Connect with us

Latest News

How a star-studded Kashmir cricket league bombed as organisers fled

Published

on

People play cricket in the foothills of the Zabarwan mountain range on the outskirts of Srinagar [File: Aljazeera]

Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir – Aasif Manzoor, a 32-year-old cricketer from Anantnag, a district in the south of Indian-administered Kashmir, was readying himself on Saturday morning to play a match in a star-studded tournament.

Retired global stars, local cricket icons and up-and-coming players were all part of the Indian Heaven Premier League (IHPL), which organisers had billed as a spectacle that they promised would grip the troubled region and draw large crowds.

Instead, Manzoor found himself huddled with his teammates in the corridors of the Radisson, a five-star hotel overlooking the Jhelum River in Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir’s biggest city, which was hosting the series.

Their hotel bookings had been arranged by the Yuva Society, a private group based in India’s northern state of Punjab, which had also organised the tournament. “The staff was refusing to let us check out,” Manzoor told Al Jazeera.

The reason? The organisers had vanished the night before, allegedly after running out of money midway through the tournament.

As the hotel bills mounted and ran into millions of rupees, dozens of players like Manzoor found themselves trapped. Scoring runs and taking wickets wasn’t on their minds any more. Getting out of the hotel was.

They eventually were able to leave, but the rest of the tournament was scrapped.

The embarrassing debacle has raised questions about the event’s planning and the role of the region’s administrators. But to many, the episode is also the latest example of the pitfalls of attempts by the Indian government and corporate entities backed by it to portray a sense of “normalcy” in Kashmir, six years after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government scrapped the region’s semi autonomous special status.

“It was a shocking experience for us,” Manzoor said.

West Indies' Chris Gayle gestures during the Cricket Twenty20 World Cup match between Australia and the West Indies in Abu Dhabi, UAE, Saturday, Nov. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/Kamran Jebreili)
Former West Indies cricket star Chris Gayle was one of the big draws of the Kashmir league before it collapsed [Aljazeera]

The fortnight-long cricket tournament kicked off on October 25 in chilly Srinagar as winter set in. The competition had eight teams, including 32 former international cricketers, with the bulk of the rest of the players from Kashmir.

Major global stars included former West Indies champion batsman Chris Gayle, ex-Sri Lankan all-rounder Thisara Perera, New Zealand batsman Jesse Ryder, South African Richard Levi and Omani player Ayab Khan.

“For the first time, we will have international cricket superstars like Chris Gayle playing for a local Kashmiri team,” Nuzhat Gul, who heads the Jammu and Kashmir Sports Council, said at the beginning of the tournament.

“The motive for organising such tournaments was to engage the young positively,” she said, adding that the government had offered infrastructure, publicity and logistical assistance to the organisers.

The tournament was supposed to conclude on Friday [8th November 2025].

But officials who spoke to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity said the event ran into “sponsorship difficulties”. In other words, sponsors didn’t pay up as they had promised to. That challenge was amplified once it became clear that only a trickle of local Kashmiris was coming to watch the matches at the Bakshi Stadium, a sprawling sports facility in the middle of Srinagar.

Things came to a head when the organisers packed up and left in the middle of the night last Friday, leaving players haggling with hotels over unpaid room rents.

Trapped at the Radisson, Manzoor said he tried calling the organisers. But no one picked up or returned his calls.

“It took a while to understand what was going on.”

Eventually, Manzoor said, a senior member from the English Cricket Board, Melissa Juniper, who was also in Srinagar for the event, rang up the British high commission in New Delhi, whose officials spoke to the hotel staff.

“They worked out something, and the players were allowed to check out, including myself,” he added. Juniper, he said, stayed back at the hotel while British officials figured out how to clear the dues.

The British high commission did not return queries from Al Jazeera on its reported mediation with the hotel staff in Srinagar on behalf of the players. But on Wednesday, Mushtaq Chaya, owner of the Radisson in Srinagar, told reporters that the organisers had defaulted on payments of more than 5 million rupees ($57,531).

Meanwhile, FanCode, a cricket streaming app, has since Saturday listed the remaining matches of the competition as “abandoned”.

Cricket in Kashmir
Kashmiri men play cricket on the outskirts of Srinagar in Indian-administered Kashmir [File: Aljazeera]

According to Manzoor, players had started realising that there was something wrong with the event even before the organisers packed up and left.

