NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF

Cricket should not be a scapegoat for politics

Should cricket be held hostage to politics? Should India and Pakistan stop playing cricket merely because politicians on both sides of the border are upping the ante?

Looking at an India-Pakistan confrontation on the cricket field purely from the game's perspective, I believe that the biggest sufferer in case the two teams stop playing each other will be cricket lovers all over.

For there is no doubting that an India-Pakistan cricket match-up brings together all that is best about sub-continental cricket. It is magic, it provides -- as a review of past tours and face-offs will indicate, some of the best cricket seen anywhere in the world.

I mean, would you willingly forego the sight of a charged-up Wasim Akram racing in, new ball in the clutch of his long fingers, with Sachin Tendulkar at the business end of the crease?

Yes, there are tensions, both on-field and off, when the two teams have met in the past. But the main reason lies in the fact that the two teams do not play often enough against one another -- thus, there has been a lot at stake in each single game, since neither side knows when the next chance to go one up will come their way. This particular source of tension can obviously be relieved as and when the teams begin facing each other on a regular basis.

And such regular meetings, what is more, will also take the edge away from the hostility fans of the two teams exhibit today.

At a general level, there can be no denying the fact that sports and games should remain beyond the narrow boundaries of political gamesmanship masquerading as nationalism, patriotism. There is enough disharmony in the political world today, who needs more of the same on the sporting arena?

As the cricket boards of the two countries are engaged in finalising the itinerary of Pakistan's projected five-Test tour of India, there is a groundswell of opposition to the tour itself. Why? It is being argued that the Pakistan government is fomenting trouble in Kashmir, that it is engaged in a proxy war against India, that it funds, trains and arms terrorists and infiltrates them onto Indian soil, in order to cause havoc.

Further, the recent testing of Ghauri, then the tests and counter-tests of nuclear weapons by both nations, are being held up as an argument against the holding of a cricket tour.

Accepting it all -- the terrorists, the trouble in Kashmir, the proxy war, everything -- is the calling off of the tour the answer? Will it solve the problem, will it stop the proxy war, will it mean that terrorists will no longer infiltrate into Indian soil?

No, goes the counter argument. But when such acts are being encouraged by our neighbouring country, why should we then meet them on the field of play? When India's diplomats are beaten up in Islamabad, is a cricket match between the two countries really necessary?

The answer to that lies in a counter-question. What are we doing about this proxy war? What is our government doing? An Indian diplomat was assaulted on Pakistani soil -- did we withdraw our diplomatic corps as a result, did we sever diplomatic relations with that country? Pakistan-trained terrorists are inflicting havoc on Indian soil -- did we as a result declare officially that a state of war, covert or overt, exists between the two nations? With all the noise and heat and dust of nuclear and missle testing, have we stopped issuing visas for Indian citizens travelling to Pakistan, or blocked Pakistan citizens coming to India?

All the above questions can be summed up in one question: what is the Indian government's official stand on Pakistan?

The last I heard, both prime ministers have been extending invitations to each other for talks, for discussions and negotiation and dialogue. If this is the official position, then I fail to understand why the Board of Cricket for Control in India is expected, by way of calling off the tour, to make a political point that the politicians and government of the day are themselves unwilling, or unable, to make.

Why should sports carry the can for politics, for diplomacy?

Think back to the seventies, when India, as a nation, officially protested Israel's stand on the Palestine question. At that time, it severed diplomatic links, it stopped its citizens from visiting that country, it embargoed trade with Israel. It took a public stand on that country's actions. At that time, India refused among other things to play Israel in the final of the Davis Cup -- thus abdicating its best ever chance to win that honour.

That refusal to engage in a sporting encounter with the Israelis was a move in keeping with the government's overall policy of the time -- and thus, it was widely welcomed, no one had any quarrel with it. But today, we have no such firm policy with regards to Pakistan -- where then lies the wisdom of looking only at the planned cricket tour?

Or take South Africa, for that matter. As long as the Indian government took a stand on that country's apartheid policy, we did not have any ties -- political, sporting, whatever -- with it. Once the political climate changed, we were the first to host them on our soil. The point here is that sports is not a stand-alone, it has to reflect the prevailing ethos of the day, and today's political ethos has nothing in it to inhibit a tour of this country by Pakistan's national cricket team.

Going off at a tangent here, what of Australia? That was one of the first countries to condemn India's nuclear tests. Subsequently, it withdrew its diplomats from Indian soil -- which, in global-speak, means 'I don't want to have anything to do with you'. Will India now play Australia at cricket, given this situation? Should it?

Back to my main argument, which is that using sport -- in this case, cricket -- alone as the vehicle to register your protest smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. Hypocrisy of the kind practised by England, say, against South Africa. Having banned SA on the apartheid question, England then went on to invite leading cricketers from that country -- the Pollock brothers, Barry Richards, Garth Le Roux, Vincent Van Der Bijl among others -- to take part in its own county circuit, using their star appeal to attract the sponsors and spectators its own mediocre players could not draw to the stadia.

Banning a cricket tour, while permitting regular diplomatic, political and trade exchange, smacks of similar hypocrisy. By all means, if the situation justifies it, let us cut all ties with Pakistan, at every level. But not selectively, not at your own convenience.

While on the subject of selective bans, one other point deserves mention. When India refused to play Israel at tennis, offers had come for the event to be staged at neutral venues. The Indian government was firm -- no means no, it said then, the venue is irrelevant, there will be no links whatsoever with Israel, of any sort, at any venue.

That is obviously not the case here. Much is being made of how the two nations haven't played each other on home soil for over a decade now -- but what of that? India and Pakistan have met and played in almost every other cricketing venue, they have even played the 1996 World Cup quarterfinal on Indian soil, for two years now they have gone head on (not in a triangular or other multi-national competition, but in direct face-off) in Toronto, and now they have agreed to a similar annual exercise in Sharjah as well, starting next year.

What kind of point, then, are we making by saying in effect that we will break bread with you, but not at our own table?

There is one other reason why I think the planned tour of India by Pakistan should proceed on schedule. Right now, our minds are full of terrorists, of nuclear tests and tensions and Kashmir and all the rest of it. I believe such flashpoints should be dealt with at the highest level, behind the scenes -- it should not be made the subject for bazaar gossip. The two governments need to meet, to talk -- hard and tough, if need be, but constructively -- to solve all outstanding issues, to roll back the proxy war, to take Kashmir off the agenda once for all.

And while these subjects are being dealt with at the governmental level -- which is the only level you can deal with them at -- a five-Test tour, pitting the best talent available in the two countries against each other, gives you and me something else to think about. A better, less harmful, channel for our energies.

Unlike 'professional' nations such as Australia, England, and South Africa, India and Pakistan play its cricket with flair and with flourish, we play from the heart. And it is from the heart, then, that I say now, let's play, on schedule.