The uncertainty surrounding the holding of the First Division Cricket League is over, as the chairman of the Cricket Committee of Dhaka Metropolis (CCDM), Salahuddin Chowdhury, yesterday confirmed that the competition will start on Thursday.

The league was suddenly postponed following the protest of club officials regarding leaked proposals from the five-member BCB constitution reform committee, headed by Nazmul Abedeen Fahim. The proposed changes included dissolving the CCDM, reducing Category-2 councillor positions from 76 to 30, and cutting the number of directors representing Dhaka-based clubs from 12 to four.

Dhaka-based clubs' demands held sway, as Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) had to shelve ideas of proposed reforms, thus casting doubt over whether the decentralisation of Bangladesh cricket would ever see the light of day.

There have been many questions over whether the Faruque Ahmed-led board did enough homework to form this very important committee, as it needs to break the barrier of an age-old problem of Bangladesh cricket.

But the BCB's surrender to club officials made it clear that it is a far cry for Bangladesh cricket to come out from the grip of club cricket.

In the end, what suffered was Bangladesh cricket's need for decentralisation, which would put a stop to notions that "Dhaka's club cricket is Bangladesh cricket".

A question about the culture of cricket in Bangladesh -- where clubs are prioritised, but regional cricket is not thriving -- was posed to the organisers during a press conference in Mirpur yesterday, while a Bangladesh Premier League match was ongoing.

Veteran cricket organiser Rafiqul Islam Babu, a frontman in protests against the proposed reforms, came up with the following reply: "We believe that Dhaka cricket is Bangladesh cricket, since in Dhaka's club cricket, not only Dhaka-based organisers are involved but everyone in Bangladesh is involved. In every nook and corner of Bangladesh, players wait for when they can play club cricket in Dhaka.

"The cricketers who have come through have all come from playing in Dhaka club cricket. They haven't only come from Dhaka but from all the regions of the country. So, we had a demand that the number of directors coming from club cricket be increased to 16. The rest is up to BCB to do what it wants to do."

The question is raised: will this board be able to bring any major changes to the constitution to make it a 'Bangladesh cricket' rather than 'Dhaka cricket'?

BCB went through changes following the fall of the Awami League government, but ideas of reforms remained just ideas even before those reforms were proposed. It gives an indication of the ineffectiveness of the reform plans, which did not take into account how the board still runs under the influence of club cricket.

That influence has always been there because a huge number of cricketers' livelihoods are provided by the 76 clubs from Dhaka, which operate from the Premier Division right down to the Third Division.

Many inconsistencies in the Dhaka leagues have been seen over the years. The irregularities have seen the directorships from club cricket questioned. Many players in club cricket still complain of having their payments postponed. Thus, the idea that club cricket is functioning well by providing for the players and should continue to be prioritised is also questionable.

Still, without serious consideration for how cricketers would be harmed if Dhaka clubs boycott leagues, any reform was bound to fall flat on its face.

But one must understand that if only Dhaka cricket continues to represent Bangladesh cricket, the standard of the country's cricket will be stuck to its present, pessimistic state.