India‑Pakistan Cricket: More than Just a Rivalry

Cricket between India and Pakistan has always been more than just boundaries, wickets, or match results. It’s an emotional, political, cultural collision; a mirror for tensions, hopes, wounds, and identity in South Asia. Over the decades, many controversies have arisen — some over umpiring or players’ behavior, many more from what lies behind the scenes: political tension, cross‑border conflict, public sentiment, nationalism, security, diplomacy.

In this post, I’ll trace key controversies past and present, analyze what fuels them, and examine how they affect players, boards, fans — and whether the rivalry can ever be just sporting again.

Historical Background

Partition, Conflict, and Identity

Since the partition in 1947, India and Pakistan have had adversarial relations—multiple wars, territorial disputes, regular diplomatic friction. Cricket became, almost from the beginning, another front of engagement. Matches were never neutral; even bilateral series had to be justified in terms of “people‑to‑people” contact or sport‑diplomacy. The cricket pitch became a site where national pride, historical grievance, border memory, and identity intersected.

Cricket Diplomacy

There have been periods when cricket served as a bridge—during visits, leaders inviting counterpart players, or symbolic events. At other times, cricket was among the first casualties when political ties frayed: tours cancelled, visas denied, boards unwilling to send teams. So controversies are not only about what happens during matches, but whether matches happen at all, who plays them, where, and under what protocol.

Major Past Controversies

Here are some of the better-known, defining moments in India‑Pakistan cricket controversy (non‑exhaustive):

1996 World Cup Quarterfinal, Bengaluru
Tensions flared between Aamir Sohail and Venkatesh Prasad. After Sohail hit a boundary and gestured with his bat, the sledging escalated, and Prasad later clean‑bowled him. The verbal exchange, crowd atmosphere, and intense rivalry made this match memorable far beyond the result.
Sachin vs Shoaib in Tests and ODIs
Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, many deliveries by Shoaib Akhtar or others were controversial, especially when decided by umpires or third‑umpire decisions. Sachin Tendulkar’s edge bowled or given out, debates about what really happened, and ball tampering or bouncers controversies were frequent flashpoints. (Many fans feel some decisions were biased, though evidence is mixed.)
The “Mike Denness affair” (2001–02)
During India’s 2001 tour of South Africa, match referee Mike Denness found six Indian players guilty of code of conduct violations in the Port Elizabeth Test. The BCCI and Indian public viewed the sanctions as harsh and double standards, possibly influenced by politics or racial bias. That episode still features in debate over how neutral or fair match referees / ICC decisions are.
Flag, Anthem, and Symbolism Disputes
Over time many smaller controversies involve national symbols: which flag is hoisted where, whether national anthem is properly honoured, whether there are ceremonial issues. These become big media stories because they resonate strongly with fan identity. For instance, in 2025 a video went viral showing the Indian flag missing at Karachi Stadium before a Champions Trophy match. PCB clarified the ICC rules but backlash was intense.
Match Umpiring / Third Umpire Disputes
Over the years, many instances: umpiring errors, contentious dismissals, close calls with edges, overthrows, no‑balls etc., have inflamed passions. These tend to be less documented in media as “official controversies,” but among fans they fuel the perception of imbalance or bias. Often replay or technology is demanded, but technology in cricket is imperfect and sometimes controversial in its own right.
Cancelled Tours and Bilateral Series Freeze
Since the 2000s, especially after major terror attacks and diplomatic fallout (e.g. 2008 Mumbai attacks), bilateral series between India and Pakistan have become rare. Mostly they meet in multinational tournaments. This creates controversies about fairness (fans deprived), cricketing growth (players missing exposure), and whether politics is allowed to stall sport.

The Latest: Asia Cup 2025 and the Handshake Row

In September 2025, a new chapter in this long history of controversy opened up, tied up not only in what happened on the pitch, but what happened before and after: protocol, handshakes, political statements.

Here are the main points:

India beat Pakistan by seven wickets in a Group A match of the Asia Cup held in Dubai.
Before the toss, India’s captain Suryakumar Yadav and Pakistan’s captain Salman Ali Agha did not shake hands. After the match, Indian players also did not engage in the customary post‑match handshake with the Pakistan side, walking directly to their dressing room.
India’s side said that skipping handshakes was a tribute to the victims of a recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir (April 2025) which killed civilians; that the government and BCCI were aligned about this symbolic gesture.
The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) lodged a formal protest, calling India’s conduct “unsporting” and “against the spirit of cricket.” They raised concern about match referee Andy Pycroft’s role, alleging he had instructed the Pakistan skipper at the toss not to shake hands, which complicated things.
Public and political reactions followed. Some political parties in India protested the match going ahead so soon after the terror attack; others supported the symbolic stand. On the Pakistani side, anger over what was seen as politicising sport, pushing morality gestures, “showing grace,” etc.

