Why we should support PCB and Government's decision to boycott the game against India!

[Extra_Cover]

I can completely understand this being a new thread when this hot topic has been discussed and debated at length in multiple other threads. The reason I want to make this thread is to unify the supporters of Pakistan cricket over this particular decision to boycott the game against India.

Internally in Pakistan we have been divided across political lines, religious sects, favoritism, hatred, etc. At the moment Pakistan is going through enough civil distress and polarization that if we have something unified across the table we should use it as a basis to bring the people closer. We all know that majority of public hate the current regime and government because they aren't true representation of the public implying the elections were rigged and democracy is a cover for dictatorship rule currently presiding. Hence there is a hatred involved in every decision taken by this government. Whilst the criticism still stands for all the right reasons we still need to applaud the good decisions being taken by the regime. These good decisions where majority of Pakistanis can unify is the best way to have all thoughts heard.

Now back to topic as to why this is a good decision.

1. Reply to a bully (BCCI). In the past couple of years we have seen BCCI bully the sponsors, ICC and even ACC with its gimmicks against Pakistan. Whether that be removing Pakistan's name from Asia Cup trophy when Pakistan hosted it, removing Pakistan's name from India's first match in CT25 broadcast, no handshakes in recent Asia Cup, refusing to accept trophy from a Pakistani Asia Cup president and indirectly blaming Pakistan in post match cricket interviews for attacks in Pahalgam. The irony is that India wasn't able to capture the actual folks who committed the heinous terrorism in Pahalgam let alone prove Pakistan's involvement in it.
With the step currently taken this is apt response to what previously has always been one-way traffic. In May last year when India started attacking Pakistan for Pahalgam initially there was no response from Pakistan however when Pakistan did actually responded that subdued India's threat of attacks for good. Similarly now that Pakistan has responded to India's bullyism these antics from India is likely to subdue in the recent future.

2. Long-term monopolistic vision of BCCI. In my personal opinion which I have said before too, ICC has let India walk completely over them since late 2000s. In hindsight ICC would be looking back and regretting some of the basic mistakes it made most importantly letting IPL have its own separate window in a cricketing calendar. This made IPL bigger and more powerful. ICC also let it guard down when it allowed the formation of Big 3, essentially making India run the show whilst Australia and England benefitted substantially too. Since late 2000s the balance started shifting towards India and slowly during this time their stranglehold over ICC became more vicious. As things stand now ICC simply doesn't have a spine of its own and is literally taking dictation from BCCI for every action.
With T20WC in India now completely doused in controversy and this tournament has already been made sour, ICC would have to rethink its strategy going forward. If politics is the aggressor in sports now then what value does ICC add? Potentially I hope that saner minds prevail and they look at the rootcause of how politics in cricket originated from and all fingers will point to India. If all boards unite to say no to politics in sport then potentially the Indian juggernaut can be tamed if not then rest in peace (BCCI lap) for ICC.

3. Good for future of cricket. Over the years we have seen that associate nations have had very little representation in cricket and frankly speaking the sport hasn't expanded at all since 2000s, in fact if we look closely then cricket as a sports has regressed where countries like Zimbabwe and Kenya are no where to be seen in competitive cricket. Even countries like Namibia and Ireland were better off in the past than in the present. If you deep dive into this issue you'd realize that ICC has taken no meaningful steps for betterment of cricket in this region. ICC has been overly infatuated with money where we end up seeing India / Australia / England playing roundrobin every year or so. Why? Because ICC likes to see money flow rather than expand the game. In past we used to see these countries regularly participate in competitive cricket because the money at that time wasn't the deciding factor however today it is for ICC which is why the game is losing.
Now that boycott of Pakistan brings this money debate onto the table. We can already see ICC is panicking not because they want sports to win over politics but because they'd lose out on $$. I really hope that Presidents and Boards in these countries take this moment to realize that there is more to life than money. For crying out loud the sports has the ability to expand simply take the $$ tinted glasses off for a while.

Lastly there is a lot of talk about repercussions on Pakistan for boycotting a game. I'm no legal expert but am intrigued to understand on what grounds would Pakistan face legal charges? There have been numerous cases in the past where a nation has boycotted a game against a particular country on political reasons. Australia not playing Zimbabwe in 2003, England not playing SL in '96. Complete boycott of SAF under apartheid regime days. So this will not be the first time this is happening but it would be the first time when there would be repercussions because of 2 reasons; a) victim (BCCI) is powerful than defendant (PCB), and b) ICC cares about money and don't want to lose its cash cow.

