The Hindu : Merely a game

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jul 30, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

Merely a game

SPORT AND POLITICS have always mixed and the Greeks recognised this almost three millennia ago — by insulating sport from politically generated conflict. The ancient Olympics were accompanied by a truce, which was ratified by all the Greek states. The safety of participants and spectators travelling to the games was guaranteed and armies were prohibited from disrupting the games. Ever since the Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, made his "hand of friendship" offer in April, the question of resuming bilateral India-Pakistan cricket has come to the fore. In June, Pakistan's President, General Pervez Musharraf, proposed that cricket ties should be restored; in a recent meeting in London with a former president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, he reiterated the suggestion. The proposal by cricket administrators in the two countries to renew junior and `A' team competition later this year is a welcome step, but any true revival of sporting ties must foreground the resumption of Tests and One Day Internationals between the senior sides of the two countries. The two countries have not played a Test series since 1999 and, according to the ten-year plan of the International Cricket Council, Pakistan is scheduled to tour India in February 2004. Post-Kargil, the Indian Government has not allowed bilateral sporting contact with Pakistan. Recently, the External Affairs Minister, Yashwant Sinha, noted that cricketing ties would resume when the "time is right." Such hesitancy is unnecessary considering that the time has been judged "right" by both countries to resume ambassadorial relations, the Delhi-Lahore bus service, trade relations, and, of course, people-to-people contacts.

If playing Pakistan is purely a moral issue, then the distinction made between bilateral and multilateral events does not make much sense. It was on moral grounds that India cut off all sporting contact with South Africa in the apartheid era, forfeiting in the process the 1974 Davis Cup final. Cricket provokes passion in the two countries like no other sport, but the Government, media and commercial interests must share responsibility for transforming a game into machismo, if not worse. While players on both sides have, traditionally, got along well on and off the field, this cannot always be said for the fans. For too many years now, cricket in the two countries has carried with it the baggage of hyper-nationalism. Cricket hooliganism is a growing problem in the sub-continent, but it might be erroneous to assume that India-Pakistan matches will result in violence. The India-Pakistan Test series in 1999 provoked sharply mixed reactions. A sporting Chennai crowd did the country proud by giving the victorious Pakistani team a standing ovation; but some days later in Kolkata, the stadium had to be cleared of hooligans. However, hooliganism is by no means exclusive to India-Pakistan games. Just as freedom of speech and expression cannot be compromised under the pressure of threats, sporting encounters cannot be cancelled for fear that proceedings might be disrupted.

Bilateral cricket is necessary for sharpening playing skills, showcasing talent, testing mettle, and setting up exciting sporting moments. It is indeed a shame that the careers of Sachin Tendulkar and Wasim Akram — arguably the greatest batsman and the greatest fast bowler of the contemporary era — have coincided with an unhappy chapter in India-Pakistan relations. It is cricket itself which has lost. The outpouring of goodwill in India for the little Pakistani girl, Noor Fatima, has shown how ordinary people feel. What must be appreciated, in the final analysis, is that cricket is merely a game — although it is likely that, on hearing this, a million voices will rise in chorus in the sub-continent to add, `but what a game!'

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion