The World Cup is intended as an opportunity for cricket to level the playing field: qualifying based on merit, competing on neutral ground, and allowing the ball to determine the outcome of games. However, for Bangladesh, their upcoming T20 World Cup matches in India have become something unrelated to the ball, swing or the comparison of strike rates, but rather related to their Government’s Sports Adviser, Asif Nazrul, who has challenged the International Cricket Council (ICC) in public about the scheduled Bangladesh-India matches in India, arguing that it does not merely jeopardize player safety, but also the country’s dignity.
When security becomes a sovereignty issue
The language Nazrul uses is intentional. He did not describe the conflict in cricket as simply a logistical problem with an agreement, nor a mere diplomatic difficulty. Instead, he labeled it a “national humiliation.” That is important. The cricket boards will likely be engaged in negotiating the specifics of the fixture. However, Governments negotiate for the honor and dignity of their country. In that way, by elevating the issue beyond a mere sports-related inconvenience to issues of “honor and dignity,” the Government of Bangladesh has made it impossible for them to retreat quietly on this matter.
The debate is not limited to the players either. As stated by BCB President Aminul Islam, it has become as dangerous for journalists, sponsors, and fans as well. The Board of Cricket (BCB) can provide its cricketers with secure accommodations at hotels. However, there is no way it can protect them from an unstable political climate. When “all members of the team” have become involved in this issue, the guarantees offered by the International Cricket Council (ICC), which were once viewed as sincere assurances, now appear to be simply bureaucratic assurances.
The Mustafizur moment that changed everything
It was Mustafizur Rahman who lit the fire when, reportedly, an IPL franchise was informed by the very Indian Board that it could not provide security to a Bangladeshi Player, which was devastating news. He immediately took advantage of the situation, as if India cannot protect one cricketer in a domestic/controlled environment (IPL), then how will they protect an entire team of national players in a foreign country during an international event?
This has nothing to do with personal fear and everything to do with institutional signals. In International sports, Security is almost always determined by what happens beforehand (formal announcements) and is determined by precedent. The Host Board of the Event set the precedent.
Hybrid tournaments: precedent, not exception
Aminul Islam’s argument is a clever strategy as “the main purpose of hybrid tournaments is security.” This is true; the ICC has already normalized fragmented hosting of international events (India didn’t send their team to Pakistan for the Champions Trophy). Pakistan won’t travel to India. The ICC has shown time after time that they would rather have a middle ground than have confrontation.
Bangladesh is simply asking for the same risk accommodation that many other teams have received and are receiving from the ICC. It is not an entitlement or a special privilege; therefore, Bangladesh’s request to host their remaining matches in Sri Lanka (the other co-host) should be seen as a call to a proven method of managing the COVID-19 risks.
ICC’s credibility under the microscope
Although technically the ICC is correct when they say “no information has been received about any security issues, politically this is insufficient. When an international governing body for a sport is informed by both the National Government and the National Governing Body of their respective country that the environment is not safe for participation, then neutrality would require the governing body to investigate rather than dismiss those claims.
There are other factors at work here. There is clearly a lack of trust in the relationship between the ICC and the Bangladesh Cricket Board. In addition, when Nazrul suggests that the ICC “does not have a full understanding of the very serious security situation, he is offering a warning; if the ICC continues to give priority to keeping to the original schedule (and therefore to keep the tournament intact), then their credibility will continue to deteriorate. The governing body’s loss of moral authority can be seen in many instances throughout cricket history where the governing body gave preference to practicality over principles.
Stay updated on the latest cricket news and exciting updates at Six6slive. Dive into our in-depth articles and analyses to connect with the action today!