India vs Pakistan in Asia Cup? Cricket with terror state Pakistan is good for business after all
It should be a political debate, because that's how the issue has been treated for decades. But in reality, it's a financial issue. The organisers of the tournament stand to make millions and cannot afford to have India pull out, as that would dent their profits. The same goes for the TV channels, which have paid crores to broadcast the tournament. They don't want to see their investment collapse if India withdraws.
Should India play cricket with Pakistan? More crucially, after several former Indian cricketers boycotted the match against Pakistan in the ongoing World Championship of Legends tournament, should we participate in the forthcoming Asia Cup where India could end up playing three matches against Pakistan?
Then there's the argument that India's desire to host the 2036 Olympics prevents us from boycotting tournaments for political reasons. Never mind that: a) The Asia Cup has nothing to do with the Olympics and is not organised by the Olympic Committee; b) That has never stopped us from boycotting sport with Pakistan before; c) There is a long and honourable tradition of countries refusing to play sport with others for so-called 'political reasons.'
England wasn't ostracised when it refused to play South Africa during apartheid. The US wasn't drummed out of the comity of nations when it boycotted the Moscow Olympics over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
These are pathetic, bogus excuses offered by money-hungry men and their toadies.
Also read: Those separating cricket from politics after Reasi tragedy are either delusional or Pakistani
India set the precedent for boycott in sports
To see through these lies, we need only remind ourselves of a few basic facts.
There is a precedent for sports boycotts. For decades, India — and then the rest of the civilised world — refused to play with South Africa because it disapproved of apartheid. Even then, there were people (mainly White men) who opposed this position, pushing the same bogus argument still advanced by greedy interests: that sport should be free of politics.
In other words, it's perfectly okay to pretend to be gentlemen together on the playing field with countries that legitimise bigotry and racism or murder people in pursuit of political ends.
In politics, military and trade, we should shun and isolate these countries, but when it comes to cricket, they are just jolly good chaps who we must engage with because 'sports should be free of politics.' Right?
That's like the Allies saying during World War 2: 'We will defeat the Nazis and save humanity—but hey, why not play a game or two with these genocidal maniacs? It's only sport after all.'
If you accept the principle of sporting sanctions — and India was among the first countries to advocate boycotts — then you only need to ask: is there a difference between apartheid-era South Africa and today's Pakistan?
I don't even need to answer that. Home Minister Amit Shah and much of the Modi government have been answering in Parliament for the past several days.
Also read: Play Pakistan, know Pakistan—why Indian cricket can't afford to let go of the golden window
Like apartheid, stand against Pakistani terror
Pakistan is a terror state; a sponsor of terrorism against India. The Pahalgam massacre was clearly organised by Pakistanis. To even ask whether the terrorists came from Pakistan is now seen as treason. That's why we attacked terror camps in Pakistan. That's why we launched Operation Sindoor. That's why our armed forces risked their lives. We must cripple Pakistan so it can never take another Indian life again.
To this, the supporters of India's participation in the Asia Cup ask: 'But while we are crippling Pakistan, can't we at least make crores by playing cricket with them?
Does that even deserve a response?
For decades, India has urged the world to declare Pakistan a terrorist state. When Donald Trump hyphenates India and Pakistan, we get agitated and ask: 'How can you speak of us in the same breath as these terrorists? You should be chastising and isolating Pakistan, not equating us.'
But now we say: Don't isolate them while we are playing cricket with them, please! There are big bucks in it for us!'
In moral terms, apartheid was an abomination. We could have treated it as South Africa's internal matter. But we didn't — we stood up for human rights.
Pakistan-sponsored terrorism is just as bad, morally. But for us, it's even worse. With apartheid, we were taking a principled global stand. Here, our own people are being murdered. This isn't abstract morality. This is a question of Indian lives.
If anything, we should take an even stronger stand than we did in global cases.
