In his documentary series The Greatest Rivalry, Australian cricket commentator Matthew Hayden compares the men’s cricket teams representing India and Pakistan to two brothers fighting around the kitchen table. This figure of speech will have resonated with many Indians and Pakistanis, given their shared history and culture. And so, when the two sides face off in their Champions Trophy match on Sunday in Dubai, more like it will surely follow.
The match has been heavily politicised, in part because India-Pakistan relations are right now at an all-time low. The situation is more akin to the two brothers sitting in different corners of the kitchen, not fighting but not talking either. This radio silence can be traced back to the deadly Mumbai terror attacks in 2008, which New Delhi said the Pakistani state had a role in, and which Islamabad denied. Boycotts followed the initial brouhaha, culminating in India’s decision to end all cricket tours to Pakistan (even though they continue to play each other in international competitions).
This policy reared its head again when Pakistan was chosen to host the eight-team Champions Trophy, an international competition that began this week. Given its outsized influence in the sport though, India won the right to play all of its matches in the UAE.
The current stasis isn’t new, of course. Relations have ebbed and flowed throughout the two countries’ tumultuous post-colonial history, often at the expense of sporting and cultural exchanges and people-to-people contacts. Worse, they have gone to war on numerous occasions, with violence coming at a high cost. Beginning with the bloody partition of what was then “British India” in 1947, nearly 2 million people are believed to have died over seven and a half decades.
India and Pakistan continue to disagree on a range of issues. Both claim all of the partitioned region of Kashmir. Both believe the other aids and abets terrorists in launching attacks on their territories. And both have become increasingly plagued by religious polarisation and absorbed by geopolitical competition.
And yet, Indians and Pakistanis undoubtedly have always had a special place in each other’s hearts. So now is as good a time as any for New Delhi and Islamabad to resume engagement, with a view to returning to full diplomatic relations and eventually resolving some of the outstanding issues peacefully.
I would even go so far as putting the onus on the one figure who has the political bandwidth to make all this happen: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. To those well-versed in Indian politics, this may seem counterintuitive. Mr Modi is the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is the political arm of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The RSS is a 100-year-old right-wing socio-political organisation that is ideologically opposed to Pakistan’s existence and aims, among other things, to re-establish “Akhand Bharat”, or “Undivided India”.
However, while the BJP continues to align itself closely to the RSS, it is much more pragmatic and attuned to the real world. It has in the past, especially during the premiership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, engaged with Islamabad with the objective of securing some sort of a grand bargain. So Mr Modi wouldn't be setting a precedent even within his own party.
Yet the man he would do well to emulate in this regard is his predecessor, Manmohan Singh. As prime minister, Dr Singh had to battle forces within his Congress party in order to engage with Pakistan. Dr Singh’s rationale was simple: India cannot afford to have adversarial relations with both Pakistan and China at the same time, and building bridges with a country with which it shares cultural and historical roots, and with which it has a comparative advantage in the power metrics, makes better sense.
The logic was sound, and the ground was fertile for talks, but sadly they collapsed after the Mumbai attacks.
More than 15 years later, it would be simplistic to assume Mr Modi’s reasons for keeping an arm’s length from Pakistan are entirely ideological. His thinking is more probably guided by realpolitik, given the ever-growing power differential between the two countries.
India is today the world’s fifth-largest economy, while Pakistan’s economy is perpetually dependent on loans from the International Monetary Fund and support from China and allies in the Arab world. India is a member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and the G20, both of which include the US, while Pakistan’s geopolitical influence has somewhat diminished in the post-Cold War era.
However, despite the widening chasm, New Delhi may need Islamabad in its corner. First, India’s security challenges remain daunting. Relations with Beijing, frayed after deadly border clashes five years ago, are finally on the mend but they are far still from being on an even keel. Equations with its other neighbours – Bangladesh, the Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka – have suffered varying degrees of setbacks following leadership changes in these countries.
Second, India’s economic growth has slowed considerably after an impressive post-pandemic recovery, with some experts predicting that a long-term decline is inevitable without deep structural reforms. Indian companies, meanwhile, are looking for new markets.
Perhaps this is the moment for Mr Modi to burnish his legacy. Despite being in power for more than a decade, the Prime Minister’s star continues to shine brightest in India’s political constellation. The BJP may have lost its majority in Parliament in last year’s general election, relying on a coalition to stay in power, but huge margins of victory in three recent state elections have given the party a new spring in its steps.
With no immediate challenger in his party or beyond, and given his enduring popularity at home and abroad, Mr Modi has a rare opportunity to do what no leader before him has done: securing his own “Deal of the Century” with Pakistan. A phone call to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif after Sunday’s match – irrespective of the result – would be a good place to start. Brothers may fight around the kitchen table from time to time, but it’s surely a lot better to share a happy meal together.
