In the brave new world of cricket, a silent submission to the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) power is the only way to stay afloat, as Bangladesh had realised, after being kicked out of the forthcoming T20 World Cup 2026, to be hosted by India and Sri Lanka, from February 7. Their request to play the World Cup matches outside India due to security concerns was not entertained by the International Cricket Council (ICC), leading to their ejection from the marquee event.The Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) had refused to play their matches in India, in response to the termination of Mustafizur Rahman’s contract by Kolkata Knight Riders, on the instructions of the BCCI. There were no valid reasons given by the BCCI for its verdict. Perhaps because there were none, besides pleasing the majoritarian sentiment of the country and its government. It’s perplexing that the board that did not let a single Bangladeshi player compete in its biggest league, wanted the entire team to assemble and play their matches in India. The ICC, meanwhile, had repeatedly downplayed the security concerns raised by the BCB, stating that “no credible or verifiable security threat to the Bangladesh national team, officials or supporters in India” was found in their elaborate assessment of the situation.Interestingly, there’s no mention of the role played by the BCCI, the host of the tournament, in the official statement released by the ICC. Even mainstream analysis has treated this as a singular conflict between ICC and BCB, the conspicuous absence of the BCCI suggesting that the world’s most powerful cricketing board did not have any say in the matter. It was a decision made by the ICC, without any external influence.This has also been the official stance of the BCCI. When Devajit Saikia, the BCCI secretary, was asked about the conflict earlier this month, he stated that the matter falls beyond the purview of the Indian cricketing board. “It’s not our domain to talk about that,” Saikia had said.The independence of the ICC has long been compromisedBut it would take a great sense of naivety, and even a greater degree of deference, to think that the BCCI absolutely had no role to play in this judgment. In the age of unfettered commodification, where power and influence are intrinsically tied to wealth, it’s borderline bizarre to suggest that the institution with the deepest pocket in the world of cricket will be a mute spectator to the entire fiasco. The immense wealth at BCCI’s disposal has eroded the hierarchy. The independence of the global cricket governing body has long been compromised.The ICC functions not on a specific framework, but on the caprices of the BCCI. For instance, last year, India also adopted a similar stance by not sending the team to Pakistan, which was hosting the Champions Trophy 2025. Their request was promptly heard, and their matches were shifted to Dubai. But the same request from Bangladesh suddenly awakened the ethical responsibility of the board. The concept of neutrality and fairness entered their consciousness. They became wary of setting the wrong “precedent that would jeopardise the sanctity of future ICC events”, and “undermine its neutrality as a global governing body.” The precedent was set a year ago by the BCCI, and the BCB was simply following the same script.Jason Gillespie, the former Australian cricketer, pointed out this inconsistency when he posted on X: “Has there been an explanation from the ICC why Bangladesh could not play their games outside of India? From memory, India refused to play Champions Trophy matches in Pakistan and were allowed to play those games outside the country. Can someone make this make sense?” Gillespie deleted the post after a swarm of trolls flocked to his timeline to pour abuse, but his tweet did leave us with something to ponder: how do we make sense of judgment?Perhaps the good old economic determinism would come in handy here. The ICC might be the guardian of over 100 member nations, but its financial health is reliant solely on the BCCI, which contributes around 90% of its annual revenue. Everything in the game moves around the BCCI. Such an astronomical contribution from just one country has robbed the ICC of its autonomy. No sporting institutions depend on one country the way the ICC depends on India, and that imbalance clearly reflects on the functioning of cricket. It has become a ceremonial institution, dancing on the tunes of the BCCI.It’s only a matter of coincidence that the current chair of the ICC, who also happens to be its youngest to hold this position, previously served as the president of the BCCI, and was elected unopposed to his current position. It’s only coincidental, again, that he also happens to be the son of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) strongman and India’s home minister, Amit Shah. Integrity and accountability have long been defenestrated from the house of the ICC. Decisions are not made on some fair principles, but in accordance with the larger political and financial interests of the BCCI.The institution responsible for running cricket has repeatedly proven its efficiency in seizing every opportunity at the behest of the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), the ruling party in India, to disseminate its divisive, derisive rhetoric. The BCCI’s conflict with either the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) or the BCB is emblematic of the fractured geopolitical relationship between these South Asian nations.While it’s impossible to determine the outright winner in the tenebrous realm of geopolitical skirmishes, when such battles are projected on the sporting field, the BCCI invariably walks out as the winner, thanks to its immense financial clout. They can have their cake and eat it too. For instance, last year during the Asia Cup, the Indian team went against the prevailing sentiment by not forfeiting their match against Pakistan, despite, in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack. The financial incentives of the India-Pakistan match, the most hyped, the most sellable clickbait in the world of cricket, were too alluring for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to forfeit the fixtures.Once the monetary benefit was secured, the next step was, obviously, to deliver a strong political message to please the disgruntled patrons. For that, BCCI relied on the commentators and contracted players to conjure a constant stream of theatrics that had two major implications: firstly, it’s not the choice but compulsion that drove them to share the field with Pakistan’s cricket team; and secondly, they are brimming with hatred and vitriol towards their opponents. The second point was delivered masterfully by the pliant cricketers who refused to shake hands after the game.The manifestation of muscular nationalism in cricketThis muscular nationalism that has been the zeitgeist of the political and cultural landscape of this country has found its most abject manifestation in the nation’s favourite pastime. The indemnity of the BCCI stems from a lack of meaningful resistance from any stakeholders, be it any team or player. Perhaps Kolkata Knight Riders could have raised an objection rather than simply obeying the diktat from the board. Not necessarily because they think the termination is unfair – even that would have been a legitimate reason too – but purely on sporting grounds as well. The absence of their marquee bowler now significantly hampers their squad strength. But perhaps that’s too much to expect from this league, where anything that does not swell up the coffer is not worth pondering over.Kolkata Knight Riders know that it’s easier to find a replacement for Mustafizur, than to take any step that displeases the ruling bloc. What made this franchise even more vulnerable is the fact that they are owned by a Muslim superstar, Shah Rukh Khan. Despite cosying up to the power, be it wishing Narendra Modi on his 75th birthday, or hailing him for his dedication and inspiring leadership on multiple occasions, Khan still remains a vulnerable figure in Modi’s India. His repeated and consistent endorsement of Modi stands irrelevant against his religious identity, for which he is constantly targeted by supporters and leaders of the BJP.It’s not implausible to imagine that Mustafizur perhaps had not suffered the same fate had he been selected by another franchise in the IPL, owned by conglomerates like Reliance Industries or GMR Group. The outcry over his inclusion did not arise from any sense of justice, and the concern for the rights of minorities in the neighbouring nation. It came out of a pure, unflinching hatred for a particular religion that has been disenfranchised and demonised ever since the ruling party came into power. The BCCI did not waste any time pandering to such a fringe voice, for the glaring lack of accountability means it can get away with anything.In over a week from now, the wheels of the T20 World Cup will get rolling, and Bangladesh will not be missed. Because remembrance is intrinsically tied to the material influence in this late-capitalism sporting spectacle, and BCB does not generate enough revenue for the ICC to care about them. They do have great individual talents, but so do a bunch of other teams. There are 110 members constituting the ICC, and besides the top three nations – India, England, Australia – everyone else is disposable. Perhaps one day the ICC will introspect on its complicity and crookedness, and try to regain the trust that has already eroded beyond repair. But for that to happen, the first step would be to have acceptance, and where does acceptance stand a chance against the belligerence of Jay Shah, the maverick administrator who rules cricket, showing us the illuminating path to the darkness. Ravi Raj is a journalist working on the intersection of sports, politics and critical theory.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.