By Admin 
The physics Nobel laureate Richard Feynman famously said, “If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it.” You could say the same about Indo-Pak cricket too. Did India carry away an imaginary trophy from an imaginary tournament where Tilak Varma made a brilliant imaginary half-century?
Will Operation Sindoor continue with the women’s World Cup (India play Pakistan in Colombo on Sunday)? Will skipper Harmanpreet Kaur also be co-opted in the war effort and be expected to donate her match fees to the army like Suryakumar Yadav did?
If India ever lose to Pakistan in any sport anywhere at any time again, will it mean a setback to Operation Sindoor which seems to be an on-going war unlikely to earn President Trump even an imaginary Nobel Prize?
Should Pakistan’s Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, told he would not be welcome as a trophy-giver, have respected his other hat as the President of the Asian Cricket Council and stood aside, allowing someone else to do the honours?
Or could he have left the trophy on a plinth at a safe distance from himself so Suryakumar could have picked it up on his own?
Couldn’t this whole thing have been worked out before the final so it would not cause such ill-will and make Asian cricket a laughing stock?
Will the trophy and medals be couriered to the Indian team?
Did India insult Naqvi, Pakistan, skipper Salman Ali Agha, the game of cricket, sport in general, mankind, some of the above, or none of the above?
Did Pakistan insult India, politicians, Donald Trump (who claimed to have ended the war but couldn’t help Pakistan win the Asia Cup), cricket, some of the above, or none of the above?
Do we believe Suryakumar when he says the team had decided not to take the trophy and that “no one told us to do it”, especially when the cricket board secretary has said the same thing? Who is supporting whom?
Can Suryakumar or any Indian player contracted to the cricket board afford to have a voice of their own?
Is it possible that the crowd was better behaved than the players, even if the strings were being pulled elsewhere?
Should that mildest of fast bowlers and gentlest of men Jasprit Bumrah have imitated the plane-crash gesture of Pakistan’s Haris Rauf when he yorked him?
Should the Indian Prime Minister have equated a victory on a sports field where only egos are damaged, pride is injured and Trophy hopes killed with one in a war with real casualties and dire consequences?
Should India have left the on-field annoyances on the field, and shown themselves to be the bigger team, better on and off the field, too big to bother about whether the trophy was awarded by the Interior Minister of Pakistan or Mickey Mouse?
If Pakistan win any International Cricket Council tournament anywhere, will they refuse to receive the trophy from the President of the ICC because his father is the Home Minister of India?
Do we tell ourselves that proxy wars on the cricket field are preferable to real wars (a point this column made last week), and take consolation from that?
Should we continue to play Pakistan knowing that since the players have been co-opted into the nationalistic cause by both sides, cricket will never be the focus?
How can the honour of a country be tied to performance in a sporting event?
How much greater will the pressure be on the Indian players next time they step onto a cricket field (and not just against Pakistan) when losing might be seen as anti-national?
Can we accept that patriots lose cricket matches too?
With so much riding on the game, is it possible for AI to manipulate the telecast where the result in one country is different from the result in another, so honour is maintained?
Next time will both teams carry their own Board-approved trophy-giver (or their holograms)? Like the captains had their own interviewers at the toss?
Does any of the above really matter?