Bangladesh, stop feeling persecuted and move on.

The circumstances first: India were 126/3 after 30 overs. Not too hot. The scoring rate picked up a bit after that, but in the 33rd over, Mashrafe Mortaza hit Suresh Raina on the pads ... appeal, turned down, review - 50%, maybe 51%, of the ball had pitched outside leg. Close. But not enough. Then, when India had reached 196/3 in the 40th over, Rubel Hossain's full toss, visibly below waist height, was hoicked straight down deep midwicket's throat by Rohit Sharma. Out? Not. No-ball. No! The umpire had spoken.

Human error? Probably. Then, India 302/6. Bangladesh 193 all out. End of story.

After the match, aware of the long arm of the International Cricket Council, Mashrafe only said, "Well, everyone saw what happened in the middle. I don't want to say anything about this."

Enter Mr Mustafa Kamal, speaking not as the ICC president but, as he said, a Bangladesh cricket fan: "There was no quality in the umpiring. It looked like they (umpires) took the field after it (the outcome) was pre-arranged. [...] I cannot represent the 'Indian' Cricket Council. If someone has imposed a result on us, in that case no one can accept it."

The ICC have heard what Mr Kamal had to say with interest and would, as they must, ponder over it and discuss the way forward.

As for fans, the expected responses are still flowing in: Bangladeshi fans have taken to the streets to protest; some Indian fans reacted with the usual 'get over it, you couldn't beat us anyway' noise. Hearteningly, there's also the neutral cricket fan, Indian and others, who have been calling the Rohit no-ball unjust - with the rider that India might have had enough in the tank to win even if Rohit had been given out.

It was, by all calculating systems, a no-ball. Rohit should have been given out. India would have been 196/4, with Raina at the crease and MS Dhoni, Ravindra Jadeja and R Ashwin to come.

Someone who had been around for almost 40 overs would have been gone, so let's say India would have lost some runs. But with Dhoni and Jadeja getting more balls, maybe India would have scored a few more. All right, since it was an error, let's take away around 20 runs from India and give them 280. I suspect, without pre-arranging anything with the umpires, India would still have been favourites to win. Or would the Bangladeshi response have been different without the psychological barrier of chasing over 300?

Darren Gough was spot on when he told us, "You got the right result in the end. [...] India got too many. Bangladesh need to be chasing 260-270-280. If they are chasing around that total, they've got a chance. But if the umpires' decisions had gone their way, they might have been chasing that sort of total."

Therein, to my mind, lies the crux of the matter.

I don't follow what odds-makers say, but I'd assume India were overwhelming favourites for this one. Bangladesh, despite 'what happened in 2007' being talked up, were not really in it. But they gave it their best. For the first 30 overs, they fought gamely, evenly, perhaps even with an edge over India. Then, the game went out of their hands.

Better teams than Bangladesh, in all sports, have blamed officials for the results that didn't go their way. Mr Kamal's reaction - appropriate or not - reflected the mood in Bangladesh, and the mood was this: We had a chance, we could have won, beaten a better team, reached the World Cup semifinals. We were cheated.

And I understand that.

Bangladesh is a cricket-obsessed nation. The cricket team has spent its entire existence in the top flight being told that it doesn't deserve to be there. When talk of associate nations come up, Bangladesh are mentioned alongside Ireland and Scotland and Afghanistan and UAE and Zimbabwe. Big teams still don't set foot in those shores often and, only occasionally, invite them over for a bit of profit-less bat and ball.

But this was their big chance. They beat England to make the knockouts. They might not have started out that match against India believing they were going to be in as good a position 30% of the way in, but once there, they wanted to get what they could out of it. They stuck to their lines for the most part. Feeling hard done by then - yeah, I can see why.

The important thing for Bangladesh now would be to stop feeling persecuted and make the most of their gains from this World Cup. Mashrafe might not be the fittest man around, but he is only 31, all of Shakib, Mushfiqur, Rubel and Tamim are in their mid-20s, and while Mahmudullah is 29, Taskin is 19 and Soumya Sarkar is 22. There is the core of a team that could change Bangladesh's international record as well as the perception about them.

Another day, they might have made the semifinal of the World Cup, but, as such, they are not yet one of the four best teams in the world. Who can say if they ever will be? But this group of players, with the belief and confidence they would have earned from World Cup 2015, can make Bangladesh stronger than they have ever been. And, who knows, they might well play like one of the four best teams in the world more often.