Cricket Under Hegemony: How India Turned a Regional Game into a Power Instrument

In South Asia, power has never been exercised only through borders, armies, or treaties. It has flowed through trade routes, water sharing, media, and quietly but decisively through cricket. What we are witnessing today is not a sporting dispute but the consolidation of regional hierarchy, with India at the apex and the rest of South Asia forced into varying degrees of compliance.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s call for an alternative global cricket body was quickly dismissed by Indian commentators as political theatrics. Yet such calls emerge only when institutional pathways collapse. His accusation that the International Cricket Council has become “hostage to Indian political interests” reflects a deeper South Asian anxiety: that multilateral platforms no longer function as neutral spaces when India’s interests are involved.

From Regional Power to Regional Enforcer

India’s dominance of cricket mirrors its broader regional posture assertive, asymmetrical, and increasingly intolerant of dissent. The Board of Control for Cricket in India is no longer just a sporting body; it is a strategic actor projecting Indian power across South Asia.

Under the current ICC revenue model, India controls nearly 40% of global cricket income. This financial concentration replicates a familiar regional pattern: economic dependency used to discipline neighbours. Smaller South Asian nations, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are structurally discouraged from challenging Indian preferences because the costs are existential.

In such an environment, “choice” becomes theoretical.

Pakistan: Too Big to Obey, Too Risky to Exclude

Pakistan occupies a unique and uncomfortable position in this hierarchy. Unlike smaller neighbours, it cannot be easily absorbed or ignored. Its boycott threat ahead of the T20 World Cup was not an act of withdrawal but a geopolitical signal, participation without consent.

This is precisely why Jay Shah, wearing both ICC authority and Indian institutional legacy, was pushed into reluctant diplomacy. The India–Pakistan fixture is not just a match; it is the single most valuable commodity in global cricket. Excluding Pakistan would fracture the commercial spine of the tournament.

The ICC’s response, dispatching Deputy Chair Imran Khwaja for quiet back-channel talks, exposed the truth: the institution cannot enforce neutrality when its biggest shareholder is also a regional hegemon.

Bangladesh and the Cost of Defiance

If Pakistan represents resistance, Bangladesh represents vulnerability.

The BCCI’s unilateral decision to release Mustafizur Rahman from the IPL, citing “political developments” - triggered a chain reaction that ended with Bangladesh refusing to tour India and being replaced by Scotland. This was not a scheduling issue; it was disciplined by substitution.

In South Asian terms, the message was unmistakable: defiance invites isolation. This is how hierarchy is maintained, not through overt bans, but through quiet rearrangements that punish without announcing punishment.

Normalising the Unthinkable

Former Indian cricketer Harbhajan Singh openly declared that India does not need Pakistan and can survive without it. Such statements matter not because they are policy, but because they reveal a mindset where exclusion is considered a legitimate option.

This is how dominance becomes normalised. First rhetorically. Then administratively. Finally, structurally.

South Asia has seen this pattern before, in trade negotiations, river water disputes, and regional diplomacy. Cricket is simply the latest arena.

The ICC as a Hollow Multilateral Shell

In theory, the ICC is a global institution. In practice, it resembles many South Asian multilateral frameworks where one power sets the rules while others adapt. When India controls revenue, scheduling, hosting rights, and broadcast windows, neutrality becomes impossible.

The result is a system where:

Smaller South Asian nations hesitate to speak.

Pakistan is managed as a “problem” rather than a stakeholder.

Decisions are framed as commercial inevitabilities rather than political choices.

This is not governance; it is a managed imbalance.

The Long-Term Cost for the Region

India’s approach may deliver short-term control, but it carries long-term risks. A region where sport mirrors political hierarchy will eventually fracture. Associate nations will stagnate. Bilateral distrust will harden. And cricket, once South Asia’s rare shared language, will become another theatre of rivalry and resentment.

You cannot build regional legitimacy on unilateral power.

If the ICC continues to function as an extension of Indian dominance rather than a counterbalance to it, South Asia will not see a golden age of cricket but a familiar story of centralised authority, silenced peripheries, and institutional decay.

