Pakistan's T20 boycott not a principled move

Bengaluru: Pakistan’s latest position ahead of the T20 World Cup sounds tough on the surface, but scratch a little and the cracks show almost immediately. Refusing to face India in a group-stage match while leaving the door open to play the same opponents in the knockouts is not a principled stand. It is a convenient move, shaped more by posturing than conviction.

If the objection to playing India were truly about values or ethics, it would not come with conditions attached. The stage of the tournament does not change the identity of the opponent. A group match against India is no different in substance from a semifinal or a final. Yet, Pakistan’s message is selective. Early games are unacceptable, but later games might be fine. That contradiction undermines the morality of any decision.

What this approach reflects is a desire to be seen taking a firm stand without fully committing to it. Pakistan wants to signal defiance, but by keeping the knockout option alive, they want to avoid the fallout of a total refusal. It is a balancing act at its worst.

There is also a clear regional angle at play. Of late, Bangladesh’s relationship with India has strained, and Pakistan’s stance perfectly aligns with the current mood across India's eastern border.   

Some have pointed to previous instances of other nations' pullouts from 50-over World Cups in Sri Lanka (1987) and Zimbabwe (2003). Though there were political undertones to England's refusal to travel to Zimbabwe for their match, the official reason for their decision was security concerns. Pakistan are in no position to cite security concerns, having scheduled all their matches in Sri Lanka, the co-hosts of the event. 

There is also the financial leverage, which sits at the core of this entire issue. India versus Pakistan is cricket’s biggest commercial asset. No other fixture comes close in terms of television ratings, sponsorship interest and overall buzz. Pakistan know this, as does the ICC. By threatening to remove itself from a guaranteed India clash in the group stage, Pakistan are effectively reminding the governing body of its economic importance. 

That tactic might make sense from a negotiation standpoint, but it further exposes the lack of principle behind the move. This is not about refusing to play India at all costs. It is about applying pressure and trying to drive home its own importance to ICC's economic health which is largely dependent on the revenue generated by India.

With no bilateral series between India and Pakistan, ICC events are the only places where the archrivals meet; naturally, there is huge interest in these games, which the governing body looks to maximise by clubbing both nations in the same group for an assured stream of revenue. But, unwittingly, it was getting into a tangle that it finds itself now. It's time ICC looked beyond this marquee clash -- which feeds on manufactured frenzy and jingoism on either side of the border -- and unshackled itself from being blackmailed.

India, too, have not covered themselves in glory with their own missteps. The BCCI’s handling of Mustafizur Rahman earlier in the season was as tactless as it was avoidable. By asking the Kolkata Knight Riders to release the pacer, suggesting security issues for the left-armer in the wake of strong anti-Bangla sentiments in India, they handed a readymade reason to their eastern neighbours to move their matches to a neutral venue.     

The episode may seem separate, but it again stems from boards feeling ignored or mistreated, and the retaliation will have implications for all concerned. Some may suffer more, and others less, but the net loser is the game and the fans. A World Cup should be about excitement, not about threats and what-ifs.