From Sindoor to stadium: How Team India defended the flag twice

The Indian cricket team’s performance in the recent Asia Cup was spectacular. Facing Pakistan in three high-voltage contests, the men in blue not only displayed supreme professional talent but also upheld national pride at a time when public sentiment was deeply sensitive following Operation Sindoor. They deserve the highest praise for their resilience, discipline, and patriotism in combining cricketing excellence with subtle sports diplomacy.

Yet, instead of rallying behind the players, India’s opposition bloc has chosen to sulk. Their inability to congratulate the team, and their behaviour as if were more humiliated than Pakistan, stands out as a dismal contrast to the celebrations across the nation. In the midst of this debate, the leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi is missing. He is said to have gone to US and chose to remain silent.

But Supriya Shrinate Congress claimed that watching the match and cheering the victory was “anti-national.” Their stance reflects political narrowness rather than national spirit. Interestingly, they have no answer to the question regarding the role of Yasin Mallik in Kashmir peace talks. Was including someone who is considered a separatist in Kashmir peace talks patriotism. Critics say this gave legitimacy to a man linked with terror and weakened India’s hard line against separatism. How can Congress leaders pretend to have forgotten recent history.

Abu Azmi SP said, “I Congratulate team India but I also want to say that the money Pakistani team would get will be given to terrorists like Masood Azhar and the revenue will be used for terrorism.”

AAPs Somnath Bharati came up with weird argument saying in Hinduism no celebration takes place within one year of death. But Somnath should know that this rule is applicable to the family of those who lost their near and dear one’s not entire nation. It is high time such politicians stop teaching the media what journalism is and Hindus what Sanatan Dharma is because they know nothing about it. The opposition is free to criticise Prime Minister Modi as much as they want but at the same time there needs to be some logic as well.

See the contradictions, they refuse to speak anything about the Mohali handshake between the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan PM Yousuf Raza Gilani. The two leaders sat side by side in the stadium, watched the match, and exchanged a public handshake and smiles just three years after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, which had frozen the peace process.

At time the Congress and the present opposition bloc did not scream betrayal; they took the stand that it was a great diplomatic act though the UPA government had done nothing to teach Pakistan a lesson for the mayhem it created in the Mumbai terror attacks. This contradiction exposes not principle but political convenience. It is unfortunate that instead of celebrating Indian achievement, opposition leaders are trying to score petty points.

Contrast this with the victims’ families of terror attacks, including those affected by the Pahalgam incident, who publicly thanked the players for donating their prize money to soldiers’ families. For them, the players’ triumph was a symbolic reply to terrorism, blending sporting achievement with national solidarity. The opposition has even insulted the armed forces who were seen celebrating India’s victory in Asia Cup. Supriya needs to answer if her comments were not insult to the bravest armed forces in the world? Why can’t these political leaders think before they speak.

Equally telling was Pakistan’s conduct. Having been convincingly defeated in all three matches, they compounded their humiliation by behaving pettily during the prize distribution ceremony. Their attempt to take away the cup, earning the label of “Cup Chor,” only reinforced the contrast between India’s grace and Pakistan’s gracelessness.

India’s cricketers, by refusing to shake hands with the Pakistani captain, declining to accept the trophy from Pakistan’s minister and ACC chairman Mohsin Naqvi, and donating the entire prize purse to Operation Sindoor martyrs’ families, underlined their patriotism. This was sports diplomacy at its finest — assertive yet dignified.

The Debate Over Playing Pakistan

To be fair, the opposition’s criticism of the BCCI’s decision to play Pakistan so soon after Operation Sindoor was not baseless. Many families of soldiers and large sections of society opposed the idea, seeing cricketing ties as an insult to sacrifice. They accused the BCCI of being profit-driven, chasing sponsorship revenue from high-TRP India–Pakistan matches instead of respecting the national mood.

The Asia Cup does generate massive broadcasting revenue, and the Indo-Pak clash is the jewel in that crown. Critics argue that commercial motives, rather than strategic diplomacy, drove BCCI’s choice. After all, engaging in sport with a hostile neighbour so soon after a military strike risked sending a contradictory signal.

Indeed, for many Indians, refusing to play would have been a statement of solidarity and pride, regardless of lost revenue. A cricket match is not just a game in this context; it becomes a theatre of nationalism where victory or defeat mirrors the battlefield.

Yet once the decision was taken, it would have been unfair to expect cricketers to bear the burden of politics. When cricketers upheld India’s pride with their grit and patriotism, the same opposition cries foul. The double standards are glaring.

Symbolism and Substance

The controversy also raises a larger question: how should India balance sport and diplomacy after military confrontations? Should cricket be completely severed until relations improve? Or should it remain insulated from geopolitics?

Both positions have merits. But once the BCCI committed, our players carried themselves with rare dignity. They showed Pakistan its place on the field and reminded the world that India knows how to win with pride and principle. Their donation to martyrs’ families sealed the message: patriotism is not hollow rhetoric but concrete action.

The Asia Cup was not just about cricket. It was about resilience, symbolism, and national pride. By defeating Pakistan thrice, refusing token gestures, and dedicating their earnings to soldiers, Team India elevated sport into a higher realm of patriotism. The opposition’s bitterness cannot diminish what the players achieved. On the contrary, it highlights a dangerous refusal to separate political rivalry from national pride. At a time when ordinary citizens, victims’ families, and soldiers’ kin are saluting the men in blue, the least the opposition could do was join in applause.

On this Gandhi Jayanti, perhaps the opposition should reflect on the meaning of unity and humility. If they cannot celebrate India’s cricketing pride, can they truly claim to represent India’s democratic spirit?

The answer is clear. Cheers to India. Cheers to the men in blue. They did us proud — on the field, for the nation, and for the memory of our martyrs.

(The author is a former Chief Editor at The Hans India)