Looking over your shoulder can lead to a pain in the neck

Hours before the T20 World Cup, it is difficult to tell who is teaching whom a lesson. First, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) wanted to teach Shah Rukh Khan a lesson by asking Kolkata Knight Riders to unpick Mustafizur Rahman after he had been chosen in the IPL auction. Then Bangladesh wanted to teach India a lesson by asking for their matches to be shifted to Sri Lanka. The International Cricket Council (ICC) told Bangladesh to play in India or stay at home. They are staying at home.

Eager to show they could be as irresponsible as anybody else, Pakistan first threatened to pull out to teach India a lesson. Then they decided to teach the world a lesson by not playing the league match against India on February 15.

The world, meanwhile is confused because not only are players from Bangladesh and Pakistan set to suffer, but cricket too, which sells World Cups on two India-Pakistan matches per tournament. Pakistan, who just beat Australia 3-0 in a home series, might have to pay a fine, compensate television, face a ban or miss out on millions from their share of income from the ICC. Their net run rate against India gets hit because it will be calculated on the basis of zero runs in 20 overs.

As politicians in government and in sport (the same people, by a happy coincidence) wave ego and vanity at one another, intent on showing who has the bigger one, the game suffers, fans are cheated and the governing body appears increasingly craven.

Pakistan has plausible deniability. Its cricket board has not formally written to the ICC after the government posted its intention on social media. India will have to land up at the ground on the day in case Pakistan turn up and claim a walkover. Their government has not mentioned any reason for the boycott (it needn’t be genuine) or explained what happens if they meet India in the knockouts. They are just keen on ‘doing an India’ on the ICC.

It may not be all doom and gloom, however. The ICC trick of having India and Pakistan in the same group for World Cups might give way to a more honest draw in future based on chance, not intent.

Pakistan’s stand, self-harming though it is, might embolden other countries to take a stand against the bully that is the BCCI, and lead to a more equitable distribution of funds and matches.

In all this, it was left to the ICC to provide the humour. “ICC tournaments,” it declared grandly in a letter to the PCB, “are built on sporting integrity, competitiveness, consistency and fairness….” Only one of those is true, the consistency with which India are allowed to get away with tweaking the nose of the ICC whose main agenda seems to be keeping India happy, and the television money flowing. The two are connected.

You could argue that an unhappy India might lead to a drying up of the funds, but to ensure ‘competitiveness’, a sport needs more than one participant.

Pakistan’s ill-advised move might backfire, but it’s a nice reminder that they have a half-share in cricket’s biggest payday. If television moves to renegotiate its deal allowing for no India-Pakistan match, cricket’s economy will be threatened.

So where do we go from here? Some of the glitter of a world tournament has already gone, thanks to the politics of Bangladesh’s removal. If Pakistan — not unused to U-turns — go missing too, the BCCI might rue allowing ego to trump common sense while picking up a lesson in unintended consequences.

None of the parties involved, from the ICC to India to the two other teams emerge from this with credit or dignity. T20 is set to make its Olympic debut two years from now, a factor lost in the mash of overlapping egos. If the ICC can’t handle their own world championship, how will it fare on the bigger stage?

World cricket might be at an inflexion point. Those elected to serve the game should do so and not look over their shoulders for instructions from their political masters. Now there’s a lesson for the actors in this developing drama.