This “handshake‑row” relates to many previous controversies: symbolism, protocol, national grief, public sentiment, the expectations of sportsmanship vs political allegiance.

Why These Controversies Happen

To understand why cricket between India and Pakistan generates such regular controversy, it helps to examine the underlying factors:

Deep Political Tension & History
The animosity from partition, wars, Kashmir, cross‑border terror, diplomatic breakdowns. Every match is an echo of unresolved issues. Players, boards, governments know that what they do on the field is interpreted off it.
Nationalism & Identity Politics
Cricket is a stage where national identity is asserted. Victories become more than sporting achievement; defeats more than failing in a game. Symbols, gestures, flag, anthem, handshake: all become laden with meaning.
Media & Fan Expectations
The media in both countries — and globally — amplify incidents. Fans often expect strong statements, emotional affirmations. Minor slights become magnified. Social media speeds up backlash or support, often in polarized ways.
Role of Administrations & Governments
Cricket boards, governments, match referees sometimes act (or refrain) for political sensitivity. Security concerns, visa issues, government clearance, diplomatic advisory, etc. Government messaging sometimes seeps into what teams do (or do not) do.
Symbolism & Protocols
The handshake is more than politeness; it’s a symbol of sportsmanship. Removing it, or having it removed, signals protest. Decisions about who does what at toss, anthem protocol, which country hosts — all carry friction.
Commercial Interests
Big tournaments, TV rights, sponsorships, fan viewership: India‑Pakistan matches draw huge money. So there’s always tension between “let’s respect public sentiment / national feeling / political risk” vs “this match will make big revenue / viewership.”

Impacts: On Players, Boards, Fans

Controversies have consequences—some visible, some latent.

Players: Pressure is huge. Not just to perform, but to embody national expectations. Gesture missteps can cost reputation. Political statements, even symbolic ones, are watched. Also, sometimes players are caught in situations where protocol demands conflict with personal beliefs or safety.
Boards & Match Officials: Must balance sporting integrity, regulations, ICC rules, diplomatic pressure. Match referees especially can be stuck: giving instructions (e.g. handshake or not), deciding venue, media statements, etc. They are often criticised from all sides.
Fans: Emotional highs and lows. Rivalry fuels passion, but also sometimes hatred. Fans expect national solidarity, symbolic gestures. When they feel something is disrespectful, it becomes a national issue. Also, controversies can polarize fan discourse, even escalate beyond cricket.
Sporting Relations: Bilateral series have become rare, and when they happen under restrictive conditions (neutral venues, heavy security, no travel, etc.). Cricket diplomacy goes up and down in response to cross‑border events. When incidents happen (terror attacks, political rifts), cricket becomes another diplomatic tool.

The Most Recent Case: Deeper Reflections

Let’s reflect more deeply on the 2025 handshake incident and surrounding controversies, because it encapsulates many threads of the India‑Pakistan cricket controversy.

Tribute vs Provocation
The Indian side’s framing: skipping handshake is “tribute to victims.” Many will see that as reasonable (respect for national grief). Others see it as politicizing sport, or using sport as a stage for messaging. The question: is there a middle ground where grief and respect need not mix with rivalry? Or is such symbolism inevitable, given the loaded context?
Role of the Match Referee and Communication
Reports indicate that match referee Andy Pycroft asked that the captains skip a handshake at the toss; but afterward, Pakistan team felt not fully informed or that instructions were uneven. Communication breakdowns matter. If one side feels misled, or that protocol was altered without agreement, it becomes a controversy of fairness.
Spirit of Cricket vs Political Context
The concept of “Spirit of Cricket” includes respect, fairness, sportsmanship. But what does that mean when real geopolitical events and trauma are involved? Can sportsmanship depend on handshake? Or is refusal a legitimate form of protest? Can cricket be immune from politics in such a scenario?
Public Sentiment & Politics Intruding
In India, protests were held before the match, criticizing it went ahead so soon after the terror attack. Political parties and public opinion pushed for boycotts or symbolic gestures. So the game is being shaped as much by what’s happening off the pitch as on it.
Future Precedents
What this incident may set in terms of precedent is important: will skipping handshake become an accepted protest gesture? Will more matches have modified ceremonial practices for political reasons? Will boards anticipate this and codify responses? Also, will the ICC or ACC (Asia Cricket Council) feel pressure to issue guidelines?

