The sudden Test retirements of Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma earlier this year left fans stunned. Unlike the gradual exits of Indian greats in the past, the two greats bowed out within days of each other.
Kohli and Rohit had both hinted at their eagerness to continue in red-ball cricket; whether through Ranji appearances, interviews or comments on upcoming series - yet both announced their retirement abruptly in May. Since then, questions have lingered about whether these decisions were entirely theirs.
Add The Sporting News as a preferred news source
Karsan Ghavri questions BCCI's handling of Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma
Former India pacer Karsan Ghavri has now weighed in; he suggested the duo didn't step away voluntarily.
Speaking on the Vickey Lalwani Show, Ghavri alleged that "internal politics" within the BCCI and the selection panel - led by Ajit Agarkar, played a role in forcing out two of India's biggest names.
"He [Kohli] should have definitely continued playing for India easily, probably for another couple of years. But something really forced him to retire. And unfortunately, when he retired, he was not even given a farewell by the BCCI. Such a great player who has done such great service.. should be given a grand farewell," he said.
More: 'Knows how to use his players' - Bhuvneshwar Kumar on what makes Rohit Sharma a successful captain
Kohli finished as India's fourth-highest Test run-scorer, scoring close to 10,000 runs and leading the team to historic wins - including a first-ever series win in Australia. Despite a dip in form, many expected him to play a few more years.
Rohit enjoyed a late resurgence after moving up to open in 2019. Ghavri believes both were "asked to go out"
"It's due to internal politics within the BCCI, which is hard to understand. Even Rohit Sharma retired prematurely. They wanted to continue, but the selectors and BCCI had different ideas," he added.
The claims reignite the debate on how Indian cricket manages the exits of its legends. With both Kohli and Rohit stepping away almost simultaneously, the issue of timing and treatment has become as important as the transition itself.