'Watched Dhurandhar Last Night?': Netizens Joke After Rashid Latif Suspects 'Pak Coach Mike Hesson Could Be An Indian Agent' | VIDEO

Pakistan cricket has found itself embroiled in another controversy after former player Rashid Latif reportedly raised questions over Pakistan coach Mike Hesson’s links with India and the Indian Premier League. In a video circulating on social media, Latif suggested that Hesson could possibly have been sent to Pakistan with an ulterior motive, even referring to him as an “Indian agent.”

Latif made the remarks while speaking with Dr Nauman Niaz, pointing towards Hesson’s association with the IPL and the considerable time he has spent in India. He reportedly questioned whether those connections could have played a role in Hesson’s appointment with Pakistan. However, the conversation did not present any evidence to support the serious allegation.

Netizens react to Latif's remark

The comments quickly became a talking point on social media, with netizens jokingly linking the bizarre conspiracy theory to the Bollywood film Dhurandhar. Some users reacted with humour and disbelief as the “Indian agent” claim began circulating alongside the video.

Importantly, the report itself notes that the video’s original date could not be independently confirmed. It also makes clear that Latif and Niaz acknowledged that they had no evidence to substantiate the claim, describing the discussion as essentially “thinking out loud.”

Hesson is currently serving as Pakistan’s coach amid a major crisis surrounding the team. He was brought in for the third Test against England after Pakistan lost the first two matches and underwent sweeping changes, including the removal of several players and the replacement of head coach Sarfraz Ahmed.

The controversy adds another dramatic chapter to Pakistan cricket’s troubled England tour, with the team already facing scrutiny over player selection, coaching changes and an internal disciplinary inquiry. The allegations against Hesson, however, remain unsubstantiated and should not be treated as established fact.