The cricketing world is no stranger to the high-voltage drama that precedes an India-Pakistan clash, but the 2026 T20 World Cup has taken "off-field theatrics" to an unprecedented level. Reddy Anna At the center of the storm is legendary Indian opener Sunil Gavaskar, who has pulled no punches in his latest assessment of Pakistan’s "baffling" decision to participate in the tournament while selectively boycotting their group-stage match against India.

Writing in his column for Sportstar, Gavaskar didn't just criticize the decision—he dismantled the logic behind it.

The Context: A Tournament of Tensions

The friction began when the ICC refused to shift Bangladesh’s matches out of India despite the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) citing security concerns. Following a vote where Pakistan was the lone voice supporting Bangladesh, the latter was replaced by Scotland. In a show of solidarity that many, including Gavaskar, view as politically motivated, the Pakistan government instructed its team to play the World Cup but "not take the field" against India on February 15 in Colombo.

Gavaskar’s "All or Nothing" Argument

Gavaskar’s critique hinges on a simple, logical premise: selective protest is no protest at all.

"If they felt Bangladesh had been hard done by by the ICC, they should have opted out of the entire tournament, and not just the match against India," Gavaskar wrote.

The "Little Master" highlighted the absurdity of a team choosing which fixtures to honor in a global event. By staying in the tournament but skipping the India game, Pakistan is attempting to "cosy up" to the current political climate in Bangladesh while still reaping the financial and competitive benefits of an ICC event.

Busting the "BCCI Bully" Narrative

Pakistan’s leadership, including PCB chief Mohsin Naqvi, has frequently suggested that India "bullies" other boards into following its lead. Gavaskar was quick to point out the hypocrisy in this claim. He noted that the ICC’s decisions are based on independent security assessments and democratic voting—not unilateral demands.

He further argued that while India has historically refused to travel to Pakistan due to genuine, documented security threats, Pakistan’s current boycott of a match in Colombo—a neutral venue—lacks any logical or security-based justification.

The Predicted U-Turn

In a separate interview, Gavaskar took a cheeky swipe at Pakistan's history of "retirement U-turns." He predicted that the boycott threat would likely evaporate as the match date approaches.

"We all know Pakistan cricketers retire and then, four days later, take back their retirement... This might happen again," he remarked, suggesting that global pressure and the risk of heavy ICC sanctions (which could include freezing revenue shares or banning overseas players from the PSL) would eventually force Pakistan’s hand.

Why This Matters for Cricket

Gavaskar’s "blast" isn't just about an India-Pakistan rivalry; it’s about the integrity of international sports. If a nation is allowed to "pick and choose" its opponents based on political convenience, the structure of global tournaments collapses.

As of the latest reports, it seems Gavaskar’s intuition was right—negotiations are reportedly leading toward a Pakistani U-turn, proving once again that in the world of cricket, the "Little Master" still reads the pitch better than anyone else.

What do you think? Is Gavaskar right to call for a total withdrawal, or is Pakistan’s selective boycott a valid form of protest? Let us know in the comments below!