The official fight against the 'rebel' Indian Cricket League (ICL) has become more desperate after it notched up two stunning successes. First, it lured top Bangladeshi players into its fold, away from the embrace of legitimacy; then the ICL's Sri Lankan recruits were allowed by their board to play its domestic tournaments, though they still can't play for the country.

ICL bosses believe the BCCI's enmity towards them can be temporary. It's possible the two can even strike a deal.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India rallied back strongly, through a proxy: Sri Lankan sports minister Gamini Lokuge. "This decision by the interim committee was not taken with my consent. Hence I am entitled to reimpose the ban," he said.

Lokuge, it's learnt, was gently convinced by the BCCI leadership that aligning with the ICL wasn't a good idea. Himanshu Modi, the ICL's business head, told Outlook, "It's literally arm-twisting, telling them (Sri Lankans) that if you remove the ban, India wouldn't tour Sri Lanka.... I don't think this is right."

But the rules of mortal engagement state that there are no rules—or, rather, the powerful make the rules. All the same, you don't notice creases of worry on the face of Himanshu, who says that "one or two people" at the BCCI are trying to scare away the ICL's sponsors. Because, in fact, the mood at the ICL camp is euphoric. Conventional wisdom suggested its demise was imminent; the mighty BCCI, after all, had decreed that the rebel league must die, banning players who joined it and threatening and tempting the rest with its massive funds.

Yet the ICL showed it's very much alive and kicking when it named the ninth team in its league—the Dhaka Warriors, comprising 13 top Bangladesh players. The reduction of ban on Sri Lankan players was still more significant, showing active dissent outside India. These developments vindicated the Essel Group, owner of the ICL, which was mocked for spending lavishly in a battle it was bound to lose to the mighty BCCI.

But the ICL firmly believes that club cricket and the Twenty20 format are the future, an idea the world was bound to adopt. As for the BCCI's opposition, and its brazen attempt to establish monopoly over cricket in India, the Essel bosses believed, and still do, that it is a hurdle temporary in nature. "The BCCI leadership will change, and who knows what the situation might be in a couple of years," an ICL source told Outlook. "Lalit Modi, the man behind the IPL, could be out of favour when the rival faction comes to power. There's every possibility that we could have a deal then."

For now, at the time of writing, Shashank Manohar, a senior Nagpur lawyer, was slated to take over as BCCI president from Sharad Pawar on September 27. The succession could change existing equations, for Manohar isn't exactly enamoured of Lalit Modi. Sources close to Manohar, however, say his ascendancy wouldn't affect Modi because "the two can rule in their own territories, BCCI and IPL."

These are the territories the ICL is hoping to alter. It has applied to the International Cricket Council for recognition. Though the ICC has declared that the ICL is not legitimate, it hasn't yet formally rejected the application because of the piquant situation. If it says yes, the BCCI would descend upon it in rage; if it says no, the ICL and its players can appeal to court against restraint of trade. The ICL, in any case, is contemplating litigation. (See Kapil Dev's interview.)

Meanwhile, the ICL continues its hunt for players, threatening to rip the fabric of world cricket. "We will target other players, other countries, like we have done with Bangladesh," an ICL source told Outlook. Success for them could widen the gap between the top teams and those at the bottom, reducing matches between them to a farce. For instance, Bangladesh have lost 47 of the 53 Tests they have played; the recent exodus to ICL has now decimated the team.

Players from New Zealand, Zimbabwe and England would be vulnerable to poaching. "And because of the situation there, very little cricket is happening in Pakistan," says an ICL source. "If we get more players, only four or five nations could be playing top-flight cricket." Shariq Patel, head of marketing at ICL, asks, "How many people can play for a country? 10-15? 30 at the most? The ICL—and also the IPL—has got 150-200 cricketers." Since most of them are emerging Indian talent, the threat to India could be most grave. Tempted early, they may no longer put country before club, limiting their careers and BCCI's choices.

As the ICL widens its net and destroys already weak teams beyond redemption, wouldn't the ICC ultimately sue for truce in the years to come? That possibility is for the future, right now the adversaries are set to escalate the battle.