Ahead of the year’s first major cricket event, political tensions between India and Bangladesh spilled over into the 2026 showpiece, to be hosted by India and Sri Lanka in February and March.
After Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) released Bangladesh pacer Mustafizur Rahman from its squad following a directive from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) decided that the team would not play its 2026 T20 World Cup matches in India.
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, who is chairperson of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, termed the decision “appalling”.
Tharoor described as “appalling” the decision that led to Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) releasing Mustafizur Rahman, saying the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was unnecessarily politicising a sporting call. He argued that objections were being raised despite franchises being asked to pick from a player pool prepared by the BCCI itself, and questioned why KKR should be faulted for selecting a player who had been included in that list.
Tharoor raises “moral objection”, warns against blanket ban on Bangladesh players
Also Read
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor said a “moral objection” was being raised over cricket being made to bear the brunt of social media outrage, even as India and Bangladesh continued to engage at multiple other levels. He argued that a single player was being targeted despite, he said, not having condoned hate speech or spoken against India or the Hindu minority in Bangladesh, and asked who was being “victimised” by the decision.
Tharoor also questioned what message would be sent if public outrage was allowed to make every Bangladeshi cricketer ineligible to play in India. He pointed to Bangladeshi Hindu cricketers such as Litton Das and Soumya Sarkar, who have played in the IPL in the past, asking whether they too would have been removed had they been picked — and if not, whether such a move would suggest selective intolerance.
Describing the decision as reflexive and not thought through, Tharoor said it was “preposterous” and argued that it diminished India’s diplomacy, bilateral ties and the country’s broader cultural outlook.

)