Congress MP Sukhjinder Singh Randhawa has stirred a political debate ahead of the India–Pakistan encounter in the ICC T20 World Cup in Colombo, arguing that New Delhi should not engage with Islamabad on the cricket field while accusing Pakistan of sustaining a proxy conflict against India.Speaking before the high-profile clash scheduled in Sri Lanka’s capital, Randhawa described Pakistan as a country that has historically acted as an adversary and said it should be treated accordingly. He questioned the rationale of sporting engagement at a time when bilateral relations remain strained and diplomatic ties are limited.
The comments come as cricket once again finds itself entangled in geopolitics. India and Pakistan have not played a bilateral series since 2012–13, with encounters confined to multi-nation tournaments organised by the International Cricket Council and the Asian Cricket Council. Political tensions, particularly following incidents along the Line of Control and terror attacks attributed to Pakistan-based groups, have shaped public discourse around sporting ties for over a decade.
Randhawa, a former Deputy Chief Minister of Punjab and currently a Member of Parliament from Gurdaspur, said there should be no “dealings” with Islamabad in light of what he termed a sustained proxy war. His remarks reflect a strand of opinion within sections of the political spectrum that sport cannot be separated from national security concerns.
Government policy in New Delhi has maintained that bilateral cricket ties cannot resume unless there is a demonstrable improvement in the security environment and cross-border relations. However, participation in ICC events remains part of India’s international sporting commitments, with decisions governed by tournament regulations and global cricketing agreements.
Cricket administrators have consistently defended the separation of sport and politics in multinational events. The Board of Control for Cricket in India has argued in previous years that participation in ICC tournaments is a matter of contractual obligation and global sporting engagement. Pakistan Cricket Board officials have similarly emphasised the commercial and competitive significance of India–Pakistan fixtures, which routinely attract some of the highest television audiences in world sport.
Matches between the two sides are among the most watched sporting events globally, drawing millions of viewers across South Asia and the diaspora. Broadcasters and sponsors rely heavily on the rivalry’s commercial pull, and ICC revenue projections often factor in at least one India–Pakistan fixture in major tournaments.
Security arrangements for such contests are typically extensive, reflecting both the emotional intensity of the rivalry and the political sensitivities involved. Sri Lanka, which has hosted high-profile matches in the past, has experience managing large-scale cricket events under heightened security protocols.
Political reactions to India–Pakistan cricket have fluctuated over the years. After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, bilateral ties were suspended indefinitely. Attempts at cricket diplomacy have surfaced sporadically, including proposals for neutral-venue series, but none have materialised into sustained engagement. The Asia Cup and ICC tournaments have therefore become the only stages where the two teams meet.
Randhawa’s remarks underscore a broader debate about whether sport should serve as a bridge or whether it risks normalising relations amid unresolved disputes. Supporters of continued sporting engagement argue that people-to-people contact and shared cultural experiences can reduce hostility and maintain dialogue in difficult times. Critics contend that participation sends mixed signals when diplomatic and security concerns remain acute.
Within Punjab, a border state that has historically borne the brunt of tensions, sentiments around cross-border relations often carry particular weight. Randhawa’s political base may shape his emphasis on national security concerns, especially given periodic reports of drone incursions and smuggling networks along the frontier.
Opposition figures have occasionally taken divergent positions on India–Pakistan cricket, reflecting both regional and ideological differences. While some advocate for engagement as a confidence-building measure, others insist that sporting ties should mirror the state of bilateral relations.
The ICC, for its part, does not intervene in bilateral political disputes and frames its tournaments as platforms for global competition governed by sporting principles. Its constitution requires full member nations to honour participation commitments unless extraordinary circumstances arise. India’s participation in global tournaments has never been withdrawn on political grounds, though scheduling and venue disputes have emerged in other contexts.