When the Fizz was pitched as a slingshot to hit back at the monstrous decision of the IPL that forced the Bangladeshi fast bowler’s franchise team to release him on security grounds, we vaulted our cricket board as David, on whom our nationalist pride rested, and expected the Indian (and by extension the international) cricket authorities to yield like Goliath. As a proud nation, we were angered by the trivialisation of our national hero in a flimsy, politically constructed context with racial undertones. Our cricket board rightfully asked, “If you cannot provide safety for one of our players in your own words, how do you expect our players, staff, media, and fans to be safe during the T20 World Cup?”
The grievance was legitimate. The players’ welfare is one of the central concerns of the International Cricket Council (ICC), and they immediately followed the protocol to initiate a third-party risk assessment. A Canadian firm did the survey and found the playing condition suitable. Bangladesh’s grievance was valid, but its diplomatic execution was flawed. The cricket council board outvoted our plea 14-2, with only Pakistan supporting us.
The “professional” body had little to say about the strong nationalist, albeit populist, stance taken by Bangladesh. The country’s call to boycott India as a game venue due to security concerns has received overwhelming support from locals, as evidenced by their social media outcries. But we failed to gain international sympathy. Consequently, Bangladesh is left to its own devices, with the possibility of Scotland, the top performer in the qualifying round, filling in the void created by our non-participation. The outcome signifies that the cricketing world is unimpressed with our diagnostic reasoning regarding the Fizz episode as a real concern.
We needed to argue that this episode is not a mere sentimental tantrum, as there have been many reported incidents of Bangladeshis or presumed Bangladeshis being attacked in different parts of India. In that given context, to play in the opening match against the West Indies on February 7 in Kolkata is a difficult proposition. Bangladesh does not seek retaliation but equal and fair treatment. We hoped India, above all teams, would share our concerns, as they have created the exclusive option to play against Pakistan in neutral venues. Bangladesh’s plea is backed by the 18 crore viewers whose national dignity should also be a priority for an international body. And realpolitik would have allowed some leeway to de-escalate the tension and provisions for future engagement.
The problem that Bangladesh cricket is facing now is a backlash from showing its cards even before the game is played. Our sports-in-charge adviser publicly threatened non-participation as a populist veto, without allowing the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) to address the conditional concerns in phases. His symbolic resistance contains all the elements needed to make domestic audiences respond to the nationalist tune. It has high visibility but little institutional traction. ICC displayed its professionalism by smartly shifting the argument from security to logistical disruption.
Bangladesh’s moral logic failed to triumph over the procedural governance issues. Why would other countries, sponsors, fans, and communities suffer due to the last-minute request for a venue change? If West Indian fans have already booked their tickets and hotels for Kolkata, what right does one have to tell them to rebook their flights and stay in Colombo? This is a no-brainer.
There are lessons to be learnt from this abortive attempt to turn any sympathy we might have for Fizz’s security concerns into professional support at the ICC meeting. I don’t know whether there was any shuttle diplomacy engaged by BCB to employ its foreign envoys or lobby firms to talk to member countries before the board meeting was held. From information available in the public domain, I can discern that ICC stuck to its operational logic, highlighting third-party security assessments, broadcast schedules, ticketing, sequencing issues, and fear of future late-stage applications. While Bangladesh pitched the arguments of dignity and safety, the ICC upheld transactional realities, risk factors and institutional reputations. ICC could go to the extreme of looking for a replacement without any compromise because Bangladesh showed the thumbnail of “non-participation” before playing out its full content.
In an asymmetrical power arrangement, we can rue the hypocrisy that exists not only in sports but also in geopolitics. With Pakistan on our side, we probably thought the India–Pakistan neutral venue issue would give us some sort of leverage. For Pakistan, supporting Bangladesh would enhance its moral claim, especially since Pakistan is adversely affected by India’s refusal to play the other “Midnight’s Child” at home, which is justified by security concerns. Bangladesh failed to realise that the ICC’s governance might treat the India-Pakistan case as a “legacy exception.” Weeks before a tournament, we cannot expect such exclusivity and disrupt governance. Exposing the hypocrisy has not given us any bargaining leverage. Our adventurous tryst with triumphalism overlooked the need to reach out to neutral boards for support at the board meeting. Instead of a unilateral escalation of tension, we need to build a coalition with an emphasis on enhanced safety protocols for conditional participation. Cricket started as a test of endurance. One must be committed to the long term. Instead, we approached the issue with a typical boundary-or-die mentality.
We showed minimal concern for the players who should have been the central focus of the issue. World Cups represent unique opportunities for many players. These are gateways to careers, income, and recognition. Ironically, to protect the prestige of one player, we have now diminished the potential of many others. One official has already publicly humiliated national players for earning money without bringing any noteworthy trophies. Again, such rhetoric is not healthy for the morale of the players before an international tourney. We don’t know to what extent the ICC will punish us: demerit points, future participation in sports, damage claimed by sponsors, revenue loss. The list is not exhaustive.
It is imperative that we revert to the fundamental objectives of sports. This entertainment serves as a licensed platform for rivalry, transforming political anxiety into regulated competition. The current episode exposes rather than confines aggression. Instead of using cricket as a buffer zone, it has been pulled back into geopolitics. The ICC can very well question how some state actors overshadowed the guaranteed sovereignty of BCB.
It is too early to assess the true cost of this incident right now. We will have to wait, and we will see how the future unfolds. However, the controversy surrounding the Fizz issue has taught us a valuable lesson: cricket diplomacy thrives when it maintains dignity in a quiet manner, but it falters when it is proclaimed loudly.
Dr Shamsad Mortuza is professor of English at Dhaka University.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
