Cricket has always been more than just a game between India and Pakistan – it is a reflection of history, identity, and often, political tensions. The recent Asia Cup match, where the Indian team did not shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts (at the toss and after the match), has stirred debate not merely about etiquette but about what sportsmanship actually means when nations are estranged.
Not Just a Handshake
To some, a handshake at the end of a match is a routine gesture – a tradition. To others in this moment, refusing to shake hands has become symbolic, tied to the horrors of the Pahalgam terror attack and the public sentiment it has stirred. The decision wasn’t made in a vacuum. The Indian captain, Suryakumar Yadav, stated that the decision was in line with BCCI and government, and “some things are beyond sportsmanship”.
The Pakistani side reacted as many would expect: disappointment, a formal protest, a demand for accountability, and claims that the conduct violated the spirit of cricket. There were rather unparliamentary banter as well. Let’s ignore such noise.
The Rules vs The Spirit
One thing that emerges clearly: there is no law in cricket’s regulations that mandates a handshake after a match. It’s a matter of convention, a gesture of goodwill, something that reflects ideals rather than obligations. A tradition of “the gentlemen’s game”.
In that sense, what India did wasn’t illegal under the code, but many argue that it was deeply symbolic. The boundary between sporting convention and moral statement has been crossed. And once that boundary is crossed, the implications ripple outward – not just in cricket, but in diplomacy, in public discourse, in national identity.
When (Some) Statements Overshadow the Game
India thrashed Pakistan by 7 wickets, yet that result is being overshadowed by what did not happen – handshakes. In fact, Indian players didn’t even engage with match officials post-match, and walked directly into their dressing room, doors shut behind them. What might be a technicality in laws becomes a heavy statement in optics.
One must ask if the ideal of sports as a neutral ground – where competition exists within rules and fairness but also decorum and respect – still holds when external pressures loom so large. And if a victory is celebrated at the expense of the relationship that sport is supposed to build, what is the cost?
The Case for Empathy (and Accountability)
Empathy matters. For families hurt by terror, for communities reeling from tragedy, for citizens who expect their team to reflect a moral posture, silence or handshake both send a message. No gesture can erase grief – but symbolic actions matter to public discourse, to healing, to how we engage with each other.
At the same time, sport governing bodies like ICC, ACC, PCB, BCCI, do carry responsibility. If the atmosphere is so fraught that conventions like handshakes become points of crisis, what does that say about the buffer sport can or should provide? Should match referees pre-emptively advise captains to avoid handshakes? Should there be clearer guidelines about conduct in politically charged matches?
Bridging the Divide: Why It Still Matters
Sport, especially cricket in South Asia, has one of its rare potentials to unite – even briefly. It gives us shared language, shared moments, shared passion. When teams refuse handshakes, when they lock themselves away, when political demands seep into pitch-side behaviour, the opportunity for that unity is lost.
We must imagine what could be if sport reclaimed more of its unifying purpose without being forced into being a battleground for symbolism. Perhaps, even when relations are strained, acts of sportsmanship—handshakes, gestures, modest respect—could be the bridge rather than another wedge.
Conclusion: What Should We Take Away?
- Understand context, but hold on to the ideal. The hurt and anger triggered by events like Pahalgam are real. Mourning and protest are valid. But dismissing every convention of sportsmanship as optional removes tools of reconciliation, however small.
- Transparency and leadership matter. When captains say, “we were aligned with the BCCI and government,” it raises questions about agency, pressure, and whether players are being asked to act beyond their role as sportspeople.
- Sport should aim higher than political theatre. Its unique value is precisely when it transcends political rancour. When it doesn’t, we lose more than just a handshake – we lose that momentary sense of possibility.
At the end of a match, a handshake does not signal amnesia or forgiveness. It signals respect. And respect – even in small forms – is what keeps sports, and societies, human.
