In February 1987, the Pakistan cricket team was touring India amid one of the most serious military clashes between the two countries. Under the pretext of "Bullets" In military exercises, India had amassed tens of thousands of troops along Pakistan’s borders, a move Islamabad saw as a direct threat. In this context, President General Zia-ul-Haq’s plane made a surprise landing in New Delhi on February 21. 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, General Zia conveyed a much more serious message to Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi: any military misadventure risks escalation, even nuclear confrontation. The visit worked. Border tensions eased and both sides agreed to a gradual troop withdrawal. Two decades later, cricket again played a quiet but important role in defusing hostility. Following the Kargil conflict in 1999, Pakistan and India resumed bilateral cricket despite fierce opposition from Indian extremists. Between 2004 and 2007 – the most sustained peace process the two countries had experienced – reciprocal cricket tours were seen as key confidence-building measures between the nuclear-armed neighbors. 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 match was just a backdrop; the real aim was to restart the dialogue interrupted 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 of engagement when formal dialogue was frozen. This window now appears firmly closed. Discussions with relevant officials suggest 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 withdraw Bangladesh from the T20 World Cup. Dhaka had refused to travel to India for legitimate security reasons and requested that its matches be transferred to co-host Sri Lanka. Instead, the issue was put to a vote in the ICC Governing Body, where Bangladesh was expelled by a margin of 14 to 2 and replaced by Scotland. Pakistan openly questioned this decision, denouncing a blatant double standard. But officials insist it’s only 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 him, particularly through sport. In 2023, despite strained relations, Pakistan traveled to India for the 50-over World Cup, hoping that New Delhi would reciprocate 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 that India would face consequences similar to those of Bangladesh. Pakistan were eventually forced to adopt a hybrid model, allowing India to play their Champions Trophy matches at neutral venues. The trend continued. After four days of military escalation last May, the two teams met in the Asian Cup. Acting on 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, president of the Asian Cricket Council. It was this accumulation of events that finally forced Pakistan to abandon its long-held position of separating sport from politics. For years, Islamabad has maintained ties with cricket in the hope of preserving some semblance of normalcy. This approach is now considered untenable.
"As for cricket diplomacy, I have always considered this notion to be illusory," said Abdul Basit, former Pakistani ambassador to India. He described bilateral relations as being stuck in a situation "a seemingly insoluble impasse."
"The primary responsibility lies with India," Basit told The Express PK Press Club: "which refuses to engage in meaningful dialogue, particularly on the Jammu and Kashmir conflict."
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.
