Now that Bangladesh has been excluded, sources suggest Dhaka is urging Islamabad to follow suit and opt out of the tournament as a gesture of solidarity. For Pakistan, the dilemma is profound: on one hand, moral and diplomatic courtesy demands standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Bangladesh; on the other, the financial stakes are enormous
Ansar Mahmood Bhatti
ISLAMABAD, JAN 25: The upcoming ICC T20 Cricket World Cup has taken a dramatic turn following the exclusion of Bangladesh from the tournament. The International Cricket Council (ICC) recently confirmed that Scotland will replace Bangladesh, after the latter refused to play in India citing security concerns. This decision has triggered a wave of controversy, particularly in Pakistan, which had openly backed Bangladesh’s stance. Now, with Bangladesh officially out, Pakistan finds itself under mounting pressure to demonstrate solidarity by reconsidering its own participation.
Bangladesh’s refusal to play in India was rooted in security apprehensions. The Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) had repeatedly raised alarms over the safety of its players and staff, insisting that the environment in India was not conducive to hosting their matches. Despite these concerns, the ICC opted to remove Bangladesh from the tournament altogether, replacing them with Scotland. This move has been criticized by many observers as insensitive to legitimate security fears, and it has left Bangladesh feeling sidelined.
Pakistan had strongly supported Bangladesh’s position, with officials and cricketing voices emphasizing the importance of player safety over commercial interests. Now that Bangladesh has been excluded, sources suggest Dhaka is urging Islamabad to follow suit and opt out of the tournament as a gesture of solidarity. For Pakistan, the dilemma is profound: on one hand, moral and diplomatic courtesy demands standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Bangladesh; on the other, the financial stakes are enormous.
The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) and team management are reportedly keen to participate, given the lucrative sponsorships, broadcasting rights, and prize money tied to the World Cup. Gambling interests also play a role, with betting markets reportedly heavily invested in Pakistan’s participation. This financial dimension complicates the moral obligation, creating a tug-of-war between principles and profit.
PCB Chairman Mohsin Naqvi has made it clear that the final decision rests with the government. He stated that the Prime Minister will decide Pakistan’s course of action once he returns from the United Kingdom. This underscores the political weight of the issue, as opting out would not only affect cricketing revenues but also send a strong diplomatic signal to the ICC and India.
Observers argue that Pakistan has two choices: either withdraw from the tournament to honor its commitment to Bangladesh or push the ICC to reconsider its decision and reinstate Bangladesh. Both options carry significant consequences. Withdrawal would mean forfeiting millions in revenue and disappointing fans, while challenging the ICC could strain Pakistan’s relations with the governing body and other cricketing nations.
Amid this cricketing controversy, diplomatic channels between Islamabad and Dhaka remain active. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar recently held a telephonic conversation with Bangladesh’s Foreign Adviser, Md. Touhid Hossain. The two sides reviewed bilateral relations, focusing on trade and economic cooperation, and reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening collaboration across multiple sectors.
They also exchanged views on regional and international developments, underscoring the importance of sustained engagement to advance shared interests and promote regional peace and prosperity. This dialogue highlights that the cricketing issue is not isolated but intertwined with broader diplomatic ties between the two nations.
As the cricketing world watches closely, Pakistan’s decision will carry symbolic weight far beyond the boundary ropes. Opting out would be seen as a principled stand in defense of a fellow cricketing nation, reinforcing Pakistan’s image as a steadfast ally of Bangladesh. Conversely, choosing to play could be interpreted as prioritizing financial gain over solidarity, potentially straining relations with Dhaka.
The coming days will be decisive. With the Prime Minister expected to return soon, Pakistan must weigh its moral obligations against its economic interests. Courtesy and solidarity demand one course of action, while pragmatism and financial realities suggest another. Whatever path Pakistan chooses, the fallout will reverberate across the cricketing and diplomatic landscapes of South Asia.
