emirates7 -
-They told us that the meeting had been cancelled and the police were waiting outside to take us to the airport in Mumbai, Najam Sethi told the Khaleej Times
Having served as Pakistan Cricket Board chairman across three different tenures, Najam Sethi knows all too well that what happens beyond the boundaries of a cricket field can sometimes make more noise than a roaring crowd at a packed stadium.
The veteran Pakistani cricket administrator and journalist does not expect a swift resolution between the International Cricket Council (ICC) and the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) after Pakistan’s government decided to boycott the high-profile T20 World Cup match against India on February 15.
Pakistan took the extreme step of skipping cricket’s biggest money-spinner as a mark of protest after Bangladesh were removed from the World Cup for refusing to play their matches in India due to security concerns.
Pakistan argued that the ICC should have moved Bangladesh’s matches to Sri Lanka, the co-host of the 2026 T20 World Cup, by following the same rule book that allowed India to play their matches at the 2025 Champions Trophy in Dubai after the Indian government decided against sending its team to Pakistan, the host nation, for security concerns.
Now, Pakistan have decided to boycott the India match to solidarity with Bangladesh.
Any India-Pakistan contest on the world stage reportedly generates around $400 million.
So will the ICC take action against Pakistan for a bold move that has left broadcasters and advertisers in disarray? Or will the two parties break the impasse before February 15 to clear the decks for the mother of all cricket matches?
In an exclusive interview with Khaleej Times, Sethi said predicting the outcome was as difficult as facing Wasim Akram in full flight.
The 77-year-old also recalled a bizarre incident when Indian cricket board (BCCI) officials refused to meet him in Mumbai despite inviting him for discussions on a bilateral series with Pakistan, leading to a bitter battle between the two cricket boards.
Excerpts:
Q. Everybody is stunned by Pakistan’s bold move. Now Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also made it clear that Pakistan is standing up for Bangladesh …
As far as the statement from the Prime Minister is concerned, I think it’s no different from what Mohsin Naqvi (current PCB chairman) said in the ICC meeting in terms of supporting Bangladesh. As you know, there are only Bangladesh and Pakistan on one side and the others on the other side. So the Prime Minister’s statement is simply a reiteration of what Mohsin Naqvi had said, that it's not right how you are treating Bangladesh. Pakistan have also been at the receiving end of decisions like that which came from the ICC on behalf of BCCI because we all know BCCI really runs international cricket. And often the decisions are overtly or covertly political, and everybody knows this. So now Pakistan and Bangladesh have decided to stand up against what they thought was unfair. I think that's where the matter stands right now. The public opinion in both Bangladesh and Pakistan is that they support this decision, as far as I know. There is also a lot of international comment; I was listening to a lot of former international players from Australia and the UK. And all of them seem to think that the ICC’s position is unreasonable, and so, A this was bound to happen, and B enough is enough.
Q. But as the former chairman of the board, do you still expect a negotiation between ICC and the PCB?
I think there are talks indirectly. I'm not privy to them, but I can sense this that one or two people are playing the role of go-between, for the ICC and Pakistan. From the ICC side, it’s basically the Indians who are close to Jay Shah. I think there is some talk from people, trying to find a mutually acceptable solution. I think there is some urgency on the side of the ICC. I think the Pakistanis say they have made their position clear, and if the ICC take an initiative, they will respond to it. But I think there is an attempt to start talking informally, secret talks, without the media coming into it.
Q. But what will Pakistan do if the team reach the knockout stage and meet India in the semis or the final?
My sense is that Pakistan will play their matches until February 15. Then we have to see if they find a solution which is acceptable, not just to Pakistan but also to Bangladesh. So we have to wait for the 15th of February. As far as the long-term implications are concerned, if Pakistan and India have to play another match in the tournament later, then what will Pakistan do? I don’t think they have thought that far. Everybody is hoping that some sort of solution can be found. If worst comes to worst, logically speaking, there will not be two positions to take. So Pakistan (if they face India in a knockout match) have to take the same position as they have taken (for the February 15 match). They have to forfeit the match, or they have to play the match and argue that they had to take a stance, and they took that for the first match. So they have to make a decision. I really don’t know what they will do.
