<p>Convention is more ritual than rule. It carries no tangible penalty. But in the realm of morality, convention often carries greater value than laws set in stone. </p><p>Seen in that light, Indian cricketers, by refusing to shake hands – a centuries-old custom followed across sport – with their Pakistani counterparts after their Asia Cup match on Sunday, failed that test. While the players are mere actors directed by forces in the background, unfortunately, they are also the first ones to take the bullet. </p><p>There was widespread criticism of India’s decision to engage with Pakistan on the cricket field in the run-up to the match, against the backdrop of the Pahalgam massacre and the armed conflict between the two countries. </p><p>The Indian government has stalled bilateral series between India and Pakistan since 2012, and Pakistani cricketers have been banned from the lucrative IPL for years now. It has also steadfastly denied the Indian team permission to play in the neighbouring nation, including in ICC and ACC events. Instead, it has allowed India to play Pakistan in neutral venues, which is a sensible decision under the circumstances.</p>.<p>Sport is mass entertainment that attracts millions, making it an ideal platform to air grievances on perceived injustice. Sporting arenas have also been used to make political statements – whether to highlight racial and gender discrimination or to voice dissent against unjust wars. It is, however, doubtful if India’s handshake snub achieved any of the intended objectives. </p><p>If India indeed wanted to make a bigger statement, wouldn’t boycotting the match have served the purpose? To refuse handshakes after engaging the opponent team meaningfully for three hours was a poorly choreographed routine intended to placate a few rabble-rousers back home. </p><p>India’s dominant seven-wicket win, meanwhile, was relegated to the sidelines with the post-match events grabbing the headlines. Can this be undone and a semblance of normalcy restored? Perhaps not immediately, and that ensures the upcoming India-Pakistan clash is watched closely, also for non-cricketing reasons.</p>.<p>Pakistan’s demand to remove match referee Andy Pycroft and its subsequent threat to pull out of the event, hosted by India, are nothing more than empty rhetoric. Mohsin Naqvi, the chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, also heads the Asian Cricket Council – will he dilute the importance of the continental event under his watch? But the bigger question is: will India, if they successfully defend the title, receive the trophy from Naqvi? Or will Naqvi himself abstain from the presentation party? After all, it’s just a convention.</p>
<p>Convention is more ritual than rule. It carries no tangible penalty. But in the realm of morality, convention often carries greater value than laws set in stone. </p><p>Seen in that light, Indian cricketers, by refusing to shake hands – a centuries-old custom followed across sport – with their Pakistani counterparts after their Asia Cup match on Sunday, failed that test. While the players are mere actors directed by forces in the background, unfortunately, they are also the first ones to take the bullet. </p><p>There was widespread criticism of India’s decision to engage with Pakistan on the cricket field in the run-up to the match, against the backdrop of the Pahalgam massacre and the armed conflict between the two countries. </p><p>The Indian government has stalled bilateral series between India and Pakistan since 2012, and Pakistani cricketers have been banned from the lucrative IPL for years now. It has also steadfastly denied the Indian team permission to play in the neighbouring nation, including in ICC and ACC events. Instead, it has allowed India to play Pakistan in neutral venues, which is a sensible decision under the circumstances.</p>.<p>Sport is mass entertainment that attracts millions, making it an ideal platform to air grievances on perceived injustice. Sporting arenas have also been used to make political statements – whether to highlight racial and gender discrimination or to voice dissent against unjust wars. It is, however, doubtful if India’s handshake snub achieved any of the intended objectives. </p><p>If India indeed wanted to make a bigger statement, wouldn’t boycotting the match have served the purpose? To refuse handshakes after engaging the opponent team meaningfully for three hours was a poorly choreographed routine intended to placate a few rabble-rousers back home. </p><p>India’s dominant seven-wicket win, meanwhile, was relegated to the sidelines with the post-match events grabbing the headlines. Can this be undone and a semblance of normalcy restored? Perhaps not immediately, and that ensures the upcoming India-Pakistan clash is watched closely, also for non-cricketing reasons.</p>.<p>Pakistan’s demand to remove match referee Andy Pycroft and its subsequent threat to pull out of the event, hosted by India, are nothing more than empty rhetoric. Mohsin Naqvi, the chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, also heads the Asian Cricket Council – will he dilute the importance of the continental event under his watch? But the bigger question is: will India, if they successfully defend the title, receive the trophy from Naqvi? Or will Naqvi himself abstain from the presentation party? After all, it’s just a convention.</p>
