Cricket Should Not Be a Conflict Zone

 Cricket Should Not Be a Conflict Zone

 Mubashir Mir

Cricket in South Asia has always been more than a sport. For millions in Pakistan and India, it is not merely a game of bat and ball; it is a stage where national pride, political tensions, and historic grievances play out. Whenever Pakistan and India face each other, the contest is not limited to the boundaries of a cricket field—it becomes a mirror of political rivalry, cultural identity, and, often, hostility. Yet, cricket by its very essence was meant to be a unifier, a sport that binds communities through fair competition. Unfortunately, in recent decades, the game has been increasingly politicized, turning what should be a festival of sport into a conflict zone.

The Roots of a Fierce Rivalry

The rivalry between Pakistan and India on the cricket field dates back to October 1952, when Pakistan played its first-ever Test series in Delhi. Since then, every match has carried the weight of political history—wars in 1965 and 1971, the Kargil conflict in 1999, and recurring border skirmishes have shaped the narrative of the two nations.

Despite political mistrust, cricket thrived as a cultural bridge at times. In the 1980s and 1990s, Pakistan often dominated India in one-day internationals, particularly in Sharjah, where Javed Miandad’s iconic last-ball six against India in 1986 became a defining memory for Pakistani fans. Similarly, the 1989 Bangalore Test, where Pakistan defeated India on its home soil, remains etched as a moment of national pride. In Kolkata in 1999, Pakistan won an ODI in front of more than 100,000 spectators—an atmosphere both intimidating and electric.

By the early 2000s, Pakistan led India 82–47 in ODIs, and 12–9 in Test matches. These figures illustrate how competitive and often one-sided Pakistan’s dominance used to be. Yet, history is dynamic, and over the last two decades, the balance of power shifted dramatically.

The Shift of Power: Two Decades of Indian Ascendancy

Since the turn of the millennium, India’s cricket has undergone a transformation. The rise of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as the world’s richest cricket board gave India immense influence in the International Cricket Council (ICC). The launch of the Indian Premier League (IPL) in 2008 further consolidated India’s financial dominance, attracting global stars and billions in revenue.

In contrast, Pakistan cricket suffered a series of setbacks. The 2009 terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan team in Lahore isolated Pakistan internationally, forcing it to play home series in the UAE for more than a decade. India, citing political tensions, refused bilateral cricket after 2012. The head-to-head record also tilted: India now leads Pakistan in ICC World Cup matches 13–1, including a 7–0 record in men’s ODI World Cups.

This stark reversal reflects not only India’s cricketing growth but also Pakistan’s inability to sustain consistency, modernize its domestic structure, and provide stable leadership.

Politics Overshadowing the Spirit of Sport

Cricket, unfortunately, has not remained immune from broader political hostilities. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, ties have worsened. Pulwama and Balakot in 2019 turned into diplomatic flashpoints, spilling into cricketing arenas. Political rhetoric often portrays matches as a “war minus the shooting.” In 2019, during the World Cup in England, Indian fans came dressed as soldiers, making the event appear like a battlefield rather than a sporting contest.

Pakistan too has contributed to the politicization of cricket. National victories against India are often exaggerated as military triumphs, while defeats trigger blame games within the team and administration. This burden of political symbolism deprives players of the freedom to simply play cricket.

The Asia Cup and Umpiring Controversy

The recent Asia Cup once again stirred controversy when Pakistan alleged biased umpiring in their defeat to India. While emotions run high in such clashes, questions about fairness are not new. Several times, review decisions and marginal calls have appeared to favor the stronger side. Critics argue that India’s economic weight in world cricket creates invisible pressures on officials and administrators.

The ICC must address these concerns. Cricket’s credibility lies in its fairness, and no team—no matter how powerful its board—is above the principles of neutrality. If the game is to preserve its integrity, umpires and referees must not only be fair but also be seen to be fair.

Pakistan’s Own Weaknesses

While criticism of the ICC and India is warranted, Pakistan must also confront its internal shortcomings. Leadership remains a concern. The current captain, though statistically consistent, is often accused of lacking the aggressive temperament required for high-pressure India encounters.

Sports psychologists note that Pakistani players enter India matches burdened with anxiety, which hampers performance. Domestic cricket reforms after 2019 weakened the pipeline of talent, reducing opportunities for young cricketers. Fitness standards, fielding weaknesses, and inconsistent batting collapses remain chronic problems. Unless Pakistan addresses these structural flaws, blaming external factors alone will not bring improvement.

The ICC and the Weight of Commercial Interests

The International Cricket Council was once envisioned as the guardian of cricket’s spirit. Yet, critics argue that it has increasingly become a club dominated by three powerful boards—India, Australia, and England (the so-called “Big Three”). India, contributing nearly 70% of ICC’s revenue through broadcasting and sponsorship, enjoys unparalleled clout.

This financial imbalance skews decisions. Neutral venues, umpiring appointments, tournament scheduling—all are influenced by commercial priorities. Smaller boards like Pakistan find their voices sidelined. Fair criticism demands that ICC reform itself to ensure that cricket’s rules are not written merely by financial giants.

The Human Dimension

Beyond politics and profit lies the human reality. For ordinary people in Pakistan and India, cricket is a shared passion. When Sachin Tendulkar praised Wasim Akram’s artistry, or when Shoaib Akhtar joked with Virender Sehwag, it showed the human connection beneath rivalry. Millions of fans on both sides yearn not for hostility but for the joy of sport.

It is heartbreaking that children in Lahore and Delhi, who both dream of becoming fast bowlers or stylish batsmen, are deprived of watching their heroes play bilateral series. Cricket tours once softened political tensions—such as in 2004, when India toured Pakistan and fans embraced players across borders. That humanistic spirit must be revived.

The Way Forward

For cricket to be fair and meaningful, several steps are essential:

 Pakistan’s Reforms

Invest in domestic cricket, fitness, and sports psychology.

Build leadership that can handle pressure in India encounters.

Treat matches against India as sport, not as symbolic wars.

 India’s Responsibility

Separate politics from cricket.

Resume bilateral cricket as a gesture of goodwill.

Avoid using cricket as a tool of nationalism.

 ICC’s Role

Guarantee neutral umpiring and transparent review systems.

Balance financial power with fairness in decision-making.

Protect smaller nations from being marginalized.

 Shared Humanity

Promote cultural exchanges, joint cricket academies, and fan-to-fan interactions.

Encourage former players from both sides to become ambassadors of peace.

Conclusion

Cricket should never become a conflict zone. It should remain what it was meant to be—a celebration of talent, courage, and sportsmanship. India and Pakistan have given the world some of the greatest cricketers—Imran Khan and Kapil Dev, Wasim Akram and Sachin Tendulkar, Waqar Younis and Virat Kohli. Their legacies remind us that cricket at its best transcends borders.

Fair criticism of all stakeholders is essential: Pakistan must strengthen itself internally, India must resist politicizing the game, and ICC must uphold neutrality. The millions of fans who fill stadiums and sit glued to their televisions deserve not a political spectacle but a genuine contest of skill.

Let cricket be the bridge, not the battlefield.