How A Sporting Snub Has Rolled Back India-Bangladesh Relations

Just weeks ago, there were clear indications of a cautious reset in India–Bangladesh relations. After former Bangladeshi prime minister Khaleda Zia passed away in late December 2025, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar travelled to Dhaka and conveyed condolences to her son, Tarique Rahman, who had returned home only five days earlier after a 17-year political exile in London.

Soon after, Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh signed the condolence book at the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi.

These actions suggested New Delhi was willing to engage constructively even with elements of Bangladesh's interim government and political figures, a necessary bridge after a period of strain following the dramatic ouster of Sheikh Hasina in 2024 and subsequent political turbulence in Dhaka.

But diplomacy, especially in South Asia, rarely moves in a straight line. Against this backdrop, the controversy over Rahman – and the manner in which it was handled – has struck an especially sensitive nerve.

This is because, across the subcontinent, cricket is not just a sport. It is a powerful cultural symbol and a surrogate arena for national pride and geopolitical signalling. The notion of cricket diplomacy – the idea that sporting ties can underpin or even improve interstate relations – has been repeatedly invoked over decades. But when relations are strained, the same sport quickly becomes collateral damage.

That is precisely what has happened here.

Critics argue that the decision to sideline Rahman was not rooted in sport but in broader political narratives. In India, certain political actors and commentators linked the bowler's participation to domestic outrage over violence against minorities in Bangladesh – turning an individual player into a political symbol.

Indian parliamentarian and writer Shashi Tharoor was among the most vocal critics of the move. In a recent Indian Express column, Tharoor described the targeting of Rahman as a“self-inflicted wound” and a troubling example of politicizing sport.

He wrote that conflating internal political dynamics in Bangladesh with a blanket exclusion of its athletes not only“makes no sense” but betrays a failure of imagination and diplomatic foresight. In Tharoor's view, Bangladesh is“not Pakistan” – and punishing a cricket player for his nationality undermines the very spirit of the IPL and broader regional engagement.

Indian journalist and presenter Vir Sanghvi has echoed similar concerns, arguing that the IPL's global brand and appeal depend on its cosmopolitan ethos – one that is compromised when bilateral politics crowds out sporting merit.

From Dhaka's perspective, the decision came as a shock. The Bangladesh Cricket Board and government officials see it as a symbol of disrespect and uneven treatment – especially at a time when Bangladesh expects assurances that its players and fans will be welcomed, not vilified.