Q. If Pakistan stick to their position and not play against India, can the ICC take any action on them? We have seen a lot of media speculations already…
These are all speculations; at the end of the day, ICC can do whatever they want. But whatever they do will be challenged. There will be a lot of mud-slinging and confusion. But the interesting thing is, the ICC has suspended the USA cricket board, but their team is playing in this World Cup. So it depends on the nature of the sanction, it depends on the nature of the fine, so many factors. But, of course, anything the ICC does will be challenged. And the challenge will be formidable. A lot of things will come out, and people will be asked to testify. It’s not going to look good. So this must be avoided, and they must find a solution which is good for everybody, including Bangladesh.
Q. In an interview with an Indian newspaper, former ICC CEO Haroon Lorgat says the ICC has now traded independence for money, opening critising the governing body for allowing an unfair advantage to powerful member. It’s a very bold statement from the veteran South African cricket administrator…
I think that's a fair statement. Money is very important. I can tell you this because I have sat in ICC board meetings for five years. So I know how important money is, especially to the smaller countries that barely get enough to survive. The Big Three (India, Australia, England), they end up taking most of it. So money is very important. The broadcasters tend to be Indians, the Indian matches draw more eyeballs, they have such a big population, and the money. So everybody tends to go with India. Nobody has the courage to stand up. I saw that happening. I tried to resist it, but I couldn't get much support from the other boards, which was very sad. Principles and independence are all out of the window when it comes to money.
Q. During your time at the PCB, what was your experience of working with the BCCI? Was there ever any problem because Pakistan had always looked for ways to play bilateral cricket, and India have always refused due to government orders…
I, in fact, signed a contract (with the BCCI) and the two teams were supposed to play a bilateral series in Dubai or Sri Lanka. They (BCCI) also agreed on the fixtures. Everything was fine until the time for the matches came next year, 2015. By that time, I was no longer the chairman of PCB; Shahryar Khan was the chairman, and I was the head of the executive committee. We all went to Bombay (Mumbai) at the invitation of Mr Srinivasan (then BCCI president), they said, ‘Please come, we need to talk about a few things. We said, ‘Sure’. So, we went there. But we were wondering what they wanted to talk about. We thought maybe they wanted to change the dates of the matches. They received us at the airport, we were brought to the hotel, and we were asked to wait for our meeting with the BCCI. We sat in our hotel, waiting to go to the BCCI headquarters, and three hours later, they told us that the meeting had been cancelled and the police were waiting outside to take us back to the airport. Imagine how we felt. When we came back home, we were like the biggest traitors in the minds of the public (in Pakistan), we had been completely discredited, and we had no explanation why the BCCI refused to even give us a cup of tea. They called us there, and then they sent us back.
Q. So the bilateral series never happened. What did you do after that?
We took them to the Court (ICC’s Dispute Review Committee), and they (BCC) said the government told them not to go ahead with the series. So we said, ‘Okay, if that's the case, can you any communication with the government that says that you can't play with Pakistan? We asked for that because initially, Mr Srinivasan had kept the government clause out of the contract (for the bilateral series). So we wanted to know what happened, we needed the evidence. Then they called an ex-foreign minister of India, who gave evidence, but they said in cases such as this, no formal communication takes place. And the judges said, well, if you look at the contract, Pakistan has a very strong case, but if you look at the political side of it, then India has a case. So we lost the case, and we ended up paying a lot of money. So those five years, you have no idea what all things happened — first they would agree to play, then they would say no.
Q. So security was not an issue — it’s just that the Indian government didn’t send their team to play Pakistan even in a third country (UAE or Sri Lanka)?
Yes, we were shocked, and the court agreed with the BCCI. They were like, if the government has said so, full stop, we don’t need any evidence. It was strange because there were no security concerns; we were playing in a third country (UAE or Sri Lanka).
