That sports and politics shouldn’t mix is one of the most prosaic and unimaginative responses people come up with when asked an uncomfortable question. It’s a refusal to address an awkward quagmire; a clever dodge from saying something that’s bound to upset people. Because it’s blatantly dishonest to pretend sports and politics actually do not mix. Sport in fact is in service of a country’s political ends for the most part without explicitly stating so.
And yet, every time it comes to having to tackle the awkwardness of defunct India-Pakistan cricket relations, those with a voice care way more about appearances than the truth. It’s somehow much more convenient to stick to a rather affable script emphasising how passionate ‘people in both countries are for cricket’ and that sport should rise above petty politics – essentially resorting to agreeable sweet nothings because the truth isn’t that pretty.
From the day the hosting rights for the upcoming 2025 ICC Champions Trophy were awarded to Pakistan, the turf was ripe for a redux of an Indo-Pak political tussle. India has long refused to entertain any possibility of resuming normal cricketing activities with its Western neighbour. Bilateral cricket between the two countries has been dead for over a decade now and there was never the slightest of doubts over India reconsidering its position on sending the men’s team to Pakistan amidst persistently tense relations.
Now, if cricket were an equitably run sport with strong systems and enforceable rules in place, then India’s forfeiture from the tournament would’ve been the only obvious outcome in this situation. There’ve been precedents for this in cricket itself where teams have refused to travel to certain countries citing security and diplomatic concerns. And they’ve all had to concede those many games.
Since the Champions Trophy was (at least on paper) slated to be held entirely in Pakistan, India would naturally have to forgo of its participation and be replaced by the next ranked team. But the international cricket order is anything but a fairly or equitably run system. The finances of the sport are beyond lopsided and the ICC has long conceded its incapacity in standing up to the BCCI.
The extent to which the sport has been allowed to be systematically monopolised by the BCCI, it’s become unviable for tournaments to not have Indian superstars on TV screens. The broadcasters are fairly upfront in dictating terms since they believe they’ve paid obscene amounts in procuring rights for these tournaments. Serving them a tournament sans an India-Pakistan fixture is out of question in this scenario because that will inevitably tank the valuation in the next rights cycle.
The best bad idea
And thus, all the relevant parties have reached a compromise that can in the kindest possible terms be described as the best bad idea on the table. It took two months too many of going back and forth and Pakistan trying to flex its non-existent muscle but it was never a negotiation between equals. Ultimately, the BCCI’s writ has forced everyone’s hand and the tournament will be played in a hybrid model.
India’s three group-stage games are now confirmed to be held in Dubai while the rest of the tournament remains with Pakistan. In addition to the India games, one of the two semi-finals too is slated for Dubai. And while the final is provisionally allotted to Lahore, that could change should India make it that far. The uncertainties in the schedule are tiring to even read through, let alone buy tickets and plan travels for. It’s pretty unbecoming of a serious tournament but that’s the kind of sport cricket has willingly reduced itself to.
Broadcasters and sponsors would anyway prefer a much larger chunk of games pivot to T20s. A 50-over tournament is already a hard sell and the difficulty only compounds without the guaranteed ad revenue from fixtures involving India. The ICC itself has to share part of the blame in things reaching a point where the sport’s very feasibility hinges on participation of one team but there are more pressing concerns to address right now than fixing an unresolvable mess.
Money
The revenue generated from these ICC tournaments is critical in keeping international cricket afloat. Outside India and to a lesser extent Australia and England, member boards in other countries are really struggling to resist the T20 market forces. It’s becoming harder and harder for the lesser boards to retain their players’ interest in continuing to represent the national side rather than becoming T20 journeymen.
The share of ICC revenues these boards receive – howsoever inequitably distributed – is helping them host Test matches and pay their players. An imminent existential threat to the international game doesn’t place the ICC in the best possible position to take a principled stand against the BCCI making the entire ecosystem bend to its whims.
