Mustafizur, BCCI & KKR: If a War Is Fought on 22 Yards, Cricket's the Collateral

Perhaps, the moment has arrived to equip sports journalists with tools of war reporting. Minus bulletproof vests.

Mustafizur Rahman, BCCI & KKR: How cricket became hostage to failed diplomacy.

(Photo: X)

Even in 2026, George Orwell’s relevance is growing.

Indeed, on odd occasions, sport has served as a unifier. The most enduring example remains table tennis, which, in the 1970s, helped thaw the frost in relations between the United States and China.

But more often than not, sport is, as Orwell put it, war minus the shooting. And among all sports, cricket stands as the most faithful protagonist of this Orwellian hypothesis. India, today, finds itself in a war with Bangladesh.

But wait, how could one say it, when S Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs, was recently in Bangladesh to convey his condolences over former Prime Minister’s Khaleda Zia’s death?

Because, unfortunate as it may be, the war is restricted only to cricket Much like the paradox that allows Jaishankar to warmly greet Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, the Speaker of Pakistan’s National Assembly, while the Indian cricket team remains conspicuously absent from post-game greetings. If there existed a more efficient instrument of soft power than cricket, this argument could end here.

Where else does one find a Pakistani fast bowler so inept that he single-handedly gifts victories to India on multiple occasions, yet feels emboldened enough to celebrate with gestures of shooting down aircraft? Or, where else would you find an Indian captain who took more jibes at his counterparts in interviews than the number of runs he accumulated in the entire year?

But this is not an Indo-Pakistan story. Not anymore. We have a new player in the Orwellian game. Welcome aboard, Bangladesh.

Let’s dig in.

Trigger — The Auction

The entire saga commenced on 16 December, when Kolkata Knight Riders signed Bangladeshi pacer Mustafizur Rahman at the IPL auction. Almost immediately, far-right groups sought to frame the signing as moral complicity — casting the franchise as enablers of alleged atrocities against religious minorities in Bangladesh.

Though, the narrative was yet to gather steam. Till 17th — an entire 24 hours post the auction — only 48 tweets contained the phrase “Boycott KKR.” A negligible figure on a platform where boycotts are issued with numbing regularity.

Fuel — Incendiary Speeches

The boycott calls intensified on 18 December — two days after the auction. In Mymensingh’s Bhaluka, Dipu Chandra Das, a 27-year-old factory worker, was beaten to death and set on fire by a mob that accused him of blasphemy. The incident became the accelerant that transformed an online murmur into a political rallying cry.

Sangeet Singh Som, a BJP leader from Uttar Pradesh and the former MLA from Sardhana constituency, demanded the actor’s deportation.

On one hand, Hindus are being killed in Bangladesh, and on the other hand, cricketers are being bought in the IPL auction. Shah Rukh Khan bought Rahman by spending Rs 9 crore. Today, anti-India slogans are raised in Bangladesh, but traitors like Shah Rukh Khan are helping them by spending nine crores. They have no right to live in this country.

Sangeet Singh Som, BJP Leader From Uttar Pradesh

Politicians were not the only attendees of the party. The babas had their say. On Som’s like, Rambhadracharya deemed Shah Rukh Khan a traitor.

Shah Rukh’s approach has always been as that of a traitor. It is unfortunate that he took a Bangladeshi cricketer in KKR, but he will do so because he is considered a hero.

Rambhadracharya, Spiritual Guru

Another guru, Devkinandan Thakur, commented:

In Bangladesh, Hindus are being brutally murdered, their homes are being burned, and their sisters and daughters are being raped. After witnessing such brutal killings, how can someone be so heartless, especially someone who calls himself the owner of a team?

Devkinandan Thakur, Another Guru

The agitation soon acquired a geographical immediacy. In Kolkata, where the franchise is based, BJP leader Kaustav Bagchi threatened street-level disruption if Rahman were to take the field at Eden Gardens.

If Kolkata Knight Riders play Mustafizur Rahman in their team, we will not let such matches happen. Moreover, we will also not let Shah Rukh Khan enter Kolkata. You will see how we stop him from entering. But, we will.

Kaustav Bagchi, BJP Leader From Kolkata

Head coach Abhishek Nayar and analyst Nathan Leamon, who actually were involved in the squad building procedure, could consider themselves lucky that questions were not raised about their roles. Though, one is free to draw inference behind the owner’s singling out.

