His recent encounter with Pakistan at the Asian Cup in India was celebrated as a patriotic sight. It is a victory dedicated to the troops and the troops affected by the Pahargam attack. But such a declaration exposes something deeper. The strategy of politics in sports, hypocrisy, is hidden in principle.
Under this attitude and tokenism there is too much contradiction to ignore. This is more than just a sport. It’s an ironic theatre where administrators, players and commentators try to board two boats at the same time. Hypocrisy can be seen by anyone with sane eyes.
At the heart of this contradiction is the relationship between India and Pakistan in cricket. Officially, India has rejected bilateral cricket with Pakistan. The lines are solid. There is no tour, no series, no diplomacy. The justification is based on national security, particularly after the conflict of South Asian neighbors in May.
Indian artists are prohibited from cooperating with their Pakistani counterparts. Pakistani singers and actors, once popular in India, have been blocked on social media and other media. It’s embarrassing to see Indian celebrities themselves being trolled for past collaborations made on neutral grounds.
However, when India faces Pakistan in a multination tournament, the same ecosystem explodes with excitement. The match will be packaged as glasses, sold as “the biggest rivalry” and cashed for billions in advertising revenue.
This duality is not a coincidence. Jay Shah, who currently works in the leadership of the International Cricket Council (ICC), is accused of putting pressure on Team India to play Pakistan despite his unwillingness from within the camp. Sanjay Raut, a member of Indian Congress, recently claimed that he forced the decision at the hands of Shah and turned the match into a duty rather than a choice.
If true, this shows how well politics has permeated the Indian cricket regime for money and influence. The game is no longer just a sport, it is a means of iconic fighting, determined in the boardroom, not in the dressing room.
Hypocrisy becomes sharper when considering the family environment. Other sphere Indians faced online lynching to work with their Pakistani colleagues even before the war, while cricketers are placed on pedestals to defeat Pakistan. It’s not just a double standard. It is about the exploitation of calculated emotions.
Cricket is sold more than most in India, so cricket is permitted as the only arena of “contact”. The prohibition of cultural exchange is described as nationalism, but cricket is exempt in the name of multilateral obligations and commercial survival. The victory dedication to soldiers and terrorist victims serves as a moral cover for what is essentially a business transaction. This is pure hypocrisy and tokenism.
If India insists on involving politics in sport, consistency demands more. Look at a country known for boycotting Muslim athletes’ unity with Israel’s enemies. They confiscate the game, put sanctions at risk, and face bans. Given their politics, their actions are clear, uncompromising and costly. They stand up and bring results.
India has rejected bilateral cricket in Pakistan, but the money is too big to lose, and they play them in ICC tournaments, especially when they return home through audience support and advertising. It attempts to sail in two boats, waving nationalism with one hand, collecting profits with the other. The victory dedication to the army does not erase that contradiction. It exposes it.
The rivalry between India and Pakistan itself is not what it was before. The competitive balance is drastically leaning. India has dominated recent contests due to the poor form of Pakistani teams. Suspense has been gone for a long time, but the hype that was produced remains.
Broadcasters and advertisers pump the match as if it still defines the fate of the country. In reality, it defines the fate of sponsorship transactions. The value of sports is hollowed out. The iconic gesture after each victory is merely added to the theatre. In his latest match on Sunday, Indian players refused to shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts.
Such dissonance transforms patriotism into branding and erodes the dignity of national discourse. The leadership and political voice of the Indian cricket management committee, the ICC, close to the game, must face this contradiction. Cricket cannot maintain both business and battlefield. The rivalry, stripped of the essence of sport, cannot stand its inflation with symbolism. The victims of Pahargam deserve solidarity, but should not be used as props for cricket theaters. Sports deserves freedom from tokenism.
Instead of continuing this opportunistic hybrid model, India has the option of choosing one of two options. You can refuse to play Pakistan entirely in any format, including ICC tournaments. It will match the act with the highest level of words. It costs money in terms of ICC sanctions and revenue, but at least consistent.
Or India can accept to play Pakistan as part of the sport, removing politics and symbolic dedication from the game. That means treating cricket as cricket, not as a stage of nationalism.
Indian cricket facilities must choose one pass. If you want sports politics, you must show courage to be consistent. If we want to keep politics out, it must remove hollow devotion and patriotic attitudes. The current approach to sailing with two boats is not sustainable. No one is fooled, either at home or abroad. Cricket is declining due to this hypocrisy, as is the dignity of the people.
The views expressed in this article are the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
