Pakistan did not play cricket for almost a decade.

There is a hypocrisy in continuing to have any sort of debate on cricket even as hundreds of nuclear warheads are pointed at our respective population centers. To look for entertainment in a commercially rigged sports event is depravity of the worst kind as 400 million lives are set to be lost in a nuclear exchange.

 

[RamBharose]

RamBharoseji,

There is a bigger picture than just a debate on the IPL's commercial interest and Fizz's compensation. Whether Bangladesh or Pakistan plays in this T-20 or not, the sporting ties between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh can only grow worse and are very likely going to end for the foreseeable future.
I pointed out two instances in South Asia where political situations and enmity play a big role in sports exchanges.

• Pakistan and Bangladesh did not play cricket for over a decade.
• India and Pakistan did not play cricket for almost a decade.

There is a hypocrisy in continuing to have any sort of debate on cricket even as hundreds of nuclear warheads are pointed at our respective population centers. To look for entertainment in a commercially rigged sports event is depravity of the worst kind as 400 million lives are set to be lost in a nuclear exchange.

Baibers_1260 ji,

I am not so pessimistic about the inevitability of war in the sub-continent, especially between India and Bangladesh.

In my opinion, cutting off sports and cultural ties is most effective when the underlying reason is unambiguous and clear. Otherwise, it can create confusion and discord and can prove to be counterproductive.

America and the Soviets had nukes pointed at each other throughout the Cold War, but sports ties were suspended only to deliver targeted messages - like the Moscow Olympics being boycotted in response to the invasion of Afghanistan. India's refusal to play cricket in Pakistan is a continuation of the general government's policy to isolate Pakistan until certain objectives are achieved.

If Bangladesh had such a political objective underlying the decision not to play in India, and articulated it clearly ( for example, India's refusal to hand over Sheikh Hasina or about some water sharing), they would have come across as more credible and might have had more support internally. Instead, they came up with some contrived premise and have now even declared they fully accept the ICC's decision and will not contest it. They have damaged the relationship with India and it is not clear what they have to show for it. It is especially puzzling that this escalation of tensions with India was done by an unelected caretaker government which will soon be replaced by a popularly elected one.

 

[Yasser76]

RamBharoseji,

There is a bigger picture than just a debate on the IPL's commercial interest and Fizz's compensation. Whether Bangladesh or Pakistan plays in this T-20 or not, the sporting ties between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh can only grow worse and are very likely going to end for the foreseeable future.
I pointed out two instances in South Asia where political situations and enmity play a big role in sports exchanges.

• Pakistan and Bangladesh did not play cricket for over a decade.
• India and Pakistan did not play cricket for almost a decade.

There is a hypocrisy in continuing to have any sort of debate on cricket even as hundreds of nuclear warheads are pointed at our respective population centers. To look for entertainment in a commercially rigged sports event is depravity of the worst kind as 400 million lives are set to be lost in a nuclear exchange.

I would go further, PCB should announce we will not play India at all. Simple as that.

India v Pak is the biggest cricket event for India and they have commercialised cricet so much that taking this off the table will hurt them. More so then Pakistan, simply because we are not as obsessed, Australia, SriLanka etc are just as exciting for Pak fans.

Just like the air blockade hurt them much more then it hurt us when we recirprocated, we should do the same here....

 

[Master Chief]

RamBharoseji,

There is a bigger picture than just a debate on the IPL's commercial interest and Fizz's compensation. Whether Bangladesh or Pakistan plays in this T-20 or not, the sporting ties between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh can only grow worse and are very likely going to end for the foreseeable future.
I pointed out two instances in South Asia where political situations and enmity play a big role in sports exchanges.

• Pakistan and Bangladesh did not play cricket for over a decade.
• India and Pakistan did not play cricket for almost a decade.

There is a hypocrisy in continuing to have any sort of debate on cricket even as hundreds of nuclear warheads are pointed at our respective population centers. To look for entertainment in a commercially rigged sports event is depravity of the worst kind as 400 million lives are set to be lost in a nuclear exchange.

@RamBharose

The other relevant example to cite is that of Iran forfeiting any fixture drawn against Israel in international events, to their own detriment (i.e. giving Israel a bye or points as determined by forfeiture). Iran takes this stance on purely subjectively determined moral /political grounds.

India has, similarly, instigated "sports boycott for political tensions" against Pakistan, not the other way around.

The Iran model is a true apple-apple comparison for India to draw inspiration from and guide its actions in pursuit of sindoor remembrance.

India should simple be prepared to have its cake and eat it, or perhaps...its apple-apple.

 

[Baibers_1260]

India's refusal to play cricket in Pakistan is a continuation of the general government's policy to isolate Pakistan until certain objectives are achieved.

Maybe this is an off topic question, but what objectives did India actually achieve by refusing to play cricket or any other sports with Pakistan from 1971-1978 ?
To the best of my knowledge Pakistan continued playing test cricket internationally with successful tours of Australia, UK, New Zealand, and West Indies.
In fact in that very era of Indian planned "isolation " of Pakistan, in the mid 1970s, a very young Imran Khan was just cutting his teeth in Test cricket , and it was debated whose delivery was faster. Dennis Lillee's or Imran's.
Regardless, both India and Pakistan's stance was principled and correct, Nations at war don't play sports.

If Bangladesh had such a political objective underlying the decision not to play in India, and articulated it clearly ( for example, India's refusal to hand over Sheikh Hasina or about some water sharing), they would have come across as more credible and might have had more support internally.

How do we know what support BCB's decision has "Internally " within Bangladesh?

Instead, they came up with some contrived premise and have now even declared they fully accept the ICC's decision and will not contest it. They have damaged the relationship with India and it is not clear what they have to show for it.

What Bangladesh has to "show for it" is irrelevant. It is a political message to signal deteriorating relations between Bangladesh and India. Refer to my example above, I am not sure what India achieved trying to isolate Pakistan from 1971-1978, but India was fully entitled to refuse to play against a nation with which it was at war, Likewise Pakistan reciprocated and upheld the ban on sporting ties with India despite signals from the newly elected Morarji Desai Janata government in 1977, It took a visit by the then foreign minister Atal Bihariji to break the ice.

It is especially puzzling that this escalation of tensions with India was done by an unelected caretaker government which will soon be replaced by a popularly elected one.

Whether the government is elected or not is irrelevant. Countries deal with whichever government is in power, India re-established sports ties ( as well as communications) with Pakistan when it was under martial law. India and China have some modest sports links with India participating in the Beijing Olympics. There was no consideration on whether the Chinese government was " elected " or not.

 

[Baibers_1260]

@RamBharose
Another question on a broader scale,

Isn't there a contradiction in India trying to "isolate" Pakistan in sports ( similar to the era from 1971-1978) and yet wanting the. PCB to continue playing the T-20 cricket?
At least the BCCI's decision ( and the PCB's decision) back in 1971-1978 was consistent, and moral.
Why this lack of consistency now ?
( Note: For that matter I do not support the PCB or the Pakistan Ministry of Sports decision to continue maintaining sporting ties with India. I find that immoral also. )

 

[RamBharose]

Maybe this is an off topic question, but what objectives did India actually achieve by refusing to play cricket or any other sports with Pakistan from 1971-1978 ?
To the best of my knowledge Pakistan continued playing test cricket internationally with successful tours of Australia, UK, New Zealand, and West Indies.
In fact in that very era of Indian planned "isolation " of Pakistan, in the mid 1970s, a very young Imran Khan was just cutting his teeth in Test cricket , and it was debated whose delivery was faster. Dennis Lillee's or Imran's.
Regardless, both India and Pakistan's stance was principled and correct, Nations at war don't play sports.

Baibers_1260 ji,

I do not know about 1971-78, but the current policy is to weaken and isolate Pakistan by all means at the state's disposal. The BCCI has far more financial clout today than it did in the 1970s and it is being used as an instrument of state policy.

How do we know what support BCB's decision has "Internally " within Bangladesh?

There has been reporting in the Bangladesh media that the players were opposed to the government's decision.

What Bangladesh has to "show for it" is irrelevant. It is a political message to signal deteriorating relations between Bangladesh and India.

It would have been a clear and unambiguous message if Bangladesh had clearly and honestly articulated that the reason was some specific policy of the Indian government. Instead, they came up with an excuse of a contrived threat to players' safety, which, in my opinion, most reasonable people and the ICC Board, by a 14-2 margin, did not believe.