Also read: This argument isn't about cricket but the Subcontinent's geopolitics. That's why it begins with cricket
Stop with the bonhomie drivel
Finally, let's dispose of the one argument that is always trotted out after the 'keep politics out of sport' drivel collapses: 'We should play sport with Pakistan because people-to-people contact brings peace and understanding.'
But does it?
One of the first things Pakistan did after we resumed cricket ties was to send militants into Kashmir to foment insurrection. Is there any evidence that cricket has improved relations between the two countries?
Don't swallow the two big lies in these discussions.
First, India-Pakistan matches are not occasions of bonhomie and goodwill, as we are constantly told. They are spectacles of jingoism and hostility. When India plays Pakistan, it's rare to hear an Indian say, 'These Pakistanis are jolly good chaps.' What you do hear is: 'Crush the b_____s.'
Second, don't buy the nonsense that the problem lies only with the Pakistani government, while ordinary Pakistanis love India because of cricket.
The people who say this are either professional liars or have never met a Pakistani. During Operation Sindoor, Pakistanis rallied around their government, wished death on Indian forces, and celebrated when their media told them Pakistan had defeated India. There was no people-to-people love.
We may blather on about 'Aman Ki Asha', but the only 'Aman' Pakistanis have ever admired is Zeenat Aman.
Let's not kid ourselves about why cricket administrators want India to play Pakistan in the Asia Cup. It has nothing to do with India's interests.
All they care about is the interest that will accumulate — in their bank accounts.
Vir Sanghvi is a print and television journalist, and talk show host. He tweets @virsanghvi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Siraj plays with a lot of heart and always gives that extra 10%: Dilip
After a series-saving five-wicket haul at The Oval, Mohammed Siraj was spotted learning a trend from Arshdeep Singh for an Instagram reel. It involved a nonchalant utterance of the words: 'Pressure? What pressure?' Arshdeep then chided a bumbling Siraj, 'He has to be taught everything besides bowling!' He was right. With 23 wickets to his name, Siraj emerged as India's leading wicket-taker in England, the joint most by an Indian seamer in a Test series in the country alongside Jasprit Bumrah (2021-22). That trademark aggression which England had stared into time and again over the last 25 days was replaced by a big, toothy smile. Team India fielding coach T. Dilip was all praise for the explosive Hyderabad pacer, saying Siraj loves a 'good challenge.' 'In most games I have seen him feature in — be it in Ranji Trophy or for India — whenever there's a challenge placed before him, he comes out on top. Challenges get the best out of him, and the best way he tackles hard stuff is by bringing out that aggression,' he told The Hindu. The 31-year-old shouldered a lion's share of bowling duties, accounting for 185.3 overs in all. 'It's never easy for any fast bowler to play all games while also being effective. The physical side is one thing, but it also comes down to mindset. Siraj plays with a lot of heart. He takes pride in representing India and always gives that extra 10%. It shows what a character he is'.
