Manufactured Enemies, Reinforced by Sport: How India–Pakistan Hostility Is Being Kept Alive

 

Manufactured Enemies, Reinforced by Sport: How India–Pakistan Hostility Is Being Kept Alive

Hindi Version: https://rakeshinsightfulgaze.blogspot.com/2026/02/blog-post_9.html

Are India and Pakistan truly enemy nations, or have they been made to look like enemies so consistently that even sport is now treated as an extension of war? My answer remains no. They are not natural enemies. They are political adversaries by design, and in recent years, that design has been made easier, louder, and more profitable, especially since India chose to govern through permanent confrontation.

To understand how this hostility is sustained, it helps to look not only at terrorism and geopolitics, but also at symbolism. Few things reflect India–Pakistan relations more clearly than cricket. What was once rivalry has increasingly been turned into refusal: refusing to play, refusing visas, refusing dialogue, and declaring the other side an “enemy nation.” This shift did not happen organically. It hardened after Narendra Modi came to power, when Pakistan stopped being a difficult neighbor and became a permanent political prop.

Before this era, India’s posture however tense left space for engagement. Cricket matches were played even after wars. Cultural exchange existed even after attacks. The idea was simple: governments may disagree, but people should not be permanently poisoned against each other. That line has now been crossed. Sport, which once acted as a pressure valve, is increasingly weaponized to reinforce hostility. When teams refuse to play or politicians label cricketing opponents as representatives of an “enemy state,” the message is not about security. It is about identity politics.

This framing matters because it feeds directly into a larger pattern that has existed for decades. When Israeli athletes were killed at the 1972 Munich Olympics, Israel treated the act as a direct attack on the state and responded with targeted revenge through Mossad. There was no attempt to turn the tragedy into spectacle or ideology. Accountability was pursued, quietly and ruthlessly.

After September 11, 2001, the United States took a different route. Instead of a narrow pursuit of perpetrators, it built a permanent security economy. Institutions like the Transportation Security Administration were created, defense budgets ballooned, and wars were launched that served strategic and corporate interests more than justice. Terrorism became an opportunity one that reshaped policy, budgets, and global power.

Then came Mumbai in 2008. The attacks lasted three days and killed civilians from multiple nations, including India, the United States, and Israel. Investigations concluded that the attackers belonged to Lashkar-e-Taiba, operating from Pakistan. Yet this time there was neither revenge nor transformation. There were no sanctions. No dismantling of infrastructure. No serious cost imposed on the Pakistani state.

It is widely accepted among analysts that an operation of such sophistication could not have been executed without tolerance or protection from elements within the Pakistan Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence. But confronting that reality would have disrupted strategic arrangements that many external powers rely on. So the attack was managed, not resolved.

This is where India’s current posture becomes important. Instead of recognizing that the India–Pakistan conflict has long been useful to external powers arms sellers, strategic brokers, and geopolitical managers the present leadership has embraced the enemy narrative wholeheartedly. Pakistan is no longer just a problem to be managed; it is an identity marker. Cricket, cinema, language, and even food become battlegrounds. Every refusal to play, every shouted slogan, every symbolic ban feeds a cycle that benefits no ordinary citizen.

And that is the core tragedy. A divided South Asia cannot become an economic heavyweight. An India constantly mobilized against an external enemy spends more on weapons and less on welfare. A Pakistan permanently framed as a threat remains dependent on foreign military and economic support. Western defense industries profit. Political leaders gain loyalty through fear. Corporations gain markets through instability.

The people of India and Pakistan lose.

Cricket should have been the reminder that rivalry does not require hatred. Instead, it has been turned into proof of enmity. This shift is not accidental. It is the result of leadership that prefers polarization over statecraft, symbolism over substance, and perpetual conflict over long-term prosperity.

So is Pakistan an enemy nation of India? No. But by treating it as one at every level, political, cultural, and even sporting, India’s current leadership has made it easier for others to keep this conflict alive. And as long as that continues, the war will not need bullets. It will sustain itself on narrative alone, while those far from the stadiums and borders quietly count their profits.