“Local players were demanding that the organisers must first sign a contract with them before they can proceed to play. They were assuring us that it would happen. But it did not,” Manzoor said. “Then suddenly, they left without anyone knowing about it. We did not expect it to end this way.”

Kashmiri authorities are now facing mounting questions from locals: How was the event given a go-ahead without background checks on the organisers? And did the tournament go through the rigorous scrutiny any event in Kashmir is usually subject to in a region known for sweeping restrictions and surveillance?

Police in Kashmir have announced an investigation as regional sports authorities — including Gul of the Jammu and Kashmir Sports Council — are now distancing themselves from the organisers.

“If they did this, the law would take its own course,” said Satish Sharma, the minister for youth services and sports in Kashmir. “An inquiry has started, and action will follow. Police have taken up the case.”

Al Jazeera tried to reach the Yuva Society but has not received any response. Meanwhile, the organisation’s website appears to be down since the debacle. Details about the organisers are no longer available on the portal.

All it still has is a single message flashing on the screen: “Get ready, something cool is coming!”

India's Parvez Rasool, center, celebrates with his teammates the wicket of Bangladesh’s captain Mushfiqur Rahim during their first one-day International cricket match in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Sunday, June 15, 2014. (AP Photo/A.M. Ahad)
Parvez Rasool, centre without cap, was the first Kashmiri cricketer to make it onto the Indian national team [File: Aljazeera]

For a while, it did seem like something “cool” could be coming to Kashmir.

Social media visuals for the event show Gayle, who was one of international cricket’s biggest draws for two decades, taking heavy steps on the damp turf in the Srinagar stadium as his hair swung under a black bandana tied around his forehead.

In most shots, the seats around the venue during matches were sparsely occupied. But in one scene, a small crowd of young fans is jumping with jubilation as heavily armed members of the Indian paramilitary forces surround them.

“There was a lot of anticipation for this tournament,” Parvez Rasool, arguably Kashmir’s best-known cricketer, told Al Jazeera. “That local Kashmiri cricketers would share the same dressing room as these megastars was a major thing in itself.”

Rasool was also to play in the tournament. He rose to stardom in 2013 after briefly playing for the Indian cricket team – the first Kashmiri to do so. His inclusion in the national team was lauded by the Indian media and politicians as an example of the “mainstreaming” of Kashmiris at a time when the region was in turmoil after a crackdown on protesters. Since the late 1980s, Kashmir has been in the throes of an armed rebellion with separatists seeking independence from India.

Rasool said his payments have not been settled by organisers so far. “The people who approached me to take part are big names in Indian cricket, so I consented,” he said, without naming the individuals he was referring to.

“I don’t agree with the allegations that the event was organised in bad faith, but it seems that it may not have been properly planned. The sponsors have reportedly failed to turn up, and the audience wasn’t even 5 percent of what was expected,” he added.

Kashmiris harvest apples at an orchard on the outskirts of Srinagar, Indian controlled Kashmir, Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2020. Kashmir's apple orchards, that provides a livelihood for nearly half the region's 8 million people, has suffered losses because of the coronavirus pandemic. (AP Photo/ Dar Yasin)
The Indian Heaven Premier League coincided with Kashmir’s apple harvest, which is why most locals couldn’t come to the cricket, some analysts say [File:Aljazeera]

Another Kashmiri cricketer who was part of the trials before the main tournament was held, said a lot of his peers were already disappointed with the league because of the absence of any formal contracts or payments.

“They took a fee of $14 from bowlers and batsmen and of $20 from all-rounders who took part in the trials,” the 24-year-old said on condition of anonymity because he feared repercussions for his comments.

“Everything seemed suspicious from the very beginning. Thisara Perera, the Sri Lankan star, played with us. It was embarrassing that even his uniform wasn’t tailored to his size. The size of his sportswear was 46 inches, but they offered him 42,” the Kashmiri player said, chuckling.

While some sports enthusiasts in Kashmir said it was the comparatively high price of the tickets at $4 each that kept spectators away, others blamed the timing of the event, which coincided with the annual apple harvest. As a result, many locals were busy tending to their orchards. Apples provide a livelihood for nearly half the region’s eight million people.

“Some matches lasted from 10am until 5 in the evening,” said a video journalist who filmed the tournament for his Instagram page. He spoke on condition of anonymity. “Obviously, who would turn up in the middle of the harvest?”