Cricket does not need a new empire. It needs a genuinely plural order. Without it, the game will survive, but only as a reflection of power, not as a contest of equals.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

When Cricket Stops Pretending to Be Neutral: India, Power, and the ICC’s Double Standards

Pakistan's decision to boycott its T20 World Cup match against India has been framed by much of the global media as an act of politicisation. That framing is misleading. What the boycott actually exposes is a far more uncomfortable truth: international cricket has long ceased to be neutral, and the International Cricket Council (ICC) now operates within an ecosystem structurally tilted in India’s favour.

The immediate trigger for Pakistan’s decision was security and diplomacy. Following deadly, coordinated attacks in Balochistan, attacks Pakistan’s interior minister publicly attributed to India, Islamabad chose not to proceed, with a high-profile sporting encounter against its rival. Whether or not one accepts Pakistan’s allegation, the principle involved is not novel. National governments have repeatedly exercised discretion over participation in ICC events based on security and political considerations.

What is novel is the selective outrage.

Bangladesh, Neutral Venues, and Selective Fairness

Tensions had already been building before Pakistan’s announcement. In January, Bangladesh requested that its World Cup matches be shifted away from India, citing security concerns. The ICC rejected the request outright and then went further, removing Bangladesh from the tournament altogether and replacing it with Scotland.

This decision was extraordinary. Historically, the ICC has accommodated such requests. India itself has refused to play in Pakistan for years, with its matches routinely shifted to neutral venues. England, Australia, and New Zealand have all declined tours or fixtures in the past without being expelled from tournaments or financially penalised.

Yet when Bangladesh sought identical consideration, it was denied. The principle of “neutral venues for security reasons,” long treated as legitimate when invoked by India, suddenly became unacceptable when invoked against India.

This asymmetry is the real scandal.

The ICC–BCCI Blur

The controversy has also reignited scrutiny over the increasingly blurred line between the ICC and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The perception, fair or not, is that global cricket governance is now effectively anchored in New Delhi.

That perception matters because money matters.

An India–Pakistan World Cup match is not merely a fixture; it is the tournament’s financial engine. Advertising slots during such games sell for astronomical sums. Broadcasters price entire tournament valuations around this single matchup. When Pakistan withdrew, panic followed, not in cricketing circles, but in boardrooms.

This reaction reveals the structural dependency of the ICC on India-centric commercial logic. When India advances deep into tournaments, revenues soar. When India exits early, as in the 2007 World Cup, broadcasters panic and financial models collapse. That dependency has quietly reshaped governance priorities.

Fairness, under such conditions, becomes conditional.

Precedent Matters And Pakistan Is Within It

The charge that Pakistan is “politicising cricket” collapses under historical scrutiny.

In 1996, Australia refused to play matches in Sri Lanka. In 2003, England and New Zealand declined tours citing security concerns. Zimbabwe skipped the 2009 T20 World Cup. None faced revenue sanctions. West Indies continue to receive full ICC distributions despite repeated failures to qualify for global events.

These are not exceptions. They are precedents.

ICC revenue allocation has always been structural, not punitive. Participation has never been enforced through financial coercion. To suggest otherwise now—implicitly threatening Pakistan with “long-term consequences” marks a dangerous departure from established norms.

The India Exception

What truly undermines the moral argument against Pakistan is India’s own record. India has unilaterally suspended bilateral cricket with Pakistan for over a decade without consequence. Entire Future Tours Programme cycles have been disrupted. The ICC did not intervene. No fines were imposed. No lectures were delivered about “the global game.”

Political selectivity, in other words, has already been normalised, primarily when it serves Indian preferences.

Pakistan’s response, therefore, is not radical. It is reciprocal.

Power, Not Principle

It is also worth noting that Pakistan is no longer institutionally dependent on ICC revenue in the way it once was. The Pakistan Super League has created an independent commercial base, placing the PCB among a small group of boards with financial leverage outside ICC distributions.

That reality alters the power equation. The implicit assumption that Pakistan must comply to survive is outdated.

The Real Question

This episode forces cricket to confront an uncomfortable question:

Is the ICC a multilateral sporting body, or a revenue management arm of Indian cricket?

If neutral venues are acceptable for India but unacceptable for Bangladesh, that is not governance; it is a hierarchy.

