After a long drama on the T20 World Cup match against India, when it was finally agreed to play, at the same time PCB Chairman and Pakistan Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi gave a statement which sparked a new debate. Hours before the agreement, he claimed that there is no pressure on Pakistan. He said, ‘Neither I am afraid of threats from India and ICC, nor is the government of Pakistan afraid, and as far as Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir is concerned, you know him, he is never afraid.’ This statement of Naqvi has now become a subject of joke. People say that when we finally had to take the field, such language makes Pakistan’s position not strong but contradictory.
Message of strength or political platform?
Asim Munir’s name has been projected as a symbol of power and military prestige in Pakistan for some time now. His appointment as Field Marshal after ‘Operation Sindoor’ was promoted there as a big political message, but mentioning the top post of the Army in a sports controversy seemed to be an uncomfortable move for many experts. According to him, this indicated that more than cricket, it was an attempt to send a message to the domestic political audience. Pakistan is known for giving shelter to terrorists. Munir is not eliminating terrorists in his country and Naqvi is talking big. Several people were killed in the recent blast in Islamabad. Munir and Naqvi (who is also the Home Minister of Pakistan) are not able to protect their own people and have gone on talking about the world.
First strictness, then U-turn
The boycott, conditions and rhetoric continued for weeks. But ultimately after talks, diplomatic contacts and international pressure, Pakistan had to accept the fixed programme. After discussions led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, the team was allowed to play on 15 February. The government described it as the result of multilateral dialogue and said that it was necessary to maintain the spirit of international cricket, but the question arose – if playing had to be done, then why such sharp statements? Why so much drama?
What did ICC say
ICC described the meetings held at its level as positive. The atmosphere was said to be constructive and no punishment was mentioned. That is, in the end the matter was resolved through talks, not through roaring. It became clear that the jackal-blaming neither leads to any solution nor affects anyone on the international stage, on the contrary, it makes fun of you as well as your country. On the issue of Bangladesh, on which Pakistan tried to show a strict stance, ultimately it appeared to be in favor of playing the match. In such a situation, it is natural to raise the question that for whom such a loud voice was made.
