The Debate Behind the India Vs Pak Rivalry At The International Stage

Sri City : On 28^th September 2025, the Indian men’s cricket team won the T20 Asia Cup in Dubai. While the victory was sealed for the men in blue, the team did not lift the trophy. Instead, the team captain Suryakumar Yadav and his team celebrated with an imaginary trophy. In the first India-Pakistan match of this year’s Asia cup, Yadav refused to shake hands with Pak captain Salman Agha. This gesture was out of condemnation against Pakistan for the Pahalgam attacks. In a similar vein, during the awards ceremony following India’s victory against Pakistan in the final, the Indian captain refused to shake hands with Mohsin Naqvi, the Chief of the Asian Cricket Council (and additionally the Minister of Interior of Pakistan) was supposed to be the official that was supposed to hand over the trophy to the winning team. Yadav’s refusal supposedly angered him and as a result the ACC chief refused to present the accolades including the Asia cup trophy to the team.

Following this exchange of pleasantries, a wave of extreme pride for India’s victory has stalled the internet. While it is primarily for the right reasons to support and celebrate India’s victory and the critical stand in expressing resentment, some aspects beyond the field should not be ignored. Moreover, the question arises whether India and Pakistan matches should continue. On 12^th May 2025, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the nation emphasising India’s stance on terrorism “Terror and talks cannot go together, terror and trade cannot go together, water and blood cannot flow together.”

If indeed India has stopped all trade, suspended the Indus river treaty, declared that acts of terror will be considered an act of war, why should India play with Pakistan in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attacks? There are different sides to the argument that question whether India and Pakistan should continue playing the sport that is extremely popular between both countries. Following the devastating 26/11 attacks in Mumbai, the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) boycotted and suspended hosting and playing against Pakistan in any bilateral series. Although India and Pakistan have participated at the world stage with tournaments like Champions Trophy, ODI World Cup, T20 World Cup, Asia Cup (ODI), and the recent T20 Asia Cup. These leagues often witness a clash between the two teams that are not only geopolitical rivals but also share a cut-throat rivalry in the sport of cricket with firebolt Pakistan fast-bowlers and the swashbuckling Indian batsmen clashing at such international games. Moreover, these games cannot be boycotted as the International Cricket Council (ICC) has a mandatory clause of a country having to play against everyone else in league stages. At the group knockout stage, India and Pakistan are often clubbed together in the same group primarily due to the longstanding rivalry between the two teams. The reason for that is the revenue generated by these matches is a massive chunk of revenue churned out of the longstanding cricket rivalry that stems from the 78 year-long political conflict. 

Industry estimates suggest that India-Pakistan matches have churned out 10,000 crore over the past two decades and these figures lie in ticket prices, sponsorships, advertisement deals, broadcasting rights, and even merchandising.   Even if these games were boycotted to undermine Pakistan and its cricket board of critical revenue, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) receives its share of revenue from the Asian Cricket Council for participating in both Asia Cups (One-day and T-20 internationals). As per ACC’s revenue sharing agreement, each national cricketing board receives 15% each (members include India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh) as permanent ACC members (the remaining 25% is shared with associate countries like Nepal, Oman, UAE, etc.). Pakistan’s earnings as an ACC member is between 12 to 16 million USD, this includes corporate sponsorships, revenue share from the ACC as a full member, and the share received from broadcasting rights. Even if Pakistan does not play with India in the Asia cup or other international tournaments, they still receive millions in revenue. BCCI on the other hand has earned over Rs 9,700 crores as of FY 2023-2024 with over Rs 5,300 crores coming from the revenue generated by the IPL. 

 India has won 9 asia cups already and is one of the best teams at the global stage. How can they continue playing with Pakistan when many of those victim’s families from Pahalgam have to deal with such an irrevocable loss when a cricket match that is hyped at the global stage is on? Should India play against Pakistan if the Indian cricket board is already earning in thousands of crores? Compromising on lesser viewership by not playing against Pakistan should seem like a rather worthy compromise. Otherwise playing cricket with Pakistan implies neglecting the 26 innocent civilians that were killed in Pahalgam in April this year. If talks and terror cannot go together, if trade and terror cannot go together, if blood and water cannot flow together, why should India play cricket against a country harboring terrorists months after the Pahalgam attack? What if the politics is separated from the sport? The sporting rivalry would still remain intact while still sticking to the standard of cricket being a gentleman’s game. But the collective idea of nationalism that is being preached in this country would ideally condemn these matches being played. However, that does not seem to be the case as cricket is a sport that seems to unify the country. Many politicians have weaponised a narrative based on the final victory by India in the form of a battlefield victory on their tweets. As an aficionado of the sport myself, I would wonder whether watching an India-Pakistan game would be worth watching months after innocent civilians were killed in Pahalgam by Pakistani terrorists. There has been an instance where the International Cricket Council collectively barred South Africa from the international stage during the course of the apartheid. If the world stood up for the dignity of human life, what if the world stood up for the safety of human life?