Cricket beyond boundary: Indian's defiant gesture against Pakistan

 

What actually happened

From media reports and Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) statements, these are the key incidents that people have pointed to:

1. No handshakes

   • Neither side shook hands at the toss.
   • After the match, when Pakistan were ready to fulfil customary pleasantries, the Indian players went directly to their dressing room, bypassing the usual handshake with Pakistan’s side.

2. Post-match presentation snub

   • Pakistan’s captain (Salman Ali Agha) did not attend the post-match presentation as a protest.
   • The PCB lodged a formal complaint with the Asian Cricket Council (ACC), saying that the behavior was “against the spirit of cricket.”

3. Comments and dedications

   • Indian captain Suryakumar Yadav dedicated the win to the Indian armed forces and to the victims of the Pahalgam terror attack.
   • Some Indian former players defended skipping the handshake, saying that there was provocation or “insult” involved. For example, ex-cricketer Atul Wassan criticized attempts to force handshakes, referring to past incidents.

4. Referee involvement / instructions

   • The match referee, Andy Pycroft, reportedly instructed the captains that handshakes at the toss should not take place, presumably to avoid overt displays amid political tensions.
   • However, whether this instruction extended to post-match formalities is disputed. Pakistan say that the Indian side’s refusal post-match was unilateral.

5. Performance dominance

   • India crushed Pakistan on the field: restricted Pakistan to a modest total (~127/9) and chased it comfortably with many overs to spare.
   • Some commentators and former players (from both sides) have used strong words: “club-level cricket” (Shoaib Akhtar) to describe Pakistan’s performance vs India.

Why many interpret this as “arrogant”

Putting together these facts, there are a number of reasons why people see arrogance:

• Breach of sportsmanship norms: Handshakes, especially in international cricket, are more than formalities — they symbolize respect, reconciliation, and the spirit of the game. Refusing them can be seen as discarding every bit of that tradition.
• Politicisation of sport: Dedications of victory to armed forces, linking the match to recent political events (Pahalgam attack, Operation Sindoor) bring politics explicitly into what many think should be sport. This heightens the perception of arrogance, that it's not just about the match but “one-upmanship.”
• The manner of dominance: On-field performance that is overwhelmingly one-sided tends to magnify perceptions of swagger, because when you’re winning big, any deviations from norms (handshakes etc.) get more attention and feel more provocative.
• Public messaging & behaviour: Statements by Indian players or ex-players defending or justifying the refusal to shake hands reinforce the view that this was intentional, principled, rather than accidental. Also, the fact that Pakistan complained formally shows that at least one side perceives a boundary was crossed.

Counter-arguments / other perspectives

To be fair, there are other angles people bring up that complicate or mitigate the “arrogant behaviour” label.

1. Political context and emotional weight

   • The match comes after serious incidents (the Pahalgam terror attack), military responses, and diplomatic tension. Many in India feel strongly about national security, victims etc. Some Indians argue that certain gestures are appropriate in light of those events.
   • Also, these high emotional stakes, including pressure from government or public sentiment, might influence both what players do and how commentators interpret those actions.

2. Referee’s role

   • Since the match referee is reported to have instructed that handshakes at toss should not happen, it wasn’t wholly unilateral from India’s side. That suggests some requests from officials to reduce visible interpersonal gestures in view of the tension.
   • Though post-match handshake refusal seems not mandated by referee (or at least contested), the existence of instruction around the toss shows that some decisions weren’t purely made in a vacuum.

3. Tradition vs contemporary practice

   • Some argue that in recent years, sportsmanship gestures have become more symbolic and less consistent. People say that, especially in high-pressure, high-rivalry matches, not all teams always fulfil every convention, depending on situation.

4. Perspective / media framing

   • What counts as arrogance is subjective. For fans or media in Pakistan, this looks like arrogance or insult. For many in India, it may be viewed as standing by principle, national dignity, or simply refusing to engage beyond cricket in light of tragedies.

Compares to past India-Pakistan matches or norms in cricket

• India vs Pakistan matches have historically been more fraught than many other international matches, because of political rivalry, national identities, and high public attention. So breaches of protocol or heightened displays of emotion are not unprecedented.
• Still, skipping handshakes, especially post-match, is unusual in major matches. It is viewed by many in cricket culture as a sort of “line-drawing” that’s rarely crossed without strong reason.
• There have been other instances of political tension affecting sportsmanship, but usually there is at least handshake or minimal decorum to maintain some unity in competition.

Analysis / implications

Putting this all together, here are what I see as important points, good or bad:

• Intentionality matters: Whether the Indian side’s behaviour was provocative or defensive depends a lot on what their aims were — whether they meant to send a political message beyond just winning. The dedications and statements suggest they were aware that actions had meaning beyond the pitch.

• Risk of escalating tensions: When gestures are skipped (handshakes etc.), sand is turned over rather than being smoothed. It could deepen distrust between teams, fans, and administrations.

• Impact on spirit of the game: Cricket has long prided itself on “gentlemanly” conduct, respect, and rituals. When those are set aside, even for political reasons, it changes what people expect from international sport.

• Fan reaction will be varied: Some will see this as justified, an expression of justified anger/dignity. Others will view it as unnecessary provocation, that sport should be a space above politics. Because India-Pakistan matches are emotionally charged, both views are going to be strong.

• Setting precedents: Such behaviour may set precedents for how future matches are handled. If skipping handshakes becomes more accepted in these contexts, the standard customs of sportsmanship might erode further.