When Hatred Meets a Global Game and Shah Rukh Khan

In India, outrage is rarely accidental. It is curated, directed, and often selective. Few episodes reveal this more clearly than the moment Shah Rukh Khan, Juhi Chawla, and Jay Mehta, through Kolkata Knight Riders, chose to buy a Bangladeshi cricketer—and found themselves standing not on a cricket field, but in a dock of moral accusation. The act itself was unremarkable. The response was not.

Before any IPL franchise can buy a foreign player, one institution must first open the gate: the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The BCCI—not franchise owners—decides which countries’ players may register for the auction, how many overseas players can be signed and whether geopolitical conditions warrant exclusion. Bangladeshi players are not banned from the IPL. They have been eligible, registered, and auctioned across multiple seasons, subject to availability and board clearances. In most IPL auctions, between two and five Bangladeshi cricketers register. Some years, none are sold. Some years, one is picked. Many go unsold—not due to nationality, but due to team combinations, form, and the four-overseas-player limit. This is not an exception. It is how the IPL market works. So, when KKR exercised an option that the BCCI itself permitted, the outrage was not institutional—it was personal. And it was directed squarely at Shah Rukh Khan.

The Energy That Never Provokes Outrage

What makes the episode revealing is not what was said about cricket—but what was not said about commerce. In 2025, India exported over USD 11.4 billion worth of goods to Bangladesh.Alongside petroleum, cotton, machinery, and chemicals sits a quieter but critical link: electricity. Indian power producers—most prominently the Adani Group—supply hundreds of megawatts of electricity to Bangladesh through cross-border transmission lines. These are long-term, contract-based, government-approved energy exports that keep Bangladeshi cities lit, support Bangladeshi industry, generate steady revenue for Indian power companies, and strengthen India’s regional energy influence This electricity is not symbolic. It is structural. It flows every day, not during auctions. No one questions the nationality of electrons. No hashtags demand boycotts of megawatts. No one asks whether selling power across the border weakens sovereignty. Because trade—especially when driven by large corporate houses—is allowed to remain rational.

Why Cricket Becomes a Moral Test

Cricket, however, is emotional. And emotion is easily redirected. The IPL itself is one of India’s most successful global exports and broadcast to over 100 countries, generating billions in revenue, and employing thousands directly and indirectly Foreign players—Australian, English, South African, Afghan, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi—are not liabilities. They are assets in a league whose value lies in its global credibility. A Bangladeshi cricketer playing for an Indian franchise does not weaken India.He strengthens a system that pays Indian taxes, fills Indian stadiums, and builds India’s sporting brand. Yet outrage appears when the face of ownership is Shah Rukh Khan.

The Real Reason Shah Rukh Khan Is Singled Out

Shah Rukh Khan is not targeted because of cricketing decisions. He is targeted because he is visible, Muslim, and symbolic. Others make similar decisions quietly. He is expected to explain his. No one demands ideological loyalty tests from power exporters lighting Bangladeshi grids, textile firms feeding Bangladeshi garment factories, and oil companies fueling Bangladeshi transport But a film star who owns a cricket team is asked to justify a purchase worth a fraction of a single day’s electricity export. This is not nationalism. It is selective suspicion.

Numbers That Refuse to Cooperate With the Hatred

• India–Bangladesh trade (2025): ~USD 11.4 billion

• Private sector share: Over 90%

• Indian electricity exported to Bangladesh: Hundreds of megawatts daily

• Bangladeshi players typically registered per IPL auction: 2–5

• Bangladeshi players actually sold: Often 0–1, depending on the year

If economic interdependence at this scale does not threaten national interest, then neither does a cricket contract. The inconvenient truth is that the same system allows Adani to sell electricity to Bangladesh, allows Indian firms to dominate Bangladeshi imports, and allows the BCCI to approve Bangladeshi players, suddenly declared suspect when a Muslim owner signs a Muslim-majority country’s player. The contradiction is too precise to ignore.

Cricket, like trade, has its own logic. It rewards skill, fitness, timing, and teamwork. It does not recognize communal boundaries—only scorecards. The economy will keep moving.Electricity will keep flowing. Auctions will keep happening. And history will note that when a routine sporting decision was turned into a loyalty test, it revealed not a flaw in the game—but a fragility in the discourse around it. Because nations that trade freely but police symbolism selectively are not protecting sovereignty. They are exposing insecurity.