But while the BCCI is notoriously famous at holding the sport hostage every now and again, whether or not to travel to Pakistan is a decision way above their paygrade and one they should not be directly held responsible for. It’s a call exclusively reserved with the top office-bearers in the government of India. The BCCI only has to follow the lead. And the government has showed no signs of relaxing its stance vis-à-vis Pakistan.
Diplomacy
Now it’s not like the Indian government isn’t keen on resuming cultural and sporting ties with Pakistan only out of spite and pettiness. The Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism is the biggest concern to India’s internal security apparatus and Pakistan has done little to repair this trust deficit. The present Indian dispensation has significantly drifted from the traditional Pakistan policy where mending relations and keeping an open dialogue was prioritised to steadfast hostility.
But the Indian stance would be much better served were it to be enforced far more uniformly and without coming across as wanting to have its cake and eat it too. A principled position would mean a complete refusal to engage with Pakistan in any sporting or cultural exchange. But enforcing this stance only when it comes to playing cricket while letting every other sports pass under the radar is both opportunistic and convenient.
Since the BCCI exerts a monopolistic clout over international cricket, playing a diplomatic hardball doesn’t come with any costs; whereas there’d be very real consequences including facing sanctions while attempting to do the same in other sports where the Indian government isn’t particularly bothered with optics since those events attract little fanfare. To suggest the Indian tennis and bridge contingents face any less security risk in Pakistan compared to high-profile cricketers is a non-serious argument that even the most pliant of media anchors struggle to make with a straight face.
Posturing
BCCI’s case is further weakened by the fact that tournament after tournament draws are gamed at their behest to ensure India and Pakistan are pooled together. Formats are designed to completely milk the commercial potential of an India-Pakistan match.
When India hosted the ICC World Cup in 2023, the Pakistan game could’ve been held in any of the 10 venues. But India chose to host it in Ahmedabad – in front of a record capacity crowd with a special entertainment program arranged for no reason. Ahmedabad’s status as the de facto capital of Indian cricket today and the political significance of hosting Pakistan in a stadium named after Prime Minister Narendra Modi was not lost on anyone.
Also read: Watching Cricket – Now a Vehicle for the Political Elite – at the Narendra Modi Stadium
The repeated attempts at conjuring up games with Pakistan in every tournament and the artificial frenzy generated around them make it very hard to see India’s allegedly firm stance as anything more than empty posturing. Keeping up the appearance of not softening or reconsidering the position rings hollow after a point.
On their part, both the Pakistani state and the country’s cricket establishment insist on India reciprocating the goodwill they’ve showed. But provocative actions like hosting Zakir Naik as a state guest or haphazardly coming up with a domestic T20 tournament based out of Kashmir indicate there are other constituencies they are focused on keeping happy.
Security as narrative
India’s grievances are very genuine. Terrorism is not a bogey India rakes up to score political points. But the government and the BCCI need absolute clarity in communication about wanting to unreservedly sever cricketing ties with Pakistan and then put weight behind those words.
Relying on overzealous anchors in submissive media houses to make their case and letting a state of confusion persist before pulling the plug comes across as scheming and duplicitous. Ever since the resumption of international cricket in Pakistan, nearly every team has now had at least one full-fledged tour without any major incident. And this includes countries like Australia, England, and South Africa who’ve historically reserved far more skepticism for the security situation in Pakistan than India ever has.
Playing up the security narrative through noisy newsrooms therefore has run its course. It’s going to have increasingly fewer takers. If India sees cricket as a diplomatic leverage to force Pakistan’s hand into stomping its hostile ways and demonstrate it to India’s satisfaction, then it requires to be unambiguously said so as a matter of policy.
And the sincerity of this stance can only be ratified if it also extends to not playing Pakistan in multi-nation tournaments no matter where they’re held. Rigging draws to put the two in the same pot while simultaneously portraying bravado serves neither cricket nor the national interest.
Since the government and the BCCI are too inextricably intertwined in the present setup, the two shouldn’t find it particularly hard to manage being on the same page on this. Because cricket can certainly do without the uncertainty of operational and logistical hazards every other tournament on account of one board throwing tantrums only since it can.