If political discretion is legitimate for some but condemned for others, that is not neutrality; it is power.

Pakistan’s boycott does not politicise cricket.

It merely exposes who has been doing so all along.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

Redemption and Reintegration: The Case for Mohammad Amir

The Pakistan Cricket Board’s recent move to petition the International Cricket Council (ICC) to review Mohammad Amir’s spot-fixing ban under the revised anti-corruption code has reignited a complex debate about justice, forgiveness, and redemption in sports. The code now allows banned players to return to domestic cricket under certain criteria, and the PCB asserts that Amir has met these requirements. However, this development has been met with mixed reactions, reflecting the moral quandaries and emotional wounds left by Amir’s involvement in the 2010 Lord’s Test scandal.

The Scandal That Shook a Nation

In 2010, the cricketing world was rocked by the revelation that Mohammad Amir, along with teammates Mohammad Asif and Salman Butt, had conspired to bowl deliberate no-balls during a Test match against England. The trio was handed bans by the ICC, and a London court later imposed jail sentences. While the actions of Asif and Butt drew widespread condemnation, Amir’s case elicited a more nuanced response. At just 18 years old, he was a prodigious talent from a humble background, thrust into the limelight and, some argue, manipulated by those he trusted.

For Pakistani fans, the scandal was more than a betrayal of the sport—it was a national heartbreak. Cricket in Pakistan has often been a beacon of hope amid political instability and social challenges. To see one of their own fall so spectacularly was a bitter pill to swallow. Yet, even in the face of this collective dismay, many were willing to empathize with Amir, recognizing his youth and the pressures he faced.

The Case for Forgiveness

Forgiveness is a cornerstone of humanity, a trait that reflects strength and magnanimity. Mahatma Gandhi aptly observed, *“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”* Amir’s crime, no doubt, tarnished the image of his nation and the integrity of the game. Yet, his story is also one of vulnerability and youthful folly. Born into poverty, Amir was a boy thrust into a world of fame, fortune, and influence that he was ill-equipped to navigate. His transgressions, while serious, must be viewed through the lens of his circumstances.

Amir’s detractors argue that his return would pollute the dressing room environment and undermine the ethos of the game. This perspective is valid, reflecting the desire to preserve cricket’s moral fabric. Yet, is permanent exclusion the solution? History is replete with examples of athletes who have stumbled and been forgiven. Italy’s Paolo Rossi, banned for match-fixing, returned to lead his country to World Cup glory in 1982. West Indies’ Marlon Samuels, embroiled in corruption allegations, made a triumphant comeback to help his team secure multiple ICC trophies. Why should Amir’s case be any different?

A Talent Worth Nurturing

Talent like Mohammad Amir’s is rare—a left-arm fast bowler with pace, swing, and guile that evokes memories of legends past. Such prodigies are not just assets to their nations but to the sport as a whole. Denying Amir the opportunity to contribute again would be a loss not just for Pakistan but for cricket at large. His presence in the team could serve as a reminder of the perils of straying from the path and inspire others to tread carefully.

Moreover, Amir’s personal growth since the scandal is noteworthy. In interviews, he has spoken of the lessons he has learned, the importance of making better choices, and the value of discernment in relationships. His journey reflects a man who has not only acknowledged his mistakes but also endeavoured to rise above them.

The Path Forward

Reintegration does not mean absolution without accountability. If Amir is to return, it must be under strict scrutiny, with a clear understanding that his actions will be watched closely. He must not only perform on the field but also serve as a role model off it, using his experiences to educate young players about the dangers of corruption.

Forgiveness, as George Herbert, wisely noted, is essential: “He that cannot forgive others breaks the bridge over which he must pass if he would ever reach heaven; for everyone has a need to be forgiven.”Amir’s reintegration is not just about his redemption—it is also an opportunity for the cricketing world to demonstrate the power of second chances.

The case of Mohammad Amir is a test of cricket’s moral compass and humanity’s capacity for forgiveness. By embracing his return, the cricketing community can set a precedent that mistakes, though grave, do not have to define a person’s legacy. Amir’s story, if allowed to continue, could transform from one of disgrace to one of resilience and redemption—a narrative that cricket, and indeed the world, sorely needs.

