You’re just amazed; something that was started on green turf at the site of an English church and, you know, polite applause and, ‘Well played, good fellow,’ becomes this screaming religious ceremony.” That is Stephen Fry, actor and former president of the Marylebone Cricket Club (which owns Lord’s), on how the game metamorphosed once it was truly taken up by the masses in the Indian subcontinent.
This transformation was evident as far back as 1987, when world champions India hosted the first Cricket World Cup outside England. If English cricket stadiums had cathedral-like atmospheres, India brought in the carnival. How the game has evolved since then may have many ‘gentlemen’ rolling in their graves, but the change is irreversible and unstoppable.
For instance, the ‘Gentlemen vs Players’ matches, which were an early feature of English cricket, are now unimaginable. The first was in 1806. ‘Gentlemen’ were amateurs, often from the upper class; ‘Players’ were professionals from the working class, who made a living through cricket. The last such match took place in 1962, as the MCC, then the de facto governing body of cricket (its president was automatically the ICC president till 1989), abolished the distinction between amateurs and professionals in 1963, after decades of controversy.
To this day, cricket is seen in England as posh; football is the obsession of the working class. This inevitably led to declining attendances at matches, despite the occasional highs of the Ashes (driven by emotions and a healthy dollop of drama). The general indifference to cricket in England led to the introduction of T20 cricket. When T20 was first pitched to the heads of English cricket—“elderly white males, who loved their traditional cricket and did not particularly like change”—they realised the need to adapt in order to survive, voting 11-7 in favour.
T20 only accelerated cricket’s democratisation, which had been seeded by India’s World Cup win in 1983 and the subsequent growth of cricket in the Indian subcontinent. With India’s triumph at the inaugural T20 World Cup and the success of the Indian Premier League, “the gentleman’s game” has evolved into something else. It is now driven by the masses. Drama is vital; entertainment is key.
But, what about the spirit of the game? The word gentleman may be non-inclusive snobbery frozen in language, yet the concept of gentlemanly conduct tied to cricket’s spirit has merits. Honour, fair play and respect can guide youth, but once individuals find their own values through lived experiences, it is unfair to impose the Victorian ideal of gentlemanly behaviour upon them.
Indian cricket found a new identity at Lord’s in 2002, with Sourav Ganguly’s shirt-brandishing celebration. It defined a generation and arguably fuelled the sport’s growth. M.S. Dhoni may have looked calm, but his decisions revealed aggression. Virat Kohli’s firebrand leadership, combined with political change, created the playbook for new India—we obey the law, but play hard and express ourselves. There is no urge to hold on to a white man’s worldview.
This is the context in which the Asia Cup drama should be considered. Predictably, it led to calls to keep politics away from sport. But sport is inherently political. The ancient Greek Olympics were showcases; Roman gladiatorial games were tools to distract and control the masses. In the 20th century, sport continued to be a go-to strategy for autocrats. But, it also evolved into an avenue for protests, like the ‘Black Power Salute’ by American track-and-field athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos at Mexico 1968. South Africa’s ban from international cricket until the end of apartheid further demonstrated how sport could be used to enforce accountability. So, saying “keep politics out of sport” is in itself a political stance—it can be read as “ignore injustices or social and political dynamics”. Sport does not exist outside society, it is society in motion.
Within this reality, sportsman spirit does not vanish. Refusing handshakes with an opponent from a hostile country is only a breach of ceremony and has no bearing on fairness. Yet, perhaps boycotting such matches would have been cleaner.
But, that is easier said that done. Refusing to play risks handing trophies to Pakistan. Second, and more importantly, any boycotting of matches or tournaments by India could have an impact on the bid to host the 2036 Olympics. The Olympic committee’s evaluation of bids is highly likely to be prone to western biases and therefore the taint of a boycott may be too much to overcome. Refusing to shake hands or deciding to not take the trophy from Pakistan’s interior minister (who is also the Asian Cricket Council president) may be easier to explain, especially as there was provocation from the other side, too.
Most importantly, the team’s decisions have clearly been influenced by the mood at home. Being civil to Pakistanis would not have been acceptable to many Indians. This meant that being seen as wanting to stay away from Pakistanis was perhaps the best option left before Team India.
Whether this approach persists will be evident soon—when India plays Pakistan at the ongoing Women’s World Cup. Traditionally, women’s cricket has fewer viewers and those who tune in are likely to care more about play than political messaging. So, if this tournament is also overshadowed by politics, it would be a fair indication that those hostile to India will be kept at a distance, even on the field of play.