India vs Pakistan T20: The Handshake Row + What Captains Said

The biggest subject of discussion leading up to India versus Pakistan in Colombo hasn’t been a yorker, a wrong’un with spin, or a comparison of players—it’s been a handshake.

This “handshake issue” has returned because, since the rather fraught Asia Cup of last year, the teams haven’t treated pre- and post-match greetings as something automatic; and whenever a normal India–Pakistan event is brought into question, it immediately gains a symbolic importance.

On Saturday, the two captains received the same straightforward question – would you shake hands? – and both gave a similar answer: not at this time. One answered with humour, the other with diplomacy, and each attempted to steer the discussion back to the cricket.

That is where the importance of this story lies. The handshake is performance; the captains’ statements are strategy – concerning pressure, public image, and preventing a 40-over match from being overshadowed by everything else.

In Detail

What this handshake issue is (and why it is again front-page news)

In nearly all international matches, a handshake is expected: captains at the toss, teams after the game, a clear indication that the competition remained within the field of play, even when it was intense.

This issue exists as that practice has not been consistent in the recent India–Pakistan encounters, with the Asia Cup last year frequently cited as the point where things changed – a situation where the teams did not follow the usual handshake procedure and hostility became part of the broadcast.

Therefore, when the World Cup fixture list once more pairs India against Pakistan, the “will they/won’t they” question is too tempting for the cameras to resist. It is simple material, it creates instant debate, and it easily fits a rivalry which already attracts attention as naturally as a magnet does metal.

The issue, however, is that it also carries the danger of dominating the match discussion – making a cricket fixture a judgement of actions instead of skill.

Why captains dislike this question (even though they understand why it is asked)

Captains do not mind questions about pressure. They dislike questions that create pressure they are unable to manage.

A handshake question puts them in a position where they cannot win:

• Say yes, and you are suddenly accountable for a political-symbolic event which has nothing to do with cover drives.
• Say no, and you are seen as making tensions worse before the first ball.
• Remain undecided, and you retain control – at the expense of continuing the story.

That’s why the two captains chose the third option: delay, deflect, and return to cricket.

What Salman Ali Agha said:

spirit first, decision “up to them”

Pakistan captain Salman Ali Agha’s message was consistent across all formats: do not make the handshake more significant than the game, and do not make Pakistan the one to decide what India does.

His most significant statement was, essentially, a reset – he said the match ought to be played “in the true spirit of the game,” then added that everything else was for India to determine.

That is a captain speaking as someone who understands the attention he will receive. He did not object. He did not beg. He left the problem to the other side’s choice and presented his own position as pro-sportsmanship without turning it into a conflict.

Agha also went beyond the handshake when asked about the greater context of the rivalry. He acknowledged Pakistan’s World Cup record against India is not good, then adopted the mindset of a practical cricketer: you cannot change the past, but you can learn from it – because every match is a new day.

This is more than a quotation; it is the mood in the dressing room. Pakistan’s best performance in these matches comes when the team is calm, not agitated. Agha’s words indicate he is attempting to maintain his team in that condition.

What Suryakumar Yadav said:

humour, impatience, and “we’re here to play cricket”

India captain Suryakumar Yadav’s response had two elements: a gentle joke to reduce the drama, and a more firm objection to the idea that the handshake ought to be the main topic.

When pressed, he told reporters to wait – “wait 24 hours” – then made his point: why are you discussing this, when the teams are here to play cricket? He finished with the sentence which travelled furthest: “Eat well and go to sleep.”

There is a reason that sentence was effective. It is a captain refusing to be drawn into a symbolic debate on the evening before a match which already has a lot of psychological importance.

He also left the option open – deliberately. He did not say yes. He did not say no. He made it a “tomorrow” decision, which is captain-language for: we will do what we decide is best at the time, not what you want a headline for today.

Why “non-committal” is, in fact, a tactical choice

The fact that both captains are vague is not a lack of courage; it is control.

If you commit publicly, you lose flexibility:

• What if the match is delayed and the toss becomes a rushed, chaotic moment?
• What if an official rule is altered?
• What if a player does something spontaneous which goes against what the captain said?

By remaining non-committal, both sides protect themselves from turning a pre-match moment into a needless controversy during the match.

It also helps to maintain focus where the captains want it: roles, plans, and the first six overs – as in a Colombo World Cup game, the powerplay is more likely to determine the momentum than a gesture at the toss.

What the captains’ words revealed – more important than the handshake issue

Although the handshake matter has been the main news story, each captain used the press conference opportunity to communicate things about their cricket – some were plain, some were interesting.