Thank You
Faisal Caesar

Younis Khan: Pakistan’s Indomitable Warrior

Fourteen years ago, a 22-year-old from Mardan etched his name into cricket’s consciousness with a knock that spoke volumes of his grit and determination. Pakistan, reeling in the second innings of a Test against Sri Lanka at Rawalpindi, found itself teetering on the edge of defeat. It was then that Younis Khan emerged, not just as a batsman but as a force. In partnership with the mercurial Wasim Akram, he crafted a defiant maiden century, building a ninth-wicket stand that briefly resurrected Pakistan’s hopes. While the team ultimately succumbed in a tense finish, the young batsman’s resolute display had announced the arrival of a player whose career would be defined by resilience.  

The Early Struggles

Younis Khan’s journey to greatness was never a linear ascent. His early career was a mosaic of brilliance and inconsistency, glimpses of potential often extinguished before translating into meaningful contributions. Runs eluded him when most needed, and his place in the squad hung precariously. Yet, what Younis lacked in immediate results, he made up for with determination. Refusing to let fleeting failures define him, he toiled relentlessly, chiselling away at the edges of his game to craft a foundation that could not be shaken.  

The turning point came in 2005 during Pakistan’s tour of India. The Bengaluru Test was a moment of reckoning. Until then, Younis had struggled to make an impact on the series. But under the mentorship of coach Bob Woolmer, who saw beyond the numbers, Younis delivered a monumental double century. That innings wasn’t just a rescue act; it was an emphatic declaration of intent. From that point onward, Younis Khan began the transformation from a promising player into a stalwart of Pakistan cricket.  

A Legacy of Leadership and Resilience

Younis’s rise was emblematic of his character—a gradual yet unyielding journey toward permanence. Over the years, he became the fulcrum of Pakistan’s batting lineup, a player who thrived under pressure and delivered when others faltered. His resilience was most vividly on display during his captaincy tenure, particularly in leading Pakistan to victory in the 2009 ICC World Twenty20. His leadership in that tournament, calm yet commanding, showcased his ability to galvanize a team in turmoil.  

Yet, Younis’s contributions extended far beyond runs and victories. He was a player who embodied the ethos of Pakistani cricket, a blend of artistry and defiance, unpredictability and perseverance. Time and again, he shouldered the burden of a faltering lineup, becoming the glue that held the team together. His batting was not merely a showcase of technical prowess but a testament to his mental fortitude.  

A Troubled Relationship with the PCB

Despite his immense contributions, Younis Khan’s relationship with the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) was fraught with tension. The board’s treatment of Younis often bordered on disrespect, marked by a lack of recognition for his service. In 2009, he was unceremoniously stripped of the captaincy, a decision that left a sour taste among fans and pundits alike. Time and again, Younis found himself sidelined, with the PCB favouring short-term decisions over long-term vision.  

The nadir came ahead of the 2015 World Cup. Excluded from the ODI squad, Younis was informed with little ceremony and even less regard. Chief selector Moin Khan dismissed him as a failed “experiment,” signalling a focus on younger players. The decision not only sidelined a stalwart but also betrayed the board’s tendency to overlook contributions in favour of fleeting trends. Younis’s frustration boiled over in public comments, where he implored the PCB to honour its heroes lest future generations lose their motivation to play for Pakistan.  

The Fighter’s Rebuttal

  

True to his nature, Younis Khan responded not with words but with performances. The ongoing series against Australia became his platform for redemption. Through sheer skill and unyielding determination, Younis silenced his critics with performances that reaffirmed his standing as one of Pakistan’s finest batsmen.  

His ability to rise in the face of adversity reflects not just a cricketer’s resilience but a warrior’s spirit. A proud Pathan, Younis’s unwavering commitment to his country is as much a matter of identity as it is of passion. Even when wronged, his loyalty to Pakistan cricket never wavered.  

The Indelible Legacy

Younis Khan’s journey is a masterclass in perseverance. He is more than just a cricketer; he is a symbol of resilience, an emblem of pride, and an inspiration for generations. His batting was a symphony of skill and determination, a reminder that greatness is earned not through talent alone but through an unrelenting pursuit of excellence.  