Another point to add is that boycott of a match is perfectly legal as per ICC regulations. As per ICC regulations the match can be forfeited by simply notifying the match referee.

16.2 ICC Match Referee awarding a match
16.2.1 A match shall be lost by a side which either
16.2.1.1 concedes defeat or
16.2.1.2 in the opinion of the ICC Match Referee refuses to play and the ICC Match Referee shall award the match to the other side.
16.2.2 If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall inform the ICC Match Referee of this fact. The ICC Match Referee shall together with the umpires ascertain the cause of the action. If the ICC Match Referee, after due consultation with the umpires, then decides that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, he/she shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the ICC Match Referee shall award the match in accordance with clause 16.2.1.2 above
16.2.3 If action as in clause 16.2.2 above takes place after play has started and does not constitute a refusal to play the delay or interruption in play shall be dealt with in the same manner as provided for in clauses 13.7.2 (Delayed and Interrupted Matches)and 11.4 (Changing agreed times for intervals) above. Note: In addition to the consequences of any refusal to play prescribed under this clause, any such refusal, whether temporary or final, may result in disciplinary action being taken against the captain and team responsible under the ICC Code of Conduct.

https://usacricket.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ICC-Playing-Handbook-2019-2020-Digital-FINAL.pdf

Good luck Pakistan for taking this bold step. Let's all unite behind this decision.

 

[emranabbas]

I have to make it clear to everyone

"Its not PCB decision to boycott match vs india"

PCB were not granted permission by the government of pakistan to play with india.

 

[Varun]

I don't even understand why Pakistanis are divided on this issue.

 

[Energy]

Agreed, a divided opinion is not what we want at this stage.

 

[Deewana Mastana]

You’re right about one thing; the power imbalance between BCCI and the rest of the cricketing world is real, and ICC’s credibility has steadily eroded by allowing money to dictate governance. The Big 3 era, the IPL window, selective “neutrality” none of that is accidental, and it has hurt the global game.

However, where I disagree is the assumption that this boycott meaningfully shifts that balance.

Historically, monopolies don’t weaken because one stakeholder opts out, they weaken when multiple stakeholders coordinate. At the moment, there’s no evidence Australia, England, or even smaller boards are willing to sacrifice revenue to challenge India. Without that collective action, Pakistan’s boycott risks becoming symbolic rather than strategic.

On the unity argument yes, symbolically it feels good. But unity built on a single cricketing decision is fragile if the costs fall disproportionately on Pakistan cricket itself: rankings, tournament leverage, scheduling goodwill, and already-limited ICC influence. Moral victories don’t always translate into institutional reform.

Legally, you’re correct: forfeiting a match is permitted under ICC playing conditions. But legality isn’t the issue but selective enforcement is. The ICC has never been consistent, and that’s where Pakistan’s vulnerability lies, not in the rulebook.

Where I do agree strongly is this:
If politics is now openly influencing cricket, then pretending otherwise is hypocrisy. Either ICC draws a clear line for everyone, or it admits that power and money decide what’s acceptable.

So yes, this is a bold step. Whether it’s a smart one depends entirely on what follows. If this is a one-off act with no broader coalition building, ICC reform push, or long-term strategy, then Pakistan will absorb the cost while the system carries on unchanged.

Let’s see if this becomes the start of something bigger, or just another principled stand that cricket quickly forgets.

 

[Extra_Cover]

You’re right about one thing; the power imbalance between BCCI and the rest of the cricketing world is real, and ICC’s credibility has steadily eroded by allowing money to dictate governance. The Big 3 era, the IPL window, selective “neutrality” none of that is accidental, and it has hurt the global game.

However, where I disagree is the assumption that this boycott meaningfully shifts that balance.

Historically, monopolies don’t weaken because one stakeholder opts out, they weaken when multiple stakeholders coordinate. At the moment, there’s no evidence Australia, England, or even smaller boards are willing to sacrifice revenue to challenge India. Without that collective action, Pakistan’s boycott risks becoming symbolic rather than strategic.

