Gordon Robinson | This is not cricket

By now it should be obvious to discerning onlookers that world cricket governing body’s acronym, ICC, stands for Indian Cricket Council.

ICC’s India-centric decisions regarding participation by Bangladesh and Pakistan in the current T20 World Cup were, at least, matters of some perplexity. Alice would’ve considered the Bangladesh decision curious and the Pakistan decision curioser.

Bangladesh requested a change of venue to Sri Lanka. The request came because of an apprehended security threat after IPL franchise Kolkata Knight Riders released Bangladeshi fast bowler Mustafizur Rahman from his 2026 IPL player contract. Bangladesh government declined to send a team to India. ICC promptly replaced it with non-qualifier Scotland much to the Worst Indies’ delight.

ESPN reported that Asif Nazrul, essentially Bangladesh’s sports czar, quoted a letter from ICC’s security assessment team citing “three factors with potential security implications: Mustafizur Rahman’s presence in the side, Bangladesh fans wearing team t-shirts in India and forthcoming elections in Bangladesh.” The security team responded that Nazrul’s comments were “misinterpretations of standard contingency planning and hypothetical scenarios, which are standard in such assessments, as outright statements of fact and actual risk.”

Allrighty then! Nazrul explained Bangladesh’s decision:

“So this [ICC security team] statement has proven beyond a doubt that there’s no situation for the Bangladesh cricket team to play the T20 World Cup in India. If ICC expects us to make a cricket team without our best bowler, our supporters won’t be able to wear the Bangladesh jersey, and we will postpone Bangladesh elections to play cricket, then there can be no more bizarre, unrealistic and unreasonable expectation….”

Pakistan refused to play against India for obvious reasons of political tensions but also in solidarity with Bangladesh. This would hit ICC where it hurt as the fixture was central to ICC’s £2.2billion (US$3billion) broadcast deal. ICC immediately lamented Pakistan’s decision saying it “isn’t in the interest of the global game or the welfare of fans worldwide”. Not satisfied with accusing Pakistan of destabilising worldwide sport by refusing to play one game against India, it specially mentioned it empathized with “millions in Pakistan” who wouldn’t have an India fixture to anticipate.

In both instances ICC touted ideals of fairness and equality. World Cup’s “integrity and sanctity” and “neutrality and fairness” were trotted out. After intense “negotiations” Pakistan Government eventually blinked. The game was played.

Has ICC been hoisted on its own petard? Let’s examine.

1996 Cricket World Cup (remember T20 is NOT cricket) was co-hosted by India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. West Indies and Australia refused to send teams to Sri Lanka after January 1996’s bombing by Tamil Tiger rebels of the Central Bank in Colombo. None of the 17 games scheduled to be played in India were threatened. Sri Lanka’s three venues’ capacities were 10,000; 10,300; and 14,000 contrasted with, for example, Eden Gardens, Calcutta (120,000) or M. Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bangalore (55,000).

ICC swiftly permitted WI’s and Australia’s selective participation; awarded the game points to Sri Lanka who eventually won the Cup; and retained massive revenues from Indian venues.

In 2003, England refused to travel to Zimbabwe to play a game in the World Cup. Official reason was security concerns due to death threats but it was widely believed that Tony Blair’s Government wanted to signal its disapproval of Robert Mugabe. Captain Nasser Hussain told BBC “sometimes politics and sports clash and this is one of those occasions.”

New Zealand also refused to travel to Nairobi for their 2003 World Cup match against Kenya, citing security concerns following a terrorist bombing in Mombasa. Since these problems didn’t involve Indian politics or revenues, ICC only ordered that England and New Zealand forfeit game points but permitted their selective participation.

In 2009 Zimbabwe refused to participate in the T20 World Cup due to an apprehension that England wouldn’t issue team visas after England had refused to allow Zimbabwe’s 2009 bilateral series in England to go ahead. No cricket revenues from Indian venues were threatened. ICC not only failed to order any suspension but rewarded Zimbabwe with full participation fee. No replacement team was invited.

This time around, Bangladesh, scheduled to play ALL its games in India, isn’t permitted a venue change and, when that nation boycotts the event, it’s swiftly replaced. The games in India must go on. A big ticket clash between cricketing super powers Pakistan and India in India is pressured into happening despite Pakistan Government’s security and political concerns.

Despite India crushing an obviously under-prepared Pakistan team in the opening round both made it to the Super-Eights. I’m hoping for an India/Pakistan semi-final (so I can still hope Worst Indies miraculously makes the final). What does ICC then do for crowd control? What security strategies are planned? Can the game end without incident?

Of one thing I’m certain. This is just not cricket!

Peace and Love.

Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com