Diplomacy Denied: The Politics Behind India’s Cold Shoulder in Cricket

In South Asia, where there has been conflict instead of diplomacy and co-operation, sporting events such as cricket have always served as a connecting factor between two estranged siblings; India and Pakistan. However, India’s recent actions in the 2025 Asia Cup appear to have severed this delicate relationship. Being unwilling to shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts, the Indian players not only violated the rules of etiquette in sports but also made a calculated diplomatic rebuff, such a step that turned a cricket game into the staging ground of aggression and separation. What might have been an opportunity for soft diplomacy and symbolic reconciliation was utilized as a scene by India to sketch in military undertones and nationalistic dedication.

This is the most recent step by India, which has been in contrast to a rising belligerence on its part, both in words and actions towards Pakistan. The connection made between the Asia Cup game and the Operation Sindoor, the recent Indian military reaction to the Pahalgam incident, was an eye-catching effort to militarize a sporting event. The statement by the Indian captain, Suryakumar Yadav, which gave the victory to the armed forces fighting in Kashmir was obviously pre-planned to carry a political theme rather than the sporting spirit. The implication was quite clear that Pakistan was the enemy even in the field of cricket and that sportsmanship should be subservient to nationalism.

Such actions are not only disappointing, but also dangerous. Historically, Cricket has provided India and Pakistan with the much-needed pressure reliever to ease public sentiments, to substitute bombs with boundaries, and to make people support their nation without supporting war. From the 1980s, when Zia-ul-Haq tied up in the “Cricket for Peace diplomacy,” to President Musharraf’s visit to India in 2005 to watch an India vs. Pakistan Test match, cricket has performed the unofficial ambassador of peace duty on numerous occasions. Even in 2011, when Prime Ministers Yousaf Raza Gillani and Manmohan Singh sat next to each other in the semifinal of the world Cup, it was a moment of apprehensive hope, but in 2025, India chose animosity over amity.

This change cannot be considered separately or seen as a sudden move. In the recent few years, India’s posture toward Pakistan has changed to an increasingly aggressive tone. The revocation of Article 370 in 2019, the Balakot airstrikes, and more recently, Operation Sindoor, all are part of a wider pattern of India flexing its military strength while at the same time refusing diplomatic engagement. On the other hand, Pakistan has been a constant advocate of dialogue, restraint and depoliticization of sport. The Pakistani squad went to the Asia Cup in the spirit of sportsmanship and with the hope that they might prove that the frosty relations could be melted together by what they shared on the field. Instead, they faced stone-cold silence and political posturing.

Additionally, the Indian narrative of linking sports victory to the Pahalgam attack is equally unethical. India is not only politicizing the sport by dragging the sport of cricket to the shady waters of counterterrorism and military action but it is also silencing any reconciliation bloc early on. Furthermore, this account does not recognize that there are mounting suspicions even about the very existence of Pahalgam, including the false accusations on Pakistan and the haste with which military action against Pakistan was taken and the conveniently timed escalation that followed. Regardless of speculation, the fact remains: Pakistan has denied being involved and volunteered to collaborate in an impartial investigation, an offer that was predictably ignored.

If anything, Pakistan has handled the Indian posturing with maturity. As the Indian players walked off the field in refusal to shake hands, Pakistani players remained in position, stretching their hand which was left hanging. It was not the petulance of Pakistani captain Salman Ali Agha to subsequently refuse the post-match ceremony, but an implicit protest against a system that values the performance of nationalism more than the actual sport. The idea of India insisting on the integration of militarism with cricket is also ironical in that it is sensitive to its own area when the international arena politicizes matters pertaining to it. India has been quick to term such statements as ‘interference in internal affairs’ when international sportsmen or celebrities have talked about human rights in Kashmir. However, in this case, it was by the Indian team which decided to turn an international cricket match into a political affair. Not only is the hypocrisy visible, but it is blinding.

What India does not realize or may have chosen to turn a blind eye towards is that each such act is a bit that erodes the peace and mutual trust of the region. This is an aggressive and undiplomatic form of behavior that does not sit well with a country that hopes to be a global leader, and an advocate of democratic values. It conveys to the world that India is willing to exchange the universality of sport for a narrow political narrative.

The Asia Cup match could have marked a significant milestone. Even a handshake at the toss, a bit of mutual respect at the end of the game or even a detached commentary on the beauty of the game, these trifles might have said it all. They would have softened the public sentiments, turned the players on each side into humans, and reminded us all that there are more than just the borders of the nation-states between which the competition and culture of the same. India has lost another chance for peace and betrayed cricket’s spirit by favoring symbolism over sport, nationalism over hospitality, and military over diplomacy.