On the unity argument yes, symbolically it feels good. But unity built on a single cricketing decision is fragile if the costs fall disproportionately on Pakistan cricket itself: rankings, tournament leverage, scheduling goodwill, and already-limited ICC influence. Moral victories don’t always translate into institutional reform.

Legally, you’re correct: forfeiting a match is permitted under ICC playing conditions. But legality isn’t the issue but selective enforcement is. The ICC has never been consistent, and that’s where Pakistan’s vulnerability lies, not in the rulebook.

Where I do agree strongly is this:
If politics is now openly influencing cricket, then pretending otherwise is hypocrisy. Either ICC draws a clear line for everyone, or it admits that power and money decide what’s acceptable.

So yes, this is a bold step. Whether it’s a smart one depends entirely on what follows. If this is a one-off act with no broader coalition building, ICC reform push, or long-term strategy, then Pakistan will absorb the cost while the system carries on unchanged.

Let’s see if this becomes the start of something bigger, or just another principled stand that cricket quickly forgets.

Thanks for your post. I like constructive debates and discussions (which used to be part of this forum a while ago).

I agree with you that this boycott would not materially impact BCCI's monopoly. But like many things this is a start, a step in the right direction. This is the first time BCCI will realize that not always they will get their way. The cricketing world needs to start somewhere to impact monopolies what Bangladesh and Pakistan has done here is literally the first baby step taken in right direction. ICC needs introspection over this entire episode to realize what has triggered this and its ICC who has to take meaningful steps to avoid monopolies running wild over cricket.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

Ok so here’s a speculative POV:

PCB will realise it’s isolated, and that the immediate penalties and long term consequences are not worth it. At the last moment it will declare that the government has cleared it to play.

PCB will then claim victory, and claim its conditions have been met.

Pakistani forumers here will claim victory, saying they were only trolling all along.

Game continues. But PCB dodges a bullet.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Lol many will just support them by witnessing reaction of Indians here.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Ok so here’s a speculative POV:

PCB will realise it’s isolated, and that the immediate penalties and long term consequences are not worth it. At the last moment it will declare that the government has cleared it to play.

PCB will then claim victory, and claim its conditions have been met.

Pakistani forumers here will claim victory, saying they were only trolling all along.

Game continues. But PCB dodges a bullet.

Sounds like a suicide for them not victory.

 

[AndayWalaAllRounder]

Ok so here’s a speculative POV:

PCB will realise it’s isolated, and that the immediate penalties and long term consequences are not worth it. At the last moment it will declare that the government has cleared it to play.

PCB will then claim victory, and claim its conditions have been met.

Pakistani forumers here will claim victory, saying they were only trolling all along.

Game continues. But PCB dodges a bullet.

Actually, thats the play. Looks like as per rumours circulating among journos, PCB will convey a decision in next 2-3 days, saying that we have convinced Govt and we good to go.

PCB did all this drama just to prove a point to ICC or may be BCCI that PCB can do stuff out of the box, if things dont get better in future. (May be some agreements too) ...

 

[AndayWalaAllRounder]

Sounds like a suicide for them not victory.

No, it is going to be smart decision actually. India have done the same since decade, by saying we wont play against Pakistan to saying we will only play in ICC events. Offcourse $$$ matters.

 

[AndayWalaAllRounder]

I can completely understand this being a new thread when this hot topic has been discussed and debated at length in multiple other threads. The reason I want to make this thread is to unify the supporters of Pakistan cricket over this particular decision to boycott the game against India.

Internally in Pakistan we have been divided across political lines, religious sects, favoritism, hatred, etc. At the moment Pakistan is going through enough civil distress and polarization that if we have something unified across the table we should use it as a basis to bring the people closer. We all know that majority of public hate the current regime and government because they aren't true representation of the public implying the elections were rigged and democracy is a cover for dictatorship rule currently presiding. Hence there is a hatred involved in every decision taken by this government. Whilst the criticism still stands for all the right reasons we still need to applaud the good decisions being taken by the regime. These good decisions where majority of Pakistanis can unify is the best way to have all thoughts heard.

Now back to topic as to why this is a good decision.

