Key Points
- Critics argue Shah’s endorsement contradicts ICC’s ban on political messages.
- The incident reignites concerns over the ICC’s double standards.
- Malcolm Conn and others highlight Shah’s dual roles in BCCI and ICC.
- The ICC’s silence on the controversy has intensified calls for clearer, consistently applied policies.
ISLAMABAD: International Cricket Council (ICC) President Jay Shah has deleted a social media post after being criticised for showing support for the Indian Armed Forces, raising fresh concerns about the ICC’s ability to maintain neutrality as a global cricket organisation.
However, the deletion of the tweet hasn’t quelled the storm—rather, it has intensified calls for a clearer stance on the organisation’s policies, particularly in light of its inconsistent enforcement of its own rules.
Critics argue that while players like Usman Khawaja face harsh penalties for promoting peace, the ICC’s top official appears to receive a free pass for aligning with national military sentiment, fuelling accusations of a troubling double standard—punishing peace while permitting patriotism when it suits those in power.
In the now-deleted post, Shah, who also serves as Secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), wrote: “Our Armed Forces are our pride, and no words are enough to express their valour and commitment in protecting our motherland and people.”
While the sentiment may have resonated with his home nation, the timing and Shah’s position have raised eyebrows internationally. Critics argue that for someone in Shah’s position, such a statement appears to be a glaring contradiction of the ICC’s supposed neutrality, especially in a time when the political landscape in South Asia is particularly charged.
The backlash was swift, with many highlighting the ICC’s selective enforcement of its own rules. In 2023, Australian cricketer Usman Khawaja was banned from displaying a peace symbol—a dove—on his bat, as it was deemed a political message.
Khawaja’s intention—to promote peace in the Middle East—was arguably a universal and apolitical gesture. Yet, the ICC swiftly intervened, citing its stance on political messaging.
Fast forward to Shah’s endorsement of India’s military, and the contrast becomes impossible to ignore. Is this the same organisation that once scolded Khawaja for supporting peace?
Earlier, Malcolm Conn, an Australian cricket journalist, was among the first to point out the two-facedness, posting on social media.
So @Uz_Khawaja is banned by the @ICC from putting a dove on his bat supporting peace in the Middle East, but @ICC chairman Jay Shah, son of India’s home affairs minister, can openly support the Indian military during conflict. Staggering hypocrisy!!!
His tweet sparked a wider debate, with many questioning whether Shah’s dual roles—as both the leader of the BCCI and the president of the ICC—are contributing to a perception that national interests are beginning to cloud the ICC’s impartiality.
This raises a critical question: can the ICC continue to justify such disparities in how it enforces political neutrality?
In a sport that prides itself on bringing people together across national boundaries, allowing political messages—especially those tied to military conflict—undermines the spirit of the game.
It is clear that the ICC’s stance on political messaging needs to be uniformly applied, irrespective of the individual involved.
The post’s removal was seen by some as a half-hearted attempt to quell the controversy, but it has done little to calm the growing sense that the ICC’s leadership may be increasingly swayed by national agendas. The fact that the organisation has yet to make a clear public statement on the matter only adds to the perception of an institution struggling with internal consistency.
With tensions running high, it is time for the ICC to step up and clarify its standards, not only to preserve the integrity of the game but also to reassure fans and players that cricket remains a space where politics does not overshadow sport. Without clear and decisive action, the ICC risks losing its credibility as a neutral body and, worse, could set a dangerous precedent for other national affiliations creeping into the world of sport.
Though Jay Shah’s tweet may have vanished from social media, the questions surrounding the ICC’s credibility remain. It remains to be seen whether the governing body will act swiftly enough to resolve this controversy before it spirals further out of control.
