It is one of the most repeated idioms that sports and politics should not mix. But even a brief look at the history of sports will reveal that countries have used sporting events to publicise and pursue their political agenda.
In modern times, there was the much-publicised attempt by Adolf Hitler to use the Munich Olympics of 1936 to showcase his theory of Aryan superiority. The USA and the Western world boycotted the Moscow Olympics of 1980 in protest against the occupation of Afghanistan by the armed forces of the erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR and its satellite countries returned the compliment four years later by choosing not to participate in the Los Angeles edition.
There have been rare occasions when sports were also used as a tool to bring around a recalcitrant administration. This happened with South Africa, who were kept outside international events in most sports till they repealed Apartheid, the policy of racial discrimination against a section of the population based on the colour of their skin. Of course, factors other than sports also contributed to South Africa renouncing that policy, but the ban from taking part in global sports events also contributed handsomely towards this policy change.
Having fought numerous wars since the exit of British forces from the subcontinent, it is only natural that India and Pakistan share a chequered history in the field of sports. The main sports disciplines where the two countries take on each other are cricket and hockey. While cricket was organised almost entirely through bilateral fixtures till the 1980s, hockey matches took place as part of events like the Olympics and the World Cup. Hence, cricket tours and Test matches between national sides sporadically took place with long gaps in between till 2007, after which they were suspended indefinitely.
However, there was no such restriction on meeting each other in multilateral events. Thus India and Pakistan played against each other in the Olympics, World Cup and Asiad in hockey, even during times when the two countries were not enjoying good bilateral relations. Similarly, the national sides took on each other in International Cricket Council (ICC) sponsored World Cups and other championships.
Players and team managements always ensured that the matches were played in the proper spirit, without generating any rancour or discord. A classic example was the match in the Super Six stage of the 1999 World Cup, which was played in the immediate aftermath of an armed conflict at Kargil in Kashmir. The rival captains, Mohammed Azharuddin and Wasim Akram, hugged each other after the toss and appealed to the crowd at Manchester to enjoy the game, a gesture that went down well with the crowd.
This elaborate background was provided to explain the feelings of an old-time cricket follower watching the drama unfold during and after the India-Pakistan Group A match of the Asia Cup in the UAE. The decision of the Indian team management to direct the players not to shake hands with their rivals created greater controversy and attracted more eyeballs than the action on the field.
The drama extended to the game between Pakistan and the UAE, which the former threatened to boycott if match referee Andy Pycroft was not removed from this responsibility. Ultimately, better sense prevailed after ICC stepped in with a compromise formula, and the match took place.
Indian team management’s decision not to shake hands with their rivals on the field and to use the match referee to communicate this to the Pakistani captain rankled their opponents. Instead of taking up the matter with ICC or the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), they directed their ire at the match referee and wanted his removal from the panel for Asia Cup matches. The compromise worked out, with Pycroft expressing ‘regret for the miscommunication’ which Pakistan claimed was an ‘apology’ to their captain and coach. Though the whole incident left Pycroft embarrassed and red-faced, this was hailed as a victory by Pakistan, while India gloated over the discomfiture this caused to their rivals.
Is India justified in asking players not to shake hands with Pakistan players? Reports suggest that this decision had the approval of the Union Government. This brings one to the core question of why permission was given to the national side to participate in this championship if the government had serious misgivings about players shaking hands with Pakistani cricketers.
Competitors greeting each other before the match and shaking hands after the game are part of tradition in almost all sporting events. These are done to emphasise the fact that while they fight each other tooth and nail inside the arena, they will not carry any anger or rancour once the event is over. The victor and the vanquished shake hands, with the latter congratulating the former while the former appreciates the efforts of the latter. Not doing so sends across the message that there exists rivalry between the contestants off the field as well. This does not auger well for either the sport or the participants.
The action of Pakistan in housing and training terrorists cannot be condoned. The incident at Pahalgam, where terrorists deliberately murdered men belonging to one religion with the intention to leave behind widows, shocked the nation and created a sense of deep revulsion and anger that found a vent through Operation Sindoor. One cannot expect bilateral relations to return to normal soon after such a gruesome occurrence. This was why the government’s decision not to allow their national sides and even individual players from Pakistan to set foot inside the country was hailed and endorsed by all sections of the population. The decision of BCCI to conduct matches involving Pakistan in Sri Lanka, through a special arrangement, in the ICC Women’s World Cup that India is hosting later this year is a step in the right direction.
However, when it comes to multilateral competitions, the challenges involved are more complex. One option is to boycott such events, but this cannot be resorted to as it will only end up denying our players the opportunity to take part in international championships, for no fault of theirs.
At the other end of the spectrum is the alternate choice of seeking the removal of Pakistan completely from international cricket. One can see that BCCI chose the middle path of taking part in tournaments involving Pakistan but making evident the complete absence of the spirit of friendship by refusing to shake hands or interact with cricketers from that country. But, in doing so, BCCI also threatened to jeopardise one of the best traditions of sport, an action that would not be universally popular and could also win some disapproval.
So, what is the way out of this situation? India is today the powerhouse of international cricket. Not only is the BCCI the richest body in the world of cricket, but it is also the most influential one. Together with the boards governing the game in England and Australia, the BCCI controls the functioning of the ICC at present. Pakistan Cricket Board, on the other hand, is a poor cousin eking out a hand-to-mouth existence. Very few teams tour that country to play international matches and they do not even have a proper domestic cricket circuit in place. It will not cause any harm to the game if this side does not take part in ICC-sponsored tournaments.
Hence, India should use their clout in ICC to their full extent and convince the body to take the call to bar Pakistan and players from that country from taking part in any of the international cricket events. This will send a firm message to that country that it does not pay to kill innocents and continue taking part in sporting events as if nothing has happened.
Refusing to shake hands will only amount to a mild taunt, which they will brush off. The country and their government need to be administered a sharp rap on their knuckles, which can be done only by banning their participation in all ICC tournaments. BCCI should work hard to attain this goal, as they should know better than others that in life, as in cricket, hitting hard invariably creates the maximum impact.