By Kumkum Chadha
Jalebi Baby was the DJ’s undoing in Dubai: The DJ, perhaps, thought that Pakistan’s national anthem and Jalebi Baby were synonymous. The result: Jalebi Baby played for a full six seconds on the loudspeaker on September 14 even as India and Pakistan faced each other in Dubai for Asia Cup 2025.
As if this was not enough, Jalebi Baby-artist Tesher poked fun and reacted: “Shout out to the sound guy, for messing up the anthem… Jalebi Baby is the right anthem.”
For the record, Jalebi Baby, is among Canadian singer Tesher’s popular tracks. Known to be a fun and catchy song, it was released in 2020. The title, inspired by jalebi, the Indian sweet, lent a desi touch. Following a remix with singer Jason Derulo a year later, the song broke all records.
But back to the field in Dubai and the anthem goof-up. To say it was embarrassing would be playing down what the players went through: the red-faced cricket team of Pakistan that stood to attention at the Dubai International stadium with their hands on their hearts.
But then this is not the first time that this has happened. During the Champions Trophy in Lahore, the Indian national anthem was mistakenly played even as Australia and England faced each other. What added to the embarrassment was that India had refused to travel to Pakistan for the Champions Trophy even while it had played all their matches in Dubai.
It is well known that before every cricket match that is hosted by the International Cricket Council or ICC, the anthem of the teams competing with each other are played. This follows the coin-toss after which both teams shake hands as a run up to the contest.
Anthem apart, this time around it was the handshake, rather the refusal, that grabbed headlines. Not once, but twice over. At the coin toss, captain Suryakumar Yadav had avoided shaking hands with Pakistan skipper Salman Ali Agha sparking a controversy. Even after the win, India left the field avoiding the customary handshake with Pakistan’s players. In the eye of the storm was match referee Andy Pycroft.
Pakistan Cricket Board lodged a complaint against the referee. It alleged that it was Pycroft who had prevented the handshake between the two captains. They went as far as demanding his removal. However, Pycroft was cleared on grounds that he was merely conveying India’s decision not to shake hands with Pakistan.
The decision by India to adopt a no-handshake policy stems from Indian players’ collective refusal to shake hands with the Pakistani team in solidarity with the victims of the Pahalgam attack. The handshake refusal was not a decision taken on the spur of the moment. It was a well thought out move and one that was conveyed by the Board of Control for Cricket, or the BCCI in India, to the Asian Cricket Council venue manager.
However, it is the timing that is under question because Pycroft was reportedly informed “four minutes” before the toss that the Indian skipper would not shake hands with his counterpart. Later Yadav confirmed that his team acted on the advice of the Indian government and the BCCI in India. Despite the hullabaloo and Pakistan hopping mad, India stuck to its no-handshake policy in the next match it played against Pakistan a week later.
On September 21, Indian players walked past their opponents giving a go-by to custom. As if this was not enough, the Indian players headed out of the dressing room after the win, shook hands with the umpires and match officials leaving the Pakistani players out in the cold as it were. While Pakistanis have slammed the move, back home opinion was divided on whether India was right in refusing to shake hands. While a section feels that it was a lack of sportsmanship, there are others who assert that the Indian team “did the right thing”.
The issue, however, is bigger than a mere handshake; or whether the Indian team did the right thing or not; whether it should have kept to the custom rather than opting out and creating more acrimony than there already is. The issue here is: why did India play against Pakistan in the first place? And if it did decide to, then why did it choose to mix politics with sport and reduce it to an off-the-field slanging match?
So, to answer the first, there is a feeble explanation from BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia who is reported to have defended the decision to play on grounds that it is a multinational competition: “India had no choice”, he is quoted to have said adding that India has not played any
bilateral tournament with Pakistan since 2013. The decision to boycott Pakistan could have jeopardized India’s bid for future tournaments to be held in India including the 2030 Olympics, he said.
Taking the big picture into consideration, the BCCI logic fits in. But when it comes to national sentiment, it wanes because for right-minded Indians it is always “nation first” irrespective of consequences. Therefore, when RPG Group Chairman Harsh Goenka posts the heart over mind dilemma, it fits in: “India vs Pakistan tomorrow.
Heart says don’t watch, mind says does it even matter, patriotism says boycott, sanity says cheer your team. Even my mai-baaps are giving mixed signals. What on earth should I do?” Goenka posted on social media, ahead of the match.
Pitch this against the decisive call given by Pahalgam terror attack victim Shubham Dwivedi’s wife, Aishanya, to boycott the match: “Do not go to watch this and do not switch on your TV for this”. She also slammed the BCCI alleging that the Board was “not sentimental towards those 26 families and the martyrs of Operation Sindoor”.
Dwivedi’s angst was also against the cricketers: “What are our cricketers doing? It is said that cricketers are nationalists…Except for 1-2 cricket players, nobody stepped forward to say that we should boycott the match against Pakistan. The BCCI cannot make them play at gunpoint. They should take a stand for their country. But they are not doing it,” she said.
To the sponsors and broadcasters, she asked: “What will the revenue from the match be used for? Pakistan will use this just for terrorism. That is a terrorist nation. You will provide them revenue and prepare them to attack us once again.” Fathom Aishanya pain and suffering and the BCCI logic of the fate of future tournaments falls flat on the face.
Against this backdrop, there is really no toss-up between national interest and a game of cricket. The BCCI may voice logic and concerns about the sport’s future, it is the Pahalgam terror attack that stares hard at the face: 26 tourists gunned down in broad daylight. As against this tragedy, the no handshake policy comes a cropper: mere tokenism, as many saw it.
Nothing can be worse than trivializing the anger, the pain and the anguish of billions of Indians: divided they may be on whether India did the right thing by putting sport above country, they stand united on their intense hostility and enmity with Pakistan.
—The writer is an author, journalist and political commentator