But to some analysts, the tournament’s collapse is also emblematic of the attempts by Modi’s government and local authorities to portray a sense of normalcy in Kashmir.

Critics argued that such state-backed events aim to depoliticise Kashmir’s realities even as surveillance tightens, dissent is curbed and political representation remains suspended.

In 2019, Modi’s government annulled Kashmir’s special status and downgraded the region into a federally controlled territory during a crackdown on journalists, human rights campaigners and opposition politicians.

Omar Abdullah, who returned as Kashmir’s chief minister during last year’s polls, has been pleading in vain with New Delhi to reinstate Kashmir’s pre-2019 powers.

Apoorvanand, a Hindi professor at the University of Delhi who writes literary and cultural criticism, told Al Jazeera that the cricket tournament fit a broader pattern.

“It’s been a part of Modi’s political repertoire right from 2014 to organise these celebrations to give an appearance of cheerfulness so that his critics don’t question him,” Apoorvanand, who goes by a single name, said, referring to the year Modi became India’s prime minister.

Similar events held in Kashmir in the past have come under criticism, such as last month when a popular New Delhi-headquartered television news channel organised a concert featuring popular Indian performer Sonu Nigam.

The concert was boycotted by many Kashmiris, citing the performer’s past tweets in which he had criticised the practice of loudspeakers being used for the Islamic call to prayer.

“The principal addressees of these events are Modi’s voters across what is known as the country’s Hindi-speaking belt. The message that his administration wants to telegraph is that everything is hunky-dory in the Kashmir Valley,” Apoorvanand said.

“It is to give them a sense of ownership over the region.”

Kashmiri researchers who have been observing the conflict for decades said that while large events such as the cricket competition are by themselves harmless, any effort to use them to send broader messages about the current state of Kashmir is problematic.

“If these events are meant to suggest Kashmir is ‘normal’, then what better way to demonstrate [that] than withdrawing the military forces, the draconian laws and the suppression of dissent?” said Mohamad Junaid, an associate professor of anthropology at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts in the United States.

If the Modi government “wants the world to see ‘normalcy’,” he said, “India could begin by releasing thousands of Kashmiri political prisoners from jails.”

[Aljazeera]



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest News

Ranaweera’s four-for leads Sri Lanka to tense win over West Indies

Published

on

By

Inoka Ranaweera returned figures of 4 for 44 [Cricinfo]

Sri Lanka took a 1-0 lead in the ODI series with a tense ten-run win over West Indies, thanks largely to a match-defining performance from Inoka Ranaweera.

After being asked to bat, Sri Lanka posted 240 for 6, built on half-centuries from Hasini Perera (61 off 86) and Harshitha Samarawickrema (66 off 105). Captain Chamari Athapaththu made 27, while useful middle-order contributions from Nilakshika Silva and Kavisha Dilhari kept the innings moving at a controlled rate. A late cameo from Dewmi Vihanga, who struck 14 off six balls, ensured Sri Lanka pushed towards a competitive total in St George’s in Grenada.

But it was Ranaweera who tilted the contest. The experienced left-arm spinner returned figures of 4 for 44 from her ten overs. She removed the No. 3 Shemaine Campbelle cheaply, dismissed Chinelle Henry soon after, and then returned to break the dangerous stand of 89 between Stefanie Taylor and Jannillea Glasgow in the 40th over, just as West Indies were threatening to surge ahead. Ranaweera also accounted for Shawnisha Hector at the death.

Taylor’s 66 off 83 balls and Glasgow’s 50 off 67 had revived West Indies from early setbacks, and with Aaliyah Alleyne in the middle, the chase remained alive deep into the game. West Indies needed 18 from the last two overs, and 12 from the last six balls. However, Sri Lanka’s spinners held firm, with Dilhari finishing with three wickets, including two in the final over, to complement Ranaweera’s starring role.

West Indies were eventually bowled out for 230 in 49.4 overs. Sri Lanka have now won four of their last five ODIs against West Indies since 2017.

