NEW DELHI: Former ICC head of communications Sami-ul-Hasan Burney has criticised the BCCI’s handling of Bangladesh pacer Mustafizur Rahman’s exit from the Indian Premier League, saying the Indian board could have prevented the current T20 World Cup turmoil with a more measured approach.Rahman’s release from his Kolkata Knight Riders contract set off a chain reaction that eventually led to Bangladesh withdrawing from the tournament, starting February 7, after citing “security concerns” over travelling to India. In a show of solidarity, Pakistan have since opted to forfeit their February 15 clash against arch-rivals India following government directives.
Burney, who later served as media director of the Pakistan Cricket Board after leaving the ICC, felt the situation escalated unnecessarily because of public communication around Rahman’s removal.“I mean, things could have been easily avoided if the cricket administrators or people responsible for the game had been a little bit more careful and avoided public statements, like a Bangladesh player (Mustafizur) has to be removed from the franchise,” Sami told PTI.“I mean they (the BCCI) didn’t have to say it publicly. They could have easily privately told the franchise (KKR) to release the player and nobody would have known what happened and life would have moved on.“Sometimes you make an error of judgment and make a statement which has implications. So the January 3 announcement became a trigger,” he explained.A former journalist with The Dawn, Burney spent over a decade at the ICC’s Dubai headquarters before joining the PCB last year. He also shed light on the thinking of PCB chairman Mohsin Naqvi, who also serves as Pakistan’s interior minister.Burney said Naqvi views the ICC’s refusal to move Bangladesh’s matches from India to Sri Lanka as a case of “shifting of goalposts.”“I refer back to November, 2024, when I was a part of the Pakistan Cricket Board, and I was with Mr Mohsin Naqvi, when that e-mail came in which the ICC said the BCCI has informed them that the Indian government has refused permission to send their team to Pakistan.“Mr. Naqvi believes when a similar situation arose in January (with regards Bangladesh), the same principles were not applied, and that is where he is referring to the double standards.“I think that is what is upsetting Mr. Naqvi and the PCB, because they think goalposts are being changed, or shifted.”On whether Bangladesh’s dispute with India was Pakistan’s battle, Burney said: “We may agree with it, we may disagree with this decision, we may argue…but when the government makes a decision, they are looking at something bigger than what what you and I are seeing.”While the ICC has hinted at possible sanctions, including heavy financial penalties, Burney insisted Pakistan would have weighed all consequences.“I mean, these decisions are not easy decisions to make. They must have spoken to a lot of people, sought the advice from the experts, looked at the legal side.“I am sure an extensive exercise would have taken place before the government of Pakistan made that decision. As regards the sanctions or the losses you are talking about, that one match is costing USD 250 million (everything accounted for not just broadcaster’s loss).“Pakistan’s annual revenue is USD 35.5 million, so there is a big, big difference,” he said.He added that Pakistan have previously weathered financial setbacks from not playing India bilaterally.“…unlike other countries, Pakistan have not hosted India for 20 years in a bilateral series, even though they have toured India twice in 2007 and then 2012-13 for white-ball cricket.“They have not played, I mean, they were playing off-shore for 10 years, 2009 to 2019 not at home, but in the Middle East, or in the UAE, and still managed to win two tournaments, the T20 World Cup in 2009 and 2017 Champions Trophy,” he said.“So, yes, there will be financial implications, but if Pakistan Cricket Board can survive that 20-year period without playing India, they can sustain.”
