When Emotions and Policy collide on the Cricket Pitch
Maj Gen Sanjeev Dogra (Retd)
On September 14th, the Indian and Pakistani cricket teams walked onto the field in Dubai. For broadcasters, it was the pinnacle of the sporting calendar, a guaranteed ratings bonanza. For countless fans, it was a thrilling contest. Yet, for a nation still processing the grief of the tragic terrorist attack in Pahalgam months earlier, the event triggered a complex and uncomfortable national conversation. This juxtaposition presents a critical opportunity to move beyond reactive sentiment and examine the intricate challenge of reconciling raw public emotion with the sustained, rational demands of statecraft.
The national response to the Pahalgam attack was profound and unified. There was a palpable, justified sense of outrage. The political rhetoric across the spectrum was unequivocal, speaking of a halt to engagement. This public sentiment, a natural and necessary expression of solidarity with the victims, created an expectation of a prolonged period of disengagement. The subsequent decision to participate in a sporting event, particularly one as emotionally charged as a cricket match against Pakistan, therefore created a perceptible gap between public expectation and state action. This gap is not a failure of intent but rather a symptom of a larger, recurring dynamic that merits dispassionate analysis.
This cycle of attack, outrage, rhetorical ultimatums, and eventual recalibration is a recognizable feature of the India-Pakistan relationship. It highlights a tension that all modern democracies navigate: the powerful, immediate force of public emotion versus the patient, often pragmatic, and long-term calculations of foreign and security policy. This situation underscores the inherent tension governments face: balancing the public’s legitimate emotional response with the complex, long-term calculations of strategic diplomacy, which must account for multilateral commitments and potential back-channel necessities.
The core of the public’s disillusionment lies less in the specific decision to play cricket and more in the perception of a disjointed process. When maximalist rhetoric establishes a certain public expectation, a subsequent policy decision that appears to contradict it can be perceived as a lack of resolve, even if that decision is rooted in a different, more strategic calculus. This disconnect can erode trust in public institutions over time. The challenge, therefore, is institutional: how can a state manage public expectations with greater clarity and consistency without being boxed into foreign policy positions that may not serve the national interest in the long run?
This cycle also invites us to examine the ecosystem that amplifies emotion. The 24/7 media landscape, driven by metrics of engagement, often prioritizes amplifying outrage over fostering nuanced debate. Complex issues of national security and diplomacy are frequently distilled into binary choices: hawk or dove, boycott or betrayal. This framing does a disservice to the citizenry, simplifying incredibly complex decisions into emotional litmus tests. The responsibility of all stakeholders be it media, political leaders or the civil society is to elevate the discourse, providing context and fostering a public understanding that strategic national interests are often advanced through means more subtle and enduring than symbolic boycotts.
There is a crucial distinction to be made here between nationalism and patriotism. The former can be reactive, fueled by immediate emotion and a desire for symbolic gestures. The latter is a steadier, more profound commitment to the nation’s long-term health, expressed through informed debate, rational policy-making, and a commitment to justice that outlasts news cycles. A mature democracy must strive to cultivate the latter, ensuring that the nation’s response to crises is built on a bedrock of principle and strategy, not just passion.
The question posed by the families of the Pahalgam victims, “how can we cheer when our mourning is not yet over?” is profoundly legitimate and deserves a serious answer. That answer cannot be found in a single sporting event. It must be found in the unwavering, long-term demonstration that their sacrifice is the nation’s foremost priority. This demonstration is not primarily symbolic. It is institutional, manifested in robust security apparatus, unwavering support for the armed forces, comprehensive care for the families of victims, and a diplomatic corps empowered to relentlessly pursue the nation’s security objectives on the global stage. These are the pillars of meaningful solidarity; they operate silently but with far greater impact than any temporary gesture.
The commercial dimension of such a high-profile event is an unavoidable reality of modern global sport. The massive financial ecosystem surrounding an India-Pakistan match, from broadcasting rights to advertising is a neutral force; it is neither inherently good nor bad. However, it creates a powerful incentive structure. The risk is that the sheer volume of this commercial activity can inadvertently drown out more subdued but more important voices, such as those of the grieving. A responsible society acknowledges this tension and consciously creates space for those voices, ensuring that commerce does not eclipse compassion.
The experience of other democracies offers valuable lessons. Many nations grapple with balancing public sentiment against strategic imperatives. The key differentiator is often the presence of established, transparent frameworks. For instance, a clear, publicly communicated policy that outlines India’s stance on bilateral sporting ties following acts of terrorism would manage public expectation effectively. Such a framework could include provisions for multilateral obligations, explaining why participation in Asia Cup is distinct from a bilateral series. This is not a sign of weakness but of confidence and clarity. It signals that the nation’s policies are driven by considered doctrine, not by the fluctuating tides of sentiment. It assures citizens and the international community that India speaks with a consistent and principled voice.
Furthermore, the role of institutions like Parliament is vital. A bipartisan consultation aimed at forging a broad consensus on the principles guiding cultural and sporting engagements with nations that sponsor terrorism could be immensely beneficial. This would depoliticize individual decisions and anchor them in a larger strategic framework that enjoys cross-party support, insulating foreign policy from the most volatile swings of political rhetoric.
The cricket match in Dubai is now part of history. But the questions it raised about how India, as a rising global power and a vibrant democracy, manages its national narrative will persist. They will return after the next crisis, the next geopolitical dilemma. Our task is not to eliminate emotion from public life, that is neither possible nor desirable. Emotion is the fuel of national solidarity. Rather, our task is to build the institutional and discursive machinery to channel that emotion into purposeful, strategic, and enduring action.
We honor our martyrs not through the volume of our momentary outrage, but through the quiet consistency of our resolve. We strengthen our democracy not by silencing complex debates, but by engaging in them with reason, empathy, and a long-term vision. The true test of our national character is not played on a cricket field abroad, but in the halls of our institutions, the pages of our media, and the reasoned discourse of our citizens here at home. It is a test we must strive to pass with wisdom and clarity.
(The author is a motivational speaker and expert in Decision Sciences)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
