Opinion It’s a truce, but T20 row leaves behind questions

Suspense over the India-Pakistan T20 World Cup game and the accompanying political drama came to a close on Monday, but not before tense late-night meetings were held over the weekend and the ICC got the opportunity for lofty grandstanding. The global body spoke of being “united, committed and purposeful in aspirations to serve the best interests of the game with integrity, neutrality and cooperation”. But the facts of the matter were considerably less rosy. It was only at the proverbial last minute, when hard economic common sense apparently prevailed, that those involved in the dispute awoke to the potential consequences of an ICC event minus the money-spinner game of India versus Pakistan. That is, evidently, when a truce was called. The mistrust and bitterness of Subcontinental politics has been passed on to cricket, and this is what sparked the unprecedented lead-up to the ICC event. The countdown should be about much anticipated face-offs between players and teams. Monopolising the headlines, instead, were slanging matches between administrators grinding political axes.

The Indian cricket board started it all by removing Bangladesh pacer Mustafizur Rahman from the IPL. They were reacting to incidents of violence against the Hindu minority in Bangladesh — a serious concern, but one that belongs, not in the sporting arena, but in the realm of diplomacy. Bangladesh, in the middle of political turmoil, escalated the issue. Cricket administration is in the control of politicians in Dhaka, too, and they weaponised it, too. Pakistan didn’t miss the chance to wade into the mess, and fishing in troubled waters, expressed solidarity with Bangladesh. Islamabad threatened to close the ICC’s financial tap. No one was talking about Suryakumar Yadav, Shaheen Afridi, Kagiso Rabada, Jos Buttler. It was all Jay Shah, Mohsin Naqvi, Aminul Islam, Shehbaz Sharif. The political terminology of peace talks and summit meetings was now being used in cricket.

Advertisement

Cricket administration needs to take a hard and honest look at itself. Are they really “united, committed and purposeful”, as the ICC claims? Do they really come together to serve the best interests of the game? The possibility of life without the India-Pakistan game must also be factored in. Those marquee Blue vs Green games continue to solely bankroll cricket but this isn’t a sustainable business model for a sport with global dreams. And until the ICC finds alternatives, they need to be protected from politics. They must remain those riveting bat-vs-ball duels that start and end with handshakes. Politicians should stay on the sidelines. Putting a gun to the head of the golden goose, using it as a bargaining chip, is fraught with perils.