<p class="bodytext">India’s hard-fought and creditable victory against Pakistan in the Asia Cup final was overshadowed by a bizarre display of low politics. Cricketers on both sides resorted to intimidating actions on the field and the post-match ceremony turned farcical with the Indians celebrating a real win with an imaginary trophy. The spirit of cricket was relegated in a show of unsavoury political assertion that started with Indian captain Suryakumar Yadav refusing to shake hands with his Pakistani counterpart, Salman Agha. During the India-Pakistan games in the tournament, Pakistani players including Haris Rauf mimicked military actions such as downing a plane, alluding to Pakistan’s claims about Indian losses during Operation Sindoor. In the final, Jasprit Bumrah responded with a similar gesture. India refused to accept the trophy from Asian Cricket Council chief Mohsin Naqvi, who is also Pakistan’s Interior Minister. Pakistan’s captain threw away the runners-up cheque and Naqvi left the ground with the trophy.</p>.Asia Cup victory about courage, belief and playing for the flag.<p class="bodytext">Yadav claimed that his protests were in the context of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor, and aligned with the government’s policy. The captain dedicated the victory to the armed forces, donated his match fees to the Army and the Pahalgam victims, and insisted that the team’s decisions were its own. But it is evident that the cricketers were only the front for a political game. BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia’s comments against Naqvi indicate this. Both teams and their governing bodies have complained against each other on various counts.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Sport is not about war and divisions. It should heal, not hurt. Here was a game that could have brought in a sense of calm on the pitch between two sides representing sparring countries. Instead, the game drifted to war symbolism and political theatre. Accepted conventions were violated and actions alien to the game were seen on and off the field. The hostility which played out through the three India-Pakistan games was unfortunate, especially because it was set in motion by India. If India did not want to play Pakistan, it could have boycotted the matches instead of participating and then going against the spirit of the game. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s response to the Indian victory typified the sentiments – he equated it with Operation Sindoor. How would the comparison hold, had India lost? The Prime Minister should refrain from crowd-pleasing rhetoric and treat matters of national import with the seriousness they deserve. Yadav only extended this charade by lauding ‘Sir’ – the PM – for batting on the front foot. That, clearly, was not cricket.</p>
<p class="bodytext">India’s hard-fought and creditable victory against Pakistan in the Asia Cup final was overshadowed by a bizarre display of low politics. Cricketers on both sides resorted to intimidating actions on the field and the post-match ceremony turned farcical with the Indians celebrating a real win with an imaginary trophy. The spirit of cricket was relegated in a show of unsavoury political assertion that started with Indian captain Suryakumar Yadav refusing to shake hands with his Pakistani counterpart, Salman Agha. During the India-Pakistan games in the tournament, Pakistani players including Haris Rauf mimicked military actions such as downing a plane, alluding to Pakistan’s claims about Indian losses during Operation Sindoor. In the final, Jasprit Bumrah responded with a similar gesture. India refused to accept the trophy from Asian Cricket Council chief Mohsin Naqvi, who is also Pakistan’s Interior Minister. Pakistan’s captain threw away the runners-up cheque and Naqvi left the ground with the trophy.</p>.Asia Cup victory about courage, belief and playing for the flag.<p class="bodytext">Yadav claimed that his protests were in the context of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor, and aligned with the government’s policy. The captain dedicated the victory to the armed forces, donated his match fees to the Army and the Pahalgam victims, and insisted that the team’s decisions were its own. But it is evident that the cricketers were only the front for a political game. BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia’s comments against Naqvi indicate this. Both teams and their governing bodies have complained against each other on various counts.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Sport is not about war and divisions. It should heal, not hurt. Here was a game that could have brought in a sense of calm on the pitch between two sides representing sparring countries. Instead, the game drifted to war symbolism and political theatre. Accepted conventions were violated and actions alien to the game were seen on and off the field. The hostility which played out through the three India-Pakistan games was unfortunate, especially because it was set in motion by India. If India did not want to play Pakistan, it could have boycotted the matches instead of participating and then going against the spirit of the game. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s response to the Indian victory typified the sentiments – he equated it with Operation Sindoor. How would the comparison hold, had India lost? The Prime Minister should refrain from crowd-pleasing rhetoric and treat matters of national import with the seriousness they deserve. Yadav only extended this charade by lauding ‘Sir’ – the PM – for batting on the front foot. That, clearly, was not cricket.</p>