Brief scores:
Sri Lanka Women 240 for 6 in 50 overs (Harshitha Samarawickrama 66, Hasini Perera 61; Hayley Matthews 2-46, Karishma Ramharak 2-57) beat West Indies Women 230 in 49.4 overs (Stefanie Taylor 66, Jannillea Glasgow 50; Inoka  Ranaweera 4-44, Kavish Dilhari 3-49) by ten runs

[Cricinfo]

Continue Reading

Latest News

Trump brings in new 10% tariff as Supreme Court rejects his global import taxes

Published

on

By

US President Donald Trump has imposed a new 10% global tariff to replace ones struck down by the Supreme Court, calling the ruling “terrible” and lambasting the justices who rejected his trade policy as “fools”.

The president unveiled the plan shortly after the justices outlawed most of the global tariffs the White House announced last year.

In a 6-3 decision, the court held that the president had overstepped his powers.

The decision was a major victory for businesses and US states that had challenged the duties, opening the door to potentially billions of dollars in tariff refunds, while also injecting new uncertainty into the global trade landscape.

Speaking from the White House on Friday, Trump indicated that refunds would not come without a legal battle, saying he expected the matter to be tied up in court for years.

He also said he would turn to other laws to press ahead with his tariffs, which he has argued encourage investment and manufacturing in the US.

“We have alternatives – great alternatives and we’ll be a lot stronger for it,” he said.

The court battle was focused on import taxes that Trump unveiled last year on goods from nearly every country in the world.

The tariffs initially targeted Mexico, Canada and China, before expanding dramatically to dozens of trade partners on what the president billed as “Liberation Day” last April.

The White House had cited a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president power to “regulate” trade in response to an emergency.

But the measures sparked outcry at home and abroad from firms facing an abrupt rise in taxes on shipments entering the US, and fuelled worries that the levies would lead to higher prices.

Arguing before the court last year, lawyers for the challenging states and small businesses said that the law used by the president to impose the levies made no mention of the word “tariffs”.

They said that Congress did not intend to hand off its power to tax or give the president an “open-ended power to junk” other existing trade deals and tariff rules.

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, sided with that view.

“When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms and subject to strict limits,” he wrote.

“Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”

The decision to strike down the tariffs was joined by the court’s three liberal justices, as well as two justices nominated by Trump: Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch.

Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, dissented.

At the White House, Trump said he was “absolutely ashamed” of the Republican appointees on the court who voted against his trade policy.

He said they were “just being fools and lap dogs” and were “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution”.

Shares on Wall Street rose after the announcement, with the S&P 500 closing up about 0.7%, as businesses across the US cautiously welcomed the ruling.

“I feel… like a thousand-pound weight has been lifted off my chest,” said Beth Benike, the owner of Busy Baby products in Minnesota, which manufactures products in China.

Nik Holm, chief executive of Terry Precision Cycling, one of the small businesses involved in the case, called the ruling a “relief”.

“Though it will be many months before our supply chain is back up and running as normal, we look forward to the government’s refund of these improperly-collected duties,” he said.

The anticipated refunds and relief from tariff costs may prove elusive, however.

On Friday, Trump imposed the new 10% tariff under a never-used law known as Section 122, which gives the power to put in place tariffs up to 15% for 150 days, at which point Congress must step in.

Analysts expect the White House to consider other tools, such as Section 232 and Section 301, which allow import taxes to address national security risks and unfair trade practices.

Trump has previously used those tools for tariffs, including some announced last year on sectors such as steel, aluminium and cars. Those were untouched by the court ruling.

A White House official said countries that struck trade deals with the US, including the UK, India and the EU, will now face the global 10% tariff under Section 122 rather than the tariff rate they had previously negotiated.

The Trump administration expects those countries to keep abiding by the concessions they had agreed to under the trade deals, the official added.

“Things have only gotten more complicated and more messy today,” said Geoffrey Gertz, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington.

Reaction by major trade partners was relatively muted.

“We take note of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court and are analysing it carefully,” European Commission spokesman Olof Gill wrote on social media.

The US has already collected at least $130bn in tariffs using the IEEPA law, according to the most recent government data.

In recent weeks, hundreds of firms, including retailer Costco, aluminium giant Alcoa and food importers like tuna fish brand Bumble Bee, have filed lawsuits contesting the tariffs, in a bid to get in line for a refund.

But the decision by the majority does not directly mention refunds, likely handing back the question of how that process might work to the Court of International Trade.

In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned the situation would be a “mess”.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG US, warned that the cost of litigation could make recouping funds difficult for smaller firms.

