The Indian selectors have announced the squad for next month’s T20 Asia Cup, but the tournament itself remains under a cloud. After the barbaric Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 innocent tourists at the hands of Pakistan-backed militants, there is growing public outrage demanding that India reconsider playing with Pakistan. The government has yet to respond formally, but the political and security overhang ensures that the cricketing conversation is already tinged with uncertainty.
Even in Parliament, AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi went on the offensive, accusing the Modi government of duplicity in dealing with Pakistan. For cricket fans, the larger political question lingers in the background, but for now, attention has shifted to the composition of the Indian team. And here lies the problem—the selection has raised more questions than it has answered.
The most confusing decision is the inclusion of Test captain Shubman Gill. To be clear, no one doubts Gill’s class as a batter. He is technically solid, mentally tough, and has shown his ability to anchor an innings. But the real question is: where does he fit in a T20 lineup that already has defined roles?
Gill is not a natural fit as an opener in the T20 format, especially with Sanju Samson and Abhishek Sharma earmarked to give India the kind of explosive starts needed in modern T20 cricket. Nor does he slot in naturally at No. 3, a position where Tilak Varma has impressed and cemented his place. At No. 5, the spot is traditionally reserved for a power-hitter—India’s skipper Suryakumar Yadav or someone in the Rinku Singh mold—players who can change the game in a few balls. Gill, with his steady tempo and anchoring instincts, simply doesn’t suit that role.
By parachuting Gill into this squad and also making him vice captain, the selectors risk not only unsettling the balance but also stalling the momentum of youngsters who have shown promise in recent games. Tilak, in particular, deserves an uninterrupted run at No. 3 to evolve into India’s long-term batting backbone. Similarly, Rinku Singh has made a strong case for the middle order, bringing the finishing firepower India has long lacked. Overlooking him or pushing him down the pecking order sends out the wrong message.
This is where the selectors’ short-sightedness becomes glaring. Gill, who has been carrying the burden of captaincy in Test cricket, could have been given a much-needed physical and mental break. Instead, the panel seems to have been in a rush to complete the squad list, shoehorning him in without clarity on his role. In an age when workload management is supposed to be a mantra, resting Gill would have helped him recharge for the gruelling schedule ahead.
Another baffling omission is Shreyas Iyer. Though inconsistent of late, Iyer has the experience of anchoring tricky chases and offers stability in the middle order—qualities that could have been vital in a high-pressure tournament. His absence, combined with Gill’s puzzling inclusion, creates an imbalance that fans and analysts are already questioning.
T20 cricket demands clarity of roles, flexibility, and the courage to back in-form players. India, however, seems to be repeating the mistakes of its Test side—relying on reputation rather than form, and complicating the batting order so much that the lower order is often forced to bail the team out. For a country with the deepest talent pool in world cricket, such muddled thinking is inexcusable.
Whether the Asia Cup goes ahead or not, this selection reflects a larger malaise in Indian cricket. The team needs bold, future-oriented choices that reward performance and maintain balance, not cosmetic decisions that leave players confused about their roles. If India wants to dominate white-ball cricket again, the selectors must show both courage and vision.
