Representative image of a cricket bat and ball.
Credit: iStock Photo
The refusal by Indian cricketers to accept the Asia Cup trophy from Asia Cricket Council president and Pakistan minister Mohsin Naqvi was unfortunate—a breach of sporting etiquette that diminished the spirit of the game.
Once again, India’s thrilling victory over Pakistan in the final was overshadowed by a bizarre, dramatic twist. Even after the earlier two matches in the tournament, it wasn’t fine batting or bowling that dominated headlines—it was the handshake boycott.
It is sad that nationalism and political tensions have turned cricket grounds into battlefields of sorts rather than arenas of shared passion. Given the heightened tensions between the two countries, this was an opportunity to restore a positive relationship.
Cricket diplomacy has historically helped de-escalate hostilities, albeit temporarily: Pakistan President Zia ul Haq’s visit to Jaipur for a test match in 1987, the Indian tour of Pakistan in 2004, the 2005 one-day match witnessed by Gen Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Delhi and Yousuf Gilani’s 2011 visit for a match at Mohali.
Before the 2004 tour, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee told Indian cricketers, “Whether you win or lose doesn’t matter to me, but while you are there, you must win the hearts of the Pakistani people.” Words exemplary of the spirit of sports can inspire.
Relations between India and Pakistan have reached low points after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the recent Pahalgam attacks, followed by military conflicts, and sustained hostility. Ending such hostilities requires political and diplomatic solutions—not letting sport become a proxy battleground.
India has declared it will not play bilateral matches with Pakistan, nor host Pakistani teams. While geopolitical tensions may make bilateral play impossible, multilateral competitions are different; India is obliged to participate, and the BCCI’s sports broadcasting revenues through endorsements and advertisements make it lucrative to do so.
Having committed to a multilateral tournament, Indian cricketers should have upheld the spirit of the game and not broken tradition by doing what they did.
Does shaking hands with Pakistani cricketers or accepting the winner’s cup from a Pakistani mean supporting terrorism, or is it an anti-national act? Do such acts reflect the Indian players’ ideology? Does it imply patriotism, or, as Captain Suryakumar Yadav said, “A few things in life are above sportsmanship spirit”?
Sportspersons do not represent ideologies; they represent their team, their culture and their values and act as role models by their achievements and conduct. Sportspersons cannot and should not become political spokespersons.
Sadly, in the world we live in, it is hard to separate politics from anything, be it sports, arts, culture, business, etc., but given what cricket is in India and given how much rides on an India-Pakistan match, it would do a world of good
if sportspersons, particularly cricketers, remained apolitical and did not become pawns in the hands of politicians.
Perhaps that’s easier said
than done.
It would be naïve to assume this was not a political decision, and both India’s captain and the BCCI secretary, Devajit Saikia, pulled no punches in stating that they are aligned with the BCCI and the government. Do players have to bear the burden of that decision through their words and actions when they are already burdened with the pressure that they must win against their arch rivals?
It is well-known that a cricket match between India and Pakistan is more than just a match; it is a battle without weapons, and it is about national pride. One can imagine the tension brewing in the minds of the players, particularly the captain, during a match. Do players have to undergo such anxiety? Shouldn’t they remain sharply focused on their game?
It is disheartening that a cricket match, which has always been a source of passion and pride, a symbolic gesture of goodwill to foster friendships, is turning into a battle of one-upmanship and scoring political points.
Such poor behaviour does more harm than good, not only to the respective teams but also by setting a dangerous precedent for the gentleman’s game. It also sends out distasteful signals to cricket fans.
The need of the hour is to restore cricket diplomacy. Let there be friendship and support among the players, and let the two countries continue to play matches in the true spirit of sportsmanship. And last but not least, keep politics out of sport.
(The writer is a freelance journalist)