- News>
- Newspapers
Make cricket, not war: The Indian Express
London, Feb 11: For some years now, the absence of India-Pakistan cricket has been the hole in the heart of the world game. It deprives cricket-lovers of an attractive, exciting fixture and it undermines the subcontinent`s claim to be the game`s progressive new power house. More importantly, it is a constant reminder of the abnormality and antagonism that have characterised India-Pakistan relations and sometimes seems to suggest that this is an unchangeable state of affairs. After all, if the tw
London, Feb 11: For some years now, the absence of India-Pakistan cricket has been the hole in the heart of the world game. It deprives cricket-lovers of an attractive, exciting fixture and it undermines the subcontinent’s claim to be the game’s progressive new power house. More importantly, it is a constant reminder of the abnormality and antagonism that have characterised India-Pakistan relations and sometimes seems to suggest that this is an unchangeable state of affairs. After all, if the two countries can’t even play cricket together, are they likely to be able to sustain a political dialogue that will require addressing much thornier issues?
But can cricket between India and Pakistan ever be anything other than a case of “war minus the shooting”? That the coming series will in some measure fulfil that grim function seems inevitable. To what extent it can play a more positive role depends on the actions of all those involved — cricketers, administrators, sponsors, broadcasters, politicians, the media in general and, most significantly, the cricket-watching public.
It’s unwise to expect too much from sport. Take US-Soviet encounters in athletics, boxing or basketball during the Cold War. Despite Olympic boycotts in the ’80s, for the most part they were eager to play each other. Although these contests often came adorned with platitudes about peaceful co-existence, their impact on the public in both countries was to re-enforce superpower rivalry and national chauvinism. Commentators routinely attributed their own side’s victory to the superiority of its social system. Sport provided a dramatic proxy for the US-Soviet struggle, a relatively harmless accoutrement to the proxy wars being fought across the developing world. Cricket will not be the agent of an enduring peace between India and Pakistan. And if we assign it too much significance we make it easier for political leaders to evade their responsibilities. The spectacle becomes a substitute for the deeper discussion that is necessary to build such a peace. The cricket should therefore be seen as one among many confidence-building measures that must run alongside political negotiations that are bound to be protracted.
There are dangers and opportunities. In the past, India-Pakistan cricket has been used as a national loyalty test against Indian Muslims; and one way or another the Hindutva forces will seek to shape the meaning of this contest to their own communal ends. More insidiously, the contest can foster an unthinking nationalist zeal that’s at odds with the spirit of compromise and humility necessary to move the peace process forward. A great Indian victory may bolster a mood of over-confidence, the notion that there is little need to make substantial concessions to the other side as Pakistan is weak.
Since the Indian cricketers’ last full tour of Pakistan in 1989, the face of India itself has been transformed by neo-liberal economic policies and the rise of the Sangh Parivar in both government and civil society. It will be revealing to see how “shining India” takes victory or defeat in Pakistan. Across the border, General Musharraf has a huge vested interest in the series unfolding without incident. The security measures are likely to be extreme. While neither side would accept anything less, the militarised atmosphere is never conducive to a relaxed game of cricket. Sport may come to seem less like a mirror of emergent south Asian harmony than a besieged oasis in an endless “war against terror”.
The media should take a conscious decision to swear off the war and battle metaphors. They have to remind themselves and the public that cricket’s delight, its redemptive essence, lies in its triviality. The kind of sensationalism found in some reporting on Wasim Akram’s coaching Irfan Pathan has to be avoided and, when it occurs, condemned. People on both sides need to reconsider their definitions of victory and defeat. The winner-take-all ethic promoted by neo-liberal economics is particularly inapposite when it comes to India-Pakistan relations. Let’s take care to respect one of cricket’s most civilised traditions — the draw.
Most importantly, it should be stressed that the intensity of this sporting rivalry derives as much from the common cricket culture that unites the two countries as from the history that divides them.
And what of the cricket? Will it ever be left to be just cricket? That’s a utopian hope. For the foreseeable future, cricket will be politically contested terrain. Those who want the cricket to assist rather than retard the current peace process have to be equally pro-active.
Finally, there will be more than a few of us committed neutrals following India’s tour of Pakistan throughout the global cricket community. We’re anticipating the series as eagerly and will follow it as avidly as the most partisan nationalist on either side of the border. But I suspect we’ll be able to enjoy it more. That’s something to think about.
It’s unwise to expect too much from sport. Take US-Soviet encounters in athletics, boxing or basketball during the Cold War. Despite Olympic boycotts in the ’80s, for the most part they were eager to play each other. Although these contests often came adorned with platitudes about peaceful co-existence, their impact on the public in both countries was to re-enforce superpower rivalry and national chauvinism. Commentators routinely attributed their own side’s victory to the superiority of its social system. Sport provided a dramatic proxy for the US-Soviet struggle, a relatively harmless accoutrement to the proxy wars being fought across the developing world. Cricket will not be the agent of an enduring peace between India and Pakistan. And if we assign it too much significance we make it easier for political leaders to evade their responsibilities. The spectacle becomes a substitute for the deeper discussion that is necessary to build such a peace. The cricket should therefore be seen as one among many confidence-building measures that must run alongside political negotiations that are bound to be protracted.
There are dangers and opportunities. In the past, India-Pakistan cricket has been used as a national loyalty test against Indian Muslims; and one way or another the Hindutva forces will seek to shape the meaning of this contest to their own communal ends. More insidiously, the contest can foster an unthinking nationalist zeal that’s at odds with the spirit of compromise and humility necessary to move the peace process forward. A great Indian victory may bolster a mood of over-confidence, the notion that there is little need to make substantial concessions to the other side as Pakistan is weak.
Since the Indian cricketers’ last full tour of Pakistan in 1989, the face of India itself has been transformed by neo-liberal economic policies and the rise of the Sangh Parivar in both government and civil society. It will be revealing to see how “shining India” takes victory or defeat in Pakistan. Across the border, General Musharraf has a huge vested interest in the series unfolding without incident. The security measures are likely to be extreme. While neither side would accept anything less, the militarised atmosphere is never conducive to a relaxed game of cricket. Sport may come to seem less like a mirror of emergent south Asian harmony than a besieged oasis in an endless “war against terror”.
The media should take a conscious decision to swear off the war and battle metaphors. They have to remind themselves and the public that cricket’s delight, its redemptive essence, lies in its triviality. The kind of sensationalism found in some reporting on Wasim Akram’s coaching Irfan Pathan has to be avoided and, when it occurs, condemned. People on both sides need to reconsider their definitions of victory and defeat. The winner-take-all ethic promoted by neo-liberal economics is particularly inapposite when it comes to India-Pakistan relations. Let’s take care to respect one of cricket’s most civilised traditions — the draw.
Most importantly, it should be stressed that the intensity of this sporting rivalry derives as much from the common cricket culture that unites the two countries as from the history that divides them.
And what of the cricket? Will it ever be left to be just cricket? That’s a utopian hope. For the foreseeable future, cricket will be politically contested terrain. Those who want the cricket to assist rather than retard the current peace process have to be equally pro-active.
Finally, there will be more than a few of us committed neutrals following India’s tour of Pakistan throughout the global cricket community. We’re anticipating the series as eagerly and will follow it as avidly as the most partisan nationalist on either side of the border. But I suspect we’ll be able to enjoy it more. That’s something to think about.