With less than a month to go before the start of the 2026 ICC Men’s T20 World Cup, uncertainty continues over Bangladesh’s group-stage matches scheduled to be played in India. Bangladesh are slated to play four matches in the group stage — three in Kolkata and one in Mumbai — but the Bangladesh Cricket Board has expressed reservations about touring India, citing security concerns.

The issue gained traction following the release of Bangladesh pacer Mustafizur Rahman from his IPL franchise, Kolkata Knight Riders, on the instructions of the BCCI for undisclosed reasons. Subsequently, the Bangladesh Cricket Board approached the International Cricket Council, seeking a shift of its matches to Sri Lanka, one of the tournament’s hosts.

Amid the developments, reports have suggested that Pakistan has offered to host Bangladesh’s matches if they are moved out of India.

Bangladesh government reacts to venue row

Responding to questions on the possibility of shifting matches to another Indian city, Bangladesh government’s Sports Advisor Asif Nazrul made it clear that the concern is with playing in India, not with specific venues.

“We are talking about India, we are not talking about Kolkata. If the venue is changed from India to Sri Lanka, there is no issue,” Nazrul said on Wednesday. He added that he had seen reports claiming Pakistan had offered to host the matches, though he could not verify their authenticity.

“No problem if Pakistan or UAE host our matches,” Nazrul said, signalling openness to alternative venues outside India.

Claims over ICC security assessment

Nazrul also claimed that the Bangladesh Cricket Board had received a communication from the ICC’s security team, outlining scenarios under which the security threat to the Bangladesh team could increase. According to him, the letter mentioned the inclusion of Mustafizur Rahman in the squad, Bangladeshi supporters wearing national jerseys, and the upcoming national elections as potential risk factors.

Based on this, Nazrul asserted that Bangladesh was not in a position to play its World Cup matches in India.

ICC rejects Bangladesh advisor’s claims

The ICC, however, rejected the interpretation presented by the Bangladesh government official. An ICC source clarified that independent security assessments carried out by internationally recognised experts do not conclude that Bangladesh cannot play its scheduled matches in India.

According to the ICC, the overall security risk for the tournament in India has been assessed as low to moderate, consistent with other major global sporting events. The assessment did not identify any specific or direct threat to the Bangladesh team, officials, or match venues in Kolkata and Mumbai, and found no risks that could not be managed through standard security measures.

For now, the fate of Bangladesh’s group-stage matches remains unresolved, with the ICC yet to announce any changes to the existing schedule.

The United States has said that no country is more essential to its global interests than India, with US ambassador-designate Sergio Gor indicating that President Donald Trump may visit India within the next year or two.

Speaking at the US Embassy in New Delhi, Gor highlighted the close personal rapport between Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, describing their relationship as genuine and resilient even in times of disagreement.

India-US ties anchored at the highest level

Gor said the partnership between India and the United States is rooted not only in shared strategic interests but also in strong leadership-level engagement.

He noted that while differences may arise between the two countries, they are resolved through dialogue, reflecting the maturity of the relationship. According to him, India’s scale and global standing make bilateral cooperation both complex and crucial.

Trade talks to resume from January 12

The ambassador-designate confirmed that the next round of India-US trade negotiations will begin on Tuesday, January 12. Acknowledging the challenges involved, Gor said both sides remain committed to reaching an agreement.

Trade, he said, is a vital pillar of bilateral ties, alongside cooperation in areas such as security, counter-terrorism, energy, technology, education and health.

Trump-Modi friendship described as ‘real’

Gor reiterated that he has personally witnessed the bond between Trump and Modi during international engagements, stressing that the friendship goes beyond diplomacy.

Recalling conversations with the US President, he said Trump often speaks positively about his previous India visit and his relationship with the Indian Prime Minister.

Possible Trump visit to India

Indicating a potential presidential visit, Gor said Trump could travel to India in the next one or two years. He described his own appointment as an effort to elevate the bilateral partnership to a new level, calling the India-US relationship a meeting point of the world’s oldest and largest democracies.

India to join Pax Silica alliance

Gor also announced that India will be invited to join the US-led Pax Silica alliance as a full member next month.

The initiative aims to develop a secure, resilient and innovation-driven global silicon supply chain, reinforcing India’s role in strategic technology partnerships.

Veteran Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar has triggered a political controversy after describing Hindutva as “Hinduism in paranoia” during a public debate in Kolkata, prompting a strong rebuttal from leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Aiyar made the remarks at a discussion titled “Hinduism needs protection from Hindutva”, organised by the Calcutta Debating Circle at the Calcutta Club on Sunday. Several political leaders, legal experts, historians and journalists participated in the debate.

Aiyar draws distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva

Speaking at the event, Aiyar argued that Hinduism and Hindutva are fundamentally different, describing Hinduism as a spiritual and civilisational faith, while calling Hindutva a political ideology that emerged in the early 20th century.

“Hindutva is Hinduism in paranoia. It asks 80 per cent Hindus to feel threatened by 14 per cent Muslims,” Aiyar said, adding that Hinduism had survived and flourished for thousands of years without the need for what he described as political protection.

He referred to incidents involving attacks by vigilante groups and criticised actions against individuals over religious practices, beef consumption and participation in Christmas celebrations. Aiyar also cited writings of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, contrasting them with the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda, whom he described as proponents of non-violence and inclusivity.

According to Aiyar, “There is no way Gandhi’s or Vivekananda’s Hinduism can be protected or promoted by Savarkar’s Hindutva.”

BJP leaders push back strongly

Aiyar’s comments drew an immediate response from BJP leaders present at the debate and later from party spokespersons.

BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi questioned the framing of the debate itself, arguing that the term “Hindutva” refers to “Hindu tattva” or the essence of Hindu philosophy. He said that associating Hinduism with the suffix “ism” was misleading and dismissive of India’s indigenous traditions.

“When you cherish Hinduism, it is called Hindutva,” Trivedi said, rejecting the distinction drawn by Aiyar.

BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla accused Aiyar of repeatedly making remarks that, according to him, insult Sanatan Dharma. He claimed that the comments echoed the Congress party’s broader stance on Hindutva.

Poonawalla also referred to past statements by Congress leaders and said that Hindutva has been defined by the Supreme Court as a “way of life.” He accused the party of attempting to portray Hindutva as violent and divisive.

Political debate intensifies

The exchange has added to the ongoing political debate over the relationship between Hinduism and Hindutva, a subject that has remained contentious in Indian politics. While Aiyar defended his views as ideological and historical critique, BJP leaders framed the remarks as an attack on religious identity.