Q. Now it’s the Pakistan government which has decided that the team will not play against India in the World Cup…
Today, Pakistanis are relying on the same judgment, that if the government says no, then no. That’s why if you see the ICC statement which came just a few hours after the Pakistan government announcement on boycotting the India match (on February 15), there are two very interesting clauses, the first clause is that ‘yes we accept the fact that your government has said no, so they accept the fact that when the government said no, it’s no and you can’t challenge it. They had been using that in the past. Then they (ICC) spoke about the consequences before talking about trying to find a mutually beneficial solution. So now will they try to find a mutually beneficial solution?
Q. Despite all these issues that mentioned, the incident in Mumbai, Pakistan had always wanted to play India in the past..
Yes, as I said, despite being treated like that in 2015 (in Mumbai), we still sent our team to India for the 2016 T20 World Cup. I forced the Pakistan government to allow our team to go and play the World Cup in India. I was roundly criticised in Pakistan, and they said that because of that, they (India) will take further advantage of Pakistan. After that, when every other country was prepared to play in Pakistan (in international events), they still didn’t want to come. So that’s when the hybrid model was proposed (India played all their matches in Dubai at the 2025 ICC Champions Trophy despite Pakistan being the host of the tournament). Now for this World Cup, the same hybrid model was accepted for Pakistan as well.
Q. In cases like Bangladesh, which were not given the chance to play in Sri Lanka due to their security concerns in India amid the tension between the two countries, and were replaced by Scotland, other boards, including the Australian and England boards, in the ICC remain silent. But the media in Australia and England is very critical of the ICC decision to remove Bangladesh…
The British media is talking about it a lot now; they are far more critical and open, but of course, their boards remain silent. But people outside of their boards speak up; we have heard several former players talk about it openly. As far as we are concerned, we are standing together with Bangladesh. You know Bangladesh is not a minnow anymore. It’s as good as the Sri Lankan team, if not better. Also, don’t forget we are on the verge of going to the Olympics (2028 LA Games) after years of pressure tactics, negotiations, and the Olympics have finally welcomed cricket. But the Olympics will never tolerate a politicised ICC. They are very conscious of the independence of the sports bodies. So I think this is a bad time for the ICC to be taking such positions when cricket is on the verge of going to the Olympics.
-They told us that the meeting had been cancelled and the police were waiting outside to take us to the airport in Mumbai, Najam Sethi told the Khaleej Times
Having served as Pakistan Cricket Board chairman across three different tenures, Najam Sethi knows all too well that what happens beyond the boundaries of a cricket field can sometimes make more noise than a roaring crowd at a packed stadium.
The veteran Pakistani cricket administrator and journalist does not expect a swift resolution between the International Cricket Council (ICC) and the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) after Pakistan’s government decided to boycott the high-profile T20 World Cup match against India on February 15.
Pakistan took the extreme step of skipping cricket’s biggest money-spinner as a mark of protest after Bangladesh were removed from the World Cup for refusing to play their matches in India due to security concerns.
Pakistan argued that the ICC should have moved Bangladesh’s matches to Sri Lanka, the co-host of the 2026 T20 World Cup, by following the same rule book that allowed India to play their matches at the 2025 Champions Trophy in Dubai after the Indian government decided against sending its team to Pakistan, the host nation, for security concerns.
Now, Pakistan have decided to boycott the India match to solidarity with Bangladesh.
Any India-Pakistan contest on the world stage reportedly generates around $400 million.
So will the ICC take action against Pakistan for a bold move that has left broadcasters and advertisers in disarray? Or will the two parties break the impasse before February 15 to clear the decks for the mother of all cricket matches?
In an exclusive interview with Khaleej Times, Sethi said predicting the outcome was as difficult as facing Wasim Akram in full flight.
The 77-year-old also recalled a bizarre incident when Indian cricket board (BCCI) officials refused to meet him in Mumbai despite inviting him for discussions on a bilateral series with Pakistan, leading to a bitter battle between the two cricket boards.
Excerpts:
Q. Everybody is stunned by Pakistan’s bold move. Now Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also made it clear that Pakistan is standing up for Bangladesh …
As far as the statement from the Prime Minister is concerned, I think it’s no different from what Mohsin Naqvi (current PCB chairman) said in the ICC meeting in terms of supporting Bangladesh. As you know, there are only Bangladesh and Pakistan on one side and the others on the other side. So the Prime Minister’s statement is simply a reiteration of what Mohsin Naqvi had said, that it's not right how you are treating Bangladesh. Pakistan have also been at the receiving end of decisions like that which came from the ICC on behalf of BCCI because we all know BCCI really runs international cricket. And often the decisions are overtly or covertly political, and everybody knows this. So now Pakistan and Bangladesh have decided to stand up against what they thought was unfair. I think that's where the matter stands right now. The public opinion in both Bangladesh and Pakistan is that they support this decision, as far as I know. There is also a lot of international comment; I was listening to a lot of former international players from Australia and the UK. And all of them seem to think that the ICC’s position is unreasonable, and so, A this was bound to happen, and B enough is enough.
Q. But as the former chairman of the board, do you still expect a negotiation between ICC and the PCB?
I think there are talks indirectly. I'm not privy to them, but I can sense this that one or two people are playing the role of go-between, for the ICC and Pakistan. From the ICC side, it’s basically the Indians who are close to Jay Shah. I think there is some talk from people, trying to find a mutually acceptable solution. I think there is some urgency on the side of the ICC. I think the Pakistanis say they have made their position clear, and if the ICC take an initiative, they will respond to it. But I think there is an attempt to start talking informally, secret talks, without the media coming into it.
Q. But what will Pakistan do if the team reach the knockout stage and meet India in the semis or the final?
My sense is that Pakistan will play their matches until February 15. Then we have to see if they find a solution which is acceptable, not just to Pakistan but also to Bangladesh. So we have to wait for the 15th of February. As far as the long-term implications are concerned, if Pakistan and India have to play another match in the tournament later, then what will Pakistan do? I don’t think they have thought that far. Everybody is hoping that some sort of solution can be found. If worst comes to worst, logically speaking, there will not be two positions to take. So Pakistan (if they face India in a knockout match) have to take the same position as they have taken (for the February 15 match). They have to forfeit the match, or they have to play the match and argue that they had to take a stance, and they took that for the first match. So they have to make a decision. I really don’t know what they will do.
Q. If Pakistan stick to their position and not play against India, can the ICC take any action on them? We have seen a lot of media speculations already…
These are all speculations; at the end of the day, ICC can do whatever they want. But whatever they do will be challenged. There will be a lot of mud-slinging and confusion. But the interesting thing is, the ICC has suspended the USA cricket board, but their team is playing in this World Cup. So it depends on the nature of the sanction, it depends on the nature of the fine, so many factors. But, of course, anything the ICC does will be challenged. And the challenge will be formidable. A lot of things will come out, and people will be asked to testify. It’s not going to look good. So this must be avoided, and they must find a solution which is good for everybody, including Bangladesh.
Q. In an interview with an Indian newspaper, former ICC CEO Haroon Lorgat says the ICC has now traded independence for money, opening critising the governing body for allowing an unfair advantage to powerful member. It’s a very bold statement from the veteran South African cricket administrator…
I think that's a fair statement. Money is very important. I can tell you this because I have sat in ICC board meetings for five years. So I know how important money is, especially to the smaller countries that barely get enough to survive. The Big Three (India, Australia, England), they end up taking most of it. So money is very important. The broadcasters tend to be Indians, the Indian matches draw more eyeballs, they have such a big population, and the money. So everybody tends to go with India. Nobody has the courage to stand up. I saw that happening. I tried to resist it, but I couldn't get much support from the other boards, which was very sad. Principles and independence are all out of the window when it comes to money.
