This paper examines the 2025 Asia Cup cricket final between India and Pakistan as a case study in the transformation of international sport from a tool of diplomacy into a stage for performing state-level conflict. Against a backdrop of heightened geopolitical tensions following the Pahalgam terror attack and India's "Operation Sindoor," the tournament became a theatre for performative nationalism. Through a detailed analysis of key events—including the Indian team's "no-handshake" policy, provocative on-field gestures from both sides, and the unprecedented refusal of the winner's trophy—this study argues that the final marked a definitive shift from passive political avoidance (e.g., boycotts) to active political confrontation within the sporting arena itself. By deconstructing the media narratives, public reactions, and institutional fallout, the paper demonstrates how the event was framed and consumed as an extension of military and political rivalry. It concludes that the 2025 Asia Cup Final represents a watershed moment, eroding the traditional concept of "cricket diplomacy" and establishing a dangerous new precedent for the weaponisation of sport in international relations.

The Theatre of the Absurd – An Empty Podium in Dubai

On the evening of September 28, 2025, the victorious Indian cricket team celebrated their record-extending ninth Asia Cup title at the Dubai International Cricket Stadium. Yet, the defining image of their triumph was not of their captain hoisting the coveted silverware, but of the team collectively lifting an "imaginary trophy".1 This surreal act of pantomime, a direct consequence of an administrative and political standoff that saw the official trophy removed from the presentation ceremony, serves as the central metaphor for the entire tournament: a sporting event hollowed out by political conflict, where the symbols of victory became secondary to the performance of animosity.3

This paper advances the thesis that the 2025 Asia Cup Final was not merely a cricket match influenced by politics; it was a meticulously choreographed performance of state-level animosity. The event both reflected and amplified the severe degradation of India-Pakistan relations, marking a paradigm shift from sports diplomacy—the strategic use of sport to build relationships—to sport as an extension of conflict, a form of "militarised theatre".4 Over three weeks, the cricket field in the neutral United Arab Emirates was transformed into a proxy battlefield, where rituals of sportsmanship were systematically replaced with gestures of political contempt.

This analysis will proceed in several parts. First, it will establish a theoretical framework for understanding sport as a political arena, distinguishing between sports diplomacy and sports politics, and introducing the concept of performative nationalism. Second, it will trace the historical decay of India-Pakistan cricket diplomacy, showing how a fragile bridge for communication eroded over decades of conflict. Third, it will detail the specific geopolitical precursors to the 2025 tournament that created an environment ripe for confrontation. Fourth, it will deconstruct the final and its preceding matches as a three-act drama of political performance. Finally, it will examine the divergent media and public reactions and assess the long-term implications of this event for bilateral relations and the governance of global sport.

1. The Playing Field as a Political Arena: Theoretical Frameworks

The assertion that sport and politics should not mix has long been a cherished ideal, yet academic analysis and historical precedent demonstrate that sport is, and always has been, inherently political.6 It is a domain where power is contested, values are allocated, and national identities are forged and performed.6 To understand the events of the 2025 Asia Cup, it is essential to establish a clear theoretical framework that distinguishes between the constructive and destructive uses of sport in the international sphere.

1.1. Sports Diplomacy vs. Sports Politics

The terms "sports diplomacy" and "sports politics" are often used interchangeably, but they represent fundamentally different concepts. Sports diplomacy is the strategic and intentional use of sport by state and non-state actors to achieve diplomatic goals, such as building relationships, fostering mutual understanding, and advancing foreign policy objectives.4 It is a structured process, akin to traditional diplomacy, designed to overcome estrangement between groups through a shared passion.8 The 1971 "Ping Pong Diplomacy" between the United States and China stands as a historic example of sport being used to thaw frozen diplomatic relations.4

Sports politics, in contrast, is the often chaotic and unstructured intrusion of political interests into the sporting world.8 It is frequently driven by domestic pressures, nationalist fervour, and the pursuit of power, rather than by a coherent diplomatic strategy.6 While sports diplomacy seeks to bring nations closer together, sports politics often serve to highlight and deepen divisions. The 2025 Asia Cup final was a textbook case of sports diplomacy being explicitly rejected in favour of raw, performative sports politics.

1.2. Sport as a Political Resource and Instrument of Power

Governments have long recognised sport as a potent political resource.6 It can be used as a vehicle for propaganda, a tool for socialisation, and a means to distract a population from domestic issues.6 In international relations, sport is a key instrument in the exercise of what Joseph Nye terms "soft power"—the ability to attract and persuade rather than coerce.6 Hosting mega-events like the Olympics or the FIFA World Cup is a classic soft power strategy, intended to project a positive national image on the global stage 6

However, the events in Dubai suggest a shift away from this traditional model. While victory in sport can enhance a nation's soft power, the conduct of the Indian and Pakistani teams during the Asia Cup was less about attraction and more about assertion. The framing of the final as a symbolic battle, the use of military-style gestures, and the rejection of sporting norms transformed the event from a soft power exercise into a display of symbolic dominance, blurring the lines between soft power and the coercive logic of "hard power".6

1.3. Performative Nationalism and the 'Imagined Community'

At the heart of the sport-politics nexus lies the powerful force of nationalism. As Benedict Anderson theorised, a nation is an "imagined community," too large for all its members to know one another, yet united by a deep sense of comradeship.10 International sport is one of the most powerful rituals for making this imagined community feel real and tangible.11 As historian Eric Hobsbawm famously noted, "the imagined community of millions seems more real as a team of eleven named people".11

International competitions provide a socially sanctioned arena for the performance of patriotic rituals—the waving of flags, the singing of anthems, the collective celebration of victory—that might be stigmatised as overly nationalistic in other contexts.10 This phenomenon, termed "sportive nationalism," is the ambition to see one's national athletes excel, an ambition that can be promoted by political elites or felt organically by the populace.10 The actions of the players and the reactions of the public during the Asia Cup final can be understood as "performative nationalism," where national identity and political stances are not just passively held but are actively and symbolically demonstrated for an audience.11

These theoretical lenses reveal a fundamental conflict. The very purpose of sports diplomacy is to bridge divides and foster cooperation.8 The mechanism of sportive nationalism, however, thrives on the "production of difference" and the reinforcement of an "us versus them" mentality.11 The 2025 Asia Cup final was a moment where the latter logic completely overwhelmed the former. The political actors involved made a strategic choice to leverage the platform for mobilising a nationalist base, indicating that the perceived domestic benefits of performing hostility outweighed any potential soft power gains from diplomatic conduct.

2. A Frayed Lifeline: The Rise and Fall of India-Pakistan Cricket Diplomacy

The relationship between India and Pakistan is one of the world's most militarised and historically fraught rivalries.14 For decades, the cricket pitch served as a unique, albeit fragile, exception—a space where dialogue and connection remained possible even when formal diplomatic channels were frozen. The events of 2025, however, were not an aberration but the culmination of a long and steady erosion of this special status.

2.1. The Era of 'Cricket Diplomacy'

In moments of relative calm, cricket has served as an important, informal diplomatic channel between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. This practice, which came to be known as "cricket diplomacy," used the shared colonial inheritance of the sport as a platform for de-escalation.15 A landmark example occurred in 1987, when Pakistani President General Zia-ul-Haq attended a Test match in Jaipur, a visit credited with helping to defuse intense military tensions along the border.15 Similarly, India's 2004 tour of Pakistan was hailed for softening hostilities, with images of Indian fans being warmly welcomed in Lahore symbolising a potential for peaceful coexistence.15 During this era, cricket was more than a game; it was one of the few functioning bridges for people-to-people contact in a deeply divided region 16

2.2. The Erosion of Trust: From Mumbai to Pulwama

The tradition of cricket diplomacy began to unravel decisively following the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, in which gunmen with links to Pakistan killed 166 people.17 This event marked a critical turning point, effectively ending India's willingness to engage in bilateral cricket tours with Pakistan.15 A brief, limited-overs series in India in late 2012 was the last of its kind.17 Subsequent events, including the 2019 Pulwama attack and the ensuing Balakot airstrikes, further entrenched this hardline stance.15 Cricketing encounters were thereafter confined to mandatory fixtures in multi-team, international tournaments held at neutral venues.17

2.3. The Asia Cup as a Political Bellwether

The history of the Asia Cup itself serves as a microcosm of the volatile India-Pakistan political relationship. The tournament has been repeatedly held hostage to bilateral tensions. India boycotted the 1986 edition due to strained relations with host Sri Lanka, while Pakistan withdrew from the 1990–91 tournament over political friction with India.18 The 1993 edition was cancelled altogether for the same reason.18 In recent years, the tournament has relied on compromises born of political necessity, such as moving the event to neutral venues like the UAE or adopting a "hybrid hosting" model, as seen in 2023, to accommodate India's refusal to tour Pakistan.19 These logistical manoeuvres underscore the fact that the Asia Cup has long been a stage for political negotiation and avoidance.

This historical shift from bilateral tours to forced encounters at neutral venues created a new and more volatile political stage. The diplomatic burden of hosting, which provided a framework for at least nominal goodwill, was removed. Instead, all the political animosity and nationalistic pressure were concentrated into rare, high-stakes matches. This "pressure cooker" effect increased the symbolic weight of each game, transforming them from potential diplomatic opportunities into pure, unadulterated contests of national pride. By stripping away the moderating influence of host-guest protocol, this new arrangement set the stage for the explosive and performative conflict witnessed in 2025.

3. The Prelude to Performance: Geopolitics and Public Sentiment in 2025

The 2025 Asia Cup did not occur in a political vacuum. It was staged against the backdrop of the most severe military confrontation between India and Pakistan in decades, a crisis that primed both the public and the players for a tournament defined by hostility rather than sportsmanship.

3.1. The Spark: The Pahalgam Attack and 'Operation Sindoor'

The immediate context for the tournament's toxic atmosphere was set in April 2025, when a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, a town in Indian-administered Kashmir, resulted in the deaths of 26 civilians.17 India promptly blamed Pakistan for orchestrating the attack, leading to a rapid and severe deterioration in their already fragile relationship.17 The diplomatic fallout escalated into a four-day aerial military conflict in May, which India designated "Operation Sindoor".16 This direct military engagement created an environment of near-war, making the prospect of a sporting contest between the two nations deeply contentious.

3.2. The Domestic Theatre: Boycott Calls and Political Posturing

In India, the decision to proceed with the Asia Cup matches against Pakistan triggered a fierce domestic backlash. Opposition political parties, including the Indian National Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), staged public protests and demanded a complete boycott.16 AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal declared that "playing a match with Pakistan is a betrayal of the country".20 This sentiment was amplified across social media, where hashtags like #BoycottINDvPAK trended, creating a hyper-nationalist public sphere in which any gesture of camaraderie with Pakistani players could be framed as a political transgression and an insult to the victims of the Pahalgam attack.22 The Indian government found itself in a difficult position, defending the decision to play by attempting to separate sport from military conflict, but the political narrative of betrayal had already taken hold.20

3.3. The Stage is Set in Dubai

The tournament was originally scheduled to be hosted by Pakistan, but due to India's long-standing refusal to tour, the hosting rights were moved to the neutral territory of the United Arab Emirates. 24 While intended to de-politicise the event, this move merely provided a sterile backdrop for a drama fueled by the intense political imperatives emanating from the subcontinent.

The Indian government and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) were thus caught in a strategic dilemma. A boycott would have significant financial repercussions and would mean ceding administrative ground within the Asian Cricket Council.25 However, participating in the tournament required a compensatory performance of nationalism to placate a charged domestic audience. The on-field hostility that followed was, therefore, not simply an emotional outburst from the players but a calculated political necessity. The Indian team was tasked with managing this contradiction: reaping the financial and strategic benefits of participation while simultaneously signalling a hardline political stance through performative acts of animosity.5

Table 1: Timeline of Escalation (April–September 2025):

4. Deconstructing the Performance: A Three-Act Drama in Dubai

The 2025 Asia Cup final and the preceding encounters between India and Pakistan unfolded not as a series of sporting contests, but as a political drama in three acts. Each act saw the systematic replacement of sporting conventions with symbolic acts of political and nationalistic assertion.

4.1. Act I: The Rejection of Sportsmanship – The 'No-Handshake' Policy

The opening and most consistent political statement of the tournament was the Indian team's deliberate refusal to shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts. This occurred before and after all three of their matches, transforming a fundamental ritual of sportsmanship into a potent political symbol.16 This was not a spontaneous oversight but an explicit team policy. Captain Suryakumar Yadav later provided a direct political justification, stating, "I feel [a] few things in life are ahead of sportsmen’s spirit also," and dedicated India's first victory to the victims of the Pahalgam attack.16 This act immediately set the tone for the tournament, drawing an official complaint from the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) to the International Cricket Council (ICC) and dominating media headlines.16

4.2. Act II: The Language of Conflict – On-Field Symbolism

With verbal communication replaced by a cold silence, the players resorted to a non-verbal language of conflict, using gestures and celebrations to convey political messages.

Pakistani Provocations: Pakistani fast bowler Haris Rauf was fined 30% of his match fee for making gestures that mimicked a crashing fighter jet and for flashing a "6-0" sign, a reference to unsubstantiated claims of six Indian aircraft being shot down during Operation Sindoor.3 After scoring a half-century in the Super Four match, batsman Sahibzada Farhan used his bat to mimic firing a rifle, an act for which he received an official warning from the ICC.27 These were unambiguous attempts to inject military symbolism into the sporting arena.

Indian Retaliation: The Indian team responded in kind. In the final, after dismissing Haris Rauf with a searing yorker, Indian pacer Jasprit Bumrah cheekily mimicked Rauf's own signature celebration back at him as a send-off.3 Following their victory, several Indian players were filmed mocking the trademark celebration of Pakistani spinner Abrar Ahmed, a clip that was then shared on social media.32 This tit-for-tat exchange of symbolic provocations demonstrated how the players had become willing conduits for the broader national conflict.

4.3. Act III: The Climax of Contempt – The Trophy, The Snub, and The Void

The final act of this political theatre was the post-match presentation ceremony. In an unprecedented move, the victorious Indian team refused to accept the winner's trophy from Mohsin Naqvi, the President of the Asian Cricket Council.17 The refusal was explicitly political. Naqvi was not just the ceremonial head of the ACC; he was simultaneously the Chairman of the PCB and, most significantly, Pakistan's federal Interior Minister—one of the country's most powerful political figures.15 The BCCI secretary, Devajit Saikia, articulated the rationale clearly: "We have decided not to take the Asia Cup trophy from the ACC chairman, who happens to be one of the main [political] leaders of Pakistan".17 This led to a bizarre and lengthy standoff, which concluded with Naqvi walking off the stage, taking the trophy with him, and leaving the Indian team to stage their mock celebration without the official silverware.1

This climactic act represented the "denationalisation" of a sporting authority and the "nationalisation" of a sporting symbol. The ACC, a multinational governing body, was effectively delegitimised by the Indian team because its president was a national of the rival state. His role as a Pakistani politician superseded his role as the head of a regional sporting body. Consequently, the trophy was transformed from a symbol of continental cricketing supremacy into a political token. To accept it from Naqvi would have been a political act of recognition; to refuse it was a political act of rejection. This demonstrated the complete subsumption of sporting protocol by political symbolism.

Table 2: Analysis of Performative Acts and Their Political Symbolism

5. The Critics and the Crowd: Multivalent Narratives and Reactions

The on-field political theatre was immediately amplified and interpreted through nationalistic lenses in the media and public spheres of both countries, while international observers looked on with alarm. The framing of the events was not just about reporting on a cricket match but about constructing and reinforcing narratives of national identity.

5.1. The Indian Narrative: Victory as Patriotic Vindication

In India, the victory and the controversial acts surrounding it were largely framed as a moral and nationalistic triumph. The defining statement came from the highest political office when Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted on the social media platform X: "#OperationSindoor on the games field. Outcome is the same – India wins!".17 This message officially sanctioned the interpretation of the match as a proxy for military conflict, collapsing any remaining distinction between the sports field and the battlefield. Indian media coverage followed this lead, celebrating the team's dominance and portraying the "no-handshake" policy and trophy refusal as justified and patriotic responses to Pakistani aggression and state-sponsored terrorism.25 The players' actions were not seen as a breach of sportsmanship but as a performance of national strength and resolve.

