Arshdeep Singh's 'Andhere' Remark on Tilak Varma Sparks Colourism Row — IPL 2026

Colourism — prejudice or discrimination based on skin tone — is a documented social issue in India with roots in caste hierarchies, colonial legacies, and the multi-billion-rupee skin-lightening industry. In cricket specifically, skin-tone mockery has historically been treated as locker-room banter, and several former players have recounted experiencing such comments from teammates and opponents throughout their careers. Sivaramakrishnan's decision to speak publicly drew on his own experience and was explicitly framed in that historical context.

The post-2020 global reckoning with racism and its more subtle forms — including colourism, which can operate within the same ethnic or racial group — reached Indian cricket earlier than many domestic institutions acknowledged. The IPL's anti-discrimination provisions, like those of most domestic T20 leagues, prohibit racial and discriminatory abuse under the Code of Conduct; the question raised by the Arshdeep incident was whether a remark framed as banter — made between players who know each other, in a pre-match environment, laughing together — falls within the Code's scope.

Arshdeep Singh, as a Punjabi Sikh cricketer himself, is not a member of a different ethnic or racial group from Tilak Varma; both are Indian. The incident is therefore most accurately characterised as colourism rather than racism in the international sense. Critics argued that this distinction made no difference to the harm: the remark targeted Tilak's physical appearance in a way that carries centuries of social meaning in India about what skin tones are desirable, clean, or attractive.

Punjab Kings and Mumbai Indians met for a key IPL 2026 league fixture at the Wankhede on 15 May. In the pre-match environment — warm-ups, coin-toss interactions, boundary-rope conversations — players from both sides mingled informally as they routinely do. The exchange between Arshdeep and Tilak was caught on video during this period. The exact context of who filmed it and why it was uploaded is unclear; it appears to have been posted as casual content rather than as an exposé.

The timing was doubly unfortunate for Arshdeep. Just days earlier, the video from his team-travel vlog allegedly showing Yuzvendra Chahal vaping on a flight had made him part of a different controversy. In the space of a week, Arshdeep's social media activity had become the centre of two separate public-conduct stories.

The video was recorded in the pre-match environment at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai and shared to social media ahead of PBKS's match against MI on 15 May. The clip shows Arshdeep approaching Tilak Varma — the Mumbai Indians batter who had become one of the most celebrated young cricketers in India following his rapid rise through the national team — and opening with "Oye Andhere, sunscreen lagaaya?" ("Hey dark one, have you applied sunscreen?"). Arshdeep then asked Tilak to stand next to Naman Dhir, another MI batter, and commented: "Yeh hai Punjab ki asli chamak" — roughly, "This is the real glow of Punjab" — a remark that contrasted Dhir's lighter complexion with Tilak's darker skin tone.

The clip reached a national audience within hours. Initial reactions divided sharply: a significant number of viewers condemned the remark as colourism — discrimination and mockery based on skin tone — and a smaller number defended it as friendly pre-match banter between cricketers who know each other well from the national circuit. Tilak Varma himself did not respond publicly.

Former India spinner Laxman Sivaramakrishnan was among the first prominent voices to condemn the exchange. Sivaramakrishnan, who had publicly spoken about experiencing skin-tone mockery during his own playing days, called the remark unacceptable and demanded formal action from the BCCI, including a possible ban. ESPNcricinfo published a widely-shared opinion piece arguing that what Arshdeep did was not banter but colourism — "a form of discrimination that has damaged Indian cricket culture for decades" — and that the casual, laughing delivery of the remark made it more damaging, not less.

Mumbai Indians' social media team posted a video of Tilak Varma emerging from darkness against a Bollywood song about light and dark, captioning it in a way that many read as a "savage reply" to Arshdeep. The post went viral, but prompted a secondary debate: was MI right to engage humorously with a colourism incident involving their own player, or did the framing inadvertently legitimise the original remark by treating it as playful rather than harmful?

“I faced this kind of mockery in my playing days. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Arshdeep should be banned for this.”

“Arshdeep Singh calling Tilak Varma 'andhera' is colourism and it is a problem, not banter.”

“I was not closely following the online conversation.”

The BCCI's silence on a formal charge was the dominant second-day story. Sivaramakrishnan's call for a ban had been made in strong terms; several other former players backed the call, while others — including a minority of commentators — argued the video was being misread and that the exchange was obviously playful. The fact that Tilak Varma himself did not speak publicly was interpreted in contradictory ways: some read it as evidence he was not hurt by the remark; others argued it reflected the pressure young players face to absorb such moments without complaint.

Andrew Leipus, Punjab Kings' Head of Sports Science, was asked about the incident during a press interaction and said he was "not closely following the online conversation." The answer was widely regarded as insufficient.

Mumbai Indians' viral post attracted its own secondary commentary. Several writers argued that the franchise — whose player had been the subject of a colourism remark — had an obligation to address the incident directly rather than respond with a social media trend moment. Others defended the post as a way of celebrating Tilak's match-winning performance without escalating the controversy. Tilak won the Player of the Match award in the fixture, which gave MI's post a factual grounding, but the light-and-dark imagery remained uncomfortable to many viewers.