Explosion — Mustafizur Rahman Barred From IPL Participation

Amid unceasing protests, with eminent members of the ruling party getting involved, the BCCI opted to annul Rahman’s participation. Interestingly enough, the reason furnished was “recent developments,” without explicitly mentioning what eventually triggered the decision.

Due to the recent developments that are going on all across, BCCI has instructed the franchise KKR to release one of their players, Mustafizur Rahman of Bangladesh, from their squad.

Devajit Saikia, BCCI Secretary, to ANI

At that juncture, retaliation from Dhaka became inevitable. The Bangladesh Cricket Board, acting on the advice of the government, wrote to the ICC, informing it that Bangladesh would not travel to India for the 2026 ICC Men’s T20 World Cup, citing security concerns.

Following a thorough assessment of the prevailing situation and the growing concerns regarding the safety and security of the Bangladesh contingent in India and considering the advice from the Bangladesh Government, the Board of Directors resolved that the Bangladesh National Team will not travel to India for the tournament under the current conditions. In light of this decision, the BCB has formally requested the International Cricket Council (ICC), as the event authority, to consider relocating all of Bangladesh’s matches to a venue outside India.

Bangladesh Cricket Board, to ICC

Per ESPNCricinfo, ICC have decided to reject Bangladesh’s request. They must, hence, play their matches in India, or risk forfeiting points.

Bangladesh’s final stance remains uncertain. But for now, they have opted not to telecast IPL in Bangladesh this year, whilst on a humanitarian level, anchor Ridhima Pathak, who was contracted for the Bangladesh Premier League, will now not be seen at the tournament.

What Could Have Been Done Differently?

Cricket, once again, had done what diplomacy could not — escalate a dispute far beyond its point of origin.

Did a cricketing acquisition have to trigger mass hysteria? It should not have — had it been handled with greater institutional clarity.

Amid the far-right, who championed the boycott calls and protests, antipathy towards all things Bangladesh has scarcely been episodic. It has been a consistent feature since 2024’s July uprising, which led to the resignation of erstwhile Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina.

For instance, when the Bangladesh cricket team toured India in September 2024, many had threatened remonstrations. Hindutva leader Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati had openly threatened disruption at a match in Delhi, while in Gwalior, Bajrang Dal came up in numbers with black flags — only to be detained by the authorities. Them aside, Sakal Hindu Samaj and Hindu Mahasabha also threatened protests during that very series.

This is not unfamiliar terrain for Indian cricket administrators. If anything, boycott rhetoric reached a crescendo whenever India played Pakistan—most notably during the Asia Cup. Yet, the BCCI neither withdrew participation nor recalibrated policy. India played Pakistan thrice in that tournament, undeterred by the din.

What is established that the threats are not nascent. What is equally unmistakable is that this marks the first instance of the BCCI conceding ground to them. What, precisely, distinguishes this episode from previous remonstrations remains an open question.

So, could they have stuck to their usual policy of not letting threats affect the game? They could have.

Or alternatively, they could have opted to ban the Bangladeshi cricketers from registering at the auction in the first place, armed with a proper justification. Shah Rukh Khan, for one, would have had at least four fewer allegations of being a traitor that way.

No Winner, Losers Aplenty

In this game of one-upmanship, there is no winner, though both sides will claim that they won. When a cricket board attempts to solve a diplomatic crisis, the individual players become collaterals.

Like Rahman, for instance. A player so notoriously stoic that he stayed mum during the uprising in his own nation, let alone comment on another nation’s affairs. Or Shah Rukh Khan, who has, on multiple occasions, clarified that he does not interfere in the cricketing intricacies of KKR, and only does his part as a motivator.

The ramifications now extend beyond symbolism. Should Bangladesh refuse to travel, Kolkata stands to lose three international fixtures — two of which already have tickets on sale. Should Bangladesh, despite the ICC’s directive, choose withdrawal, its players will forfeit a rare global stage.If an incendiary rhetoric is acted upon, it gets unintentionally validated.

Perhaps, then, the moment has arrived to equip sports journalists with the tools of war reporting. Minus the bulletproof vests.

This is war without the shooting, and reportage without armour. And cricket has agreed to become the collateral.