Sunil Gavaskar: If Pakistan felt Bangladesh had been hard done by by the ICC, then they should have opted out of the entire T20 World Cup

The ICC T20 World Cup has started, but not before some drama, which is invariably the case if the event is in the sub-continent. The ICC did not accept Bangladesh’s request to move their matches from India for security reasons, as an independent assessment team found there was a moderate to low threat to the team. Therefore, there was no reason to shift their venues to Sri Lanka.

This was decided at the ICC by a vote, in which only Pakistan sided with Bangladesh while the rest of the countries did not. Bangladesh were then given a couple of days to decide. After that, they were replaced by Scotland.

With the political situation in Bangladesh in massive churn, and with general elections due in a few days, Pakistan saw a chance to cosy up to Bangladesh. Their government instructed their team to play the tournament, but not play against India. It was baffling. If they felt Bangladesh had been hard done by by the ICC, they should have opted out of the entire tournament, and not just the match against India.

Over the next few days, we were told by many distinguished people connected with Pakistan cricket and politics that they had decided they were not going to be bullied by India. Hence the decision not to play India. Only they can explain how India bullies other nations into voting with them.

Then there are some others, especially from the old powers, for whom India replacing them as the power centre in the world game has never gone down well. They were quick to join the noise and ask whether, if India had decided not to play in a country, the ICC would have accepted their position or thrown them out of the tournament.

Well, India did say they were not going to Pakistan for the Champions Trophy last year, and the ICC arranged their fixtures in a neutral country, the UAE. India had, however, given notice of their intention not to play in Pakistan long before even the draw was made and the venues were fixed. Every sane person in the world knows there is no way any government in India is going to allow its cricketers to go to Pakistan.

Sri Lanka did go back to Pakistan after their players miraculously escaped being killed by extremists in 2009. By the way, none of the perpetrators of that ghastly incident have been captured yet, as far as public knowledge is concerned. In such a scenario, the regular excuse the Pakistan authorities trot out whenever there is such an incident, or bombings or killings in India, is that it is being done by non-state actors.

The perpetrators can be Pakistanis, but non-state actors. This is far more difficult to fathom than Varun Chakaravarthy’s googly.

Way before last year’s Champions Trophy, Australia had refused during the ICC World Cup in 1996 to play in Sri Lanka because of the indiscriminate bombings that were happening there, which was understandable.

Then, in the 2003 World Cup, England refused to play in Zimbabwe, perhaps because they did not like the face of the then Preisdent Robert Mugabe announcing his policies. What a silly excuse. There was no security threat to them or anything, yet they chose to stay away and forfeit their points. Did the ICC do anything? No. Because at that stage, the English and Australian boards ruled the roost, and the others did not want to upset them.

There is a huge difference between a security threat as assessed by an independent commission, and simply not liking the policies of the government of another country.

But isn’t this the old reasoning? Whenever umpires in the sub-continent made mistakes, it was ‘cheating’, while if similar mistakes were made by umpires from the old powers, then it was merely human error.

Similarly, pitches which have trampoline bounce and are dangerous to batters’ safety are excused by saying the curator got his weather forecast wrong and left more grass on the pitch. Meanwhile, pitches in the sub-continent which afford turn, and are only injurious to a batsman’s reputation, are called dustbowls and what not.

The hypocrisy is striking, just as it is now. Even their representative in the ICC voted against Bangladesh, but the blame is only on the BCCI as the bully.

In the just-concluded final of the ICC Under-19 World Cup, Vaibhav Suryavanshi smashed 175 off only 80 balls against England and single-handedly took the game away from his opponents. To England’s credit, they responded well and also got to 311 in reply to the Indian colts’ 411.

Now, what young Suryavanshi did is bullying, and not the imaginary kind that some jaundiced people see.

Published on Feb 09, 2026