The Pakistan Cricket Board has written to the International Cricket Council calling for action to be taken after India’s players wore military-style camouflage caps in Friday’s third one-day international against Australia in Ranchi.
India say they wore the caps in tribute to the country’s armed forces in the wake of the killing of at least 40 paramilitaries in Indian-administered Kashmir on 14 February, in a suicide attack which has been claimed by Pakistan-based terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammad.
The India players also donated their match fees for the game – which Australia won by 32 runs – to the families of those killed.
But PCB chairman Essan Mani said he has written to the ICC to protest against the caps, saying India had “tried to use cricket for politics”.
Another letter was expected to be sent within hours, Mani said.
“We have made our point very strongly to the ICC which now has no doubts or confusion about our intention or stance now on this matter,” he told reporters.
“Their [India] credibility in the cricketing world has gone down very badly,” he added.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) approached the ICC before the game about the use of the military caps, and the ICC confirmed to website ESPNcricinfo that permission had been granted as it was part of a charity fundraising effort.
Last month, the BCCI asked the ICC to “sever ties with countries from which terrorism emanates” in the wake of the attack in Kashmir.
But Mani pointed out two recent examples of players who had been disciplined by the ICC for political statements – England all-rounder Moeen Ali, who wore wristbands with the slogans “Save Gaza” and “Free Palestine” during a Test against India in 2014, and South Africa spinner Imran Tahir,who displayed a T-shirt of religious preacher Junaid Jamshed after taking a wicket against Sri Lanka in 2017.
“You have two examples from the past already, where both Imran Tahir and Moeen Ali were sanctioned for something similar,” Mani said.
“The ICC had taken strong action against them and we have sought similar action against India. The permission they took was for a different purpose but they acted differently.”