Agha on Usman Tariq: supporting the “key player” while he is being looked at

Agha’s most important cricket point wasn’t about how they would bat. It was about protecting a player.

With Pakistan’s spin bowler, Usman Tariq, getting attention for his bowling style and how good he was, Agha gave him his support and called him a “key player”, making it clear that the talk wasn’t changing how Pakistan thought of him, and that he had been given permission (he mentioned being given permission two times).

That’s what a captain should do in a tournament when there’s a lot of pressure: don’t allow discussion from outside to make your player feel alone. If Tariq is essential to Pakistan’s plan for the middle of the innings, Agha wants him to bowl freely, not like someone who is trying to get approval.

It also gives an idea of Pakistan’s tactic. If your captain is publicly talking about a spinner being a key player before playing India, it generally means you’re expecting the pitch to help spin bowling and you’re planning to make the middle overs difficult for India.

Suryakumar on team selection and how the team felt: a happy mood, then a clear idea

Suryakumar used humour more than once, and this was a tactic too. Captains often set the mood in press conferences: show you are relaxed, show you are prepared, show you aren’t worried by the event.

He even turned a question about who was in the team and freshness into joking about whether Abhishek Sharma would be available – basically saying, if Pakistan want Abhishek to play, India will play him. The joke was important because it showed confidence: India aren’t keeping players back, they are choosing what team they want.

More importantly, what he said showed that India were thinking carefully about the conditions and which players would do best against the opposition – exactly what you would expect at Premadasa, where a pitch that’s been used can give a benefit to players who can change what they do and punish players who only do one thing.

Both captains, the same idea: the match is more important than “just another match”

Suryakumar admitted the clear truth that captains usually avoid: India versus Pakistan is an important event, and pressure comes with it, as they don’t play each other very often.

Agha, at the same time, tried to ignore the history and rivalry talk by using a normal tournament approach: treat it as a new match, play good cricket, and give yourselves a chance to win.

Put those two things together and you get an unusual amount of honesty from both sides: yes, it’s very important; no, they won’t allow you to decide what the emotional story will be for them.

What the handshake matter could change

on the day of the match (and what it probably won’t)

If you’re looking for a direct effect on the cricket, the handshake itself doesn’t change how the ball swings, how it spins, or how many runs are scored.

But it could affect:

• Atmosphere: the crowd reacts to symbols quickly, and that energy can affect the first over.
• Pressure from what people are saying: a “no handshake” event becomes an immediate topic that follows every important moment – appeals to the umpires, players being sent off, words spoken.
• How being disciplined is understood: even normal attacking play is understood through the rivalry when the things you see before the match seem tense.

What it probably won’t change:

• India’s plan to control overs 7–15 by changing what they do and controlling the scoring.
• Pakistan’s plan to get early wickets and then depend on spin in the middle of the innings.
• The fact that this match will be decided by how well it is done under pressure, not by whether hands meet at the toss.

In a way, the handshake matter is a mirror. It shows how much meaning fans and the media put into this match – and how hard captains work to stop that meaning from becoming a problem for the players.

The real thing to get from what the captains said

If you listen closely, both captains were saying the same thing, but in different ways:

• Agha: play in the right way, don’t worry too much about actions, and judge us by how we play the cricket.
• Suryakumar: stop looking for symbols, let us get ready, and you’ll get your answer when it’s important.

That isn’t avoiding the question. That’s leadership in a match where any extra problem costs you a ball, a run, or a decision.

Important points

• The India versus Pakistan T20 handshake matter has come up again because recent meetings didn’t follow the usual pre/post-match greeting, making the action a story again.
• Salman Ali Agha remained diplomatic: he said the match should be played in the right spirit and the handshake was up to India.
• Suryakumar Yadav avoided the question with humour and pushed the focus back to cricket, telling reporters to “wait” and joking, “Eat well and go to sleep.”

• Aside from the handshake, Agha strongly supported spinner Usman Tariq as a “key player”, showing Pakistan’s confidence in their spin plan.
• How the cricket turns out will still depend on how well it is done – particularly the first six and the middle overs – even if the handshake event is the main thing in the time leading up to the match.

Summary

The handshake matter is loud because, in the public imagination, India versus Pakistan is never just a match. But the captains’ answers made one thing clear: neither side wants symbols to be the main event.

Agha said it was about playing in the right spirit and left the decision with India. Suryakumar refused to give the drama what it wanted and treated it like a problem to be dealt with later. Between those two positions is the truth of this rivalry in 2026: the attention is unavoidable, the stakes are high, and the smartest thing to do is to keep your players’ minds on the next ball – not the next news story.