By Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal
The word sportsmanship was once spoken with reverence, not as a slogan but as a lived tradition, especially on the playing fields of South Asia. In earlier decades, when tempers between neighboring states often ran high, sport still retained a rare dignity. Pakistan and India, despite wars, diplomatic breakdowns and enduring political hostility, continued to meet in hockey, cricket and other games under tense circumstances, yet the tension seldom poisoned the spirit of play. Teams travelled to each other’s countries, crowds watched with passion but restraint, and the field itself remained a neutral ground where humanity quietly prevailed over hostility.
Those who witnessed that era still recall the small but telling gestures that defined sportsmanship. Fielders tying the shoelaces of an opposing batsman, sharing a laugh after a fierce contest, or applauding a fine shot regardless of the flag on the jersey were not seen as acts of weakness. They were expressions of confidence, rooted in the belief that sport was larger than politics. A particularly luminous example occurred on 22 December 1989 during an ODI between Pakistan and India at Lahore’s Gaddafi Stadium. Waqar Younis appealed for Indian batsman Srikanth to be given out lbw to an inswinger, and umpire Shakoor Rana duly raised his finger. Srikanth protested and hesitated to leave. At that moment Pakistan’s captain, Imran Khan, did something almost unthinkable by today’s standards: he invited Srikanth to continue despite the umpire’s decision.
Srikanth resumed his innings only to be dismissed on the very next delivery, caught behind by Salim Yousaf. The scorecard recorded an ordinary dismissal; history recorded an extraordinary act of grace. Contrast that ethos with more recent scenes, in which even the courtesy of a handshake after the toss has been denied. When an Indian captain declined to shake hands with his Pakistani counterpart, it signalled more than personal discourtesy; it marked the visible entry of state politics into the arena of sport. What was once a sanctuary from power games has increasingly become an extension of them.
Yet in another theatre of human tragedy, after nearly two years of devastating violence in Gaza, the IOC adopted a markedly different tone. It maintained that athletes should not be held responsible for the actions of their governments, a principle that suddenly regained prominence when applied to Israeli athletes. This contrast has fuelled accusations of hypocrisy and bias, with critics arguing that moral principles appear flexible when aligned with western interests. The IOC insists on complexity and case-by-case judgment, but to many observers the inconsistency has tarnished its moral authority.
Cricket, too, has not been spared. The International Cricket Council has repeatedly adjusted venues and formats in ways widely perceived as accommodating political pressure from powerful boards, particularly India’s. During the 2025 Champions Trophy hosted by Pakistan, India refused to travel, citing security and political reasons. The ICC responded by shifting India’s matches to neutral venues in the UAE under a hybrid model. Similar dynamics have shaped several Asia Cups, relocated or restructured because of India’s reluctance to engage bilaterally with Pakistan, even when those tournaments formally fall under the Asian Cricket Council.
The controversy deepened during the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026, co-hosted by India and Sri Lanka. Bangladesh requested that its group-stage matches be moved from Indian venues to Sri Lanka, citing security and political concerns amid strained relations. The ICC rejected the request after assessments found no credible threat. When Bangladesh refused to travel, it was replaced by Scotland, effectively excluding Bangladesh from the tournament. No penalties were imposed and, as a conciliatory gesture, Bangladesh was promised hosting rights for an additional ICC event in the future. Yet comparisons were inevitable: why was India accommodated with neutral venues while Bangladesh was shown the door?
The episode exposed the fragile intersection of power, politics and principle in modern sport. Pakistan’s response, however, stood out. By initially expressing solidarity with Bangladesh and questioning the apparent double standards, Pakistan sought to free the game from monopoly and moral selectivity. Though it later agreed to play for the broader stability of the tournament, the gesture of support was widely acknowledged in Bangladesh as an act rooted in fairness rather than expediency.
(The writer is a seasoned parliamentary expert with over two decades of experience in legislative research and media affairs, leading policy support initiatives for lawmakers on complex national and international issues, and can be reached at editorial@metro-Morning.com)
#Sportsmanship #GentlemensGame #PakistanCricket #IndiaCricket #ImranKhan #WaqarYounis #Srikanth #GaddafiStadium #FieldEtiquette #CricketHistory #FairPlay #InternationalCricketCouncil #ICC #ChampionsTrophy2025 #T20WorldCup2026 #BangladeshCricket #NeutralVenues #PoliticalInfluenceInSport #CricketEthics #AthleteSolidarity #PakistanSports #SouthAsiaCricket #HumanityInSport #FairnessInGames #CricketDiplomacy #MoralPrinciples #SportAndPolitics #MuhammadMohsinIqbal #PakistanNews #InternationalSportsDebate
