The Mustafizur Rahman Case: When Risk Management Collides With Sporting Principle
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2026-01-04 10:59:59
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
The Board of Control for Cricket in India's decision to ask Kolkata Knight Riders to release Bangladeshi pacer Mustafizur Rahman has reopened an old and uncomfortable question: where does a sports regulator's duty to ensure smooth conduct end, and where does its obligation to protect the integrity of sport begin?
At one level, the Board's concern was not frivolous. The IPL is not a closed-door contest insulated from the political and social climate around it. It is a mass-attendance, high-decibel tournament played in public arenas, at a time when relations between India and Bangladesh are under strain and public sentiment is visibly charged. In such a situation, the presence of a Bangladeshi cricketer on the field carried a real, if difficult-to-quantify, risk of protests or disruption. Had such an incident occurred, responsibility would inevitably have been fixed on the organizers for having ignored warning signs. Viewed narrowly, the BCCI acted as a risk-averse event manager attempting to pre-empt disorder.
That logic deserves to be acknowledged. The IPL involves enormous financial stakes, tightly choreographed broadcast schedules, and complex security arrangements across multiple cities. Administrators are paid not merely to respond to crises but to anticipate them. From that standpoint, the instinct to neutralize a potential flashpoint was understandable.
It is also true that this was not an unprecedented posture. For many years now, the BCCI has not permitted Pakistani players to participate in the IPL, citing strained bilateral relations and security considerations. That exclusion has been consistent, openly acknowledged, and treated as a structural reality of the tournament rather than a temporary or reactive measure. In that sense, Rahman's removal does not invent a new principle; it extends an existing one.
Yet, the distinction between the two cases is crucial.
Pakistani players were excluded wholesale and prospectively, through a settled policy that franchises have long factored into their planning. Mustafizur Rahman, by contrast, was signed by Kolkata Knight Riders on cricketing merit, cleared to participate, and then asked to step aside after the fact, not because of any misconduct or rule violation, but because the political temperature had changed. He was penalized not for what he did, but for what others might have done in response to his nationality.
That difference goes to the heart of professional sport. Predictability is its bedrock. Franchises can plan around known exclusions and settled policies. What unsettles the system is midstream intervention, where eligibility becomes contingent on shifting public sentiment rather than on rules known in advance.
There is also the question of competitive equity. The cost of this decision was borne not by the Board but by one franchise. KKR followed the rules, built its squad accordingly, and then lost a key overseas player for reasons entirely unrelated to cricket. If the situation was genuinely untenable, responsibility should have been assumed centrally and transparently, not passed on quietly to a single team.
None of this is to suggest that the BCCI should have invited chaos in the name of abstract principle. A regulator cannot ignore genuine security concerns or pretend that sport exists in a political vacuum. But there is a difference between managing risk and governing by fear of disruption. When anticipated outrage becomes sufficient to override merit and contract, authority begins to yield to pressure.
The Rahman episode, therefore, sits in a gray zone. It was defensible as a short-term administrative safeguard, but troubling as a long-term signal. It marks a subtle shift from rule-based exclusion to situational risk assessment, from settled boundaries to mood-based management.
The IPL has thrived precisely because, once the tournament begins, cricket has taken precedence over nationality, identity and politics. Allowing external tensions to determine who can and cannot take the field risks turning that principle into an exception rather than the norm.
In seeking to prevent disruption, the BCCI may have succeeded for now. Whether it has strengthened the institutional spine of the league is a question that will linger well beyond this season.