Refer to my example above, I am not sure what India achieved trying to isolate Pakistan from 1971-1978, but India was fully entitled to refuse to play against a nation with which it was at war, Likewise Pakistan reciprocated and upheld the ban on sporting ties with India despite signals from the newly elected Morarji Desai Janata government in 1977, It took a visit by the then foreign minister Atal Bihariji to break the ice.

Whether the government is elected or not is irrelevant. Countries deal with whichever government is in power, India re-established sports ties ( as well as communications) with Pakistan when it was under martial law. India and China have some modest sports links with India participating in the Beijing Olympics. There was no consideration on whether the Chinese government was " elected " or not.

I agree the government being unelected may not matter in some cases, but in this case it is not only unelected but also a caretaker one with a limited mandate of holding elections. It should not be taking actions that will bind the popularly elected government with a full mandate that will soon succeed it to a course of action it might not have wanted to pursue but may find difficult to reverse because of the bad atmospherics left behind by the caretaker government.

 

[Baibers_1260]

I do not know about 1971-78, but the current policy is to weaken and isolate Pakistan by all means at the state's disposal. The BCCI has far more financial clout today than it did in the 1970s and it is being used as an instrument of state policy.

So if the current policy is to "weaken and isolate Pakistan by all means at the state's disposal " then why is India keeping Pakistan in the T-20 and not kick it out ? Since according to you the BCCI has far more financial clout today, it can easily get a vote in the ICC to kick Pakistan out same as Bangladesh was kicked out. Don't you think it's a contradiction?

There has been reporting in the Bangladesh media that the players were opposed to the government's decision

Could you cite instances where there are specific voices of dissent by decision making bodies in Bangladesh opposing the BCB's decision not to play matches in India ?

It would have been a clear and unambiguous message if Bangladesh had clearly and honestly articulated that the reason was some specific policy of the Indian government. Instead, they came up with an excuse of a contrived threat to players' safety, which, in my opinion, most reasonable people and the ICC Board, by a 14-2 margin, did not believe.

The Indian government's policy was not a factor. It was clear unambiguous threats to the Bangladeshi cricket team by Shiv Sena politicians which neither the Government of India nor the ICC or the BCCI condemned or denounced. Nor was any specific proposal offered to guarantee the safety of Bangladeshi players from the threats by the Shiv Sena.
The fact that "reasonable " people (14-2) didn't take the threats, seriously is because the the Shiv Sena threatened only the Bangladeshi team and would have threatened the Pakistani team too had they played in India.

I agree the government being unelected may not matter in some cases, but in this case it is not only unelected but also a caretaker one with a limited mandate of holding elections. It should not be taking actions that will bind the popularly elected government with a full mandate that will soon succeed it to a course of action it might not have wanted to pursue but may find difficult to reverse because of the bad atmospherics left behind by the caretaker government

Whether Bangladesh has an elected or unelected government is entirely the internal affair of Bangladesh.
Bangladesh is a sovereign nation, Niether India nor any other nation has the right to judge Bangladesh on its internal political situation. What decisions Bangladesh takes on its sports ties with other nations is Bangladesh's prerogative and unconnected to what sort of government is in power in that country.

 

[RamBharose]

So if the current policy is to "weaken and isolate Pakistan by all means at the state's disposal " then why is India keeping Pakistan in the T-20 and not kick it out ? Since according to you the BCCI has far more financial clout today, it can easily get a vote in the ICC to kick Pakistan out same as Bangladesh was kicked out. Don't you think it's a contradiction?

I don't think the BCCI has quite so much clout that it can kick Pakistan out of the T-20 World Cup without any cause. I don't think the other members will stand for it. If Pakistan itself wants to exit , that is a different matter. In general, the government's policy appears to be to squeeze Pakistan economically where it can, but there are also cost benefit tradeoffs. For example, if the BCCI makes enough money by hosting Pakistan in India, that would probably be acceptable, but sending an Indian team to Pakistan would not, even if that means some revenue loss.

Could you cite instances where there are specific voices of dissent by decision making bodies in Bangladesh opposing the BCB's decision not to play matches in India ?

I don't know about decision making bodies, but the Daily Star, which I have been following, has regularly reported on the players' association being at loggerheads with the Board on this issue and being in favour of participating in the tournament.

The Indian government's policy was not a factor. It was clear unambiguous threats to the Bangladeshi cricket team by Shiv Sena politicians which neither the Government of India nor the ICC or the BCCI condemned or denounced. Nor was any specific proposal offered to guarantee the safety of Bangladeshi players from the threats by the Shiv Sena.
The fact that "reasonable " people (14-2) didn't take the threats, seriously is because the the Shiv Sena threatened only the Bangladeshi team and would have threatened the Pakistani team too had they played in India.

What exactly were these clear unambiguous threats ? Some leaders did oppose Fizz playing in the IPL, but, as far as I am aware, no one made any clear, unambiguous threat against Bangladeshi players representing their national team in India.

Whether Bangladesh has an elected or unelected government is entirely the internal affair of Bangladesh.
Bangladesh is a sovereign nation, Niether India nor any other nation has the right to judge Bangladesh on its internal political situation. What decisions Bangladesh takes on its sports ties with other nations is Bangladesh's prerogative and unconnected to what sort of government is in power in that country.

I do not have the power to pass a judgment, but I certainly have the right to an opinion. In my opinion, the caretaker government took a decision beyond its mandate that could potentially tie the hands of its successor which should have had the mandate to make such decisions.

 

[Baibers_1260]

I don't think the BCCI has quite so much clout that it can kick Pakistan out of the T-20 World Cup without any cause. I don't think the other members will stand for it. If Pakistan itself wants to exit , that is a different matter. In general, the government's policy appears to be to squeeze Pakistan economically where it can, but there are also cost benefit tradeoffs. For example, if the BCCI makes enough money by hosting Pakistan in India, that would probably be acceptable, but sending an Indian team to Pakistan would not, even if that means some revenue loss.

So now you say the BCCI financial clout has limitations. From 1971-1978 the BCCI tried to isolate Pakistan from world cricket over "atrocities in Bangladesh " but it didn't seem to. have much effect. The UK, New Zealand, West Indies, Australia, and Sri Lanka continued to play cricket with Pakistan and Pakistani cricket players continued to play cricket in the UK County clubs. Ironically in that decade 1971-1981, only ONE country sided with India in refusing to play cricket with Pakistan, and that was Bangladesh.
So fast forward to 2025 and the BCCI's huge "financial clout" .
Is it a question of money or is it a moral principle? The situation is confusing. 60% of the revenue in any series comes from an India-Pakistan cricket match which command the largest audience. If the objective is to "isolate and squeeze " Pakistan then surely the BCCI can take a blow to its "wallet" since it is flush with money while ensuring the PCB goes bankrupt. So what's holding the BCCI back?

I don't know about decision making bodies, but the Daily Star, which I have been following, has regularly reported on the players' association being at loggerheads with the Board on this issue and being in favour of participating in the tournament.

Could you mention any one player ( former or current ) by name that has publicly denounced the BCB decision to not play in India?
In any case the matter is done and over with, Bangladesh is out of the T-20 and unlikely to return.

What exactly were these clear unambiguous threats ? Some leaders did oppose Fizz playing in the IPL, but, as far as I am aware, no one made any clear, unambiguous threat against Bangladeshi players representing their national team in India.

I think the videos below are a sufficient answer to the unambiguous threat perception.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I do not have the power to pass a judgment, but I certainly have the right to an opinion. In my opinion, the caretaker government took a decision beyond its mandate that could potentially tie the hands of its successor which should have had the mandate to make such decisions.

Was India comfortable with the previous Bangladeshi governments (elected or unelected) not playing matches with Pakistan for 10 years ( even as India itself had resumed playing matches with Pakistan)?.
If Sheikh Hasina's government returns to power will the BCCI agree to play Bangladesh anywhere Bangladeshi players feel secure?
Since 1979 was there ever a safe venue for India Bangladesh cricket matches ?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Vikramaditya1]

We don't care how you justify it to yourself. You should drop out because athletics medals don't flow with spilled sindoor.

You're right. Indeed a lot of things won't "flow" by the looks of it.