1. Reply to a bully (BCCI). In the past couple of years we have seen BCCI bully the sponsors, ICC and even ACC with its gimmicks against Pakistan. Whether that be removing Pakistan's name from Asia Cup trophy when Pakistan hosted it, removing Pakistan's name from India's first match in CT25 broadcast, no handshakes in recent Asia Cup, refusing to accept trophy from a Pakistani Asia Cup president and indirectly blaming Pakistan in post match cricket interviews for attacks in Pahalgam. The irony is that India wasn't able to capture the actual folks who committed the heinous terrorism in Pahalgam let alone prove Pakistan's involvement in it.
With the step currently taken this is apt response to what previously has always been one-way traffic. In May last year when India started attacking Pakistan for Pahalgam initially there was no response from Pakistan however when Pakistan did actually responded that subdued India's threat of attacks for good. Similarly now that Pakistan has responded to India's bullyism these antics from India is likely to subdue in the recent future.

2. Long-term monopolistic vision of BCCI. In my personal opinion which I have said before too, ICC has let India walk completely over them since late 2000s. In hindsight ICC would be looking back and regretting some of the basic mistakes it made most importantly letting IPL have its own separate window in a cricketing calendar. This made IPL bigger and more powerful. ICC also let it guard down when it allowed the formation of Big 3, essentially making India run the show whilst Australia and England benefitted substantially too. Since late 2000s the balance started shifting towards India and slowly during this time their stranglehold over ICC became more vicious. As things stand now ICC simply doesn't have a spine of its own and is literally taking dictation from BCCI for every action.
With T20WC in India now completely doused in controversy and this tournament has already been made sour, ICC would have to rethink its strategy going forward. If politics is the aggressor in sports now then what value does ICC add? Potentially I hope that saner minds prevail and they look at the rootcause of how politics in cricket originated from and all fingers will point to India. If all boards unite to say no to politics in sport then potentially the Indian juggernaut can be tamed if not then rest in peace (BCCI lap) for ICC.

3. Good for future of cricket. Over the years we have seen that associate nations have had very little representation in cricket and frankly speaking the sport hasn't expanded at all since 2000s, in fact if we look closely then cricket as a sports has regressed where countries like Zimbabwe and Kenya are no where to be seen in competitive cricket. Even countries like Namibia and Ireland were better off in the past than in the present. If you deep dive into this issue you'd realize that ICC has taken no meaningful steps for betterment of cricket in this region. ICC has been overly infatuated with money where we end up seeing India / Australia / England playing roundrobin every year or so. Why? Because ICC likes to see money flow rather than expand the game. In past we used to see these countries regularly participate in competitive cricket because the money at that time wasn't the deciding factor however today it is for ICC which is why the game is losing.
Now that boycott of Pakistan brings this money debate onto the table. We can already see ICC is panicking not because they want sports to win over politics but because they'd lose out on $$. I really hope that Presidents and Boards in these countries take this moment to realize that there is more to life than money. For crying out loud the sports has the ability to expand simply take the $$ tinted glasses off for a while.

Lastly there is a lot of talk about repercussions on Pakistan for boycotting a game. I'm no legal expert but am intrigued to understand on what grounds would Pakistan face legal charges? There have been numerous cases in the past where a nation has boycotted a game against a particular country on political reasons. Australia not playing Zimbabwe in 2003, England not playing SL in '96. Complete boycott of SAF under apartheid regime days. So this will not be the first time this is happening but it would be the first time when there would be repercussions because of 2 reasons; a) victim (BCCI) is powerful than defendant (PCB), and b) ICC cares about money and don't want to lose its cash cow.

Another point to add is that boycott of a match is perfectly legal as per ICC regulations. As per ICC regulations the match can be forfeited by simply notifying the match referee.

16.2 ICC Match Referee awarding a match
16.2.1 A match shall be lost by a side which either
16.2.1.1 concedes defeat or
16.2.1.2 in the opinion of the ICC Match Referee refuses to play and the ICC Match Referee shall award the match to the other side.
16.2.2 If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall inform the ICC Match Referee of this fact. The ICC Match Referee shall together with the umpires ascertain the cause of the action. If the ICC Match Referee, after due consultation with the umpires, then decides that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, he/she shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the ICC Match Referee shall award the match in accordance with clause 16.2.1.2 above
16.2.3 If action as in clause 16.2.2 above takes place after play has started and does not constitute a refusal to play the delay or interruption in play shall be dealt with in the same manner as provided for in clauses 13.7.2 (Delayed and Interrupted Matches)and 11.4 (Changing agreed times for intervals) above. Note: In addition to the consequences of any refusal to play prescribed under this clause, any such refusal, whether temporary or final, may result in disciplinary action being taken against the captain and team responsible under the ICC Code of Conduct.

https://usacricket.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ICC-Playing-Handbook-2019-2020-Digital-FINAL.pdf

Good luck Pakistan for taking this bold step. Let's all unite behind this decision.

Good post capt. I get where you’re coming from and I respect the intent behind this post, especially the desire to bring Pakistanis together around cricket rather than letting it become another fault line. Unity matters, and cricket has often been one of the few spaces where Pakistanis across ideologies still feel something in common.

That said, I think there’s a risk in framing this decision primarily as a response to India or BCCI rather than asking what best serves Pakistan cricket and the game overall. Yes, BCCI has repeatedly politicised cricket and used its influence in ways that are unfair and frankly hypocritical. Many of the examples you listed are real and frustrating, and pretending otherwise helps no one. But the danger is that once cricket becomes a tool of retaliation, it stops being leverage and starts becoming self-harm.

On the monopolisation point, I largely agree with you. ICC’s loss of spine didn’t happen overnight and India’s financial dominance has clearly shaped decisions for years. The Big 3 era, IPL window, and selective enforcement of “principles” all tilted the balance. But I’m not convinced that Pakistan boycotting one match is what forces ICC or other boards to suddenly rediscover morality. Historically, ICC doesn’t reform under pressure from weaker boards acting alone. Change only comes when multiple boards move together, and right now there’s no clear sign of that unity.

On the future of cricket and associates, this is where I think your argument is strongest. ICC’s obsession with revenue has hurt the game badly. We’ve all seen once-promising cricket nations fade because development stopped being a priority. But again, the uncomfortable question is whether this boycott advances that cause, or whether it ends up reinforcing ICC’s belief that only India-centric tournaments are “safe” commercially. That outcome would hurt the very goal of wider cricket growth.

Regarding legality, you’re right that forfeiting a match is allowed under playing conditions. No one can argue that Pakistan would be banned simply for not taking the field. But that doesn’t fully settle the issue. Playing conditions and commercial agreements are two different layers. History shows that when governments intervene, ICC usually chooses accommodation over punishment, but that’s a political decision, not a guaranteed right. Smaller boards have always lived with more uncertainty in this space, whether fair or not. Since Pakistan have used the shield of GOVT, so ICC cant ban Pakistan as per the MPA rules, cant even sue PCB for any losses. All they can do is partial revenue adjustment and 2 points award to India.

Where I slightly disagree is the framing of this as a clear moral win. It’s a bold step, yes, but bold doesn’t always mean wise. There’s a difference between standing up to bullying and isolating yourself further in a system that already marginalises you. Fans can unite behind Pakistan cricket without needing to celebrate every confrontation as a victory.

At the end of the day, most fans on both sides want the same thing: less politics, more cricket, or at least they used to wish so haha now i think 90% ppl from both sides wants war in everything sadly. Players want to play. Fans want rivalry decided on the field, not in press releases. If this situation pushes ICC and both boards to rethink how politics keeps hijacking the sport, that’s positive. If it just deepens positions and hardens attitudes, then cricket loses again.

Supporting Pakistan cricket shouldn’t mean refusing to question decisions. It should mean asking whether each decision actually strengthens Pakistan’s long-term place in the game. That conversation itself, if done honestly and calmly, is also a form of unity

 

[sweep_shot]

If you care about cricket's integrity and bigger picture, boycotting Indian game makes sense.

If you care about short-term profit and preserving Indian grip over cricket, opposing boycott makes sense.

I guess it is all about what your priority is. Short-term or long-term.

 

[Deewana Mastana]

Thanks for your post. I like constructive debates and discussions (which used to be part of this forum a while ago).

I agree with you that this boycott would not materially impact BCCI's monopoly. But like many things this is a start, a step in the right direction. This is the first time BCCI will realize that not always they will get their way. The cricketing world needs to start somewhere to impact monopolies what Bangladesh and Pakistan has done here is literally the first baby step taken in right direction. ICC needs introspection over this entire episode to realize what has triggered this and its ICC who has to take meaningful steps to avoid monopolies running wild over cricket.

I understand your point, and I mostly agree. This boycott is not going to hurt the BCCI financially or reduce its power overnight. Everyone knows that. But that’s not really the main issue. The real value is symbolic. For once, not everyone is quietly going along with whatever BCCI wants, and that itself is a small but important change.

Big monopolies don’t collapse in one day. They weaken when other boards stop accepting everything without question. In that sense, what Pakistan and Bangladesh have done may be small, but it sets a precedent.

However, the bigger problem is the ICC. BCCI’s power exists because the ICC has allowed money to dictate decisions for years. When the governing body is weak, the richest board naturally takes control.

If this situation makes the ICC reflect on fairness, scheduling, and balance of power, then this boycott has some meaning. If not, then it will remain just a gesture. Small steps matter but only if they lead to real change later.

 

[Extra_Cover]

Good post capt. I get where you’re coming from and I respect the intent behind this post, especially the desire to bring Pakistanis together around cricket rather than letting it become another fault line. Unity matters, and cricket has often been one of the few spaces where Pakistanis across ideologies still feel something in common.

That said, I think there’s a risk in framing this decision primarily as a response to India or BCCI rather than asking what best serves Pakistan cricket and the game overall. Yes, BCCI has repeatedly politicised cricket and used its influence in ways that are unfair and frankly hypocritical. Many of the examples you listed are real and frustrating, and pretending otherwise helps no one. But the danger is that once cricket becomes a tool of retaliation, it stops being leverage and starts becoming self-harm.

On the monopolisation point, I largely agree with you. ICC’s loss of spine didn’t happen overnight and India’s financial dominance has clearly shaped decisions for years. The Big 3 era, IPL window, and selective enforcement of “principles” all tilted the balance. But I’m not convinced that Pakistan boycotting one match is what forces ICC or other boards to suddenly rediscover morality. Historically, ICC doesn’t reform under pressure from weaker boards acting alone. Change only comes when multiple boards move together, and right now there’s no clear sign of that unity.

On the future of cricket and associates, this is where I think your argument is strongest. ICC’s obsession with revenue has hurt the game badly. We’ve all seen once-promising cricket nations fade because development stopped being a priority. But again, the uncomfortable question is whether this boycott advances that cause, or whether it ends up reinforcing ICC’s belief that only India-centric tournaments are “safe” commercially. That outcome would hurt the very goal of wider cricket growth.

Regarding legality, you’re right that forfeiting a match is allowed under playing conditions. No one can argue that Pakistan would be banned simply for not taking the field. But that doesn’t fully settle the issue. Playing conditions and commercial agreements are two different layers. History shows that when governments intervene, ICC usually chooses accommodation over punishment, but that’s a political decision, not a guaranteed right. Smaller boards have always lived with more uncertainty in this space, whether fair or not. Since Pakistan have used the shield of GOVT, so ICC cant ban Pakistan as per the MPA rules, cant even sue PCB for any losses. All they can do is partial revenue adjustment and 2 points award to India.

Where I slightly disagree is the framing of this as a clear moral win. It’s a bold step, yes, but bold doesn’t always mean wise. There’s a difference between standing up to bullying and isolating yourself further in a system that already marginalises you. Fans can unite behind Pakistan cricket without needing to celebrate every confrontation as a victory.

At the end of the day, most fans on both sides want the same thing: less politics, more cricket, or at least they used to wish so haha now i think 90% ppl from both sides wants war in everything sadly. Players want to play. Fans want rivalry decided on the field, not in press releases. If this situation pushes ICC and both boards to rethink how politics keeps hijacking the sport, that’s positive. If it just deepens positions and hardens attitudes, then cricket loses again.

Supporting Pakistan cricket shouldn’t mean refusing to question decisions. It should mean asking whether each decision actually strengthens Pakistan’s long-term place in the game. That conversation itself, if done honestly and calmly, is also a form of unity

Thanks for your post.

On your first bolded point this move by Pakistan is largely driven by India's unprovoked jibes in cricket where ICC has always turned a blind eye. Does this move serve Pakistan cricket best in short-term, maybe no. But in the long-term this might bring down politics in cricket that may help Pakistan and other cricket boards. It might not be the best move, but it was needed.

On the second bolded part, this is indeed a moral win for Pakistan. For an underdog like Pakistan (in monetary terms) to make juggernaut like India (in monetary terms) squeal for money is definitely moral win.
Talking about isolation let's not forget the time between 2006 - 2018 where literally Pakistan cricket was in its darkest phase. We had a terrorism incident whereby Pakistan became a no-go zone for cricket, we had our three brightest upcoming stars involved in spot-fixing and banned from cricket, we had infighting, PCB chairmanship jokes and everything in between. Do you know how Pakistan survived that dark phase? By winning T20WC in 2009 and CT in 2017. I have no doubt in my mind that Pakistan cricket would have to bear retaliation from BCCI and ICC after this bold move. However the only way forward is through cricket and we need to start winning tournaments to make such decisions even more imposing.

 

[Local.Dada]

Reminder, the vote was 14-2 in BCCI’s favor during Bangladesh issue. Also PCB is taking on the ICC by not playing this match, not BCCI, the same ICC consists other board members which tend to lose money by this boycott.

Now don’t think hurting someone financially someone is the best way to make friends. Sure, internally maybe some boards are sympathetic to the underdog Pak and despise India’s success but that’s not going to put food on your own table. Can Pakistan cricket board offer something that is more lucrative, don’t think so.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

I can completely understand this being a new thread when this hot topic has been discussed and debated at length in multiple other threads. The reason I want to make this thread is to unify the supporters of Pakistan cricket over this particular decision to boycott the game against India.

Internally in Pakistan we have been divided across political lines, religious sects, favoritism, hatred, etc. At the moment Pakistan is going through enough civil distress and polarization that if we have something unified across the table we should use it as a basis to bring the people closer. We all know that majority of public hate the current regime and government because they aren't true representation of the public implying the elections were rigged and democracy is a cover for dictatorship rule currently presiding. Hence there is a hatred involved in every decision taken by this government. Whilst the criticism still stands for all the right reasons we still need to applaud the good decisions being taken by the regime. These good decisions where majority of Pakistanis can unify is the best way to have all thoughts heard.

Now back to topic as to why this is a good decision.

1. Reply to a bully (BCCI). In the past couple of years we have seen BCCI bully the sponsors, ICC and even ACC with its gimmicks against Pakistan. Whether that be removing Pakistan's name from Asia Cup trophy when Pakistan hosted it, removing Pakistan's name from India's first match in CT25 broadcast, no handshakes in recent Asia Cup, refusing to accept trophy from a Pakistani Asia Cup president and indirectly blaming Pakistan in post match cricket interviews for attacks in Pahalgam. The irony is that India wasn't able to capture the actual folks who committed the heinous terrorism in Pahalgam let alone prove Pakistan's involvement in it.
With the step currently taken this is apt response to what previously has always been one-way traffic. In May last year when India started attacking Pakistan for Pahalgam initially there was no response from Pakistan however when Pakistan did actually responded that subdued India's threat of attacks for good. Similarly now that Pakistan has responded to India's bullyism these antics from India is likely to subdue in the recent future.

2. Long-term monopolistic vision of BCCI. In my personal opinion which I have said before too, ICC has let India walk completely over them since late 2000s. In hindsight ICC would be looking back and regretting some of the basic mistakes it made most importantly letting IPL have its own separate window in a cricketing calendar. This made IPL bigger and more powerful. ICC also let it guard down when it allowed the formation of Big 3, essentially making India run the show whilst Australia and England benefitted substantially too. Since late 2000s the balance started shifting towards India and slowly during this time their stranglehold over ICC became more vicious. As things stand now ICC simply doesn't have a spine of its own and is literally taking dictation from BCCI for every action.
With T20WC in India now completely doused in controversy and this tournament has already been made sour, ICC would have to rethink its strategy going forward. If politics is the aggressor in sports now then what value does ICC add? Potentially I hope that saner minds prevail and they look at the rootcause of how politics in cricket originated from and all fingers will point to India. If all boards unite to say no to politics in sport then potentially the Indian juggernaut can be tamed if not then rest in peace (BCCI lap) for ICC.

3. Good for future of cricket. Over the years we have seen that associate nations have had very little representation in cricket and frankly speaking the sport hasn't expanded at all since 2000s, in fact if we look closely then cricket as a sports has regressed where countries like Zimbabwe and Kenya are no where to be seen in competitive cricket. Even countries like Namibia and Ireland were better off in the past than in the present. If you deep dive into this issue you'd realize that ICC has taken no meaningful steps for betterment of cricket in this region. ICC has been overly infatuated with money where we end up seeing India / Australia / England playing roundrobin every year or so. Why? Because ICC likes to see money flow rather than expand the game. In past we used to see these countries regularly participate in competitive cricket because the money at that time wasn't the deciding factor however today it is for ICC which is why the game is losing.
Now that boycott of Pakistan brings this money debate onto the table. We can already see ICC is panicking not because they want sports to win over politics but because they'd lose out on $$. I really hope that Presidents and Boards in these countries take this moment to realize that there is more to life than money. For crying out loud the sports has the ability to expand simply take the $$ tinted glasses off for a while.

Lastly there is a lot of talk about repercussions on Pakistan for boycotting a game. I'm no legal expert but am intrigued to understand on what grounds would Pakistan face legal charges? There have been numerous cases in the past where a nation has boycotted a game against a particular country on political reasons. Australia not playing Zimbabwe in 2003, England not playing SL in '96. Complete boycott of SAF under apartheid regime days. So this will not be the first time this is happening but it would be the first time when there would be repercussions because of 2 reasons; a) victim (BCCI) is powerful than defendant (PCB), and b) ICC cares about money and don't want to lose its cash cow.

Another point to add is that boycott of a match is perfectly legal as per ICC regulations. As per ICC regulations the match can be forfeited by simply notifying the match referee.

16.2 ICC Match Referee awarding a match
16.2.1 A match shall be lost by a side which either
16.2.1.1 concedes defeat or
16.2.1.2 in the opinion of the ICC Match Referee refuses to play and the ICC Match Referee shall award the match to the other side.
16.2.2 If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall inform the ICC Match Referee of this fact. The ICC Match Referee shall together with the umpires ascertain the cause of the action. If the ICC Match Referee, after due consultation with the umpires, then decides that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, he/she shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the ICC Match Referee shall award the match in accordance with clause 16.2.1.2 above
16.2.3 If action as in clause 16.2.2 above takes place after play has started and does not constitute a refusal to play the delay or interruption in play shall be dealt with in the same manner as provided for in clauses 13.7.2 (Delayed and Interrupted Matches)and 11.4 (Changing agreed times for intervals) above. Note: In addition to the consequences of any refusal to play prescribed under this clause, any such refusal, whether temporary or final, may result in disciplinary action being taken against the captain and team responsible under the ICC Code of Conduct.

https://usacricket.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ICC-Playing-Handbook-2019-2020-Digital-FINAL.pdf

Good luck Pakistan for taking this bold step. Let's all unite behind this decision.

If I don't support this decision, will it change? Nahi na. My support does not matter so neither should it be asked for.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

It's amazing how many people (from both sides of the border) on this forum are just waiting to turn everything into an existential battle for the soul of their country and it's national identity. All you guys do is fight with your keyboards. If you feel so much nationalism and patriotism for your country then put your money where your mouth is and go enlist in the Army. Till then I can only look at posts like these and laugh.

It's just a game of cricket, it ain't as deep as y'all are making it out to be. To frame this as some kind of bold step that demands all our collective national support is laughable to say the least.

All the PCB and BCCI are at this point are tools of their respective states, that are being used to push the political agenda of the state into the sport of cricket. Such organizations deserves contempt, not support. And rest assured, they have my full contempt.

 

[KB]

It is a well articulated opening post. But I disagree that Pakistanis should necessarily stand united on the issue. Manufactured conformity is part of the problem.

More than the exercise of BCCI’s power itself, what has troubled me the most over the last few years is the lack of sustained questioning within the Indian ecosystem and, to a large extent, beyond India (there are, of course, important exceptions). Mainstream commentators and media, knowing which side their naan is buttered, rarely scrutinise and challenge the actions of the BCCI, when those actions are wrapped up in the language of national pride.

The ‘monolith’ described in the opening post can act with impunity because it is built on the silence of those who should be holding it accountable.

So I will always take messy, even chaotic debate over conformity and the ritual recitation of nationalistic pieties.

***

In August 1917, Iqbal captured how performative piety (moral, national or institutional), can become an obstacle to thinking and represent sterile orthodoxy. Dissent, in contrast, demanded imagination and courage:

“At least in one respect sin is better than piety. There is an imaginative element in the former which is lacking in the latter.”