Why Is India Still Playing Cricket with Pakistan? A Question the Government Must Answer

In the aftermath of the horrific Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 innocent civilians, including a foreign national , India’s national mood has once again tilted toward grief, fury, and a demand for accountability. The evidence is clear- militant groups operating from across the border had a hand in orchestrating this brutal assault. In response, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), India’s apex national security body, implemented a strict 5-point plan targeting Pakistan- diplomatically, economically, and symbolically. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, expulsion of military advisers, visa bans, border closure, and the strategic “Operation Sindoor” mark a decisive stance by the Indian state.

But amid this stern posture, one glaring contradiction remains i.e India is still scheduled to face Pakistan in the upcoming Asia Cup match.

Why?

This is not just a scheduling question. It is a deeply political, ethical, and emotional issue that exposes the double standards in our response to terrorism and diplomacy. When bilateral cricket ties were suspended years ago citing national sentiment and cross-border terrorism, it was on the moral premise that there can be no cricket with blood-stained hands. That sentiment, however, appears to weaken.

Let us be clear, the government did take a stand by calling off the Legends League match after the Pahalgam attack. This symbolic cancellation sent a strong signal to domestic and international observers, that India’s soil will not host sport with a country whose soil fosters terror.

However, the upcoming Asia Cup match, where India and Pakistan will share the same field, is going ahead. The reason often cited is that multilateral tournaments, unlike bilateral series, are bound by the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) schedule and contracts, and India cannot opt out without heavy penalties. But let us not forget, when it comes to defending national sovereignty and security, India has previously walked out of trade deals, military agreements, and even diplomatic summits. Can we not walk out of a cricket match?

What message are we sending to the world? That cricket is above the emotional scars of terrorism?

This inconsistency not only baffles citizens, but also undermines India’s stated foreign policy stance. If we’re serious about isolating Pakistan diplomatically, then cricket, the most visible and emotional link between the two countries, should not be exempt from this strategy.

For the families of those killed in the Pahalgam attack, the idea that India will face Pakistan in a match just weeks after their loss is a cruel joke. It tells them that while their sacrifice is mourned in words, it isn’t respected in action.

For the millions of Indians who rally behind the tricolour in every crisis, the idea of watching our cricketers shake hands with Pakistan’s players feels like betrayal.

Let’s also address the common counter-argument: “But the players are not terrorists.” Certainly. But the players represent a nation. And the nation’s institutions, whether civilian , are embedded in the larger political context. If Pakistan’s political establishment refuses to act against terror groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammed, then Pakistan’s cricket team cannot be treated as diplomatically neutral.

This is not a call for war. It is a call for coherence, between our words and our actions. If we say we want to isolate Pakistan internationally, then playing cricket with them just days after a terror attack dilutes our own position. It allows Pakistan to use sporting events as diplomatic cover, portraying a false normalcy on the world stage.

As the Asia Cup draws closer, the government must answer a simple question: Why is India playing Pakistan in cricket, when we refuse to engage them in diplomacy, trade, or even dialogue?

It’s time the Indian government and BCCI stop hiding behind tournament obligations and face the nation with clarity. If we are truly committed to a zero-tolerance policy on terrorism, then no game should be played until terror ends.