BCCI vs BCB: Cricket is collateral damage in a game of political expediency

For so long has the Board of Control for Cricket in India been the bully of international cricket, it shouldn’t be a surprise that it is equally the bully of domestic cricket too. By asking the Kolkata Knight Riders to sack Bangladesh’s Mustafizur Rahman after he had been picked for the IPL, the BCCI showed it was more concerned with pleasing its masters in the government than the sport it was elected to protect and preserve.

Seven players from Bangladesh were in the auction, one was picked. Then came the troll. It was a delicious opportunity for a politician to strike at Bangladesh (ahead of the elections in Bengal) and a prominent Muslim at home in the same action. He was like a batter who edges for runs and then sees an overthrow add another four to his score.

Shah Rukh Khan is the face of KKR, so by the logic of the troll he becomes a traitor for choosing a player from Bangladesh, a troubled country where a Hindu man was killed in ongoing violence.

How Bangladesh treat their minorities seems to have come as a shock to the politician who knows all about treating minorities at home.

Bangladesh in response have asked the International Cricket Council to move their matches in next month’s T20 World Cup away from India while deciding the IPL will not be telecast in their country. Mustafizur, Shah Rukh Khan, private franchises, the game of cricket itself have become collateral damage in a game of political expediency.

India provided asylum for deposed Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina while the funeral of another Prime Minister, Khaleda Zia, was attended by the external affairs minister. The troll seems to have missed these events.

In a fix

The BCCI’s action — it is an arm of the ruling party after all — has put Indian sport in a fix. This is the country that hopes to host the 2036 Olympics. By then how many countries might upset the authorities and how loud will the calls be for banning these for perceived slights? Shah Rukh Khan will be 70 then.

This is not to say that sport and politics do not mix. That would be naive. Boycotts on moral grounds (apartheid in South Africa) have shown that when nations stand together, change can happen.

But this Bangladesh issue has not been thought through at a time when India are trying to mend fences with their neighbours. Depending on which side of the political divide you are, this is either a victory for India’s foreign policy, or yet another neighbourhood disaster.

Not for the first time, cricket has to bear the burden of political posturing. This means either that sport is not important, and therefore can be a substitute for low-grade politics, or it is so important that only cricket can carry the intended message, whatever that is. But sport does not reshape the world, it merely reflects it.

And what it is reflecting now is not pretty. The weaponisation of sport or entertainment or justice or religion or any sphere of human activity never is. Bullying is usually a sign of insecurity.

When things go wrong, cricket is blamed for failing where it was never equipped to succeed. It is forced to wear the cloak of failure that politicians shed with alacrity. Cricket has carried more weight than it asked for because it can be a shared language.

The ICC, an arm of the BCCI and by extension the Indian government, is probably awaiting instructions. In the past, it was India who championed the entry of their neighbours Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh into international cricket. For long Afghanistan used India as ‘home’ ground because of the situation there. We can call none of these countries our friends now. Cricket diplomacy cuts both ways — it strengthens ties (its expected role) as easily as it divides nations when handled negatively.

The whole affair exposes the dangers of politicians running sports. And of foreign policy based on social media posts. When the ‘might is right’ approach — Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! — is the prevailing orthodoxy, it will take time to appreciate that actually doing right constitutes might. That strength flows from fairness.