It is less than 100 days since the finals of the Asia Cup 2025 and we are already witnessing drama unfolding in the sub continent where realpolitik is giving way to what we would well call Geocricket – a cauldron where cricket, politics and tension boils over. In the latest news, the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) has formally requested the International Cricket Council (ICC) that their matches be relocated out of India due to “safety and security” concerns. BCCI has reportedly responded citing logistical challenges that make it an almost impossible task. Even as this drama unfolds, it is clear that we are reaching an inflection point here and it is time for stakehoders to take a clear stance in light of far reaching ramifications going ahead.
As far as the BCCI is concerned, it is quite clear that there is government directive on the matter of playing Mustafizur Rehman in the upcomiing IPL. The current political situation in Bangladesh is tricky and unstable and the BCCI is also aware that India has a bilateral series with Bangladesh in the offing.
The BCB’s reaction and their press release is disappointing. Political parley has been abandoned at the altar of the need to “provide a befitting response”. This shift represents not just operational caution but a political stance. And lets be frank, given India’s preeminence with regard to the economics of the sport, this will have far reaching consequences with regard to the future of the other nations in this geography. What might have been a purely sporting dispute has spilled into a diplomatic controversy, with cricket squarely in the middle.
For the ICC, it is not just a matter of the logistical nightmare of rescheduling. It is time to introspect on the role of the premier organisation – is it being reduced to a scheduler of tournaments or does it have the adminstrative heft to direct, mediate and decide?
Historically, a cricket board’s ability to host matches was interpreted as a sign of prestige and stability. India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan and Nepal, have all seen the sport intertwine with national identity. These nations hosted tours, tournaments, bilateral series and multi-nation events, buoyed by passionate crowds and deep cultural investment. Giving in to this ad-hoc request with zero evidence of the concerns being backed up would tantamount to this legacy being jeopardized.
The Bangladesh Cricket Board must ask itself a hard question. By escalating this matter publicly and framing it as a security concern without placing verifiable evidence in the public domain, is it protecting its players – or politicising the ecosystem it is itself dependent on? Cricket boards do not operate in isolation. They exist within an interlinked economic and competitive framework. India’s centrality to that framework is not ideological; it is empirical. Broadcasting revenues, sponsorship flows, bilateral tours, ICC distributions – all pivot around India. To ignore this reality is not moral courage; it is strategic myopia.
That does not mean smaller boards must be silent or submissive. It does mean that disagreements of this magnitude require institutional maturity, not megaphone diplomacy. Political parley, quiet mediation, and structured dialogue exist precisely to prevent sport from becoming collateral damage.
For the ICC, this moment demands more than procedural neutrality. If the organisation allows itself to be reduced to a reactive scheduler – shifting venues whenever political winds change – it forfeits its role as the game’s custodian. The ICC was created to arbitrate, to balance competing interests, and to protect the integrity of international cricket. That mandate cannot be selectively invoked.
What is urgently required is a codified decision-making system that takes into account scientific risk assessment, economic evaluation and the fan perspective in a framework would protect smaller boards from genuine risk while preventing powerful events from being leveraged as bargaining chips.
If ‘Geocricket’ is allowed to replace governance, everyone loses. This is a moment for restraint, responsibility, and leadership – especially from institutions entrusted with the game’s future.
Also Read: Bangladesh citing so-called security threat is nothing but political one-upmanship
