By Vimal Kapoor
Many observers dismiss Pakistan’s call to boycott their scheduled group-stage match against India in the 2026 T20 World Cup as something not to be taken too seriously. Pakistan’s T20 team is widely regarded as a weaker side in the format and was never viewed as a genuine contender for the title. The decision appears more like a political maneuver than a strategic cricketing one.
At the centre of this move is PCB chairman Mohsin Naqvi, who seems to be using the boycott threat—or partial boycott—to rally domestic support and project strength to the Pakistani public. By announcing that the team will participate in the tournament overall but refuse to face India on February 15 in Colombo, the leadership avoids a full withdrawal while still making a bold statement. This selective approach has drawn criticism for being more of a publicity stunt than principled.
If the India-Pakistan clash does not take place, it is unlikely to diminish the tournament’s overall significance. For years, the so-called “mega clash” has failed to match the intense hype surrounding it. The encounters have often been one-sided, with India demonstrating clear superiority in skill, execution, and composure under pressure.
India has dominated recent head-to-heads, building a commanding record that underscores the imbalance. Indian captain Suryakumar Yadav captured this reality pointedly during a previous politically tense encounter in the Asia Cup, remarking that an 8-0 score line in favour of India “can’t be termed as a rivalry”. His comment highlighted a key truth: the India-Pakistan dynamic has rarely been defined purely by on-field competition.
From the outset, matches between the two nations have been heavily influenced by broader geopolitical tensions rather than pure cricketing merit. Politics fuels the massive global attention, massive broadcasting revenues, and enduring spectacle. This off-field drama is what sustains the event’s commercial appeal, despite the fact that talent wise both teams have a huge gap.
Pakistan’s leadership appears fully aware that their team enters as heavy underdogs against India in T20 cricket. A direct contest would likely result in defeat, further exposing their vulnerabilities. Instead of relying on cricketing strength, they are trying to create disruption within the tournament itself—potentially pressuring the ICC or drawing sympathy amid related controversies, such as Bangladesh’s earlier exclusion from the event.
Ultimately, this boycott reflects a calculated gamble: forfeit the match (and likely points) to score political points at home, while still competing elsewhere. It prioritises drama over on-field credibility, reinforcing that the India-Pakistan “rivalry” thrives more on external narratives than balanced competition. The cricketing world may move on with minimal long-term impact, as the spectacle has long outgrown the actual contest on the pitch. This gimmick is clearly a wide ball by PCB.
(Vimal Kapoor, a Dehradun resident, is passionate about literature, creative writing, cricket and exploration through travel)
