EDITORIAL: Backing Bangladesh against an ICC decision shaped by power rather than process was the right call, and it remains so.
Pakistan’s position, articulated clearly in this space only days ago, addressed a structural problem in world cricket where financial dominance routinely overrides fairness. That context has not changed. What has changed is the arrival of a request that deserves to be weighed with equal seriousness, not dismissed reflexively.
Sri Lanka Cricket’s appeal to Pakistan to reconsider boycotting the February 15 group match against India is not rooted in politics or alignment with any dominant board. It is grounded in economic reality. Sri Lanka is co-hosting the T20 World Cup at a moment when its economy is still recovering from the 2022 collapse. The board has warned of financial exposure and lost tourism revenue if the marquee fixture does not take place in Colombo. This is not opportunism. It is a candid acknowledgment of vulnerability.
For Pakistan, this creates a dilemma that cannot be resolved by slogans. Solidarity with Bangladesh was never meant to be performative. It was meant to underline that cricket governance cannot be selectively rigid for some and endlessly flexible for others. That principle still holds. But principles are tested not when choices are easy but when competing obligations collide.
There is also history that Pakistan cannot afford to ignore. In 2009, when Sri Lanka’s team was attacked in Lahore, international cricket deserted Pakistan almost overnight. Tours were cancelled, venues were deemed unsafe, and Pakistan was pushed into exile for nearly a decade. When the isolation was at its deepest, it was Sri Lanka that broke ranks. Their return to Pakistan at real risk and real cost helped reopen the door to international cricket. That gesture was not transactional. It was an act of solidarity at a moment when Pakistan badly needed it.
That memory matters now. It does not erase Bangladesh’s grievance or dilute the case against the ICC’s handling of its concerns. But it does argue against treating Sri Lanka’s request as a secondary inconvenience. Ethical positions gain strength when they are tempered by reciprocity and realism.
A rigid response would also misread the strategic terrain. Pakistan has already signalled that it is willing to boycott the group-stage match with India while remaining in the tournament. That stance drew attention to the governance issue without forfeiting Pakistan’s place in the competition. Sri Lanka’s intervention introduces an opportunity to refine that approach, not abandon it.
One possible path is to take Bangladesh fully into confidence before any adjustment is made. Pakistan should make clear that its support is unchanged, that the core objection to how Bangladesh was treated remains intact, and that no step will be taken that undercuts Dhaka’s position. Within that framework, Islamabad can explore whether a compromise exists that addresses Sri Lanka’s genuine concerns without normalising ICC’s behaviour.
Such a compromise need not mean capitulation. It could involve time-bound assurances, coordinated statements, or parallel diplomatic pressure within the ICC that keeps the Bangladesh issue alive rather than burying it under a single fixture. The aim should be to ensure that the focus stays on governance failure, not on Pakistan being cast as unresponsive to a fellow board’s hardship.
This approach is also consistent with Pakistan’s recent record. Its most meaningful gains in international cricket have come through persistence, coalition-building and moral clarity, not dramatic exits. Quietly aligning with other boards that are uneasy with the current order has yielded results before. It can do so again, but only if Pakistan avoids turning principle into inflexibility.
Cricket in South Asia has never existed in a vacuum. Politics, economics and memory shape decisions whether administrators admit it or not. Supporting Bangladesh was correct. Listening to Sri Lanka is necessary. The challenge now is to do both without weakening either position.
A principled adjustment, made transparently and in consultation with those Pakistan set out to support, would reflect maturity rather than retreat. In an uneven system, strength lies not just in drawing lines, but in knowing when and how to bend without breaking the larger cause.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments