A political controversy has erupted around Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan after his Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) signed Bangladeshi fast bowler Mustafizur Rahman for the upcoming 2026 season. Senior BJP leader Sangeet Som has publicly criticised the decision, going so far as to label Shah Rukh a “traitor” and claim the move was against India’s interests, intensifying tensions around the intersection of sports, nationalism and public discourse.
KKR acquired Mustafizur Rahman, a prominent international bowler from Bangladesh, during the IPL auction for a reported ₹9.20 crore. The inclusion of a player from Bangladesh in the prestigious Indian league, traditionally dominated by Indian and other international stars, sparked debate on social media and in political circles. Sangeet Som, a former member of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, criticised the choice sharply, accusing Shah Rukh of prioritising foreign players amid reported reports of violence and persecution against minorities in Bangladesh.
Addressing the media, Som said that signing a player from Bangladesh was a “betrayal” and suggested that Shah Rukh Khan had no right to include such a player in his team. He argued that India’s role as host of the IPL should reflect national interests and sensitivities, particularly given ongoing concerns about treatment of minorities abroad. Som’s comments included the label “traitor,” a serious accusation that quickly drew widespread attention and sparked debate across political and sporting communities.
The criticism did not remain confined to one voice. Leaders from Shiv Sena (UBT) also weighed in, warning that including a player from Bangladesh was unacceptable and calling for opposing voices within India to challenge the decision. Some critics argued that allowing a Bangladeshi player to participate without due consideration could insult nationalist sentiments and raise questions about the IPL’s ethos.
However, not all responses have aligned with this view. Several political figures have condemned the use of the term “traitor” to describe Shah Rukh Khan, calling such rhetoric unnecessary and divisive. Leaders from the Congress party, for instance, defended the actor and IPL’s inclusive practices, highlighting that sports historically serve as a bridge between cultures and nations rather than a venue for political posturing. They argued that opposition to Mustafizur’s participation primarily stems from emotive politics rather than a fair consideration of his sporting credentials.
Beyond purely political reactions, commentators and observers also pointed out that cricket’s global nature has long involved players from various countries competing in domestic leagues worldwide. The IPL has featured many foreign players over the years, and their presence has generally been celebrated for enhancing competitive standards and fostering international camaraderie. Critics of the backlash said that targeting individual players or team owners over nationality undermines the spirit of sport.
Mustafizur Rahman’s selection for KKR follows a trend of IPL teams scouting talent from across cricketing nations. His record as a fast bowler with international experience had made him a valuable pick for franchises seeking depth in bowling attack and strategic advantage in the tournament. Supporters of the decision emphasised that his inclusion was based on cricketing merit and not political affiliation.
As the controversy continues to unfold ahead of the IPL season, it reflects broader tensions in Indian public life where sporting decisions increasingly become entangled with political narratives. The debate highlights how public figures, especially high-profile celebrities like Shah Rukh Khan who straddle entertainment and sports, can become focal points for larger cultural and political disagreements.
At the time of writing, Shah Rukh Khan has not publicly responded to the “traitor” allegations. Meanwhile, the dialogue around the matter underscores how decisions in sports franchises can quickly evolve into national discussions, especially when they intersect with questions of identity, nationalism and international relations.