Engagement Farmers' Cup 2025: Rethinking cricket ties with Pakistan

Many really smart people now share the position that playing cricket with Pakistan is politically, strategically, and morally wrong. It is just a poor appreciation of competitive sport

We understand that Operation Sindoor is formally still on. Borders are quiet, however. The hostilities have moved to cricket, if only off the playing field. The fate of the war on terror waged by the fourth-largest economy, third-biggest army, and largest population is being determined by whether it plays against Pakistan or not.

 

This, in fact, isn’t an argument about cricket, sport in general, or even India-Pakistan relations. It is a humble — if reckless — attempt to call out our giant hypocrisy.

 

To underline the hypocrisy, I shall take you to Tokyo’s giant National Stadium where a historic first played out: Four athletes from the subcontinent — two from India, one from Pakistan, and one from Sri Lanka — were among the 12 javelin throw finalists at the World Athletics Championship.

 

If you had tracked all social media handles through the day, and specifically in the short period when the throws were taking place, you would have found nothing trending on it. And definitely no outrage that Neeraj Chopra and Sachin Yadav were competing against a Pakistani, Arshad Nadeem. 

 

So, here’s some perspective. In the 130 years since modern Olympic Games began in Athens in 1896, the subcontinent, that is two billion people or one-fourth of the world, has won only three individual Olympic golds. That’s no typo. Two of those were among the finalists in Tokyo, Neeraj Chopra and Arshad Nadeem.

 

First of all, given this field, you would have expected greater interest in the event. But no. It was still the obsession over whether India should play Pakistan or not. I tracked Pakistani media and debates too. They had the reigning Olympic gold medallist and world record holder going up against his arch Indian rival, yet very little excitement. Our passion is cricket-specific.

 

In a way I’d say this is a good thing. A relief that the internet/news TV mob wasn’t harassing Army JCO Chopra for competing against Pakistan while the Pahalgam widows were still grieving. This differential emotional reaction to cricket and athletics comes only partly from our cricket obsession — and perhaps only a small part. The rest, the primary motive is simple old engagement farming. Cricket is so much better than an Olympic sport to build and sustain a 24x7 outrage.

 

My most memorable is the many prominent people, especially journalists posting pictures of Pahalgam victims’ fathers conducting their sons’ last rites or the grieving widows, and asking: Does playing cricket with Pakistan mean we’ve brought them justice? My counter-question: Does not playing cricket and conceding the matches to Pakistan bring them a sense of justice?

 

Didn’t we use the combined and fearsome firepower of our Air Force, Army and Navy to deliver just that? Unless you also think, like the many silly Pakistanis, that the wrecked Jaish and LeT headquarters, a dozen Pakistani airbases, smoked out radars, count for nothing. What can Indian cricket achieve in the war on terror that our armed forces haven’t, or wouldn’t, should the need arise again? Our sporting passion is monotheistic, cricket being the only god. Just that in this case the holy outrage isn’t so much about winning as about playing or boycotting.

 

If it was just social media, you’d dismiss it as one of those juvenile trends. The difference is, it also dominates our news TV debates. It grows more vicious and bitter with every prime-time hour on both sides, with cuss-words and straightforward communal slurs thrown in.

 

Consider, for example, cricketer Mohammad Yousuf, now in his Tablighi livery, pretending — while giggling with the female anchor — to “mispronounce” Indian captain Surya Kumar Yadav’s first name. I won’t dignify it by repeating it here. Generally, such nastiness is a bilateral phenomenon.

 

Many really smart people now share the position that playing cricket with Pakistan even in an international tournament is politically, strategically and, most importantly, morally wrong. They want India to either boycott tournaments or concede the matches against Pakistan. It is just a poor appreciation of competitive sport. It is bad enough that India is the victim of terror. Should it then concede a walkover to Pakistan in all international contests? What kind of defeatist victimhood is this? That means Pakistan, which today has only a one-in-ten chance of beating India in any form of the game over the past 20 years, now presumes automatic wins?

 

Some sporting data is instructive. Two generations of Indians, among them most of those outraged now, are scarred by our history of defeats against Pakistan. The tables have turned in the past 25 years. In T20s, for example, out of a total of 14 matches played in the past 20 years, India has an 11-3 record against Pakistan. For ODIs, the decade’s scoresheet is 8-1 in favour of India. After the Champions Trophy final at The Oval, 2017, India stands at 7-0 in ODI against Pakistan. When Pakistan wins now, it is a very rare exception. Do we now make that a rule? Is justice served for the Pahalgam victims by turning Pakistan from a near-perpetual loser to a permanent winner?

 

The only other game where Pakistan has been competitive was hockey. The equation has shifted there even more radically than in cricket. In the last 10 years, India has won all seven matches played, including a 10-2 victory at Hangzhou Asiad, 2022. Pakistan has failed to qualify for the Olympics since 2012.

 

Just last month they opted to stay out of the Asia Cup at Rajgir in Bihar, where the winner was assured automatic qualification for the next World Cup. The IHF faced no social media pressure, influencer shout-rage or TV commando raids for not disinviting Pakistan. Only idiots will concede games to Pakistan and start gifting them wins.

 

It would’ve been tempting for a government to concede to its base. You could say the ban is only for now, because the Pahalgam wound is so fresh. It will take a very brave government to proclaim the wound is healed, so we can play Pakistan again. We need to appreciate that the Modi government has been wiser than its own base.

 

India is now the captain of world cricket and its hold over hockey, especially with the return of Hockey India League is growing. It cannot drag bilateral issues into multilateral sport. Almost every other International Cricket Council (ICC) chief will soon be Indian. Jay Shah and Rajeev Shukla have to interact with the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), the Asian Cricket Council (ACC) chief, and Pakistani interior minister Mohsin Raza Naqvi. Real-world imperatives have to be accepted. After all, the Prime Minister couldn’t have opted out of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation group photo in Tianjin simply because Shehbaz Sharif was there.

 

Past boycotts or bans are no precedent. Indira Gandhi’s India conceded the Davis Cup final to South Africa in 1974 because of apartheid. In 1988, Rajiv Gandhi’s government conceded the relegation round to Israel because of Intifada killings. There were tit for tat boycotts of Moscow (1980) and Los Angeles (1984) Olympics by the American and Soviet blocs. The Russians were banned at Paris, 2024 over Ukraine. These were all multi-national actions.

 

Unilateral boycotts now would damage Indian cricket and gift victories to Pakistan. Worse, we’ll be acting like the softer state. We don’t need this after proclaiming a new normal with Op Sindoor and putting the military centrestage. Indian cricket is no warrior in this battle.

 

 By special arrangement with ThePrint