-Col Dev Anand Lohamaror Cricket is often described as a gentleman’s game, but when it comes to Bharat and Pakistan, it has rarely remained just a sport. Every ball bowled, every boundary hit, and every match scheduled carries political, emotional, and diplomatic weight. For millions of fans, Bharat–Pakistan cricket is not merely a contest on the field but a reflection of historical conflict, nationalism, and above all, the wounds inflicted by Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. In recent years, calls to boycott Pakistan in international cricket tournaments, including the Asia Cup 2025, have intensified. Many Indians strongly believe that playing cricket with Pakistan indirectly legitimizes a state that continues to support terrorism on Bharat’s soil, and the history of cricketing relations between the two countries is filled with long gaps, sudden cancellations, and boycotts prompted by wars, terror attacks, and political tensions.
The first major interruption in cricketing ties came after the Indo-Pak War of 1965. Before the conflict, cricketing relations were sporadic, with Pakistan touring Bharat in 1952–53, 1960–61, and Bharat visiting Pakistan in 1954–55. However, once war broke out, bilateral sporting relations collapsed and for nearly two decades there was no bilateral cricketing contact. The 1971 Bharat–Pakistan War, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh, deepened the freeze further as cricket could not be played in an environment where diplomatic relations were nearly absent. For Bharat, playing Pakistan during this time would have been unthinkable, as the wounds of war were fresh and the geopolitical situation hostile. It was only in 1978 that cricketing ties resumed after a 17-year hiatus, largely due to the efforts of Prime Minister Morarji Desai and Pakistan’s General Zia-ul-Haq. Yet, the relationship remained fragile and subject to every twist in bilateral politics.
In 1987, when Bharat and Pakistan were on the brink of war during Operation Brasstacks, cricket again became a political tool. General Zia famously visited Jaipur during a Test match in what came to be known as cricket diplomacy. Cricket thus became both a bridge and a battlefield of diplomacy. But this balance did not last long, as the Kargil War in 1999 marked another turning point. Just months before the conflict, Pakistan toured Bharat for a Test series, where matches in Chennai and Delhi were played under high tension. However, after the war, bilateral cricket was again suspended. Bharat refused to play Pakistan in any bilateral format for several years and it was only in 2003–04, after a thaw in relations initiated by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf, that Bharat agreed to tour Pakistan in one of the most politically sensitive tours in cricket history.
The most decisive break came after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks in 2008, when Pakistan-based terrorists unleashed unprecedented violence in Bharat’s financial capital. More than 170 people were killed, including foreign nationals, and the attack changed the nature of Bharat–Pakistan relations forever. Following 26/11, Bharat completely stopped all bilateral cricketing ties with Pakistan and since then has refused to host or tour Pakistan, allowing cricketing encounters only in multinational tournaments like the ICC World Cup, Champions Trophy, or Asia Cup. The boycott was not just symbolic; it became a firm policy.
In February 2019, the Pulwama terror attack claimed the lives of 40 CRPF personnel, once again sparking nationwide outrage. Calls grew to boycott the World Cup 2019 group match against Pakistan in Manchester. While the BCCI and ICC could not legally withdraw Bharat from the tournament without risking penalties, the public anger highlighted the depth of Bharat’s disapproval of sporting ties with Pakistan. Bharat played that match and won convincingly, but the larger sentiment was clear: cricket with Pakistan had become inseparable from the politics of terrorism.
Now, in the backdrop of the April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, voices demanding the boycott of Pakistan in the Asia Cup have risen again. For many Indians, the argument is simple: how can Bharat play cricket with a country that continues to kill its citizens through cross-border terrorism? This is not the first time such a demand has been made. Over the decades, boycotts have become a recurring theme whenever Pakistan-backed terrorism strikes Bharat. The Asia Cup, ICC World Cups, and bilateral tours have all faced cancellations or restrictions. Historically, Bharat has refused to play bilateral series against Pakistan in 1965, 1971, 1999 (Kargil War), post-2008 (26/11 Mumbai attacks), and after the 2019 Pulwama attack, reserving encounters only for neutral venues in multinational tournaments. This record clearly shows that Bharat treats its soldiers’ sacrifices and national security as paramount when making sporting decisions.
BCCI is the most powerful cricket board globally, with assets worth billions of dollars. Revenue from broadcasting, sponsorships, and ticket sales gives it enormous influence over international cricket. Matches between Bharat and Pakistan are the most-watched cricket events worldwide. The 2019 ICC World Cup group match between Bharat and Pakistan drew over 27 crore viewers globally—a record for any cricket match—and generated hundreds of crores of rupees in revenue. The question arises: does this money outweigh the sacrifices of Bharat’s soldiers? BCCI claims it does not organize bilateral series with Pakistan without government directives, yet during multinational tournaments, Bharat continues to field teams against Pakistan, often ignoring public sentiment. This dual approach remains controversial and unexplained publicly.
Bharat’s government has repeatedly stated that terrorism and normal relations cannot go hand in hand. However, when cricket is involved, the same policy often softens. Millions of citizens question why, when soldiers are shedding blood at the border, cricket players engage in friendly competition with Pakistan. Is this not an insult to the sacrifices of Bharat’s military? The government must issue clear instructions to BCCI that under no circumstances should cricketing events be conducted against Pakistan until it ceases to support terrorism.
Soldiers of Bharat not only fight enemies at the border but also face terrorists’ bullets daily, offering their lives in service of the nation. Their sacrifice is the pride of the entire country, not just their families. When Bharat fields a cricket team against Pakistan while soldiers are being killed, it sends a contradictory message that Bharat can overlook its heroes’ sacrifices for money and entertainment. This is a profound disrespect to the families who have lost their loved ones defending Bharat.
At the international level, cricket matches carry diplomatic weight. If Bharat continues to play Pakistan, the world perceives their relations as normal, indirectly improving Pakistan’s global image despite its support for terrorism. Conversely, a clear refusal to engage in sporting events with Pakistan would send a strong diplomatic signal, showing that Bharat prioritizes national security and the lives of its soldiers over sports and commercial gain. History provides examples of how sports boycotts can exert pressure: countries boycotted apartheid-era South Africa in the 1980s, forcing change through international isolation. Bharat can similarly leverage cricket as a tool of sports diplomacy to assert its stance against Pakistan’s terrorism.
The purpose of sport is to promote camaraderie and friendship, but in the case of Pakistan, cricket is both a political and diplomatic instrument. Bharat must decide whether soldiers’ blood and national security outweigh billions of rupees in broadcasting revenues. Participation in the Asia Cup, while morally and emotionally contentious, forces this debate to the forefront: entertainment and profit or respect for the sacrifice of Bharat’s soldiers? Blood and sport cannot coexist. Honoring Bharat’s soldiers requires courage to avoid playing Pakistan at any level. BCCI and Bharat’s government must make it unequivocally clear that as long as Pakistan supports terrorism, no bilateral or multilateral cricketing events with Pakistan will occur on Bharat’s soil or neutral venues. Respect for soldiers’ sacrifice must manifest in concrete policies, not just words. Only then can Bharat claim that the value of blood is above all, and that “blood lost does not mean sport won,” but rather, “blood is priceless.”