For Pakistan cricket, Younis Khan is not merely a player to be celebrated; he is a legacy to be preserved. His career is a reminder to the PCB and fans alike that champions do not emerge in isolation; they are nurtured, supported, and respected. To fail in honouring such a legacy is to undermine the very spirit of the game.  

In the annals of cricket, Younis Khan will remain a towering figure, a player whose name is synonymous with resilience. For Pakistan, he is not just a batsman or a captain but a mirror reflecting the team’s greatest qualities: unyielding determination, boundless talent, and an unshakeable will to rise, no matter how steep the fall.  

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

Cracks in the foundation: What Australia’s Cricket Turmoil Reveals About Sporting Dynasties

The world of Australian cricket, once synonymous with discipline, dominance, and invincibility, now finds itself entangled in a disorienting web of conflicts, controversies, and eroded authority. Time has changed not just the team’s fortunes but also the dynamics of its administration—a shift laid bare by the uproar surrounding the unceremonious axing of Simon Katich. 

Where sympathy quietly accompanied Steve Waugh's dismissal as captain of the One-Day International (ODI) team, Katich’s removal triggered a chorus of outrage, with voices from players to politicians joining the fray. Michael Slater launched a scathing attack on the national selectors. A visibly bitter Katich followed suit, excoriating the board in a public diatribe. Even Federal Defense Minister Stephen Smith stepped into the arena, taking the unusual step of criticizing the selectors. It is a peculiar sight: the steely organization that once exemplified a stable cricketing empire now seems beset by the kind of public drama more often associated with the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) or the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB). 

How did Australia, with its once-formidable cricket administration, arrive at this juncture?  

The Rise and Fall of Empires: Lessons from the West Indies and Pakistan  

Sporting dynasties, like empires, are vulnerable to collapse when mismanagement and ego overtake harmony and discipline. The West Indies, whose cricketing reign ended in 1995 at Australia’s hands, offers a cautionary tale. Their fall was not merely a consequence of declining on-field performance but also of administrative breakdown. The much-publicized conflict between two West Indian legends—Brian Lara and Curtly Ambrose—became a harbinger of discontent between the players and the WICB. Instead of swiftly resolving the internal strife, the board allowed it to fester, widening the rift between the players and administrators. In such an atmosphere, it became almost inevitable that the team’s performances would falter, as the unity required for sporting success disintegrated.  

Then there is Pakistan—a textbook example of chaos in cricket governance. The PCB has long been infamous for whimsical decisions and infighting, often treating leadership as a revolving door. 

In 1993, the dismissal of Javed Miandad, one of Pakistan’s greatest batsmen, and the elevation of a young, inexperienced Wasim Akram to the captaincy set off a chain of turbulence. Within a year, Akram himself was ousted in a player-led revolt, replaced by Salim Malik, who later faced match-fixing allegations. What followed was a carousel of captains—Rameez Raja, Rashid Latif, Saeed Anwar, Moin Khan—each appointment more chaotic than the last. This instability, coupled with public spats and sensational media coverage, eroded trust between the players and the board, tarnishing Pakistan cricket’s image for decades. 

The West Indies’ decline began with the Lara-Ambrose rift, while Pakistan's problems deepened with Miandad's removal—both emblematic of administrations that failed to strike a delicate balance between authority and trust.  

Australian Cricket: At Crossroads  

Australia’s cricket administration was once celebrated for mastering that balance, allowing egos to flourish on the field while maintaining order off it. Stars like Shane Warne, Ricky Ponting, and Adam Gilchrist carried their personal ambitions, yet the board managed to keep the larger machine running smoothly. The result was a cricketing juggernaut that won relentlessly, seemingly immune to the kind of controversies that plagued other nations.  

But recent events suggest that the old stability has frayed. Katich’s unceremonious exit hints at deeper dysfunction between Cricket Australia and its players. Without careful intervention, Australia risks falling into the same trap as the West Indies and Pakistan—where unchecked discord undermines performance. The transformation from a winning machine to a fractured entity is not merely a cricketing crisis; it signals a shift in the administrative culture that once held everything together. 

