We had been warned against expecting any better, but we did. We took every delay in the decision-making as a sign of hope. We dismissed union sports minister Uma Bharati's strong words as the rantings of an inveterate hard-liner. We comforted ourselves with the knowledge that the final decision rested with more sagacious authority. But we were just being naïve and stupid. Now that the decision has come, from the august office of the prime minister, no less, we have no right to disappointment. Our optimism was a pathetic exercise in self-delusion, and we deserved no better. But we still can't help being naïve and stupid. Uninitiated as we are in the art of high diplomacy and methods of counter-insurgency, we still can't help asking some simple questions. Will someone explain to us how playing cricket against Pakistan is detrimental to the national interest? Or conversely, how not playing cricket will help India's diplomatic offensive against Pakistan or contain the militant violence in Kashmir?

The prime minister's office has steadfastly promoted the word "engagement" as one of the few positives to emerge from the Agra summit with the Pakistan president. It is utterly baffling why the rules of engagement don't apply to cricket. What message is the Indian government trying to send Pakistan? You stop sending your militants to Kashmir and we will send our cricketers to Pakistan? As an international barter, could anything more hopeless and ill-conceived?

I am deeply wary of pseudo-romantic slogans. "Cricket for peace" is a nice line in an ad campaign which does not work in the real world. Wasim Akram will perhaps cherish the spontaneous standing ovation to his team in Chennai as the moment of life but Krish Srikkanth, who was roughed up on the field on India's last tour of Pakistan, will have different sentiments. But let's not overestimate the powers of cricket, even in the subcontinent. It's only a game. It can move millions of fans. But it can't wipe away 50 years of mistrust and bitterness. By the same logic, this denial of cricketing relations will not force Pakistan to see Kashmir through our eyes.

While the decision does nothing for stability in the subcontinent, it threatens to destabilise international cricket. It makes a mockery of the Asian Cricket Council, of which India was the prime mover. The Asian Test Championship was perhaps always a flawed concept and does not warrant exaggerated mourning, but India's refusal to play Pakistan derails the ICC Test Championship. If the rest of the cricket world now regards India as a rogue nation, she will have only herself to blame.

The sports minister once rightfully dismissed cricket as being non-consequential before national interest. Is our nation now so bereft of ideas that it has been compelled to use cricket as an offensive diplomatic tool? We may be naïve and stupid, but we have a right to expect better.

Sambit Bal is editor of Wisden online in India

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd