About a week before the T20 World Cup, Sharda Ugra woke up to a wave of criticism. Her lack of social media presence meant she was largely unaware of what was going on, but a flood of messages from friends and colleagues ensured she quickly understood the scale of the reaction to her interview with The Wire.
The interview conducted by Karan Thapar did not go down well with a large section of Indian cricket fans. In it, Ugra criticized the Board of Control for Cricket in India for politicizing the sport. She also took aim at the Pakistan Cricket Board for repeatedly trying to get mileage out of the controversy and the International Cricket Council for not doing anything about it.
On the morning of January 28, Sharda Ugra – a journalist with over thirty years of experience – became a problem for India’s majority cricket crowd. Criticism ranged from challenges to her professional credentials to deeply personal and crude attacks.
But Ugra remained unmoved.
“I have zero digital footprint and I had no idea what was going on. My friends were frantically messaging me asking if I was okay. That’s how I found out. But I didn’t feel bad. Honestly, I wasn’t surprised. That happens whenever I write or say something that is not in line with popular opinion,” Ugra told India Today.
“I was deeply moved by the support I received – from people I know and people I don’t know, from all over the world. It was beautiful,” she added.
The nature of the criticism leveled at Ugra underscored a deeper malaise in the Indian cricket ecosystem. Was disagreement no longer possible without enmity? Has character assassination become the default mode of engagement on social media?
“SOCIAL MEDIA IS THE TOILET OF THE INTERNET”
India Today Consulting Editor Rajdeep Sardesai sees this as part of a larger pattern. For him, the defamation of individuals is a political habit that has penetrated into other spheres, including sports. A generation that grew up watching public figures delegitimized through constant online attacks may now see personal abuse not as an aberration, but as a legitimate – even fashionable – form of expression.
“Like politics, sports opinions are worryingly polarizing. And the politicization of sports has made the discourse more strident, more aggressive and much more superficial,” Sardesai said by phone.
POLARIZATION SELLS
The Sharda Ugra episode echoes Lady Gaga’s famous line: Social media is the Internet’s toilet. It’s hard to argue otherwise.
Indian cricket discourse is increasingly becoming a battleground of fandoms. Divisiveness sells and platforms reward it. Apart from India vs Pakistan or East Bengal vs Mohun Bagan, players from the same team are also pitted against each other. Virat Kohli fans clash with Rohit Sharma fans. Shubman Gill supporters mock Rishabh Pant loyalists.
It may seem trivial, but the incentives make things clear: the more polarized the content, the greater the reach – and the more lucrative the ecosystem becomes.
In Ugra’s case, some have accused her of being a “Pakistani agent” — a claim so absurd that if uttered in a family WhatsApp group, it would probably be met with a collective groan. But anonymity changes the rules. Without accountability, outrage becomes effortless.
And women inevitably bear it the worst.
Boxer Imane Khelif was subjected to a grotesque harassment campaign at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Morphed images circulated freely. Fake quotes have been attributed to her. Part of the internet decided she was a man because she didn’t fit a narrow, deeply patriarchal idea of what a woman should look like. Imane Khelif has been harassed on social media for her looks.
More recently, Andrew Tate’s influence has shown how algorithm-driven platforms can amplify misogyny on a grand scale. A convicted felon, Tate has built an “alpha male” mythology around himself that reduces women to objects and hostility to virtue. Social media platforms increase its content because the outrage works – and the performance translates into profit.
Tate says something outrageous. It’s going viral. Podcasts invite him to participate. It launches courses and shows, which in turn create more content, feeding the same cycle.
“I think social media gives people permission to post obscene and disgusting observations,” Ugra said. “It gave people power without consequence.”
Andrew Tate, hailed by many as the most masculine heterosexual alpha male, confirms that he would have sex with a beautiful transsexual. pic.twitter.com/jGnvpVXnAS— aimee (@basic_chanel) March 7, 2023
This does not mean that civil discourse is impossible. There was widespread support for Lizelle Lee during the 2026 Women’s Premier League as she was shamed online. The response included criticism, yes, but also thoughtful discussion of fitness, performance, and the unrealistic standards placed on athletes.
The real fault lies not in dissent itself, but in the normalization of offensive and hateful speech – often legitimized by those in positions of power. Social media accelerates this process and teaches users that those who disagree are not only wrong, but undeserving of engagement.
Once this limit is exceeded, the conversation crashes.
BUT WHO BENEFITS FROM POLARIZATION?
With the commodification of outrage, sports discourse in India – and elsewhere – has become increasingly polarised. When India plays Pakistan, commercials routinely humiliate the opposition. The same rhetoric may exist across borders. Against Australia, the narrative shifts to revenge, conquest and lion versus kangaroo metaphors.
Polarization has become part of the spectacle itself.
But who benefits?
“Polarization serves a purpose for those who use cricket and the BCCI to project a certain image,” Ugra said. “You see it all the time in broadcast advertising. The unyielding nationalism, belittling rivals, humiliating them – it started off light and funny, but it’s become much more toxic, especially when it comes to Pakistan.”
The BCCI would rather not show Indian and Pakistani fans dancing together in the stands to Pasoori tunes, but will replay footage of the jeering crowds.
“Now it’s become a battle between governments. That’s what it’s for. It’s insulting the fans and demeaning the game. There’s no room for joy or joking,” Ugra added.
Cricket boards are increasingly acting as an extension of the state. The BCCI mirrors the Indian government just as the PCB mirrors the Pakistan and Bangladesh BCB.
Had the cricket boards focused purely on sports, Mustafizur Rahman would not have become a soft target in the IPL. Bangladesh would not have pulled out of the T20 World Cup and Pakistan would have dealt with its broken cricket structure instead of outsourcing the blame.
Instead, cricket has been drawn into a geopolitical trifecta that has sidelined the game itself.
And who benefits? PCB chief Mohsin Naqvi, reportedly harbored ambitions to become the prime minister of Pakistan. A majority Indian government that wants to assert power. Bangladeshi leaders who are more invested in stoking anti-India sentiment than correcting domestic failures.
“A brand of nationalism that requires constant hostility towards rivals shows how narrow-minded we have become,” said Sundeep Misra, founding editor-in-chief of Sports Illustrated India. “There is an army of people willing to spew outrage. This was created.”
They are politicians after all.
WHY JOURNALISTS ARE NOT CHEERLEADERS
That this culture is ingrained was demonstrated on January 28, when a largely Gen Z online audience turned on Shard Ugra. One Instagram reel accused her of hypocrisy for only criticizing the BCCI. The implication was familiar: criticism is invalid unless it is equally distributed, this power can only be challenged if all power is challenged at the same time.
This reflex – why this and not that – is not an invitation to expand the conversation. It is a mechanism designed to turn it off. Instead of addressing substance, motives are interrogated, credibility questioned, and intent questioned. The original argument disappears.
One X account even demanded to know who Ugra was and what she had accomplished.
She is 57. A quick google search would answer that.
The problem isn’t Gen Z passion. That has always existed in sports. The problem is the belief that journalists are cheerleaders – that their role is to amplify national sentiment, not challenge power.
We miss that criticism is not treason. Questioning institutions is not disloyalty. Disagreement, when done honestly, is not violence. Journalism, especially in sports, has never been about choosing sides; it was a question of why parties exist in the first place.
And yet, despite the grief, Ugra refuses to write Gen Z off.
“When you write this, give Gen Z my love. I hope they figure things out at their own pace. Life is kinder with them. Try to be kind, try to be happy — that’s all,” she said.
As Sharda Ugra signed, it reminds us that sport remains one of the few social inventions capable of collapsing borders, languages and identities into a common emotion. This is precisely why those who profit from division invest in splitting it up. And that’s why we can’t let them pass.
T20 World Cup | T20 World Cup Schedule | T20 World Cup Points Table | T20 World Cup Videos | Cricket News | Live Score
– The end
Issued by:
Kingshuk Kusari
Published on:
February 8, 2026