The International Cricket Council (ICC) is coming under increased scrutiny over what is labelled by many as outright inconsistency in how it handles political expression during sport. The scandal has been rekindled following a stark contrast between how Australian cricketer Usman Khawaja was treated and the move by ICC Chairman Jay Shah.

In December 2023, Pakistani-Australian top-order batter Usman Khawaja, who is a practising Muslim, attempted to make a strong yet understated gesture of peace before Australia's Test tour of Pakistan. He was going to wear boots bearing the slogans "Freedom is a human right" and "All lives are equal", as well as a symbol of a dove. The action was broadly interpreted as an appeal for peace and human rights during the escalating humanitarian situation in the Middle East.

Critics Question ICC's Different Rules for Khawaja and Shah

Still, the ICC held that the message was a political one and banned Khawaja from continuing. Complying, Khawaja avoided using the equipment and instead wore a black armband during the game as a quiet protest. Even so, he was chastised, with the ICC clarifying its stern policy against "personal messages" on playing materials.

Fast forward to 2025, and there is a fresh row taking centre stage. The ICC Chairman and secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Jay Shah, in public, endorsed the Indian armed forces during recent tensions at the border with Pakistan. In an Instagram post, later deleted, Shah posted: "Our Defence Forces are our pride, and no words can describe their valour and dedication towards safeguarding our motherland and citizens… Let us come together to salute our heroes and create a united, stronger India."

ALSO SEE: WATCH: Rohit Sharma's epic reply after Ravi Shastri challenges him to hit six in his stand

Shah's appeal was widely seen as a nationalistic show of support in the wake of geopolitical tension, the very kind of sentiment the ICC alleges to prohibit on the field of cricket. The seeming double standard has not passed unpunished. Respected Australian cricket writer Malcolm Conn was at the forefront of the outrage, calling out the ICC for what he described as "staggering hypocrisy." He went to X (formerly Twitter), saying: "So Usman Khawaja is banned by the ICC from placing a dove on his bat in favour of peace in the Middle East, but ICC chairman Jay Shah, the son of India's home affairs minister, can freely endorse the Indian army during war. Staggering hypocrisy."

The remark set off a storm of responses from fans, journalists, and past players, who mostly shared the opinion that the enforcement of the ICC's code seems selective and possibly guided by political or institutional prejudices.

Calls Mount for ICC to Explain Rules in the Wake of Credibility Questions

The ICC is yet to make any public response to the criticism or clarify its stance on Shah's social media post. Critics, meanwhile, say that Khawaja's message had been apolitical and humanitarian, whereas Shah's post was politically and nationally charged, highlighting the inconsistency in ICC's regulatory policy. Fueling the flames is the political pedigree of Shah.

Being the son of India's Home Minister Amit Shah and a key figure in Indian cricket administration, conflict of interest, influence, and impartiality are being questioned at the top level of world cricket administration. While supporters and pundits now urge the ICC to state plainly where it stands regarding political messaging and enforce those standards equally without regard to nationality, religion, or position, for now, the optics of this have left many questioning the ICC's credibility as a neutral global authority.