Few forces in modern India command the kind of devotion that cricket does. More than just a sport, it has propelled young talent from rural obscurity to national stardom, transforming individuals into icons and offering an escape from economic hardship. This ability to change lives has cemented cricket’s almost sacred status, fostering the belief that it unites the republic across caste, class, and religion. But this belief is a carefully cultivated illusion.
Cricket has become an overindulged spectacle, a manufactured obsession that distracts from the deeper fractures threatening the republic’s foundations. While it offers moments of collective joy, the unity it claims to foster vanishes the moment the adrenaline fades. A republic cannot sustain itself on fleeting euphoria. The longer India clings to gilli-danda nationalism, mistaking a commodified sport for the foundation of its national identity, the steeper its descent into irrelevance.
Manufactured solidarity, fuelled by corporate interests and media spectacle, is no substitute for the difficult, uncompromising task of building a just and equal society. Cricket does not heal divisions; it conceals them. More often than not, it magnifies them, perpetuating the very inequalities it pretends to transcend.
A game that fails its women
Cricket’s claim to inclusivity is a convenient myth, shattered the moment one examines the sport’s treatment of women. This is not just about the systemic neglect of women’s cricket but also about how women are framed within the broader spectacle. Broadcasters routinely zoom in on female spectators, reducing them to decorative objects rather than recognising them as genuine fans.
Cricketers’ wives and partners are treated as mere extensions of their husbands’ careers, their own identities erased. Worse, when a player struggles on the field, his wife often becomes an easy scapegoat, blamed for supposedly distracting or “weakening” him. Whether it is a wife’s professional success, her social media presence, or even her public appearances, any deviation from an invisible, supportive role is treated as a liability. The idea that a cricketer’s performance is determined by his wife’s choices, rather than his own form, reflects the deeply ingrained misogyny that continues to plague the sport.
Despite recent progress like the establishment of the Women’s Premier League, the disparity in other remains staggering. Women’s cricket(ers) receives only a fraction of the investment, central contract retainerships, media attention, and prestige lavished upon the men’s game. If cricket truly fostered unity, it would uplift all who play it, not just a privileged few. Instead, it perpetuates exclusion, mirroring the broader inequalities that persist within the republic.
Even when the women’s team achieves historic victories, their triumphs are met with muted applause, overshadowed by the ceaseless glorification of their male counterparts. Beyond the field, cricket remains an inhospitable space for women. Stadiums, hailed as sites of national celebration, often become arenas of harassment where women’s presence is tolerated rather than welcomed. The wider discourse rarely addresses these fundamental barriers, ensuring that women’s place in the sport remains secondary, their voices unheard.
Nationalism as spectacle
Cricket has become a battleground for performative nationalism, where players are expected to align with dominant political narratives. Every gesture, every action is dissected for its ideological implications, stripping the game of its essence and turning it into a tool for manufactured outrage. After India’s 2025 Champions Trophy victory, a moment of personal respect became the latest flashpoint in the republic’s cultural and political wars.
As Mohammed Shami’s mother stepped onto the field, Virat Kohli instinctively touched her feet, a practice common in many Indian traditions. But rather than being acknowledged for what it was, the act was hijacked. It was hailed by some as an act of defiance, condemned by others as a challenge to the existing order. That such a simple gesture could ignite ideological battle lines speaks to the deep fractures within the republic.
Even as this contrived controversy consumed public discourse, real crises unfolded elsewhere.
During the Champions Trophy celebrations, communal violence erupted in Mhow, exposing once again that the republic’s deepest fault lines remain unaddressed. Yet, instead of reckoning with these urgent realities, the nation fixated on a cricketer’s gesture. A sport marketed as a unifier has, time and again, become the very stage upon which divisions are reinforced. While people temporarily rally behind a shared team, the underlying tensions remain intact, only to be reignited when political expedience demands.
The fragile illusion of unity
If cricket truly united the republic, the vilification of Shami after India’s 2021 T20 World Cup loss would never have happened. The same people who praised him in victory turned against him in defeat, revealing the conditional nature of his acceptance.
If the sport genuinely transcended politics, women in cricket would receive equal investment and recognition. If it fostered solidarity, it would not be weaponised to deepen divisions. The unity cricket offers is a mirage, one that shatters the moment real issues rise to the surface. No republic can sustain itself on the emotional highs of a game driven by corporate profits and media spectacle while neglecting the far more urgent work of social progress.
The relentless commodification of cricket, where sponsorship deals and advertising revenue dictate the sport’s future, only deepens the disconnect between the illusion of unity and the stark reality of social disparity. The same media houses that amplify cricketing triumphs remain conspicuously silent on matters of injustice, discrimination, and systemic inequality.
Moreover, cricket’s dominance has suffocated an entire sporting culture, pushing other disciplines into oblivion. Rather than fostering a diverse and inclusive athletic landscape, the country has shackled itself to a single game, further concentrating power and attention in one domain at the cost of broader sporting development.
Reimagining the republic beyond cricket
If the Indian republic is to endure, it must outgrow its cricket fixation and seek a more meaningful foundation for national cohesion. The country must rediscover the principles that once gave it purpose; constitutional values, intellectual and artistic achievements, scientific progress and an unwavering commitment to justice, liberty, and equality.
A republic cannot be built on stadium roars, primetime debates over team selections, and the theatrics of a commercialised sport. It must be anchored in the ability to uphold fundamental rights, foster critical thought, and ensure that every citizen is treated with dignity and respect. To move forward, the republic must create spaces where unity is not a performance but a reality – where diversity is celebrated beyond token gestures, where women’s achievements are recognised as equal, and where citizens are engaged not just as spectators but as active participants in shaping the nation’s future.
The misplaced priorities that elevate cricket above the republic’s most pressing concerns must be dismantled, making room for a more expansive, inclusive, and intellectually rich national identity. Cricket will always be cherished, but mistaking it for the glue that holds the republic together is a dangerous delusion. And when the spectacle fades, when the roars of the stadium die down, and when the screens go blank, what will remain? If the republic continues to invest more in its cricketing dreams than in its political and social realities, the answer may be nothing at all.
John Simte is a lawyer. He has graduated from National Law School, Bangalore.