Broader Questions & Issues

Here are some broader issues that these controversies raise:

Can Cricket Be Kept Separate from Politics?
Realistically, no. Especially not between nations whose relations are deeply political, with historical conflict. Even if governments want cricket diplomacy, or fans want to escape politics for 5 hours, the undercurrents always bring politics in.
What is the Role of Symbolism in Sports?
Handshake, anthem, national flag — these are symbols. Symbols carry weight. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes inadvertently. Sportsmanship includes symbolic respect, but symbolic gestures can be weaponized or demanded. Understanding how these gestures are interpreted is key.
What Are the Rules or Norms?
Cricket has regulations: on code of conduct, playing rules, match referee powers, ICC & ACC policies. But many of the controversies revolve around norms — unwritten rules — what’s “expected,” “proper.” Norms differ by culture, era, political climate.
Media’s Role
Amplification, framing: is a refusal to shake hands “unsportsmanlike” or “justified tribute”? Media often draws lines that generate clicks; sometimes they inflame emotion; sometimes they give voice to criticism or defence. Fans increasingly get information via social media, which often simplifies or polarizes narratives.
Fans’ Well‑Being and Responsibility
Rivalry can unite, but can also divide, generate hate speech, communal tension, xenophobia. And as politics seeps in, fans carry baggage of real suffering or anger. Responsible citizenship/fandom matters.
The International Cricketing Ecosystem
When India‑Pakistan matches are cancelled, moved, or played only in multi‑nation tournaments, that affects the global cricket calendar, financial revenues, development of players, exposure. Boards negotiate (or resist) based on security, public sentiment, diplomatic pressure, and revenue. Sometimes cricket loses out.

Looking Ahead: What Could Change / What Needs to Happen

If controversies are inevitable, are there ways to manage them better?

Transparent Protocols
Cricket boards, ICC, ACC should agree in advance on protocol in politically sensitive times: what to do with handshakes, anthems, pre‑toss courtesies, etc. Mutual consent or prior agreement can reduce misunderstandings.
Match Referee Role Clarity
Ensure that match referees communicate clearly, impartially, and that their instructions are transparent to both captains, team management, possibly public announcements to avoid mixed perception.
Separation of Tribute & Rivalry
Finding ways to allow tribute to victims of tragedies while preserving the integrity of sport. Perhaps brief moments of silence, recognition, rather than symbolic gestures in post‑match ceremonies which can be ambiguous or misinterpreted.
Media and Public Discourse
More responsible journalism, avoiding sensationalism; balanced reporting; giving space to both sides. Fan education about how gestures are symbols, and how misinterpretation is common.
Institutional Policy for Bilateral Cricket
Possibly frameworks for resuming bilateral series when political relations permit; more neutral venues; security guarantees; dialogue. Cricket diplomacy, but also recognizing when politics will interfere.
Fans Advocates / Dialogue
Platforms where fans of both countries can engage beyond just rivalry. Promoting shared heritage, sportsmanship. Possibly leveraging digital media to reduce hate speech, emphasize respect.

Concluding Reflections

The India‑Pakistan cricket rivalry is among the most intense in all sports. Its magic is partly in the tension, the history, the emotional stakes. And yet, at times, that magic is also a burden. Controversies occur not simply because players make mistakes, or referees err, but because the match is loaded: with history, narrative, pain, identity.

The handshake controversy in Asia Cup 2025 is not the first, nor will it be the last. But each controversy is an opportunity: to ask what cricket means to people, how sport interacts with politics, how respect and dignity can be preserved even amid conflict, how boards and federations can act responsibly.

Maybe the ideal isn’t cricket divorced from politics — perhaps that’s impossible — but cricket in spite of politics, preserving space for sportsmanship, fair play, emotional expression, but also for humility, for respect. If that balance is found more often, controversies will reduce, and the rivalry can remain fiery in the stadium, but not at the cost of decency or human dignity.

By, saket kumar singh

Founder, www.sayufinserv.com

Search This Blog

Saket Kumar Singh