The Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) remains firm in its stance and is determined to hold that position until the end. Bangladesh does not plan to play any matches of the upcoming T20 World Cup in India. It is understood that the International Cricket Council (ICC) has already proposed discussions with the BCB on the issue, with an online meeting expected to take place sometime today.

Before any ICC tournament, formal agreements are signed between the ICC and participating nations. Under these agreements, if a team later withdraws from a tournament or from part of it, the ICC must be given a valid explanation. The most widely accepted justification is a “government directive.” In the past, India’s refusal to tour Pakistan or Pakistan’s decision not to tour India was based on such grounds, which the ICC accepted. In some cases, matches were relocated to neutral venues. In the current T20 World Cup, for example, Pakistan is set to play its matches in Sri Lanka.

In line with that precedent, the BCB is also opting for what it considers the safest route. While proposing a venue change to the ICC, the board has highlighted security concerns as the primary issue. The Bangladesh government believes that Bangladeshi players, officials, and others involved would not be adequately safe in India. Based on this assessment, the government has advised that the national team should not travel to India for the World Cup and that Bangladesh’s matches should instead be shifted to another country.

The security debate intensified after Indian cricket authorities excluded Mustafizur Rahman from the IPL, a move that followed threats from political and extremist groups. This decision raised wider concerns about whether Bangladesh’s team would be safe while playing World Cup matches in cities such as Kolkata or Mumbai. A World Cup delegation would include players, coaches, officials, journalists, and traveling supporters. If the safety of one player could not be ensured, questions have naturally arisen about the protection of such a large group.

Speaking to reporters, BCB president Aminul Islam said the board does not currently feel safe about traveling to India for the World Cup. He noted that the BCB has clearly communicated its concerns in writing and described the security issue as a major worry. He also termed the decision to drop Mustafizur from the IPL as disrespectful.

To ease BCB’s concerns, sources say the ICC may convey an offer from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to provide state-level security to the Bangladesh team. However, as of yesterday, the BCB was still not inclined to accept that proposal.

A senior BCB official, speaking anonymously, said the board has no room to take an alternative position when there is a government directive in place. He added that the security concern extends beyond players to everyone traveling from Bangladesh for the World Cup, questioning who would ultimately guarantee their safety.

The BCB’s firm stance has placed pressure on both the BCCI and the ICC. As hosts of a global event, ensuring participation and guaranteeing safety fall under their responsibilities. Although the current ICC chairman is Indian, the issue cannot simply be brushed aside. Some Indian media outlets have even reported that the ICC may respond positively to Bangladesh’s request for a venue change.

That said, shifting Bangladesh’s matches to Sri Lanka or another country just one month before the World Cup would be extremely challenging. Such a move would require changes to schedules, broadcast plans, and logistical arrangements. Bangladesh is set to play four group-stage matches, and any rescheduling would also need approval from opposing teams’ boards.

If the ICC ultimately rejects BCB’s proposal and Bangladesh refuses to change its position, tournament rules allow opposing teams to receive walkovers. There is also the possibility of stricter penalties if the ICC is not satisfied with the justification of a government restriction. However, BCB officials remain hopeful that severe action will not be taken, arguing that the security concerns are evident and widely understood.