4. Saba Abbasi-Mod-Mat-Hind-Gent-Oped thumbnail-November-2025-PUB-APP

“Operation Sindoor on the games field. Outcome is the same – India Wins.”

These were the words of the Prime Minister of supposedly one of the world’s largest democracies on his X account, reflecting the mindset of the nation-state’s leadership. This statement by Narendra Modi came after the first Pakistan-India cricket match at the Asia Cup, which drew considerable attention due to the Indian team captain’s refusal to shake hands with his Pakistani counterpart. This was not an isolated incident, as similar lapses in professional decorum by the Indian cricket team (both men’s and women’s) were observed in all the succeeding matches during Asia Cup 2025. Furthermore, the Indian team even refused to accept the trophy because it was to be presented by Pakistan’s Interior Minister.

Cricket is known as a gentleman’s game, where sportsmanship and respect are considered as vital as victory itself. Players, even in competition, are expected to display grace, honour, and mutual respect. However, for the Indian leadership, politicising sports and undermining the spirit of sportsmanship seem to have become part of the winning strategy.

In the past, cricket diplomacy has been an integral part of Pakistan and India relationship. It can be traced back to 1987, when General Zia-ul-Haq travelled to India to watch an India-Pakistan match during heightened tensions over Kashmir. Later, despite strained political relations, the Indian team visited Pakistan in 2004. The tour was dubbed as cricket diplomacy, with then President Musharraf praising the Indian team and later attending a cricket match in India himself. Even after the Mumbai attacks, both teams overcame the major setback in political relationship and played again in the ICC World Cup of 2011. Manmohan Singh, then-Prime minister of India, invited his Pakistani counterpart, Yousaf Raza Gilani, to watch the match together. Internationally, their joint attendance was hailed as a symbol of restraint and dialogue through sport.

However, Asia’s cup handshake snub has dealt a blow to cricket diplomacy and signalled a tense moment in the India-Pakistan relationship. The reason is that India’s hardline ideology has seeped into non-military domains like sports, which explains why the handshake episode was not condemned at home. The Indian government remained silent, and many citizens openly applauded the move. The BJP government steps to influence and radicalise masses against Pakistan seem to be successful which now further narrows the prospects of normalisation between the two states.

It is evident that the nature of leadership dictates and reflects a nation’s behaviour. Modi’s Hindutva ideology has started to perpetuate anti-Muslim sentiment, intolerance, and polarisation even in all arenas including sports. The hysteria in India has reached such extremes that protests broke out ahead of the Asia Cup match, and a faction of Indian students even filed a petition claiming that playing against Pakistan was against national interest.

A major reason for this incident is that Hindutva ideology has been badly bruised after the historic 7–nil defeat of the May 2025 Indo-Pak military standoff. The Indian masses, despite their leadership’s elevated rhetoric, have not come to terms with what transpired during those four days of conflict. For Pakistan, 7–nil stands as a remarkable milestone and symbol of national pride, while for India it remains one of the greatest military embarrassments in its history.

The crux of the reason why Indian team did not end things on a professional and an honourable note is that they mirrored their vengeful leadership and were seeking to settle military scores beyond the battlefield. On the other hand, the reality of the matter is that even if Modi continues to feed into India’s collective delusion of Operation Sindoor’s success and equating cricket victories with military successes, the on-ground facts will not change, that is: although the Indian cricket team managed to secure runs, the Indian Air Force could not secure its Rafales.

However, in contrast Pakistan has repeatedly demonstrated maturity and strategic patience in both military and non-military domains. It remains open to dialogue and peaceful resolution of bilateral issues, however constructive engagement requires reciprocity. Until and unless India forgoes its extremist and embittered posture, all channels of diplomacy will continue to suffer. If such patterns continue then the spirit of sportsmanship, once a bridge between the two nations may become another casualty of politics, leaving future opportunities for reconciliation increasingly distant and dim.

Saba Abbasi is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. She can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »