Pakistan does U turn again

Harsha Kakar
kakarharsha@gmail.com
The Pakistan Government’s U turn on playing India in the ICC world cup was not unexpected. It was a matter of time and a possible face saving before they reversed their decision. The initial boycott, announced by their PM, Shehbaz Sharief, was illogical from the start and unexpected to last once inputs began emerging on financial and other penalties which could be imposed on them.
The reason quoted for the boycott was sympathy with Bangladesh when ICC turned down Dacca’s request, claiming security concerns, to shift its match venues from India. This was Pakistan’s attempt at lowering India’s standing in South Asia, exploiting cricket, the most preferred sport for masses in the region.
Meanwhile Bangladeshi journalists applied in large numbers for visas to cover the world cup, while its shooting team arrives to participate in India. How could India be unsafe only for cricket but safe for Bangladeshi journalists and other sporting teams. The reality was that the BCB (Bangladesh Cricket Board) was miffed when Indian premier league franchise, Kolkata Knight Riders, relieved their pacer, Mustafizur Rahman, on directions of the BCCI, an act criticized by many even within India.
This is not the first time that the PCB (Pakistan Cricket Board) has made a U turn on its stand and ended up becoming a global laughing stock. In 2023, PCB insisted that India would travel to Pakistan to play the Asia cup. India refused. At the end of the day, India played all its matches in Sri Lanka. This was the commencement of the hybrid mode.
In retaliation, PCB refused to play the world cup in India and tried threatening the ICC. Nobody budged. As expected, Ramiz Raja, the PCB president, made a U turn. Pak travelled and played all its matches in India. This U turn was a sign that Pakistan’s tail can be twisted.
Last year Pakistan hosted the Champions trophy. It kept screaming from rooftops, ‘Pakistan or nowhere,’ implying that the tournament would be held solely in Pakistan and it was the end of the hybrid mode. This was to challenge India and the ICC and overcome the embarrassment of 2023. As the tournament drew close, a familiar script emerged. Pakistan backed down, India played its matches in the UAE once again in the hybrid mode.
The finals were played between India and New Zealand, which India won. So peeved was the PCB that its chairman Mohsin Naqvi mysteriously fell ill and there was no Pak representative, the organizers, on the stage during the presentation ceremony. This led to the ICC hauling up Pakistan for this lapse. Lame excuses flowed.
In the Asia cup last year, after a controversial league match with India, Naqvi demanded that match referee Andy Pycroft from Zimbabwe, be changed or Pakistan would withdraw. Neither the ICC nor the Asian Cricket Council (ACC), of which Naqvi himself is President, bothered to respond or comment. At the end of the day, Pakistan played on, turning back on its decision once again.
An added controversy emerged at the presentation ceremony, when India refused to accept the trophy from Mohsin. The trophy remains with the ACC.
The drama this year was enacted to display leverage over the ICC. This too backfired. Pakistan has repeatedly attempted to display that its presence has value and that the ICC would bend. This despite being aware that the ICC survives on income from India and would dump any other body to ensure flow of funds from the Indian market. Further, Pakistan had inked an agreement to play with India on neutral venues. By avoiding the game, it could be held responsible for breaking agreements and face multiple penalties.
Such is the hold of the BCCI on global cricket that Ramiz Raja, as the PCB president, had stated, ‘the Pakistan Cricket Board runs on 50 percent funding coming from the ICC. Almost 90 percent (of ICC income) comes from Indian markets. So, in one-way, Indian business houses are running Pakistan cricket. And tomorrow, if the Indian Prime Minister decides not to fund Pakistan, our cricket board can collapse.’ A financially weak PCB has repeatedly been requesting that India play a tri-lateral series with them and Bangladesh. This demand was once again raised but rejected.
Pakistan’s face saving came by way of calls from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Both nations requested Pakistan’s leadership to reconsider its decision, which it willingly did. It was only waiting for such a request. The ICC had clearly enunciated the damages which Pak could face, both financial as also reputational, in case it continued the boycott. The damage to Pak could even impact foreign players participating in its PSL (Pakistan Super League).
Simultaneously, to save face, Pakistan began spinning an internal narrative. The Government statement read, ‘In view of the outcomes achieved in multilateral discussions, as well as the request of friendly countries, the Government of Pakistan hereby directs the Pakistan national cricket team to take the field on February 15, 2026,’ adding, ‘Moreover, this decision has been taken with the aim of protecting the spirit of cricket.’ There was no mention of India rejecting its demand of playing a tri-series nor the threat of financial loss.
On the contrary, when India refused to play in Pakistan, it adhered to its stand, while leaving doors open for a hybrid option. It refused to budge despite pressure. The BCCI also has a standing due to its contribution to the sport including funding its expansion and popularity across the globe.
It is not a question which team wins or loses the tournament. It is ultimately the reputation and standing of the national leadership and its cricket board which is at stake especially when nations act immaturely. Making off the cuff threats without assessing the consequences and then backing down, Pakistan has displayed that it is a nation whose tail can be twisted. The PCB has been shown its place by the ICC. Any future theatrics will have little value. Pakistan has realized that it can be sacrificed because its financial contribution to the global promotion of the game is hardly worth a mention.
The author is Major General (Retd)