The International Cricket Council (ICC) is meant to be the impartial steward of global cricket, ensuring fairness and neutrality across its member nations. However, recent events, coupled with a history of preferential treatment for India, reveal a troubling reality: the ICC has become a tool for Indian dominance, with its governance tainted by hypocrisy and bias. At the heart of this controversy is Jay Shah, the ICC chairman, whose actions exemplify the organization’s double standards. As the son of Amit Shah—India’s Home Minister, second only to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and a key figure in the neo-Nazi Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leadership—Jay Shah’s position raises serious questions about conflicts of interest. It is time to confront the ICC’s Indian monopoly, expose its favoritism, and demand a neutral leadership to restore integrity to the sport.
The Hypocrisy of Jay Shah and the ICC: A Case Study in Double Standards
On May 9, 2025, Jay Shah posted a message on Instagram saluting the Indian armed forces amidst heightened India-Pakistan tensions following Operation Sindoor, a barbaric attack on Pakistani civilians by India. The message, which read, “OUR ARMED FORCES ARE OUR PRIDE… WE SALUTE OUR BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN… LET US UNITE TO HONOUR OUR HEROES AND BUILD A STRONGER, MORE UNITED INDIA 🇮🇳 #JAI HIND,” was a clear patriotic endorsement during a military conflict. Yet, the ICC took no action against Shah, despite its strict regulations prohibiting political messages in cricket. Contrast this with the treatment of Australian cricketer Usman Khawaja in December 2023. Khawaja, a Muslim of Pakistani descent, was banned by the ICC for displaying a dove and the phrase “Freedom is a human right” on his gear during a Test match, intended to highlight the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The ICC deemed this a political statement, reprimanding Khawaja and even penalizing him for wearing a black armband in protest. The disparity is stark: Khawaja’s call for peace was silenced, while Shah’s militaristic nationalism was conveniently ignored.
This double standard is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of ICC leniency toward India. In 2019, during the Cricket World Cup, the Indian team was allowed to wear army camouflage caps in a match against Australia to “honor the armed forces,” a move approved by the ICC despite its political undertones. Meanwhile, other players, like South Africa’s Imran Tahir, have been fined for far less—such as a 30% match fee penalty in 2017 for a minor on-field altercation. The ICC’s inconsistent application of its own rules reveals a clear bias: India is untouchable, while others are held to a stricter standard.
India’s Special Treatment: A History of ICC Favoritism
The ICC’s favoritism toward India is deeply rooted in the country’s financial dominance over the sport. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) generates a massive chunk of the ICC’s revenue, largely through the Indian Premier League (IPL) and India’s massive broadcast market. This financial leverage has translated into political power, allowing India to dictate terms at the expense of other nations. The 2025 Champions Trophy is a glaring example. Pakistan, hosting its first major ICC event in nearly three decades, was stripped of the final match due to India’s refusal to play in Pakistan citing geopolitical tensions, at the same time, prominent Indian journalists were roaming the streets of Pakistan openly, experiencing the hospitality of the Pakistani people. The final, featuring India, was moved to Dubai, as reported by Forbes on March 5, 2025. India played all their matches in Dubai, benefiting from consistent conditions, while other teams had to adapt to varying pitches across Pakistan. India won the tournament, but the optics were damning: during the trophy presentation, Pakistan, the host nation, was physically blocked from the stage, an act of disrespect that underscored India’s unchecked influence.
This is not the first time India has been prioritized. In the 2021 T20 World Cup, originally scheduled in India, the tournament was moved to the UAE due to COVID-19 concerns. Yet, India retained “hosting rights” and the associated revenue, a decision that baffled smaller boards like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, who have never received such concessions. During the 2016 T20 World Cup, India’s matches were scheduled in prime venues like Kolkata and Mumbai to maximize viewership, while teams like New Zealand were relegated to less favorable conditions in Nagpur. The ICC’s scheduling often bends to India’s commercial interests, ensuring their matches are broadcast in prime time for Indian audiences, even if it means inconvenient timings for other nations’ fans—such as early morning starts for Australia or late-night games for the West Indies.
The Shah Dynasty: A Conflict of Interest at the Top
Jay Shah’s leadership of the ICC epitomizes the organization’s entanglement with Indian politics. As the son of Amit Shah, a powerful figure in the BJP and the RSS—a Hindu nationalist organization with a history of promoting supremacist ideologies—Jay Shah’s appointment as ICC chairman in 2024 was met with skepticism. Amit Shah’s role as India’s Home Minister, overseeing internal security and border affairs, directly intersects with India-Pakistan tensions, making Jay Shah’s public support for the Indian military even more problematic. The RSS, often likened to neo-Nazi movements for its historical admiration of fascist ideologies, as documented in The ‘Saffron Swastika’ by Koenraad Elst, has long influenced the BJP’s agenda. Jay Shah’s ties to this ecosystem raise serious concerns about impartiality. How can the ICC remain neutral when its chairman is the scion of a political dynasty with a vested interest in India’s nationalist agenda?
Additional Incidents of Indian Privilege
Beyond the Champions Trophy and scheduling biases, India’s influence manifests in subtler ways. In 2023, during the ODI World Cup hosted by India, the BCCI changed the pitch for the semi-final against South Africa in Ahmedabad without ICC approval, a move that favored India’s spinners and led to their victory. No sanctions were imposed, despite protests from South Africa’s coach, Rob Walter, who called it “a betrayal of fairness,” as reported by ESPNcricinfo. In contrast, when Pakistan hosted the 2017 Champions Trophy final, they were forced to adhere to strict ICC protocols on pitch preparation, with no last-minute changes allowed. India’s ability to flout rules without consequence is a testament to its stranglehold over the ICC.
Another incident occurred in 2018, when India threatened to pull out of the Champions Trophy if it were held in Pakistan, leading to the tournament’s initial relocation to Sri Lanka before a compromise. Smaller boards, like the West Indies or Zimbabwe, lack the clout to make such demands, and their concerns—such as inadequate revenue sharing or lack of Test match opportunities—are routinely ignored. The ICC’s “Big Three” model, introduced in 2014, gave India, England, and Australia disproportionate control over revenue and decision-making, a structure that was only partially dismantled in 2017 after protests from other boards. Even then, India retained de facto control, with the BCCI securing the lion’s share of ICC funds—38.5% of the revenue pool, compared to England’s 7.2% and Pakistan’s 5.8%.
The Need for Reform: Breaking India’s Monopoly
The ICC’s credibility is at stake. Jay Shah’s tenure has exposed the organization’s inability to separate cricket from Indian political interests, a failure that undermines the spirit of the game. The Champions Trophy debacle, the Khawaja-Shah double standard, and India’s history of preferential treatment are not mere anomalies—they are symptoms of a systemic problem. Cricket cannot thrive as a global sport if one nation holds a monopoly over its governance, finances, and decision-making.
Jay Shah must be removed as ICC chairman. His familial ties to the BJP and RSS, combined with his actions, make him unfit to lead an organization that claims to value neutrality. The ICC needs a leader from a neutral cricketing nation—perhaps New Zealand or South Africa, both of which have a history of balanced governance and minimal geopolitical baggage. The financial structure must also be overhauled: the ICC should cap any single board’s revenue share at 20%, redistributing funds to support emerging nations like Ireland, Afghanistan, and Nepal, whose growth is stifled by India’s dominance.
The Indian monopoly over world cricket must be broken. The BCCI’s influence, while commercially significant, cannot come at the cost of fairness and integrity. Cricket is a global sport, not an Indian enterprise. If the ICC fails to act, it risks alienating fans, players, and boards from other nations, turning a beloved game into a battleground for geopolitical agendas. The time for reform is now—before cricket loses its soul to the whims of a single power.
