In February 1987, Pakistan’s cricket team was touring India in the midst of one of the most serious military battles between the two countries. Under the pretext of "Brass stacks" military exercises, India had massed tens of thousands of troops along Pakistan’s borders, a move Islamabad viewed as a direct threat. Against this backdrop, President General Zia-ul-Haq’s aircraft made a surprise landing in New Delhi on 21 February. Officially, the military ruler claimed that he was in India to watch a Test match between Pakistan and India in Jaipur. the declaration, "cricket is for peace" was intended for public consumption. Privately, however, Gen Zia conveyed a far more serious message to Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi: Any military mishap risked escalation, possibly even nuclear confrontation. The visit worked. Border tensions eased and both sides agreed to a gradual withdrawal of troops. Two decades later, cricket again played a quiet but important role in ending hostilities. After the 1999 Kargil conflict, Pakistan and India resumed bilateral cricket despite fierce opposition from Indian hardliners. Between 2004 and 2007 – the most sustained peace process the two countries have experienced – reciprocal cricket tours were treated as important confidence-building measures between the nuclear-armed neighbours. In 2011, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh invited his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gillani to Mohali to watch the World Cup semi-final between the arch-rivals. The battle was merely the background; the real goal was to restart the dialogue that stalled after the Mumbai attacks in November 2008. Fast forward to the present. Pakistan’s decision not to play the high-voltage T20 World Cup match against India on February 15 in Colombo marks a historic low in bilateral relations. For decades, cricket served as a diplomatic safety valve – a rare channel for engagement when formal dialogue was frozen. That window now appears to be completely closed. Discussions with relevant officials suggest that the decision was driven by a convergence of factors. The immediate trigger, officials say, was the International Cricket Council’s decision – widely seen as influenced by the BCCI – to remove Bangladesh from the T20 World Cup. Dhaka had refused to travel to India citing legitimate security concerns and requested that their matches be moved to Sri Lanka, a co-host. Instead, the matter was put to a vote by the ICC board, with Bangladesh expelled by a 14–2 margin and replaced with Scotland. Pakistan openly questioned the decision, calling it a glaring double standard. But officials insist this was just part of a larger pattern. Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, Pakistan believes there has been a deliberate effort to marginalize it, including through sports. In 2023, despite strained relations, Pakistan traveled to India for the 50-over World Cup in the hope that New Delhi would retaliate by visiting Pakistan for the 2025 Champions Trophy. India refused, citing security concerns, despite Pakistan’s offer of presidential-level security. With the BCCI’s influence over the ICC, there was little chance of India facing consequences similar to Bangladesh. Pakistan was ultimately forced into a hybrid model that allowed India to play its Champions Trophy matches at neutral venues. The trend continued. After May’s last four-day military escalation, the two teams met during the Asia Cup. Following instructions from their government, Indian players refused to shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts. Later, after winning the tournament, Indian officials refused to receive the trophy from Mohsin Naqvi, the president of the Asian Cricket Council. It was this accumulation of events that eventually forced Pakistan to abandon its longstanding stance of keeping sports separate from politics. For years, Islamabad maintained cricket ties in the hope of maintaining a semblance of normalcy. That approach is now seen as unsustainable.
"As far as cricket diplomacy is concerned, I have always regarded the very concept as a delusion," said Abdul Basit, former Pakistan ambassador to India. He described bilateral relations as stuck in a "seemingly intractable gridlock."
"The primary burden is on India," Basit told The Express Pakinomist, "which refuses to engage in meaningful dialogue, particularly on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute."
For Pakistan, the message is clear: if cricket once served as a bridge, that bridge has now collapsed under the weight of politics – and only India is to blame for this.
