Introduction

As a cricket enthusiast, I’m happy with the trophy furrow in Pakistan after many years. However, the joy would have been even greater if our team started the tournament with a victory. For many, winning against India is as significant as winning the trophy itself. This emotional attachment exists in both countries. Had we not won the 1992 World Cup, the same nation would have been throwing stones at the houses of Imran Khan and other cricketers. Unfortunately, our “bad luck” in this Champions Trophy began the moment our most promising player, Saim Ayub, was ruled out due to an injury a couple of months before the tournament.

The debate over whether he should have been played in Tests is irrelevant now.

The real question is: why has international cricket returned to Pakistan?

If it hasn’t fully returned, then why is the Indian team absent despite the fact that every Indian cricketer wishes to play here? The reason is clearly political, not security-related. Even former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee once said, “Cricket and politics should be kept separate.”

Let me share an interesting incident in this regard. During Nawaz Sharif’s second tenure as Prime Minister, Pakistan was scheduled to tour India. However, an extremist organization there threatened to prevent the Pakistani team from setting foot in India. To prove their seriousness, they even damaged the pitch in Delhi, putting the tour in jeopardy. At that time, I was working for the international news agency AFP. One day, I called the then Minister of Sports, Mushahid Hussain Syed, and asked, “Mushahid Sahib, a simple question: Is the team going or not?” He remained silent for a moment and then replied, “Yes, they are going.”

This incident highlights the tense political and sporting relations between Pakistan and India, particularly in the late 1990s. Cricket, being more than just a sport in the subcontinent, has often been affected by political tensions. During Nawaz Sharif’s second tenure as Prime Minister (1997–1999), Pakistan was scheduled to tour India for a much-anticipated cricket series. However, an extremist organization in India, opposed to the Pakistani team’s visit, threatened to disrupt the matches. Their opposition was not just verbal; they went so far as to damage the pitch in Delhi, creating uncertainty over whether the series would proceed.

At that time, I’m working for the international news agency AFP and took it upon himself to seek clarity. He reached out to the then Minister of Sports, Mushahid Hussain Syed, and asked a straightforward yet crucial question: “Mushahid Sahib, a simple question: Is the team going or not?” His brief pause before responding indicated the weight of the decision. Despite the threats and the volatile situation, his firm reply—”Yes, they are going”—showed the government’s resolve to ensure the tour went ahead as planned.

This moment underscores how sports diplomacy played a role in easing tensions between the two nations. By allowing the tour to continue, Pakistan demonstrated its commitment to cricketing ties with India despite external pressures. It also reflected how sports ministers and political leaders had to navigate sensitive issues where sports and politics intersected.

This was a major news story in that context. Imran Khan, who had by then entered politics and was in Karachi at the time, welcomed the decision when I sought his reaction. The news became a sensation in the cricketing world, and soon afterward, Prime Minister Vajpayee responded positively, reiterating his stance that cricket and politics should remain separate. Interestingly, Mushahid Hussain later told me that when I had called him, the decision had not yet been made. When he reached the Prime Minister’s House, Nawaz Sharif asked in Punjabi, “Should we send the team or not?” Understanding Sharif’s psychology, Mushahid advised, “Let them go; nothing will happen.” And indeed, nothing happened—Indian cricket fans gave a grand welcome to the Pakistani team.

However, today, the very organization that had threatened the Pakistani team, Shiv Sena, is practically in power, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi knows well that “cricket unites people.” The Indian team’s absence from Pakistan has nothing to do with security concerns but is purely a political decision by the BJP. The reality is that no unfortunate incident has ever occurred with the Indian team in Pakistan. The only major security incident in cricket happened in Lahore in 2009 when the Sri Lankan team was attacked during a Test match—a clear intelligence failure on our part.

That terrorist attack had deep consequences, shutting Pakistan’s doors to international cricket for years. It was a difficult time, and we struggled to convince the world that we could host matches safely. However, Sri Lanka stood by us, later sending their team again. The West Indies also supported us, and gradually, international teams started returning. Former PCB chairman Najam Sethi played a crucial role in this, particularly by launching the PSL as a competitive brand against the IPL, which helped bring international cricket back to Pakistan.

Joy moments are rare for us, so we can hope for this tournament to complete without unpleasant incidents.

The problem is here that our inner ministry is practically named practically and also engages the beach law, which has now been under the control of the FIA. In India, the political stance regarding Pakistan is clear—they don’t want to play here, but they don’t interfere with their team’s selection. However, in Pakistan, the situation is the opposite. Political interference in cricket has led to unnecessary changes, from the board leadership to team selection.

One can only fear the day when a minister or advisor decides to include themselves in the playing XI! For instance, on what grounds was Faheem Ashraf selected? Who influenced Wahab Riaz’s inclusion? And why is our cricket board chairman also the Minister of Interior? Given the serious security situation from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to Parachinar and Balochistan, it would have been wiser to appoint a professional cricket administrator instead.

Another unfortunate reality is that neither we can digest victory nor we can accept defeat. After winning the 2017 Champions Trophy final against India, we celebrated for an entire year. When we won the 1992 World Cup, political forces decided to bring Imran Khan into politics. Later, when they wanted to counter the PPP, they launched the ‘Sharif Project.’ As a result, neither have we achieved great success in cricket nor have we progressed politically.

This statement reflects a hard reality of how us, as a nation, answer the success and failure. Our inability to digest victory leads to prolonged celebrations and lack of sustainable efforts for future achievements. Inre, our inability to accept the loss lead to guilty games, theory of conspiracy, and a reluctance to learn from our mistakes. This model is obvious in sports and political.

has vignated the exague of 2017, for example. Instead of using it as A spell to build a frightening team of crisels, we paid in their glory for a long time. The same thing happens after the World Cup of 1992. Instead of focusing on Long -term cricket infrastructions, victory will become a political handiciency, picking to imran entry of sman khan khan in politics.

Our political landscape reflects a similar to teage.term stability or progress. The result is a continuous cycle of political instability and polarization.

As a nation, our noemotional emotion prevents the learn, evolve and programmed to sports and governic. If we also want to be without excelecting, we need to develop a culture you assessing long -terg pension, accepting thanks and based on the wins with the wins The state of the mind oriented toward the future. Otherwise we will continue to repeat the story without significant progress.

Therefore, it is best to let people do the jobs they are meant for—only then can we truly assess the results.