5.2. The Pakistani Narrative: Accusations of Arrogance and Cries for Introspection

The reaction in Pakistan was bifurcated, reflecting a nation caught between external grievance and internal frustration.

Outrage at India: A significant portion of the discourse, particularly from former cricketers and media personalities, focused on outrage at India's conduct. Former player Kamran Akmal accused the Indian team of "cheap behaviour" and arrogance, urging the PCB to boycott all future matches against them.34 The trophy incident was widely viewed as a profound and calculated insult, a "denial of recognition on an international stage".15

Harsh Self-Criticism: Simultaneously, a wave of intense anger and disappointment was directed inward. Fans, journalists, and analysts blasted the Pakistani team for its poor on-field performance, weak captaincy, and perceived lack of ruthlessness.35 One Karachi-based newspaper, Dawn, ran a headline stating, "The Pakistan cricket team did what it does best in the match against India – let down its fans".35 This narrative of national letdown revealed a deep-seated frustration with the team's repeated failures against what was acknowledged as a "much superior" Indian side.35

This dual narrative was instrumental in shaping national identity in the aftermath of the final. The Indian media narrative reinforced an identity of a strong, assertive nation that would not be cowed. In contrast, the Pakistani narrative of external grievance combined with internal failure reflected a national identity struggling with perceived victimhood and a crisis of confidence in its ability to compete on the world stage.

5.3. The International Narrative: A Dangerous Precedent

Global media outlets and foreign policy analysts framed the events as an alarming escalation in the politicisation of sport. Commentators observed that cricket, once a "fragile bridge" for diplomacy, had now become "another battlefield".15 The focus was on the comprehensive failure of sports diplomacy and the dangerous precedent set when athletes are pressured, either explicitly or implicitly, to perform acts of political hostility.5 The tournament was viewed not as a parochial sports drama but as a serious and troubling indicator of the depth of animosity between two nuclear-armed states, where even the most minimal channels for civil interaction were being deliberately closed.15

6. The Fallout: Institutional Responses and Geopolitical Implications

The political theatre of the Asia Cup final created significant fallout, testing the limits of global sports governance and setting a new, more confrontational baseline for India-Pakistan relations.

6.1. The Governing Bodies: Fines, Protests, and an Impotent ICC

The official response from cricket's governing bodies highlighted their struggle to manage a conflict that far exceeded their mandate. The ICC dutifully enforced its Code of Conduct, issuing Level 1 fines—30% of their match fees—to Indian captain Suryakumar Yadav and Pakistani pacer Haris Rauf for their political statements and provocative gestures, respectively.27 However, these minor financial penalties were widely seen as a token gesture, insufficient to address the scale of state-sanctioned politicisation. The administrative battle continued off the field, with the PCB lodging formal complaints against the Indian team's conduct and the BCCI vowing to launch a "very serious and very strong protest" against Mohsin Naqvi's actions at the next ICC conference.36 The overall impression was one of governing bodies being reduced to adjudicating minor infractions while being powerless to stop the wholesale appropriation of their event for political purposes.

6.2. The Trophy in Limbo: A Symbol of Unresolved Conflict

The most tangible legacy of the final was the unprecedented administrative standoff over the physical trophy. Weeks after the tournament, the Asia Cup trophy remained locked in the ACC headquarters in Dubai under the direct orders of Mohsin Naqvi.39 Sources confirmed that Naqvi insisted he would only hand over the trophy to the Indian team in person, a condition India refused to meet.40 This impasse effectively turned the trophy into a political hostage, a physical manifestation of the unresolved dispute and the complete breakdown of institutional norms. In response, the BCCI was reportedly preparing to seek Naqvi's removal as an ICC Director, escalating the administrative conflict to the highest level of world cricket governance.41

6.3. The Geopolitical Ripple Effect

The events of the 2025 Asia Cup have established a new and more overtly confrontational baseline for India-Pakistan interactions, even in neutral, multilateral settings. The open weaponisation of a major sporting event has effectively closed off one of the last remaining avenues for symbolic engagement and people-to-people contact.21 The controversy also had a broader ripple effect. Subsequent sporting encounters between the two nations in other disciplines, such as a junior hockey tournament, were closely scrutinised, with players being explicitly instructed by their federations on how to manage politically sensitive situations like handshakes.38 The "no-handshake" policy was even mocked in a promotional video by Australian cricketers ahead of a series against India, demonstrating how the incident had entered the global sporting consciousness as a symbol of extreme politicisation.43

The apparent impotence of the ICC in this matter reveals a critical weakness in the architecture of global sports governance. The ICC's framework is designed to manage the misconduct of individual players or the administrative failings of national boards; it is not equipped to handle state-level political conflict that is channelled through a national team. When a powerful and financially dominant board like the BCCI acts in concert with its government's foreign policy objectives, the ICC's Code of Conduct becomes largely unenforceable. The actions of the Indian team were not rogue acts but a collective, team-wide policy that was justified with a political rationale by the captain and publicly endorsed by the Prime Minister.16 The ICC's response—minor fines for individuals—was a tool designed for a completely different class of problem. This mismatch highlights a significant governance gap, suggesting that in an era of resurgent nationalism, global sporting bodies may be increasingly unable to insulate their events from being used as arenas for geopolitical conflict by powerful state actors.

The Curtain Falls on Cricket Diplomacy

The 2025 Asia Cup Final was a watershed moment in the intersection of sport and politics. It represented the culmination of a long-term trend of decaying India-Pakistan cricket diplomacy, accelerated by a specific and intense geopolitical crisis. The tournament will be remembered not for the runs scored or wickets taken, but for the moment the pretence of separating sport from politics was fully and unapologetically abandoned. The cricket pitch was transformed from a field of play into a stage for the performance of state-level conflict.

The analysis demonstrates that the concept of "cricket diplomacy" between India and Pakistan is, for the foreseeable future, defunct. The paradigm has shifted from using sport to manage conflict to using it to perform conflict. This new approach prioritises the mobilisation of domestic nationalist sentiment over any potential for international goodwill or soft power gains. The systematic rejection of sportsmanship rituals, the introduction of military symbolism, and the unprecedented refusal of the winner's trophy were not emotional excesses but calculated political acts.

The risks of this new paradigm are profound. When sport becomes, in Orwell's famous phrase, "war minus the shooting," it loses its unique capacity to serve as a space for shared humanity and mutual respect.44 Instead, it becomes just another vector for hostility, reinforcing divisions rather than bridging them. The empty podium in Dubai, where champions celebrated with an imaginary prize, stands as a stark and enduring symbol of this new reality—a warning of a future where the game itself is the biggest casualty of the political theatre enacted upon its stage. 5

.    .    .

References:

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
• https://gulfnews.com
• https://www.foxsports.com.au
• https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
•  https://www.aljazeera.com
•  https://www.researchgate.net
•  https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk
•  https://gjia.georgetown.edu
• https://soar.suny.edu/
•  https://stateofnationalism.eu
•  https://openjournals.ugent.be
•  https://in.sagepub.com
•  https://www.researchgate.net
•  https://en.wikipedia.org
•  https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au
• https://www.lowyinstitute.org
•  https://www.aljazeera.com
•  https://en.wikipedia.org
• https://mysterycricket.com
•  https://www.livemint.com
•  https://thediplomat.com
•  https://www.livemint.com
• https://www.youtube.com
• https://genzcricket.net
• https://www.thehindu.com
•  https://medium.com
•  https://gulfnews.com
• https://www.aljazeera.com
• https://www.youtube.com
•  https://www.hindustantimes.com
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
•  https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
•  https://gulfnews.com
•  https://www.hindustantimes.com
•  https://www.indiatoday.in
• https://www.newsonair.gov.in
•  https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
•  https://www.indiatoday.in
•  https://www.business-standard.com
• https://www.businesstoday.in
•  https://www.indiatvnews.com
•  https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
•  https://www.indiatoday.in
• https://www.newslaundry.com