Cricket is more than a sport. For both Pakistan and India, it is passion, pride, and at times even identity. The sound of the bat striking the ball, the roar of the crowd, the colorful flags in the stands, all of this creates an atmosphere where people forget their differences and immerse themselves in the spirit of the game. Yet, time and again, politics creeps into this sacred ground and turns a joyous celebration into an arena of hostility.
On 14th September 2025, during the Asia Cup cricket match held in Dubai, the world once again witnessed how cricket, a game meant to embody unity and healthy rivalry was overshadowed by the weight of political propaganda.
From the outset, the Indian public backed by some of their so-called prominent figures were loudly encouraging a boycott of the totournament simply because Pakistan was part of the tournament. After that they insisted to boycott the match with Pakistan.Boycott? Of a cricket match? And let us not forget, even before the Asia Cup began, at a press conference where Indian Captain, Suryakumar Yadav, shook hands with Pakistani Captain,Salman Ali Agha and with Mohsin Naqvi, the chairman of the Asian Cricket Council, their public shouted a lot in outrage over that very handshake. Can you imagine the level of hatred and the absence of tolerance this reflects? This is a classic example of hostility dressed up as nationalism. What does that reveal except fear and insecurity, the inability to face an opponent with dignity? This isn’t strength, it’s psychological projection hatred born from their own weakness.
However, despite all the noise the match did happen and throughout the match Indians stooped to Pakistan-bashing and vile remarks on social media. However, India won the match and the victory speech of the Indian captain, Suryakumar Yadav dragged the narrative back into politics. He dedicated the win to the victims of the Pahalgam terror attack (April 22, 2025) and to the security forces. He transformed a moment of celebration into a weapon of blame. His conduct revealed him as just another typical Indian driven by hatred, blind to the true spirit of game. It tied Pakistan to the tragedy without proof and reinforced the assumption of guilt.
In India, it is being celebrated as a matter of pride. But is this truly something to celebrate?
After the match, Indians went so far as to call their win a ‘revenge’ and if this is revenge, revenge for what? For something Pakistan never did.
The entire fiasco proved that most Indians are unable to compartmentalize life and they mix one thing with another. A truly competent and responsible nation knows how to separate different aspects of life, but here, politics was allowed to poison sport.
Historically, cricket has played a role in diplomacy between the two nations. In 1987, President Zia-ul-Haq’s “cricket diplomacy” visit to India marked a moment when sport softened political tensions. When General Pervez Musharraf visited India during a cricket match, it reminded the world that dialogue and connection are possible even amidst political strain. Players themselves have often shown mutual respect. Wasim Akram and Sachin Tendulkar praised each other as legends, Shoaib Akhtar and Virender Sehwag later shared camaraderie in commentary boxes, and fans witnessed moments when rivals hugged or congratulated each other after tough matches.
History bears witness that Pakistan has never been the one to initiate aggression whether in words or in action yet has always responded with resilience when provoked.
The Pahalgam attack had not been proven to be the work of Pakistan. It was based on assumptions of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his administration, a political narrative used to strengthen hostility. Pakistan openly said it was ready for a full investigation, but India neither allowed nor pursued any neutral inquiry. Instead, blame after blame was directed across the border. Later, without evidence, India escalated by attacking Pakistani airbases. Even after warnings, the aggression continued and Pakistan, historically not the one to initiate conflict, was forced to respond. In the confrontation that followed, Pakistan downed six Indian Rafale jets, a 6-0 ratio victory that shocked the world.
The constant politicization of cricket and conflict between India and Pakistan has deep psychological effects on both nations. For ordinary citizens, it creates a perpetual state of mistrust and anxiety. Instead of viewing matches as joyful rivalries, fans absorb the hatred pushed by politicians and media. This reinforces negative stereotypes, teaching entire generations to see their neighbors not as fellow human beings, but as enemies.
For Pakistanis, there is frustration and exhaustion. With a history of not being the aggressor including in the Pahalgam incident where Pakistan invited investigation the constant cycle of blame without proof generates feelings of injustice. It creates psychological fatigue: why must we defend ourselves for things we did not do? Yet, when forced into retaliation, Pakistanis also feel pride in their resilience, such as during the 6-0 air battle victory. This duality hurt and pride shapes national identity, but it also burdens people with a heavy psychological and emotional weight.
For Indians, too, there are costs. Ordinary fans are manipulated into anger, living with heightened nationalism that often translates into hatred rather than pride. Constant hostility robs them of the chance to experience sport and neighboring relations with balance. Their psyche becomes tied to propaganda rather than the natural joy of cricket.
The human brain, when fed constant narratives of hostility, begins to normalize hate. In psychological terms, it is a collective trauma a shared mental wound that keeps reopening with every political game.
The costs of politicizing cricket are many. Players suffer the burden of pressure that has nothing to do with the game. They are expected not only to win but to carry the flag of political narratives. Mental health is compromised when sport becomes war. Fans, too, are robbed of the joy of simply watching a game. And worst of all, opportunities for genuine diplomacy through cricket are lost.
Where Do We Go From Here?: The recent India-Pakistan match should have been remembered for its cricketing brilliance and for the shared passion of millions of fans. Instead, it descended into an episode of hatred but not because of Pakistan, which played no negative role, but entirely because of India. It was their actions, one hundred percent, that turned a simple game into a shameful spectacle.
Unfortunalely, both nations pay the price. This is not what the world needs today. India and Pakistan are neighbors; geography cannot change that. But the quality of that relationship is in human hands. It should be shaped by respect, diplomacy, and friendship, not animosity.
It is time to reclaim cricket for what it is: a celebration of skill, spirit, and unity.
The post When politics pollutes the game: Cricket beyond boundaries appeared first on The Financial Daily.