The current turmoil is a reminder that even the most dominant empires need constant renewal. A team can weather the ebb and flow of talent, but without sound management, the structure beneath it begins to crumble. Cricket Australia must learn from the mistakes of its counterparts. Just as the WICB allowed its players to drift away and the PCB alienated its stars with erratic decision-making, Australia must be wary of letting ego clashes and mismanagement erode the trust between its board and players.

The Road Ahead: Restoring the Balance  

If Australia is to regain its lost aura, it must rebuild the relationship between its board and players. Management needs to exert control without becoming heavy-handed, fostering an atmosphere of mutual respect and collaboration. The old adage, “winning solves everything,” might offer some temporary relief, but sustained success demands a deeper alignment of interests between those on the field and those off it. 

As history has shown, cricketing greatness is as much a product of wise administration as it is of talent. Australia’s dominance was never just about the skill of its players—it was about how that skill was managed, nurtured, and deployed. The coming years will test whether Cricket Australia can rediscover that balance or whether the glory days will remain a relic of the past, like those of the West Indies and Pakistan. 

The fall of an empire often begins quietly—through small cracks that widen over time. If Australia wishes to avoid the fate of those fallen before it, the time for action is now.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar

Pakistan Cricket in Crisis: Spot-fixing scandal shakes Pakistan and the World

Pakistan's cricket tours of England have often been marked by controversy, but this time, it's not a battle on the field but a scandal that has cast a shadow over the game. The spectre of match-fixing, a demon that has haunted Pakistan cricket for over two decades, has resurfaced, shaking not just Pakistan but the entire cricketing world.

Pakistan cricket has long been mired in controversy: captaincy struggles, internal team rifts, security concerns, drug scandals, and match-fixing allegations. Yet, of all these, match-fixing remains the most corrosive, repeatedly tarnishing the nation's image and undermining the credibility of the sport. Despite repeated assurances from the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) that the problem had been eradicated, the recent revelations suggest that the issue was never truly resolved—merely swept under the rug, allowing it to rear its ugly head once more.

The latest scandal exploded when a secretly recorded video emerged, allegedly showing Mazhar Majeed, a figure notorious in cricket’s dark underworld, predicting precise moments of corruption. Majeed is heard predicting that Mohammad Amir would bowl a deliberate no-ball from the first ball of the third over. True to his word, Amir's delivery was not just a no-ball—it was egregiously over the line, a blunder too glaring to be accidental. Majeed's forecast didn't stop there; he correctly predicted another no-ball from Mohammad Asif, six balls into the tenth over. Both deliveries, supposedly orchestrated by Majeed, were noted in the ball-by-ball commentary on Cricinfo. The incident not only implicated Amir and Asif but also placed Captain Salman Butt and wicket-keeper Kamran Akmal under the shadow of suspicion. Mazhar Majeed was swiftly arrested by police, yet the damage had already been done.

The timing of this scandal is particularly heart-wrenching for a nation already reeling from devastating floods. For Pakistanis, cricket is more than just a sport; it is a beacon of hope, a source of national pride, and a rare respite from the hardships of everyday life. To see their team, the embodiment of their dreams, implicated in such a sordid affair is a crushing blow—not just for fans within Pakistan but for the global cricket community that holds the sport in such high esteem.

The PCB has, over the years, established numerous investigating committees, each tasked with purging the game of the taint of match-fixing. Time and again, officials have confidently declared that the "ghost" of match-fixing has been exorcised from Pakistan cricket. But as this latest scandal shows, those assurances were hollow. The PCB’s failure to confront the issue head-on has allowed corruption to fester, occasionally emerging to wreak havoc on the sport’s integrity.

This time, the consequences could be dire. The future of Pakistan cricket, already precarious due to security concerns and diminished international standing, now faces an even darker horizon. The repeated scandals erode trust not only among fans but also within the global cricketing community. If Pakistan is to restore its credibility, it must take decisive and transparent action—no half-measures, no sweeping issues under the carpet. The criminals involved must be brought to justice, and the PCB must institute genuine reforms to ensure that this shameful chapter is not repeated.

For far too long, Pakistan cricket has been plagued by scandal, but the time for empty promises is over. To prevent further decay, the system must be rebuilt on the foundations of integrity, accountability, and transparency. Only then can Pakistan’s cricketing future be salvaged, and the hopes of its millions of passionate fans restored.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar