The omission of Sarfaraz Khan from the national squad has ignited a heated debate that goes well beyond cricket. On October 22, 2025, Indian National Congress spokesperson Shama Mohamed publicly questioned whether Sarfaraz’s non-selection was down to his surname, suggesting a religious or communal bias under head coach Gautam Gambhir’s oversight. 

Mohamed took to social media with the message:

Is Sarfaraz Khan not selected because of his surname ! #justasking . We know where Gautam Gambhir stands on that matter

— Dr. Shama Mohamed (@drshamamohd) October 22, 2025

“Is Sarfaraz Khan not selected because of his surname! #justasking. We know where Gautam Gambhir stands on that matter.” 

Her remarks arrived just after the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) announced the squad for the upcoming India A vs South Africa A fixtures a squad that again excluded the Mumbai-based bat­ting talent despite his strong first class record. 

Sarfaraz’s case is interesting. He made his Test debut earlier in 2024, and his domestic numbers are impressive yet his inclusion in national squads has been intermittent. Former India pacer Atul Wassan described Mohammad’s insinuation of communal bias as “preposterous”, warning against politicising what he sees as a purely performance-based selection process. 

From a cricketing perspective, selectors have cited reasons such as injury concerns or keeping a certain team balance. For example, Sarfaraz missed key domestic tournaments reportedly due to a quadriceps injury. But critics say that his exclusion despite form raises questions of transparency and fairness.

On the flame-lit side of things, the button being pressed here is deeply sensitive. Using identity surname or religion in relation to selection for a national sports team opens up fraught questions about representation, meritocracy and perception. Even if the bias claim is unproven, the mere suspicion can erode trust in the process.

For his part, Sarfaraz continues to play and score in domestic cricket, awaiting another opportunity. Whether this row leads to changes in how selections are communicated, or simply dies down as a moment of noise, remains to be seen. But the episode is a reminder: sport doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It lives in a society where identity, narrative and belief play their part under the glare of public scrutiny.