The Hindu
4 minutes ago
- The Hindu
A gripping series and a fantastic finale
How do you describe this series? How do you even begin to start to describe this series? A classic seems too cliched, an epic too obvious. For five Tests and 25 days and more than 70 sessions, two teams at different ends of the experience spectrum went toe to toe. Shots were fired, counter measures deployed, counterpunches thrown. Sparks flew, tempers frayed, sometimes, shoulders made contact. When the dust settled, there was nothing to separate England and India. Absolutely nothing. England, the hosts, had a greater volume of Test work coming into this series but India, unyielding India with a youngish batting group and a first-time captain, more than held their own, bouncing back with unbelievable resilience every time they appeared out for the count. With a little more awareness and a little more luck, India could easily have wrapped their hands around the inaugural Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy. They won more sessions than their seasoned opponents, but the sessions lost came back to haunt them. It appeared as if that trend would spill over to the fifth Test too, though India didn't quite lose the session so much as squander a moment. It was a moment that could have hurt them badly, but such is the unbelievable competitiveness of the man who was the principal actor of that misstep that not even the cricketing gods could stop from smiling down benevolently at him. Finally. India had numerous heroes during this thrill-a-minute 2-2 ride. Skipper Shubman Gill, who stacked up 754 runs in his first series in that capacity, the most by an Indian captain ever and the second most by an Indian, after Sunil Gavaskar's 774 in the Caribbean in 1971. K.L. Rahul, who compiled twin hundreds in the same series for the first time in his 11-year Test career. Ravindra Jadeja, the third entrant into the 500-run club, who took consistency to a new level with five half-centuries and a ton in nine innings. Rishabh Pant, who slammed two hundreds and three fifties, the last of them on a broken foot in his final innings of the series in Manchester. Yashasvi Jaiswal, who started and ended the series with hundreds. Washington Sundar, who was the hero with the ball at Lord's and with the bat in Manchester with a match-saving unbeaten hundred as well as at the Oval, where his second-innings fifty in the last batter's company pushed England's target from a challenging to an arduous one. Jasprit Bumrah, who picked up 14 wickets despite playing only three Tests. Prasidh Krishna, same number of Tests, same number of wickets as Bumrah, at a higher economy rate but also at a better strike-rate. And, of course, Mohammed Siraj. Siraj wore a bemused, slightly offended smile when, during the course of a question, the questioner said he hadn't had a good Border-Gavaskar Trophy series in Australia in the winter. 'Sir, I took 20 wickets in that series,' he replied, without malice, without a hint of anger or annoyance. So he did, but because Bumrah finished with 32 wickets, many of them top-order scalps unlike here in England, the perception was that India's bowling attack was a one-man army. Far from it. Siraj was the rock around which Bumrah built his success. Seldom has one man bowled so well for so long and had so little success. Siraj's luck had to turn. It just had to. That it finally did here in England, where he finished with an all-comers' high 23 wickets, has elevated his standing, enhanced his reputation. He has gone from sometime with a huge heart to someone with a huge heart and immense skills, because unfortunately, we live in a world where skill is measured by numbers. Twenty-three has a nice ring to it, apparently. Driving force Especially once India lost Pant, Siraj had to be the engine room. The driving force. The enforcer with the ball when Bumrah wasn't around – he wasn't for the two wins, in Birmingham and at The Oval, in what must be put down to coincidence – but also the one to gee up his colleagues, to ensure that energy levels didn't drop, that the fight wasn't given up before the fat lady had sung, that the towel wasn't thrown in prematurely. Without Virat Kohli, he had to be the one to orchestrate the crowd, to get them to lift their decibel levels so that that could in turn lift the team when it was deflated, when it felt that things were slipping away from them. Siraj performed both those roles with aplomb, but never lost sight of the bigger goal, which was to deliver the goods for his team. Again perhaps coincidentally, both his five-wicket hauls came when Bumrah wasn't in the XI. In Birmingham, his six for 70 in the first innings opened up a 180-run lead that translated into a series-levelling 336-run victory. At The Oval, with the match having seemingly gotten away from them following the Harry Brook-Joe Root fourth-wicket carnage, in part because he himself offered Brook a 'life' with the batter on 19, Siraj found a second wind to finish with five for 104, among them three for nine in 4.1 outstanding overs under great pressure on Monday morning. India had only 35 runs to play with on the last of 25 days of this riveting series. They had to prise out four wickets to win the Test and square the series, which didn't give Gill, or Siraj and Prasidh, much to work with. But that's all they had; in the end, that's all they needed. In 56 minutes, they encapsulated the series in a nutshell with