Non-alignment as Leverage: Sri Lanka and the India-Pakistan T20 Flare-up
In South Asia cricket is not just a sport. Being the most popular sport in the region, it is often tied with politics and pride. This seemed to be the case again when tensions between Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan threatened to derail the T20 World Cup, being hosted by India and Sri Lanka.
T20 is cricket’s most profitable format. There are a lot of incentives all around to make the 2026 men’s T20 World Cup work. But, in a sign of how bad things are between South Asia’s biggest nations, Bangladesh withdrew, refusing to play matches in India on security grounds. As if this was not enough to destabilize the competition, Pakistan signaled it would boycott its February 15 group match against India in Colombo, in solidarity with Bangladesh.
The India-Pakistan match is cricket’s defining rivalry and a main reason for the tournament’s broadcast appeal. If the India-Pakistan match did not take place, not only would everyone lose a lot of money, but it would be a serious blow to the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) credibility, a clear sign that the organization can’t guarantee its biggest fixtures when regional tensions spike.
However, after back-channel discussions involving the ICC, the cricket boards of Pakistan and Bangladesh, and a phone call with Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Pakistan reversed course. According to Islamabad, Sri Lanka’s assurances were central to its decision, which Dissanayake and his foreign minister publicly welcomed.
It is easy to dismiss this as theater. It’s obvious, given the money involved, that everyone wants the match to happen, but they were just posturing, fearful of reputational damage. But, given that the dispute was highly visible and politically charged, it offers a useful window into small state diplomacy. It goes without saying that Sri Lanka can’t solve India-Pakistan tensions, or influence either to change key policies. However, what Sri Lanka did here, and can easily do in the future, was help create an off-ramp, a way for decision-makers to step back from a declared escalation without losing face.
The incident also took place at a politically convenient moment in Colombo. The National People’s Power (NPP) government has said it wants to return to a genuinely non-aligned foreign policy. NPP leaders have been critical of the foreign policy followed by successive governments from 1977, stating that in the last half-century, Sri Lanka repeatedly leaned toward one camp or another and paid for it in diplomatic backlash and reduced room for maneuver. The role Sri Lanka played in the India-Pakistan standoff showed that non-alignment could be demonstrated as practical utility, not ideological nostalgia, at a low cost.
That is the value of credible non-alignment. In South Asia, neutrality is often caricatured as fence-sitting. But performed consistently over time, non-alignment becomes a form of strategic capital, something a small state can spend when bigger players are trapped by their own domestic politics.
For both India and Pakistan, cricket is a symbol directly tied to national prowess. Once a boycott is floated, walking it back can invite accusations of weakness at home. The fact that everyone knows there are so many politically combustible elements at play is why India-Pakistan fixtures are vital to the ICC’s commercial ecosystem. This is the dilemma India, Pakistan, and the ICC face. Domestic politics push leaders toward public toughness, to a public declaration of boycotting or punishing. But commercial logic pushes toward accommodation, i.e., finding a face-saving formula and avoiding precedent.
Sri Lanka’s contribution was facilitation. In the past few years, Sri Lanka was chosen as a host for cricket tournaments because it could provide a neutral stage. It is a regional actor with working ties on all sides who can make participation appear principled rather than humiliating. Both India and Pakistan can play against each other in Sri Lanka and present the decision as a sign of respect for the tournament, the host, and the sport. That perception is not an accident. It reflects a long tradition of pragmatic non-alignment.
In his account of Ceylon’s foreign policy under the Bandaranaikes, D.M. Prasad said non-alignment in 1956-65 was a strategy tailored to the needs of a small, exposed island. Sri Lanka is a tiny island that sits mid-Indian Ocean. It is a relatively defenseless country with ports and routes that major powers will always notice. If it values sovereignty, Sri Lanka cannot be seen as a permanent partisan in regional rivalries. At the same time, it cannot afford isolation from other poles of influence. Non-alignment, Prasad said, is less about refusing choices than about preventing choices from being permanently foreclosed.
The deeper lesson is that non-alignment can generate leverage precisely because it generates options. Prasad noted that under the Bandaranaikes, a clearer neutral posture widened access to aid and trade across blocs. Even Washington’s approach shifted compared to earlier periods, while Moscow and Beijing increased support. The lesson to learn is that neutrality makes you worth courting and you gain room for maneuver. For a small state, neutrality is power.
In today’s Indian Ocean, competition is not neatly ideological, but it is unmistakable: India and China loom largest, while other external actors track maritime routes, ports, and strategic infrastructure. Sri Lanka’s choices are constrained by geography, and proximity to India. Yet it can still expand its options by maintaining functional relationships across camps, through economic deals, diplomatic credibility, and selective convening roles.
The cricket standoff shows a softer variant of the same logic. A host trusted enough to stage a politically charged match and respected enough to ask for restraint can help larger actors avoid unnecessary costs. In high-visibility disputes, leaders often do not need a grand bargain; they need an exit that does not look like retreat. Non-aligned credibility can supply that exit.
