Once again, India has refused to come to Pakistan to play cricket. This isn’t because India doesn’t want to face the Pakistan cricket team; the issue lies solely in setting foot on Pakistani soil. The last visit took place in 2008, and the last time the two nations faced each other in a bilateral series was in 2012.
For many years, international cricket became a pariah to Pakistan following the 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore. This situation persisted for several years. However, with improved security measures and Pakistan’s concerted efforts to combat terrorism, international cricket has slowly made a return. Today, with the security situation stabilising and Pakistan hosting several high-profile international events, such as the Asia Cup, most countries have no reservations about playing cricket in Pakistan. The sole exception remains India.
To accommodate India, the Asia Cup model was even adjusted. Matches were split between two venues – Pakistan and Sri Lanka – so India’s games were played in Sri Lanka as part of this hybrid arrangement, which Pakistan agreed to.
However, the question remains: will this policy of appeasement continue with the ICC Championship Trophy scheduled to be held in Pakistan in February? So far, Pakistan has refused to comply with India’s demand to relocate its matches to a neutral venue. Pakistan, in terms of both national pride and professional commitment, must take a firm stance in the cricket arena and reject India’s hegemonic demands. Sports, historically used to ease strained relations, should not be turned into a political tool.
While Pakistan harbours its own resentment towards India – particularly after the 2019 abrogation of Article 375, which led to the termination of Jammu and Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status and its subsequent annexation by India – the country has nonetheless kept the door to cricket diplomacy open. Pakistan even participated in last year’s Cricket World Cup in India.
Over the decades, India has constructed a defensive shield around itself, distancing itself from anything linked to Pakistan. Under the BJP, this shield has grown even stronger, limiting basic people-to-people contact. The reasons for this range from the foundational two-nation theory to the more recent challenge of terrorism, which has affected many countries since 9/11. For India, the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent Mumbai terror attacks – which killed hundreds – served as a convenient pretext to freeze Pakistan-India relations under the label of terrorism.
Despite Pakistan’s sustained war against terrorism, it has struggled to shift this narrative. Meanwhile, India has successfully projected Pakistan as a villain through its economic growth and expansive market, painting Pakistan as a country to be avoided at all costs. Pakistan’s slow economic progress and internal political instability have only strengthened this perception, turning it into a harsh reality for many both within and beyond India.
In today’s geoeconomic landscape, this perception has also resulted in opportunism, where economic interests often outweigh concerns about human rights violations, especially when financial gains are at stake.
The question arises: why has India taken such a hardline stance on cricket? Why continue to maintain a relationship with a country that, according to India, doesn’t align with its anti-terrorism framework? And the most pressing question: has India truly eliminated every discriminatory policy against minorities based on religion and caste?
India’s Foreign Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar’s speech at a Delhi university serves as a stark reminder. He urged students to keep the scars of the Mumbai attacks alive, cementing in young minds the resolve never to forget the pain of those events. India has expertly crafted a narrative that places Pakistan in the terrorism dock while simultaneously rewriting history to cast the period of Muslim rule in the subcontinent as one of decadence and oppression against Hindus, casting Islam in a controversial light.
This strategy has become India’s masterstroke in portraying Pakistan as a failed state, with the clear objective being to undermine the legitimacy of partition and present it as a fragile house of cards set to collapse.
This is where the problem lies. Under the BJP, India’s primary agenda appears to be destabilising Pakistan, or ensuring its downfall. India’s alleged support for the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) exemplifies this. Take, for instance, Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian spy who was captured by the Pakistani military in Balochistan while attempting to cross into Pakistan from Iran in 2016. Jadhav was charged with subversive activities aimed at sabotaging and undermining CPEC in collusion with BLA and other terror groups.
India has also consistently tried to isolate Pakistan on the international stage. It played a key role in rendering the SAARC platform ineffective, famously boycotting the 2016 South Asian summit in Islamabad, leading to Bangladesh and Bhutan following suit. As a result, SAARC has remained dormant, with its last session being held in Kathmandu in 2014. This underscores India’s claim to leadership in the Global South.
SAARC represents 22% of the world’s population and contributes 3% to the global economy, highlighting its potential to drive growth and development. However, its shortcomings are largely attributed to India’s hegemonic approach.
India’s reluctance to attend the SCO Heads of Government meeting in Pakistan this October further highlights this stance. Yet, given the multilateral significance of the SCO, India temporarily set aside its anti-terrorism rhetoric to participate.
India’s stance on cricket, defying the ICC’s policy of separating sports from politics not only affects Pakistan’s right to host international events but also carries broader diplomatic, economic and developmental consequences.
The boycott undermines opportunities for cultural exchange and regional cricket growth while challenging sports diplomacy. It is crucial for international cricket authorities to ensure that sport remains a unifying force, rather than a vehicle for political discord.
