Against the backdrop tensions between India and Bangladesh over reports of violence against Hindus and the BCCI’s direction to Kolkata Knight Riders to drop Bangladeshi cricketer Mustafizur Rahman from the coming edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL), Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs chairperson Shashi Tharoor says cricket should not fall victim to the “delicate diplomatic and political relationship” between the two countries.
In an interview, the Congress MP speaks about the fallout of the violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, the impact on cricket, and the latest geopolitical faultline following US intervention in Venezuela. Excerpts:
* The BCCI has instructed Kolkata Knight Riders to release Bangladesh cricketer Mustafizur Rahman from the IPL squad. Where do you stand on this?
I think it’s an absolutely appalling decision by the BCCI. It is an unnecessary politicisation of a sporting decision. And there are various aspects I object to. One is the fact that purely as a cricketing decision, it makes no sense because teams were invited to choose from a registered pool of players selected by the BCCI. So if a fellow was in the pool, why is KKR to blame for selecting somebody from that pool? So, the first question is that it makes no sense to object to the selection of somebody whom the BCCI has submitted to all the teams as an eligible player.
* The decision came against the backdrop of strained ties between the two countries after attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh …
Our approach to Bangladesh is a very, very delicate diplomatic and political relationship where we are managing a complicated situation.
Yes, there are inflamed passions on the streets in Bangladesh that have resulted in attacks on minorities, which in turn have inflamed opinions in India. But the government nonetheless has been attempting to manage the diplomatic persuasion to bring about some sense of calm and normalcy in the lead up to the elections (in Bangladesh) next month. We have also tried to greet Tariq Rahman (chairperson of Bangladesh Nationalist Party and son of ex-PM Khaleda Zia), who many people see as a likely future Prime Minister after the elections.
We are attempting to promote normalcy. We have also, of course, firmly conveyed to the government that bullying and intimidation of minorities would not create a conducive atmosphere for free and fair elections. At least, I hope we have conveyed that. Certainly, it’s what many of us believe any Indian government would do.
But the truth is that with all of this very complex messaging going, a simple black-and-white “we’re going to boycott every Bangladeshi player” sends exactly the wrong message. You have got the Bangladeshi team coming for the T-20 World Cup in India (in February). Four of their matches are scheduled in India. Now what’s going to happen? Are they going to be banned from playing? Is the entire World Cup schedule going to be put for a toss? Will Pakistan and Bangladesh ask that India be denied the hosting rights? They (BCCI) have not thought this through at all. It’s been incredibly foolish.
* Should cricket be insulated from political and other tensions?
There is also a moral objection I have, which is why is it that sports and cricket alone have to bear the burden of social media outrage? There are so many other ways in which we are interacting with Bangladesh at various levels.
But somehow, cricket has to bear this. And one particular player, that player has never condoned hate speech, he has never said anything against India or against the Hindu minority in Bangladesh, he is just a sportsman. Who are we victimising here?
And if we have decided now that the social media outrage will mean that every Bangladeshi cricketer is ineligible to play in India, then what happens if a Bangladeshi Hindu cricketer like Litton Das or Soumya Sarkar — who are good players in Bangladesh and have played in the IPL in the past — if they had been picked this year, would they also have been kicked out? And if not, then what are we signaling? Are we such an intolerant country that we’re against Muslim Bangladeshis and not against Hindu Bangladeshis?
This entire thing has not been thought through at all by anybody who took this reflexive decision, presumably in response to social media outrage. And I find this absolutely preposterous. To my mind, it demeans us as a nation. It demeans our diplomacy. It demeans our bilateral relationship. It demeans our culture as a nation with a broad enough mind and a big enough heart to be able to look at these things in a broader spirit.
* We have also put the India tour of Bangladesh on hold.
I don’t understand this at all. Those who have taken such decisions, let them explain themselves. But are they now going to put the World Cup on hold?
* Will we see a Pakistan-like situation with Bangladesh where there is no more bilateral cricket and Bangladeshi players are not allowed to compete in India?
No, Bangladesh is not Pakistan. Bangladesh has not been dispatching terrorists across the border. It’s not a comparable situation at all. And besides, our relationship with the two countries is also different. And the stage of our negotiations or our diplomacy with Bangladesh is different from our relationship with Pakistan. You cannot make a simple equation between the two.
* What is your initial assessment of the impact the US intervention in Venezuela may have on global politics?
Given the sensitivity of relations with the countries concerned, I would leave it to the government to comment on the specific incident. But on the larger question, it’s apparent that the old assumptions of international law and the United Nations Charter have been tossed aside by many countries in the last quarter century and the old world order is increasingly resembling a new world disorder. Navigating our role amid this turbulence is the biggest challenge for Indian diplomacy today.
* The Ministry of External Affairs has issued a statement expressing deep concern at the development.
I have no doubt that sometimes what the Ministry of External Affairs chooses not to say is more important than what its official statement says.