Scotland have officially replaced Bangladesh in the 2026 men’s T20 World Cup after the ICC denied Bangladesh’s request for a venue change. The decision has prompted comparisons with India’s similar request to play their matches away from Pakistan in the Champions Trophy last year, which was accepted. Sarah Waris refers to both situations while examining whether this amounts to a case of “double standards”.
What’s been happening in the cricketing world?
Unless one has been entirely disengaged, the prolonged back-and-forth between the ICC and the Bangladesh Cricket Board over the past few weeks has been hard to miss. The episode began when Kolkata Knight Riders released Mustafizur Rahman from their IPL 2026 squad on BCCI instructions, citing “recent developments” without further explanation. The move was widely linked to deteriorating India–Bangladesh relations, following escalating geopolitical tensions after the auction, where Rahman had been bought for INR 9.20 crore. Violence against minorities in Bangladesh, political unrest, and growing public criticism of KKR preceded a decision seen as an attempt to avert further controversy.
Bangladesh subsequently raised safety concerns and refused to travel to India for the T20 World Cup, where they were scheduled to play four league matches, formally requesting relocation to Sri Lanka. Despite multiple meetings, security assessments and continued dialogue, the ICC rejected the request and issued the BCB a 24-hour deadline to confirm participation. On Saturday, Bangladesh officially withdrew, marking a rare instance of a team forfeiting its place in the tournament.
Hours later, PCB chairman Mohsin Naqvi questioned the ICC’s consistency, stating, “You can’t have double standards,” while referencing India’s similar case nearly a year earlier.
What was the incident involving India and the Champions Trophy last year?
Ahead of the 2025 Champions Trophy in Pakistan, India signalled their refusal to travel by informing the ICC nearly three months in advance that they would not tour the country and instead sought a neutral venue for their matches. This triggered prolonged negotiations involving the ICC, BCCI and PCB amid strained political relations.
The eventual resolution, approved by an ICC board vote, introduced a hybrid model under which India’s matches in Pakistan-hosted events were played at a neutral venue, with Pakistan receiving the same arrangement in ICC tournaments hosted by India. India played their Champions Trophy games in Dubai, a move that attracted heavy criticism for the unfair advantage being handed to the side, also particularly in light of Pakistan having travelled to India for the 2023 ODI World Cup. India’s refusal ultimately forced the adoption of the hybrid model, which also ensured reciprocal benefits, with Pakistan based in Colombo for the 2025 Women’s World Cup and again settled there for the upcoming World Cup under the arrangement running until 2027.
If India played at the venue of their choice, why not Bangladesh?
The two incidents might force you to wonder if fairness in international cricket is conditional. But there are several nuances to the situation. India had the luxury of three months to convey their intentions; Bangladesh had barely a month before the tournament to raise their concerns, after the schedule and groups had already been announced. But things escalated quickly in this instance, and does timing alone justify such a stark difference in treatment? Can we also ignore the role India’s actions of using Rahman as a political signal in creating the crisis altogether?
The BCCI never cited safety as the reason for sidelining Rahman. “Recent developments” was all the explanation offered. Bangladesh interpreted the move as a security threat. The ICC’s security assessment later concluded there was no specific or heightened danger in India for the team. In essence, the argument Bangladesh leaned on for relocation was never officially confirmed, leaving them in a defensive, reactive position.
And yet, Bangladesh refused to stand down. Dr Asif Nazrul, the country’s Youth and Sports Adviser, put it defiantly when he said: “The days of slavery are over,” as they defended their squad’s dignity, their fans, and the principle that players should not be pawns in political games. They would not buckle down nor get bullied.
India’s decision to remove Rahman was unapologetic. By releasing a single player without explanation, the BCCI sent a message that cricket could serve political ends. The decision unfolded against the backdrop of a country increasingly asserting a Hindu nationalist agenda, where political messaging, public sentiment, and religious symbolism carry weight far beyond the pitch. Why India were interfering in the internal political matters of Bangladesh, and basing cricket decisions on them, has no answer either.
So where does accountability lie? India exercised administrative power to push a political message through cricket. Bangladesh acted to protect its players, yet let pride and principle morph into public threats, making it easier for the ICC to say no. India are also aware that there cannot be an ICC event without them - they have the riches and the superstars, and got their way when they refused to travel to Pakistan. While it might seem a mutual decision, with Pakistan also disagreeing to further India travels, they were not the ones opposed to the idea, having already been there in 2023. It was an understanding they seemingly resigned themselves to, in a battle always skewed towards India, exposing how power, including financially, can bend decisions in one’s favour.
Bangladesh, on the other hand, did not have the resources to sway the ICC, and in the end, were left to bear the brunt of a move they hadn’t even considered in the first place three weeks ago. They were there; now they aren’t. All because they stood up for themselves.
Last year, India did not travel to Pakistan, a place they have not toured in over 19 years, due to longstanding issues between the two nations. This year, Bangladesh refused to go to India due to “security” reasons, stemming from a desire to protect their players after being nudged for no fault of theirs. Both situations can be interpreted differently, and even defended on their own terms. Yet the result was the same: only one side got its way, both times. And that cannot be dismissed as a coincidence.
Follow Wisden for all cricket updates, including live scores, match stats, quizzes and more. Stay up to date with the latest cricket news, player updates, team standings, match highlights, video analysis and live match odds.
