India’s refusal to collect the ACC Women’s Asia Cup trophy from Asian Cricket Council President Mohsin Naqvi has been defended by BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia as a matter of “respect”, “solidarity” and “non-negotiable situations”.

But Saikia’s own explanation raises more questions than it answers — and the presence of two senior BCCI officials at the final makes the position even harder to reconcile.

India defeated Sri Lanka by 72 runs in Dubai to win a record eighth Women’s Asia Cup title, but the celebrations were overshadowed when the Indian team declined to collect the trophy from Mohsin Naqvi, repeating the stance taken by the men’s team after last year’s tournament. The BCCI claims it had also communicated its position to the ACC before the final.

Yet BCCI vice-president Rajeev Shukla and secretary Saikia were both present at the final and received congratulations from Mohsin Naqvi after Deepti Sharma bowled Kaushini Nuthyangana as India finished as the only unbeaten side.

That is significant because this was not an event outside the ACC’s structure. It was the ACC’s flagship continental tournament, organised under the authority of the very organisation headed by Mohsin Naqvi.

Saikia himself was, therefore, present at an ACC event led by the man he later said was “not acceptable” to the BCCI for the trophy presentation.

“Our only concern is that we cannot accept some trophy from some persons who is not acceptable to us at this stage,” Saikia said.

But if Naqvi was unacceptable, the question is obvious: why were the BCCI secretary and vice-president comfortable attending the event in the first place?

Saikia did not stop there. He repeatedly brought politics and bilateral tensions into his explanation.

“Everybody knows what was happening at the ground and what is happening across the border,” he said. “There was a huge demand from our country that we should not play one particular hostile country.”

He then referred directly to government policy, saying the BCCI had, nevertheless, “respected the ICC and ACC’s mandate and our government’s policy that we should play in all multinational events”.

That admission exposes the central contradiction in the argument.

India was prepared to enter an ACC competition, play under its rules and framework, send its senior board officials to the final and participate in the tournament — but when the ACC President was due to present the trophy, the BCCI wanted the presentation arrangement changed.

Saikia himself reduced the dispute to its simplest form. “The only issue was from whom we have to receive the trophy.”

Exactly. The issue was not whether India would play. It did. It was not whether India would participate in an ACC tournament. It did. It was not whether BCCI officials would attend the final. They did.

The issue, by Saikia’s own admission, was who would hand over the trophy. The BCCI’s proposed solution was that the ACC deputy chair should present it instead.

“We had recommended that the deputy chair of the ACC can hand over the trophy, that was our request so that this controversy can be avoided,” Saikia said.

But that was not simply a matter of finding an alternative presenter. It placed the BCCI in the position of asking the continental governing body to alter its presentation arrangements because it objected to its President.

And the argument that India had “no other option” is equally difficult to sustain.

“We have no other option except to keep solidarity with our men’s team because till now, they have not received the trophy,” Saikia said.

There was, in fact, another option: accept the trophy from the ACC President and allow the sporting achievement to remain separate from the political dispute.

Instead, India chose to repeat the previous year’s position.

That creates another circular argument.

The BCCI says the women’s team could not accept the 2026 trophy because the men’s team had still not received the 2025 trophy. But the 2025 trophy remained unresolved precisely because India had refused to accept it from Mohsin Naqvi.

The previous refusal, therefore, becomes the justification for another refusal.

Saikia also invoked tradition, arguing that in earlier editions the winning team had received the trophy from the head of the host country’s board.

“Tradition has to be maintained,” he said.

But previous presentation practices do not give one member board the authority to determine how an ACC President should conduct an ACC ceremony. The Asia Cup is a continental competition, not a BCCI event, and the presidency of the ACC carries an institutional responsibility separate from the identity of the person holding the office.

Saikia went further, calling the situation “non-negotiable”.

“We respect everybody but the thing is that in certain situations, there are some non-negotiable situations.”

But the sporting world is entitled to ask what those non-negotiable situations actually are when the same board is willing to participate in the tournament, attend its final and send its senior officials to an event conducted by the ACC.

The answer again comes from Saikia himself.

“Keeping the respect and solidarity with our men’s team…”

“The situation has not changed for last one and a half year…”

“Everybody knows what is happening… across the border…”

“There was a huge demand from our country…”

These are not explanations based on cricketing protocol. They are political considerations.

And that is precisely why the attempt to present the episode as merely a dispute over trophy presentation does not stand up to scrutiny.

Mohsin Naqvi, meanwhile, did not prevent India from winning the tournament. He did not interfere with the match. He did not deny India its title. He remained in his official capacity as ACC President at the final, as had been publicly reported before the match.
The ACC’s institutional role was never in doubt.

What changed was India’s decision over whether it would acknowledge the ACC President at the moment of receiving the trophy.

That decision belongs to the BCCI and the Indian team. But Saikia’s own words make the political nature of the decision considerably clearer than any criticism from outside could.

The most revealing line remains his simplest:

“The only issue was from whom we have to receive the trophy.”

India accepted the competition. It accepted the tournament. It attended the final. Its senior officials attended an ACC event headed by Naqvi.

But when it came to the trophy, politics took precedence.

And after Saikia’s explanation, it is difficult to argue that this was simply about cricket.