The day I reached Monrovia in 2004 to be part of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Liberia, a nation ravaged by 14 years of civil war that killed a quarter million people and displaced twice as many, I was struck by an unexpected sight. On a muddy patch of land, logs served as goalposts for an improvised football ground. A match was underway. On one side was a team drawn from the UN mission. Their opponents? A squad of 11, consisting of freshly disarmed combatants from the country’s civil war, some of them perpetrators of atrocities, others victims of the same.

 Soccer-mad Liberians in their hundreds, mostly ex-combatants, were wildly cheering for their team, which eventually routed the UN squad 2-0.

It was a perfect example of sports being used to bring peace and rapprochement. Since 2004, Liberia has remained a democracy at peace with itself for more than two decades now. During this period, the country even elected well-known international soccer player George Weah as its president for a term.

Sports For Peace

History demonstrates that sports often succeed where politics fails. In the Cold War era, the famous “ping pong diplomacy” between the United States and China in the 1970s helped break the ice between two estranged nations and paved the way for President Richard Nixon’s historic visit to Beijing. Similarly, North and South Korea, despite being technically at war, have fielded joint teams at the Olympics to demonstrate the power of sport in softening tensions.

Speaking of history, who can forget the thunder that reverberated around the cricketing world following Javed Miandad’s last-ball six in Sharjah in 1986? And then president Pervez Musharraf’s advice to M S Dhoni during India’s tour of Pakistan in 2006 to not cut his flowing hair?

The UN has long recognized sports as an effective medium to enhance peace and foster understanding among people and between nations. In 2013, the UN General Assembly declared April 6 as the International Day of Sport for Development and Peace, underscoring its potential to unite divided societies.

At a time when border tensions, cross-border terrorism, and frozen diplomatic channels define India-Pakistan relations, resuming cricket ties may seem counterintuitive. Yet it is precisely in such climates that unconventional tools for engagement become vital.

Shared Cultural Heartbeat 

No other sport grips the imagination of Indians and Pakistanis the way cricket does. It is not just a game -- it is identity, passion, and politics rolled into one. When the two sides meet, stadiums overflow, television ratings soar, and emotions run high. Hundreds of millions watch across the world, making it one of the most followed rivalries in sport.

Beneath the jingoism and chest-thumping across the common border lies something deeper: a shared cultural heartbeat. Both nations celebrate the exploits of cricketing icons, relive classic encounters, and pass down cricketing lore across generations. It demonstrates that ordinary people yearn for connection, not perpetual hostility.

Despite this, bilateral cricket has been largely frozen since the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. The two sides now face off only in ICC tournaments. Pakistani players remain excluded from the Indian Premier League (IPL), depriving them of opportunities on the world’s most competitive T20 stage, while Indian cricketers miss the experience of playing in Pakistan, once one of cricket’s most formidable venues.

The reasons for this freeze are understandable. Terrorism and national security cannot be dismissed. Yet boycotting sport rarely achieves the desired political outcome. South Africa’s apartheid-era isolation remains an exception, not a template. Often, engagement through sport provides greater leverage for dialogue than isolation.

India and Pakistan have played cricket even in tense times. In 1978, India toured Pakistan after an eight-year break, despite chilly ties. In 2004, the “Friendship Series” saw India return to Pakistan after nearly 15 years. Not only did the visit produce unforgettable cricket, it also generated unprecedented people-to-people interaction. Tens of thousands of Indian fans travelled across the border, mingling freely with Pakistanis in scenes of camaraderie politics can never script.

'Play With Your Hearts'

The tour was flagged off by then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who urged the Indian players to “khelo dil se” (“play with your hearts”). The series was hailed as a milestone in cricket diplomacy, proving that sport could thaw frostier climates, even if only temporarily.

Critics argue that resuming cricket would amount to legitimizing a State accused of sponsoring cross-border terrorism. This concern is not trivial. Yet it is worth remembering that playing cricket does not mean condoning violence. It means recognizing that cultural and sporting engagement should not be held hostage to political stalemates.

When every other channel of communication is blocked, sport provides at least one avenue for contact. Even neutral venues -- like the UAE or Sri Lanka -- could be used until direct tours are feasible.

Symbolism matters too. A hug between bowlers after a hard-fought match, or words of mutual respect shared before microphones -- all these moments are broadcast to millions. They humanize the “enemy” and challenge the stereotypes pushed by ultranationalist voices on both sides.

As the larger power, India bears a greater responsibility to shape the narrative in South Asia. Freezing cricket may appear strong, but it risks projecting rigidity. By contrast, agreeing to play exudes confidence, and shows India is secure enough in its identity to engage, even while holding firm on its diplomatic positions.

Aligns With India's Regional Visit

Resuming cricket is an investment in India’s own vision of regional peace and leadership. A confident power uses every instrument available -- political, diplomatic, cultural, and sporting -- to shape its neighbourhood. Also, an India-Pakistan series is among the most lucrative events in world sport, rivalling even the Ashes. Broadcasters, advertisers, and cricket boards stand to earn hundreds of millions in revenue.

For the players, it means exposure to diverse conditions and the chance to test themselves against one of the fiercest opponents. For fans, it restores one of the sport’s greatest spectacles. For both nations, it generates goodwill that no diplomatic communique can replicate.

Sceptics insist that unless Pakistan dismantles terror networks, no engagement is possible. This argument, however, sets the bar impossibly high. If dialogue and engagement are conditioned on the resolution of core disputes, then engagement will never occur.

There is also the human dimension. In 2004, many Indian fans who crossed into Pakistan returned with stories of warmth -- strangers offering free rides, hosts opening homes, locals refusing to let visitors pay for meals. Pakistani fans who travelled to India reported similar experiences. These moments matter. They show that the hostility of states does not always reflect the sentiment of peoples.

India today aspires to global leadership. It positions itself as a rising power, a voice for the Global South, a champion of multilateralism. Reviving cricket diplomacy would reinforce this image of statesmanship. It would show that India is not afraid to extend the hand of sportsmanship even when relations are strained.

New Delhi should not view cricket ties as appeasement but as investment in peace. By embracing cricket diplomacy, India can show moral leadership, protect its strategic interests and give millions of fans across South Asia a reason to dream of friendship rather than enmity. The ongoing Asia Cup is a good start in that direction. A few handshakes could have made it an even better start. 

(The writer is a former UN diplomat and spokesperson. Views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at edmathew@gmail.com