In February 1987, the Pakistan cricket team was touring India in the midst of one of the most serious military clashes between the two countries. Under the pretext of "Thumbtacks" During military exercises, India had amassed tens of thousands of troops along Pakistan’s borders, a move Islamabad viewed 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 witness a test match between Pakistan and India in Jaipur. The declaration, "Cricket is for peace." It was intended for public consumption. Privately, however, General Zia conveyed a much more serious message to Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi: any military misadventure 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 calming the hostility. Following 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 key 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 match was simply the backdrop; the real objective was to restart the dialogue stalled after the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai. 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 an all-time low in bilateral relations. For decades, cricket served as a diplomatic safety valve, a rare channel of engagement when formal dialogue was frozen. That window now seems firmly closed. Conversations with relevant officials suggest that the decision was driven by a convergence of factors. The immediate trigger, officials say, was the decision by the International Cricket Council (widely considered to be influenced by the BCCI) to eliminate Bangladesh from the T20 World Cup. Dhaka had refused to travel to India citing legitimate security concerns and requested that its matches be moved to Sri Lanka, one of the hosts. Instead, the matter was put to a vote at the ICC Board, where Bangladesh was expelled by a margin of 14 to 2 and replaced by Scotland. Pakistan openly questioned the decision and pointed out the blatant double standard. But officials insist this was just one part of a broader pattern. Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, Pakistan believes there has been a deliberate effort to marginalize him, including 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 of India facing consequences similar to those of Bangladesh. Pakistan was eventually forced to adopt a hybrid model, allowing India to play its Champions Trophy matches at neutral venues. The trend continued. After the four-day military escalation last May, the two teams faced off during the Asia Cup. Following instructions from their government, the 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-standing position of keeping sport separate from politics. For years, Islamabad maintained ties with cricket in the hope of preserving a semblance of normality. That approach is now considered unsustainable.
"As for cricket diplomacy, I always found the very idea delusional," said Abdul Basit, former Pakistani ambassador to India. He described bilateral relations as stuck in a "a seemingly intractable stalemate."
"The main responsibility lies with India," Basit told The Express PAkGazette: "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 India alone has itself to blame for this.
