The case against India-Pak matches
On the day you are reading this, India and Pakistan will meet at the Dubai International Cricket Stadium for the Asia Cup 2025. But with the wounds of the April 22 Pahalgam attack— in which Pakistani terrorists killed 26 Indians—still raw, we must ask: do such encounters serve any purpose beyond fleeting entertainment and commercial profit? Will this match not reopen the grief of victims’ families? Shouldn’t the dignity of the nation and the security of its citizens outweigh cricketing spectacle?
The unease is visible. Campaigns like #BoycottAsiaCup are trending, echoing public anger. For decades, cricket has been projected as a form of ‘people-to-people diplomacy’, a supposed balm to strained relations. Yet, when it comes to Pakistan, this cricket diplomacy has yielded little—at times even proving outright counterproductive.
Throughout history, the legitimacy of sports boycotts has been well established. During the apartheid era, South Africa faced a comprehensive and long-term boycott across sports, including the Olympics and cricket. This boycott exerted moral pressure on the segregationist system. In Feb 2022, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) prevented Russia and Belarus from competing in international sporting events under their national identity.
The message is clear: when fundamental values, human rights, or security are attacked, sports cannot proceed as normal. To normalise relations on the field while terror flows across borders is to legitimise violence.
Cricket is a massive business, with its media rights and broadcast ecosystem valued in billions of dollars. India-Pakistan matches generate enormous viewership and advertising revenue. India alone accounts for 80-90% of global revenues through the BCCI’s broadcast deals and sponsorships. Yet, this indirectly subsidises and provides revenue to the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB). In effect, India indirectly but effectively funds an adversary. Pakistan’s real weakness lies in its economy. India must strike at all sources that provide even minimal foreign exchange to Pakistan. If any economic activity weakens your security or diplomatic standing, then that activity is a net loss. By this logic, a complete boycott is the only logical path. Cricket with concessions to terrorism is not truly a sport. Morally, such a boycott sends a message that human life is above entertainment.
This is not a call to politicise every game but to recognise that cricket in this context is already political. It sends a signal of normalisation where none exists. A boycott is not just symbolic; it is a non-violent instrument of pressure, isolating a state that refuses to dismantle terror networks. Until Pakistan credibly reforms, distancing itself from sponsorship of violence, cricketing ties cannot be morally or strategically justified. And let us not forget that during Operation Sindoor, some Pakistani cricketers openly mocked Indian operations.
India’s security must come before sport. To continue matches now is to dilute the sacrifices of citizens and the spirit of national unity in times of crisis. As the Prime Minister had declared in the context of the Indus Water Treaty: “Blood and water cannot flow together.” Let’s stay the course.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE
