A lesson to be learned from this incident is participation in an event is the real exhibition of power, and winning matches elevates its credibility, observes K R Nayar.
Key Points
- Pakistan's withdrawal of the India-match boycott left no real winners, only confusion and inconvenience.
- Flip-flops forced fans and journalists to cancel flights and hotels, creating avoidable chaos.
- The boycott announcement appeared emotional rather than strategic, with little thought for downstream consequences.
Soon after Pakistan announced that it withdrew the boycott of the match with India, the question doing the rounds is whether there is a winner following this huge drama. The answer is a resounding no.
The constant flip-flop inconvenienced thousands of fans and journalists who had to cancel flights and even scrap hotel reservations. In short, the indecisiveness only created chaos.
Knowing that Pakistan has, over the years, been an unpredictable team, and that their decision can change any moment, I did not cancel any flight or hotel bookings.
For a reporter, whether a match is played or abandoned, there is always a story -- and hence, presence matters.
Only loss and nothing to gain
A boycott would have achieved nothing but huge financial losses for everyone.
Pakistan officials admit they withdrew the boycott after several nations flagged the severe financial impact and the inevitable dip in overall tournament revenue.
What remains baffling is why the inconvenience to fans, journalists, cricket boards, and even the host nation's tourism, was not considered before the boycott announcement was made.
It seems like it was more an emotional decision, rather than a strategic one.
Had the boycott remained, Pakistan risked earning a dangerous label -- an unreliable participant in global events.
In international sport, such a reputation can be more damaging than a defeat on the field.
Money speaks in modern cricket
In modern cricket, money speaks, and it is a fact that all nations will be united when it comes to revenue.
It is also a known fact that an India-Pakistan match is the financial engine of any ICC tournament.
Broadcasters, sponsors, and even neutral boards will only support a decision that brings them money.
There is a famous saying that 'ideology bends when the balance sheet looms large'.
A boycott may have offered temporary emotional satisfaction, but it would have choked funds vital for the development of Pakistan cricket and even hurt players from associate nations who rely on such tournaments for survival.
Lesson from this boycott call
Any form of protest can be made in boardrooms and not by stopping cricketers from playing.
Politically motivated decisions such as withdrawing from a match will only benefit politicians, and hardly benefits cricketers nor cricket as a whole.
A lesson to be learned from this incident is participation in an event is the real exhibition of power, and winning matches elevates its credibility.
Skipping matches, however, results only in the scoreboard not moving, and lost opportunities.
National anthems of Namibia and Netherlands
Away from the noise of the India-Pakistan boycott saga, Delhi's Jaitley stadium offered a refreshing reminder of why cricket matters.
The Namibia-Netherlands clash brimmed with enthusiasm, heart, and unfiltered joy.
For Namibia, it was not just their first match of the tournament but also their maiden international appearance on Indian soil.
Their national anthem echoed with pride: Namibia, land of the brave. Freedom fight we have won. Glory to their bravery, whose blood waters our freedom.
The Netherlands' anthem, dating back to 1572 and regarded as the oldest national anthem in the world, followed.
For many in the Delhi crowd, it was a moment of quiet discovery amid a tournament dominated by boycott headlines and related hype.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff
© 2026