Stakeholders need to act more responsibly

But if they do, they have made a good job of hiding it. They have, with great fanfare and performative nationalism, refused to accept the silverware from Mohsin Naqvi, but it seems the only way to get the trophies to their rightful owners is to wait till a new Asian Cricket Council (ACC) chief takes over.

The missing men’s Asia Cup trophy, which made a lot of noise in the days after the tournament, slowly disappeared from the headlines, making a return only when the women’s team followed suit recently. Naqvi is also the Pakistan Cricket Board chief as well as the Interior Minister of his country, but not receiving the trophy from him had only symbolic value.

The trophy isn’t coming from Naqvi personally, he is only representing the ACC in his official capacity. If India – which includes the BCCI and the players —  was unwilling to be seen in the same frame with him in the aftermath of the Pahalgam massacre and Operation Sindoor, they could have persuaded him to stay away from the presentation ceremony. After all, the women’s Asia Cup final was played between India and Sri Lanka, with Naqvi’s own national team nowhere in the picture. The scenes in Dubai on Sunday were almost an action replay of what took place almost a year ago when the terrorist atrocity and military skirmish, as also the other measures taken by the two countries, were fresh in everyone’s memory. But it seems neither party involved had moved on from that impasse, or learnt any lessons. Naqvi decided, once again, to make the presentation ceremony all about himself rather than the players, and the Indian teams – on both occasions – didn’t think twice before depriving the country the joyous moment of seeing them lift the trophy, just to make a point.

Not that the bad blood was restricted to post-match activities. There was no handshake between the captains at the toss or between players of the two teams after the games, no verbal interaction during the game, and hardly any eye contact in the middle. At least in the men’s matches, there was more than one instance of provocative gestures and celebrations, from players from both sides, primarily referring to events during the military conflict.

Official explanation

BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia said the decision to cold-shoulder Pakistani players and officials was a result of assessment about prevailing ‘circumstances and sentiment’. Such confidence about national sentiment is rare even among market researchers and psephologists. He, however, didn’t divulge any plan to get the trophies. Even if they are obtained sometime in the future, the moment of unscripted joy and celebration has been lost for posterity. Any such event will remain just a formal photo opportunity.

This animosity between the two countries doesn’t result in a breakdown in cricketing ties, largely for commercial reasons. At last year’s men’s Asia Cup, the neighbours faced off on three successive Sundays, taking the frenzy and hostility to fever pitch. Even the International Cricket Council ensures at least one India-Pakistan match at every tournament. It’s a uniquely cynical arrangement, profiting from bilateral tension and historical baggage, especially when the gulf in class on the field over the last several years has made the rivalry terribly one-sided.

After the women’s final, India head coach Amol Muzumdar had said that the fact that India won the Asia Cup in front of the world was enough for him and the players. He didn’t seem too bothered about the trophy.

Does that mean that the two trophies will gather dust in some locker, cupboard or godown for ever?

As far as the no-handshakes policy goes, it smells of hypocrisy and double standards. Indians and Pakistanis have faced off in other sports over the last year – hockey in particular – shaking hands without adverse reactions from any corner. Why do only the cricketers have to bear this burden of hostility, and portray what they believe is the national mood, showing themselves to be extra-patriotic. Maybe, the people who make these decisions and send out these edicts believe that other sports don’t mean as much to the common Indian as cricket.

What happens next

At the recent Hockey World Cup, India and Pakistan played a high-scoring match with the former coming out 5-3 winners. The game was devoid of any drama of the unsavoury kind. At the Aichi-Nagoya Asian Games in Japan, hundreds of athletes from both countries will come face to face – either in competition or off the field. Will they look the other way in a social setting, or betray the awkwardness that such a situation is bound to present?

India is odds-on favourite to win the cricket gold medal in both men’s and women’s sections. If Naqvi comes to hand over medals in his capacity as the head of the ACC, will they refuse to accept them? If things are that bad between the two countries, why keep sporting ties going when everything else is suspended? But that isn’t an option as commerce rules. Also, India’s ambitions of hosting the 2036 Olympics won’t allow them to do it, especially as cricket is now an Olympic sport. But if the hostile attitude – by both sides – continues, at some point, the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility may start to come into play. Every time such an approach is adopted, the effectiveness and shock value will go down a bit. At what point does it start getting tiresome? Even at the height of the Cold War, US and Soviet athletes often competed against each other at the Olympics, largely without incident.

There was a memorable politically-charged game between the USA and Iran at the 1998 FIFA World Cup. England and Argentina faced off at the 1986 edition, the game made famous (or infamous) by Diego Maradona’s ‘Hand of God’ goal as well as the greatest goal in World Cup history. It came four years after the two countries had waged war over the Falklands Islands. There needs to be a use-by date for this ‘no-handshake, no trophy acceptance from Pakistanis’ policy. Bilateral relations are not expected to normalise any time soon, but cricket matches between the neighbours will continue, at least in multilateral events. The hype, jingoism and manufactured intensity from broadcasters isn’t going anywhere in a hurry either. The least players and administrators — if they are responsible stakeholders in the game — can do is not feed the beast.