The International Cricket Council (ICC) is facing growing criticism from Pakistani officials and analysts after it issued what they call a “politicized and premature” statement condemning the alleged deaths of three Afghan cricketers in Pakistan’s October 17 counterterrorism strikes in Afghanistan’s Paktika province.

The ICC’s media release, issued just hours after an appeal by the Afghanistan Cricket Board (ACB), stated that it was “deeply saddened and appalled by the tragic deaths of three young and promising Afghan cricketers, Kabeer Agha, Sibghatullah, and Haroon,” and that the global body “strongly condemns this act of violence that has robbed families, communities, and the cricketing world of three bright talents.”

However, Pakistani officials and regional observers say the ICC’s statement, released without independent verification or coordination with Pakistan’s foreign office, reflects “a troubling lapse in neutrality and procedure.”

Pakistan’s Position: Strikes Targeted Militants, Not Civilians

Islamabad maintains that its air operations in Khost and Paktika were intelligence-based counterterrorism strikes targeting the Hafiz Gul Bahadur Group (HGB), a faction of the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which had launched a deadly suicide and gun attack on the Kashif Shaheed Fort (KSF) in Mir Ali, North Waziristan, just hours earlier.

According to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the assault involved a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) followed by a coordinated ground raid. Pakistani forces repelled the attack, killing the assailants. The HGB faction Jaish-e-Fursan Muhammad later claimed responsibility, the same group that claimed the lives of Lieutenant Colonel Kashif and 16 soldiers in a similar raid last year.

Pakistani officials insist the subsequent strikes were limited to confirmed militant compounds. “Pakistan does not target civilians or sports facilities,” a senior foreign affairs official told HTN. “These were precise, intelligence-driven operations aimed at those responsible for the Mir Ali attack.”

At the same time, Pakistani sources said that if any civilians were present near the targeted militant sites, “that would be deeply regrettable,” but stressed that such casualties cannot be confirmed and that responsibility ultimately lies with those who use civilian areas as shields.

The “Cricketers” Narrative and the ICC’s Response

Within hours of the operation, the ACB claimed that three “domestic cricketers” were killed in Urgun, Paktika, and announced Afghanistan’s withdrawal from the upcoming Tri-Nation T20 Series with Pakistan. 

The ICC quickly followed with its statement of condolence, saying it “stands in solidarity with the Afghanistan Cricket Board and echoes their grief.”

In a subsequent post, the ACB thanked the ICC for its “neutrality, compassion, and commitment to fairness.” But Pakistani analysts argue that neutrality was exactly what was missing.

“This is selective morality,” said an Islamabad-based analyst. “The ICC stayed silent when Pakistani cricketers were attacked in Bajaur by TTP-linked terrorists last month, but rushed to condemn Pakistan on the basis of an unverified one-sided claim from Kabul.”

On September 14, an explosion during a local cricket match at the Kausar Lachi Ground in Bajaur killed one player, Fazalullah. The attack, later attributed to TTP-linked militants, drew no statement from the ICC, the ACB, or any international sports body.

“Sporting institutions cannot cherry-pick empathy,” the analyst said. “When terror networks kill Pakistani cricketers, the ICC is silent. When Pakistan kills the terrorists, the ICC grieves for them.”

India’s Influence and the ICC’s Credibility Question

The controversy has also revived scrutiny of the ICC’s internal governance. Its current chair, Jay Shah, is also the secretary of India’s Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the son of Indian Home Minister Amit Shah, a dual role that Pakistani commentators say has blurred the line between cricket and geopolitics.

“This was not a humanitarian statement; it was political messaging,” said a retired Pakistani diplomat. “The ICC’s mechanism requires verification through official channels. Yet in this case, it bypassed all due process. Why the rush? Why not wait for confirmation from neutral observers?”

According to ICC protocols, condolence statements are typically issued only after verification from recognized national boards or international agencies. In this case, the ICC confirmed that its release followed a “direct appeal” from the ACB, not an independent investigation.

That deviation, Pakistani analysts argue, compromises the ICC’s credibility and reinforces the perception that global cricket governance is swayed by Indian influence.

A Pattern of Propaganda and Political Theatre

Islamabad has repeatedly accused the Afghan Taliban regime of hosting TTP militants responsible for attacks on Pakistani soil, including suicide bombings, cross-border raids, and assaults on civilians. It views the “cricketers killed” narrative as a deliberate effort to deflect attention from Kabul’s failure to rein in terrorist groups operating from Afghan territory.

“The same victimhood propaganda tactics were used after United States strikes on Taliban camps back in the days,” stated HTN correspondent covering the development. “Combatants were rebranded as students, athletes or families. It’s a tested formula. Weaponize victimhood to erase culpability.”

The timing has also drawn notice: the ACB’s statement came immediately after Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi’s visit to New Delhi, where he met Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar, prompting speculation of a coordinated narrative between Kabul and Delhi.

Between Sport and Politics

Pakistan has not issued an official response to the ICC statement. However, officials familiar with Islamabad’s position say the development has been “noted with concern,” particularly given that the ICC acted on unverified claims while overlooking documented terrorist attacks against Pakistani civilians and cricketers in recent months.

Officials reaffirmed that Pakistan’s operations were conducted “within the framework of international law and self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.”

Analysts say the episode has reignited debate about whether the ICC can truly remain apolitical. The episode highlights the growing intersection of sport and statecraft, they said.

“If cricket institutions react to unverified propaganda from a regime accused of sheltering militants,” said one senior journalist, “they risk legitimizing disinformation under the guise of compassion.”

While Pakistani officials deny any targeting of civilians, they acknowledge that if any unintended loss of life occurred near militant compounds, it would be “deeply regrettable”, but should not obscure the larger issue of cross-border terrorism launched from Afghan soil.