Siraj as the primary protagonist, and the valiant, wounded Chris Woakes providing a stirring subtext. Those 56 minutes tested Gill's composure and tactical nous. It will be fair to say that on both counts, he wasn't found wanting. In Leeds, he was understandably a half-step behind the game, chasing the ball with his fields and looking a little lost when England hunted down 371. But as the series progressed and as his bat caught fire, he became more assertive, if not authoritative. He is still a work in progress, but it is impressive to see both the work and the progress. Gill is unafraid to seek out counsel, either from his deputy Pant or the vastly experienced Rahul, who has led India in all three formats previously and is an excellent thinker who relished the responsibility of being the senior statesman of the side. That status was thrust on Rahul by the retirements of Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli and R. Ashwin at various stages in the last eight months. Gill's elevation as Rohit's successor didn't come without raised eyebrows; if he hasn't already silenced the Doubting Thomases, he most certainly won't in the future, but to the young man's credit, he doesn't really care about all those things. That's not to say that he is indifferent or cocooned in his own bubble, that he is disrespectful and self-obsessed. He seems to know what he wants, and how to go about achieving what he wants. His tactics (which, to be fair, aren't all entirely his own alone) might be questioned, but there is a Gill logic to his methodology and Indian cricket must trust his instincts, now more than ever, because he has emphatically earned his spurs. Fears that India would be blown away in the absence of their two immediate past captains – not so much Ashwin, because he hasn't been the same force away from Asia and the Caribbean – proved spectacularly unfounded. Giant question marks were hung around India's batting; after all, Jaiswal, Sai Sudharsan, Karun Nair, Washington Sundar, Abhimanyu Easwaran and Dhruv Jurel hadn't played a Test on English soil, Gill himself had played just three and didn't have the greatest record outside Asia. But England's predilection towards Bazball necessitated flat tracks which allowed India's young batters to find their feet right from the first innings of the first Test at Headingley. While it will be facile to pronounce that they didn't miss Kohli and/or Rohit, even they will acknowledge that their task was made easier by the surfaces that encouraged them to get into the series at the first time of asking. In a series of many positives, India has some problem areas that can't be wished away. Such as Bumrah's fragile back and the obvious need to manage him. How his now-on, now-off avatar affects the team, the composition and mindset of the bowling group. And, as importantly, how to string together a bunch of fast bowlers like Kohli and Ravi Shastri did some seven years or so back, which allowed India to compete on an equal footing once they travelled outside the subcontinent. Clearly, Akash Deep was out of his physical fitness depth despite his ten-wicket match haul in Birmingham. By the end of the Oval Test, he had nothing left to give, which was disappointing because he had missed the previous game with a groin/hip niggle and therefore didn't have a great deal of workload coming into the decider. He did weigh in with a crucial 66 in the second innings as the nightwatcher, which was commendable, but his primary task is looking for, and taking, wickets. His lack of fitness percolated to his fielding too. Whether India can afford to carry more than one bowler at less than peak physical conditioning can't be a topic up for debate. There can be no negotiations on that front; an exception can be made for Bumrah because, well, he is Bumrah, but there can only be one Bumrah, right? Comparisons are being drawn with the Ashes of two years back here in England, which also ended 2-2. The hosts came to the final Test at The Oval needing a victory to square the series; this time, the shoe was on the other foot, and India did an England, with their narrowest margin of victory by runs in Test history. Seal this series in your mind, and play it on loop. Because you will be hard pressed for an encore.
The Hindu
4 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Letters to The Editor — August 5, 2025
Voter ID card issue The Leader of the Opposition in Bihar, Tejashwi Yadav, ought to have verified his previous records as far as his voter ID is concerned. There seems to have been a 'mixup of sorts'. Therefore, he would have to cooperate with the Election Commission of India (ECI). As far as the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar is concerned, is the entire bloc of Opposition parties agitated over the potential loss of vote banks after the intensive revision of electoral rolls? Govardhana Myneedu, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh Pulling off a win The Indian cricket team has pulled off an incredible victory over experienced opponent England at the Oval. The energetic Indian team deserves fulsome credit. The team's success was also made possible due to sedulous care of the coach. K. Chellappan, Seattle, U.S. Cynicism about the survival and the future of five-day Tests is baseless. The road ahead for this old and original format of cricket is as safe and bright as its new and modern versions. M.V. Nagavender Rao, Hyderabad
