T20 World Cup: ICC got tangled in a controversy that wasn’t | Cricket News
Two wrongs don’t make a right. As much as the BCCI was at fault in instructing the Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) to release Mustafizur Rahman from their IPL team, the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) was wrong in trying to score a political point by saying they would like to avoid touring India for the T20 World Cup. Further, had BCB, on January 6, conveyed to the ICC that they were refusing to play in India because of a directive from their government and squarely in response to Mustafizur’s release from the IPL, the entire matter would’ve then become a diplomatic issue, with ICC members having no locus standi.Go Beyond The Boundary with our YouTube channel. SUBSCRIBE NOW!Instead, BCB used “safety concern” as a justification to their demand, which forced the ICC to call for an independent security assessment and gave Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) the window for drama. The risk assessment procedures lasted two weeks, following which the ICC had no choice but to call for the members to vote. The ballot was 14-2 against the idea of moving the matches to a neutral venue.
BCB’s pullout under the pretext of security – fueled by all the social media angst – gave PCB an opportunity to play the role of an agitator. PCB took advantage of a scenario that did not involve them and gave way to a controversy that wasn’t. Anybody who has tracked crossborder tensions between India and Pakistan since 1971 will know the ‘why’ of what transpired.It is here that ICC chairman Jay Shah, alongside senior member board representatives in the governing body got together to get the mess resolved. Shah’s office deputed senior ICC office-bearers to conduct talks with the PCB and help them understand what was at stake. The chairman’s office had only one priority – to ensure cricket doesn’t suffer.“Bangladesh’s absence is regrettable. But it does not alter the ICC’s commitment towards them as a core cricket nation. It remains a priority ecosystem and cannot be defined by any short-term disruption,” ICC CEO Sanjog Gupta said.As far as Pakistan and the general issue of safety is concerned, we’re talking about a country that no major international cricket-playing nation – including Bangladesh – was agreeing to tour between 2009 and 2022 due to safety fears. During these years, the BCB categorically refused to tour Pakistan. BCB shelved their tour plans in 2012-13.In 2018, once again, Bangladesh’s tour of Pakistan was called off for safety reasons. In 2021, a planned series was cancelled after a Dhaka court injunction owing to unease among players and officials.“It’s a bit rich coming from Pakistan that they’re standing in solidarity with a country over a matter that doesn’t concern them. Given the context and their cross-border dispute with India, where’s the surprise? No other member board was party to the stand that PCB took,” say those tracking developments.Why India vs Pakistan was allowed to move to a neutral venue, but India vs Bangladesh wasn’t, is because an India vs Pak game has its own economic value, and summarily put, is the reason why a tournament like Asia Cup even survives. An India vs Australia clash, for separate reasons, falls in the same economic bracket. An India vs Bangladesh doesn’t.Given the unresolvable issues between the neighbours, cricket has only two choices – either to allow the idea of a neutral venue as a long-term exclusive option or to let go of a clash this valuable. This is why, a long-term solution of India not playing in Pakistan and Pakistan not playing in India was agreed upon between the two boards, with the ICC chairman personally green signalling the move.Else, letting go of a clash of such proportions would mean countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan – and even Pakistan – losing out on massive revenues.If anything, the episode taught the subcontinent’s cricketing ecosystem one important lesson – an India vs Bangladesh is not the same as an India vs Pakistan. And that’s the only reason Pakistan are playing India and Bangladesh aren’t.