Q. During your time at the PCB, what was your experience of working with the BCCI? Was there ever any problem because Pakistan had always looked for ways to play bilateral cricket, and India have always refused due to government orders…
I, in fact, signed a contract (with the BCCI) and the two teams were supposed to play a bilateral series in Dubai or Sri Lanka. They (BCCI) also agreed on the fixtures. Everything was fine until the time for the matches came next year, 2015. By that time, I was no longer the chairman of PCB; Shahryar Khan was the chairman, and I was the head of the executive committee. We all went to Bombay (Mumbai) at the invitation of Mr Srinivasan (then BCCI president), they said, ‘Please come, we need to talk about a few things. We said, ‘Sure’. So, we went there. But we were wondering what they wanted to talk about. We thought maybe they wanted to change the dates of the matches. They received us at the airport, we were brought to the hotel, and we were asked to wait for our meeting with the BCCI. We sat in our hotel, waiting to go to the BCCI headquarters, and three hours later, they told us that the meeting had been cancelled and the police were waiting outside to take us back to the airport. Imagine how we felt. When we came back home, we were like the biggest traitors in the minds of the public (in Pakistan), we had been completely discredited, and we had no explanation why the BCCI refused to even give us a cup of tea. They called us there, and then they sent us back.
Q. So the bilateral series never happened. What did you do after that?
We took them to the Court (ICC’s Dispute Review Committee), and they (BCC) said the government told them not to go ahead with the series. So we said, ‘Okay, if that's the case, can you any communication with the government that says that you can't play with Pakistan? We asked for that because initially, Mr Srinivasan had kept the government clause out of the contract (for the bilateral series). So we wanted to know what happened, we needed the evidence. Then they called an ex-foreign minister of India, who gave evidence, but they said in cases such as this, no formal communication takes place. And the judges said, well, if you look at the contract, Pakistan has a very strong case, but if you look at the political side of it, then India has a case. So we lost the case, and we ended up paying a lot of money. So those five years, you have no idea what all things happened — first they would agree to play, then they would say no.
Q. So security was not an issue — it’s just that the Indian government didn’t send their team to play Pakistan even in a third country (UAE or Sri Lanka)?
Yes, we were shocked, and the court agreed with the BCCI. They were like, if the government has said so, full stop, we don’t need any evidence. It was strange because there were no security concerns; we were playing in a third country (UAE or Sri Lanka).
Q. Now it’s the Pakistan government which has decided that the team will not play against India in the World Cup…
Today, Pakistanis are relying on the same judgment, that if the government says no, then no. That’s why if you see the ICC statement which came just a few hours after the Pakistan government announcement on boycotting the India match (on February 15), there are two very interesting clauses, the first clause is that ‘yes we accept the fact that your government has said no, so they accept the fact that when the government said no, it’s no and you can’t challenge it. They had been using that in the past. Then they (ICC) spoke about the consequences before talking about trying to find a mutually beneficial solution. So now will they try to find a mutually beneficial solution?
Q. Despite all these issues that mentioned, the incident in Mumbai, Pakistan had always wanted to play India in the past..
Yes, as I said, despite being treated like that in 2015 (in Mumbai), we still sent our team to India for the 2016 T20 World Cup. I forced the Pakistan government to allow our team to go and play the World Cup in India. I was roundly criticised in Pakistan, and they said that because of that, they (India) will take further advantage of Pakistan. After that, when every other country was prepared to play in Pakistan (in international events), they still didn’t want to come. So that’s when the hybrid model was proposed (India played all their matches in Dubai at the 2025 ICC Champions Trophy despite Pakistan being the host of the tournament). Now for this World Cup, the same hybrid model was accepted for Pakistan as well.
Q. In cases like Bangladesh, which were not given the chance to play in Sri Lanka due to their security concerns in India amid the tension between the two countries, and were replaced by Scotland, other boards, including the Australian and England boards, in the ICC remain silent. But the media in Australia and England is very critical of the ICC decision to remove Bangladesh…
The British media is talking about it a lot now; they are far more critical and open, but of course, their boards remain silent. But people outside of their boards speak up; we have heard several former players talk about it openly. As far as we are concerned, we are standing together with Bangladesh. You know Bangladesh is not a minnow anymore. It’s as good as the Sri Lankan team, if not better. Also, don’t forget we are on the verge of going to the Olympics (2028 LA Games) after years of pressure tactics, negotiations, and the Olympics have finally welcomed cricket. But the Olympics will never tolerate a politicised ICC. They are very conscious of the independence of the sports bodies. So I think this is a bad time for the ICC to be taking such positions when cricket is on the verge of going to the Olympics.
الرجاء الانتظار ...