“Unfortunately, I’d say curb your enthusiasm, although I understand the desire for relief,” she said.

Steve Becker, head of the law firm Pillsbury, said the “best thing” for businesses would be if the government created a procedure that did not require filing a lawsuit.

[BBC]

“I think companies can be fairly confident that they’ll get their money back eventually,” he added. “How long it will take really is up to the government.”

Continue Reading

Latest News

Tariffs ruling is major blow to Trump’s second-term agenda

Published

on

By

[pic BBC]

Donald Trump had been warning for months that a Supreme Court decision like this would be catastrophic.

If the court curtailed his ability to impose these tariffs, he had said, it would be an “economic and national security disaster”.

A six-justice majority of the Supreme Court, in ruling against the president on Friday, didn’t care much about his concerns.

Congress, not the president, has the power to impose tariffs, the justices ruled. And nothing in the law that the president based his tariffs on, the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, delegated such sweeping powers to Trump.

The court’s decision represents a rare check on this president’s broad use of executive authority.

A majority of the justices over the past year have shown a willingness to allow Trump to press ahead with his agenda, particularly on immigration and reshaping the federal government, even as legal challenges work their way through the court system.

This case, which was fast-tracked through the court system as an emergency, slams the door on one such expansive use of presidential authority.

With several other major cases involving controversial uses of executive power, such as efforts to end birthright citizenship and to dismiss a Federal Reserve governor based on alleged improprieties, this may not be Trump’s only setback in the coming months.

At the very least, this decision weakens Trump’s hand when trying to force other nations to make concessions to the US and tarnishes his veneer of invincibility.

Weakness begets weakness, and America’s trading partners may be emboldened to take a tougher line with the US now that the president’s tariff powers have been curtailed.

It also opens up the possibility that the Trump administration may have to give back much of the tariff revenue it collected over the past year.

While the justices left this thorny issue to be decided by a lower court, Brett Kavanaugh in his dissent warned that the process is likely to be a “mess”.

The Trump administration had plenty of time to prepare for Friday’s decision.

Supreme Court precedent, and the attitude of many of the justices when the case was argued in court last November, indicated that an adverse outcome for the president was quite possible.

Jamieson Greer, Trump’s top trade adviser, said last month that the White House has “a lot of different options” on how to proceed if the tariffs were struck down.

“The reality,” he said, “is the president is going to have tariffs as part of his trade policy going forward.”

The other options that could be at Trump’s disposal are more limited, however.

They require government agencies to produce detailed reports to justify imposing tariffs, and they have limits on their scope and duration.

Gone are the days when the president could threaten, or enact, triple-digit tariffs with the wave of a pen or the click of a Truth Social post.

Getty Images A large container ship with lots of cargo on board is in foreground with Miami skyline behind
A Rotterdam container ship prepares to dock at Port Miami [BBC]

New tariffs will require a longer lead-in time before they are imposed.

That could limit the kind of economic disruption that took place when the president announced his expansive “Liberation Day” tariffs last year, and would give other nations more time to prepare their responses.

If Trump wants to restore his free hand to impose new tariffs, he could always ask Congress for the kind of explicit authorisation that the Supreme Court has said is necessary. But with narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate, and midterm elections looming, the success of such a move seems unlikely.

In fact, some of Trump’s conservative allies in Congress may be breathing somewhat easier with this decision.

The president’s tariffs – and the costs they have imposed on consumers – have been unpopular among many Americans. Republican candidates in battleground states and congressional districts would have been open to Democratic attacks for supporting Trump’s policies.

That area of vulnerability has been reduced for now.

Friday’s decision will set up an awkward moment on Tuesday, when Trump delivers his annual State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress. Traditionally, many of the Supreme Court justices sit in the front row of the chamber.

The president, after spending months issuing dire warnings against the court, could stand eye-to-eye with the justices who eroded one of the key pillars of Trump’s second-term agenda.

A graphic showing how the US Supreme Court  voted on Trump’s tariffs. The top section lists John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson as finding the tariffs illegal. The lower section shows Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito as not voting to strike them down. Colour bars indicate whether each justice was nominated by a Republican or Democratic president - the three nominated by a Democratic president (Sotomayor, Kagan and Brown Jackson) found the tariffs illegal, while the Republicans were split down the middle. 
[BBC]
Continue Reading

Trending