When politics become sports

The recent Asian Cup T20 clash between India and Pakistan in Dubai once again revealed that for the subcontinent, cricket is never just a sport. For millions across both borders, the contest carried the intensity of a symbolic war, played out on a strip of turf rather than a battlefield. Anticipation ran high, media coverage was relentless, and social media discourse quickly degenerated into bitter exchanges that reflected decades of mistrust and unresolved conflict.This phenomenon is neither new nor surprising. Every India-Pakistan encounter comes laden with layers of history and emotion that transcend the boundary ropes. Cricket becomes an outlet for national pride, political expression, and even vengeance. Fanaticism often overshadows the spirit of the game, reducing it to a stage where historical grievances and political rivalries are dramatized before the world. The debate reached a peak in India ahead of the tournament. Opposition parties argued that the national team should refuse to face Pakistan, pointing to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s earlier rhetoric about cross-border operations. Their call was a strategic move, designed less as a policy suggestion and more as a political trap for the ruling BJP-using the government’s own words against it. Unsurprisingly, the BJP responded in kind, accusing opponents of exploiting sport for partisan advantage.Yet the government’s eventual stance was noteworthy. By insisting that India’s participation was unavoidable in a multilateral event, officials took the pragmatic line: withdrawing would not only result in disqualification but also weaken India’s image on the global sporting stage. This argument was framed as a defense of sportsmanship, but it also revealed the messy reality of sports diplomacy. Nations may publicly decry the politicization of games, but the truth is that sports and politics have always been inseparably linked. From boycotts during the Cold War to symbolic gestures at the Olympics, history shows that sport has always mirrored geopolitical fault lines. The use of national anthems, flags, and uniforms in international tournaments is itself a political act, affirming statehood and sovereignty before global audiences. In this sense, India and Pakistan’s cricketing rivalry is merely one of the most visible examples of a universal dynamic. On the field, the players bear the heaviest burden. For them, a missed catch or a match-winning six is not just a sporting statistic-it becomes a reflection of national pride or humiliation. They are transformed into unwilling diplomats and soldiers, tasked with carrying the aspirations of millions who equate victory with vindication. The human cost is immense, as athletes navigate the crushing weight of expectation in an environment where the game is never truly just a game.As long as political tensions remain unresolved, cricket will continue to serve as a proxy battlefield. Every India-Pakistan match will remain both spectacle and symbol: a reminder of shared passion, yes, but also of unresolved animosity. Until diplomacy bridges the divide, the cricket pitch will remain a contested space where sport is overshadowed by the shadows of history. In this regard, the leaders in Delhi should provide clarity that narrow politics should not come in the way of sports with Pakistan when the same yardstick is not used on China.