Pakistan’s “Pro-Bangladesh” Posturing: Opportunistic Politics Disguised as Principle

In South Asia, cricket has never been an innocent game. It is a stage for power projection, a diplomatic tool, and a carrier of political messages. In the recent ICC controversy surrounding Bangladesh, Pakistan’s role is therefore not one of friendship, but another display of its familiar opportunistic politics.

When 14 countries voted against Bangladesh in an ICC board decision, Pakistan stood alone in voting in Bangladesh’s favour, attempting to elevate itself to a moral high ground. Many are portraying this position as brave or friendly. In reality, it is not solidarity with Bangladesh, but a calculated attempt to seize an opportunity to take a stand against India.

Pakistan has long used cricket politics as a platform for performative posturing. Wherever there is an opportunity to oppose India, Pakistan suddenly begins to speak the language of justice. Bangladesh’s issue is secondary here. The primary objective is to pressure the ICC and India, and to remain relevant in international discussions.

Pakistan now claims that the ICC is following a policy of double standards. The question is where was this moral outrage when Pakistan itself unconditionally accepted the benefits of the “hybrid model”? When Pakistan was allowed to play its World Cup matches in Colombo while the tournament was hosted in the United States and the West Indies, no talk of fairness was heard.

Today, on Bangladesh’s issue, that same Pakistan is speaking of principles but only in words. By floating the threat of boycotting the World Cup, Pakistan wants to stay in the headlines, yet it is not prepared to make any real sacrifice. Because Pakistan knows that genuine protest comes with punishment, damage, and long-term costs and that is a price it is unwilling to pay.

If Pakistan’s position were truly principled, it would have withdrawn from the World Cup just as Bangladesh did. But it will not. Because Pakistan’s support is not driven by emotion or conviction—it is driven entirely by self-interest. As long as words bring benefits, words will be spoken. When sacrifice becomes necessary, Pakistan retreats.

This is not new behaviour. Pakistan is using Bangladesh as a strategic token to signal opposition to India, to present itself as a moral actor, while keeping its own interests intact.

For Bangladesh, the message should be clear. In international cricket politics, verbal support is no guarantee. The language of friendship that Pakistan uses is underpinned by calculated self-interest, not a willingness to bear costs.

Pakistan will not burn its own house for Bangladesh. It will act only where there is benefit, visibility, and an opportunity to harden its stance against India. Failure to understand this reality will only lead Bangladesh to repeat emotional miscalculations.

True friendship is tested not by words, but by sacrifice. And on that test, Pakistan is not yet willing to even sit for the exam.