India’s march to the Asia Cup 2025 final and a glimpse of national pride beyond the field of play
The final match of the Asia Cup 2025 was not just a thrilling game of cricket. It became more than just a game, a diplomatic and cultural message. India not only defeated Pakistan on the field but also adopted a stance during the post-match formalities that captured global attention. The Indian players flatly refused to accept the trophy from the President of the Asian Cricket Council, who is from Pakistan. As a result, the prize distribution ceremony dragged on for hours and ultimately remained incomplete. This incident marks a turning point in the history of Indian cricket. The question is not just who held the trophy, but why India took this step and what its consequences are.
Cricket is often called “the gentleman’s game,” but in the context of India and Pakistan, it has never been just a game. It has become a symbol of political tension, cultural conflict, and national identity between the two countries. When Indian players refused to accept the trophy, it sent a clear message that India prioritized self-respect over victory on the field. In a way, it was “a reverse version of sport and diplomacy.” While sports is often considered a tool to soften politics, India used the platform of sports to deliver a political message.
Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, it has been repeatedly claimed that India no longer bows down, but rather dictates its own terms. In this context, Team India’s stance is being seen as an extension of that mindset. For India, receiving the trophy was merely a formality, but when the recipient is the same country with which terrorism, infiltration, and border tensions have persisted, the significance of that formality changes. This new India not only speaks in the language of economic and military power, but is also adept at conveying political messages on the sports stage. This incident also had a profound impact on domestic politics. Supporters are calling it a bold step of the Modi era, while the opposition considers it an attack on the spirit of sportsmanship. However, among the public, it was widely seen as a victory of self-respect.
Every bold move is accompanied by criticism. India’s stance raised numerous questions. Critics argued that the fundamental purpose of cricket is to foster friendship and harmony between nations. Refusing to accept the trophy undermines the spirit of the game. The international media took a mixed view of the incident. Some called it India’s “dominant policy,” while others labeled it “arrogance.” The question is whether this will harm India’s “soft power.” A debate also raged over whether the players took this step voluntarily or under pressure from the board and the government. If players become mere pawns in political decisions, their independence and the sanctity of the game are bound to be questioned.
Controversy in Indian and Pakistani cricket is nothing new. In 1987, when the Pakistani President visited the Jaipur Test, it was called “cricket diplomacy.” Pakistan’s victory in the Chennai Test before the Kargil War in 1999 and the subsequent political turmoil are still remembered. Following the 2008 Mumbai attacks, India permanently suspended bilateral series with Pakistan. A venue dispute arose over the 2023 Asia Cup, where India refused to travel to Pakistan, ultimately resulting in the tournament being held “jointly.” Against these backdrops, the 2025 incident is not an isolated incident but part of a long-standing pattern where cricket has always been played under the shadow of politics.
This incident could have far-reaching consequences. Although the Asian Cricket Council is headquartered in Dubai, Pakistan has long sought to increase its influence within the organization. India has made it clear that no structure can function without its consent. The International Cricket Council claims neutrality, but if one of the major teams, India, sends a political message by taking such steps, the Council will be forced to decide its stance. It remains to be seen where teams like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Afghanistan will stand in this tussle. India’s pressure will influence them, but in the long run, it could weaken regional cooperation.
This approach by India certainly symbolizes the “new India.” It represents an India that prioritizes self-respect and defies formality or tradition. But it’s also true that overly integrating the spirit of sports into politics can sometimes be detrimental. Did India do the right thing? For supporters, the answer is simple—yes, because it was a matter of self-respect. For critics, the answer is no, because a sporting platform should not be a political arena.
The real question is whether cricket will remain just cricket or will it always remain an extension of politics in the subcontinent. This incident at the Asia Cup 2025 makes this question even more acute. One thing is certain—this is a changed India, both on the field and on the stage.