 

[RamBharose]

So now you say the BCCI financial clout has limitations. From 1971-1978 the BCCI tried to isolate Pakistan from world cricket over "atrocities in Bangladesh " but it didn't seem to. have much effect. The UK, New Zealand, West Indies, Australia, and Sri Lanka continued to play cricket with Pakistan and Pakistani cricket players continued to play cricket in the UK County clubs. Ironically in that decade 1971-1981, only ONE country sided with India in refusing to play cricket with Pakistan, and that was Bangladesh.
So fast forward to 2025 and the BCCI's huge "financial clout" .
Is it a question of money or is it a moral principle?

It is a question of money and realpolitik. There is no moral principle involved.

60% of the revenue in any series comes from an India-Pakistan cricket match which command the largest audience.

That sounds like a made-up figure. The India-Pakistan match is one of tens of matches in a World Cup. It may get somewhat higher viewership than other matches India plays, but the difference would be a few percentage points. In the last T20 WC, there were 58 matches , out of which India played 9. I would be surprised if the share of the total revenue from the India Pakistan game was more than high single digits or, at most, low double digits percentage points .

If the objective is to "isolate and squeeze " Pakistan then surely the BCCI can take a blow to its "wallet" since it is flush with money while ensuring the PCB goes bankrupt. So what's holding the BCCI back?

The BCCI is doing pretty much all it can within its contractual obligations. It has refused to play bilateral cricket with Pakistan, refused to go to Pakistan even for ICC tournaments and refused to allow players to play in each other's leagues. It can't really force Pakistan out of ICC tournaments and forfeiting matches to Pakistan would be commercially damaging and render the tournament a farce.

Could you mention any one player ( former or current ) by name that has publicly denounced the BCB decision to not play in India?
In any case the matter is done and over with, Bangladesh is out of the T-20 and unlikely to return.

Tamim Iqbal was the first to speak out before the decision was made and was immediately labelled an "Indian agent" by the BCB director Nazmul Islam, after which the players' association threatened to boycott the BPL. Nazmul Islam was suspended for a while and then reinstated after the BPL got over I am not sure anyone dared to publicly denounce the government after that, but there was extensive reporting that Litton Das and his team members were in favour of playing, but their views were not taken into account.

I think the videos below are a sufficient answer to the unambiguous threat perception.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I don't see any clear and unambiguous or even vague threats against the Bangladeshi cricket team participating in the World Cup, only protests against the one player being part of the IPL, and some of the coverage is absolutely laughable. The Shiv Sena is a Mumbai-based party. The first time I found out they had a presence in Gurugran was by watching this video.

Was India comfortable with the previous Bangladeshi governments (elected or unelected) not playing matches with Pakistan for 10 years ( even as India itself had resumed playing matches with Pakistan)?.
If Sheikh Hasina's government returns to power will the BCCI agree to play Bangladesh anywhere Bangladeshi players feel secure?
Since 1979 was there ever a safe venue for India Bangladesh cricket matches ?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

These questions are moot because India, at least so far, has not taken a policy decision to boycott and isolate Bangladesh, like it does with Pakistan. The IPL decision was taken in response to a public outcry against the lynchings and other targeted attacks against Hindus in Bangladesh and the perception that the Yunus government was unwilling or unable to protect the Hindu minority in Bangladesh. However, there is still hope in India that once Yunus is gone and a democratically elected government takes office in Bangladesh, relations will normalise at least to some extent. That is why India has refrained from taking measures that will escalate the situation, like banning overflights.

 

[SaadH]

You just look after your Afghanistan team, and don't bother us

Well you might as well have your real mai baap Israeli team replace your f@ujeet colonial slave team

 

[gamaji]

Given the Nipah virus outbreak in India, which has prompted many Asian airports to begin screenings for flights arriving from India, I doubt this cricket world cup will be held in India.

India is the most filthy country on the face of planet earth. It effectively becomes a reproduction factory for the virus. The best cure Indians love to use is taking a bath in cow dung. The world still know the horrific scenes of tens of thousands of dead bodies of Corona victims being burnt in India. For comparison, the dead rate from Corona infection was 3-5% while that of Nipah infection is reportedly 40-45%.

The way this new virus, which is much more deadly than Corona virus, is spreading in India, I don't think foreign teams will even land in India.