Chennai, Feb 22: The cliche says: politics and sports do not mix. Politics is supposed to be the arena where cynical men and women engage their equally cynical rivals in insincere and manipulative manoeuvres. Sports has always been deemed to be the domain of honourable men and women who pit their skills against equally honourable rivals and once the contest is over, they shake hands in a gentlemanly manner. But sport does generate emotions; and politicians cannot keep away from any process or activity that cranks up mass emotions and sentiments. Governments and politicians all over the world have always sought to control and manipulate sporting events and sportspersons to make political statements. And not to be left behind is the advertiser who is always on the lookout for a hero. The sporting arena is the only place where authentic heroes get anointed. The advertiser, armed with a fat chequebook, is only too willing to enlist the hero to endorse this or that product. Sports events and contests all over the world are now susceptible to the advertiser's convenience and needs. Nowhere is there a greater and more explosive convergence of sports, emotions, politics and advertising than in cricket in India, especially in its one-day format. And as pop sociologists have told us, cricket (apart from Hindi films) is the only activity that manufactures emotional bonding on a pan-Indian scale. When rooting for the Indian cricket team, you forget caste, class and creed. It was only a matter of time before the politician came to craft a nationalistic veneer on to this cricket-centric excitement. Ironically, it is the multi-national advertiser who stumbled upon the gold mine of nationalistic fervour that a cricket series can generate, especially in the subcontinent. When it comes to an India-Pakistan cricket clash, the game becomes the instrument for advancing rival ideas about Indian nationalism. Those who prefer a pluralistic interpretation of Indian nationalism cite the Indian cricket team as a perfect embodiment of the "unity in diversity" theme. Remember that moving television advertisement — "issued in public interest" — featuring members of the Indian cricket team, representing all religions and regions and yet submerging their ethnic identities when they don that cricket cap? Because cricket is seen as an instrument for validating Indian pluralism, it is only natural that those who want to deny this strengthening in popular imagination of a secular fabric insist on converting cricket into a test of Indian patriotism and nationalism. The Shiv Sena for long has been opposed to any cricket ties between India and Pakistan because its politics enjoins casting Pakistan as our great enemy. Opposition to cricket ties with Pakistan reinforces the Shiv Sena's cultivated anti-Muslim image. When the Pakistan cricket team was to visit India in January 1999, the Shiv Sena boss, Bal Thackeray, saw considerable political merit in opposing the tour. He argued, rather ingeniously, that the Pakistani cricket team's visit would bolster and deepen the activities of the Inter-Services Intelligence in India. The BJP, an alliance partner in Maharashtra, could not protest too much. Mr. Thackeray even had the support of the RSS brass. "We can live without cricket" was the RSS advice to the Vajpayee Government. And when the Shiv Sainiks vandalised the Mumbai office of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the then Chief Minister, Manohar Joshi, looked the other way. Finally, the Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, had to send his Home Minister, L.K. Advani, to plead with Mr. Thackeray to desist from further embarrassing India in front of the global community. After the Kargil conflict, the BJP leadership also came to subscribe to the Shiv Sena's views. The bonhomie and normality that the India-Pakistan cricketing ties would convey did not suit the National Democratic Alliance Government's new political rhetoric. Indian nationalism was redefined as a narrow, sectarian concept, especially after 9/11. The calibrated confrontation with Pakistan after the December 13, 2001, attack on Parliament ruled out any cricket interaction with Pakistan. As the national mood became more and more hawkish, the deshbhakts were itching for a showdown with Pakistan. But since the Americans would not permit the aar-paar ki ladaai (the decisive war), the leaders in the two countries gradually came to see cricket as the metaphorical surrogate for the hand-to-hand combat their soldiers were denied. The men who presided over the two countries came to look upon their cricketers as the gladiators who would redeem national honour and pride. A cricket victory or defeat became a matter of national machismo. When Sourav Ganguly and his men got the better of Waqar Younis' team in the 2003 World Cup, it was V-Day all over India. Soon Pakistan was looking to get even and was challenging India to play more cricket matches; Pervez Musharraf even taunted: "You (India) are afraid of losing." Our leaders are now caught in a web of their own making. Since the Kargil days, they have instigated an anti-Pakistan mood in the country and have reaped considerable political dividend. Now, all of a sudden, the Vajpayee Government wants to change gears in its policy towards Pakistan and has agreed in principle to an Indian cricket team's visit to the country. But suddenly its political managers discovered that the very mood the Vajpayee regime instigated over the last few years might not countenance the India-Pakistan cricket normality. Mr. Thackeray was reported to have sent word to the Mumbai-based cricketers that he would not be too pleased were they to go Pakistan. The political managers had a veritable problem on their hand. Would it backfire on the ruling party should there be an "incident" during the Indian team's visit? After all, these are election days. Would the "feel good factor" vanish into thin air if India were to lose in Pakistan? Would not our national pride get slighted? Can the visiting team's itinerary not be re-worked so as to minimise political ramifications back home? These were valid political concerns of over-active political managers. At a high-level meeting, on February 5, at the Prime Minister's Office in Parliament House, the three principal decision-makers — Mr. Vajpayee, Mr. Advani and Pramod Mahajan — agreed that all aspects of the cricket tour should be thoroughly re-examined. And if at this last minute we have to back out, what better excuse than "security" and "safety" of the cricket team? It was a collective decision but had to be necessarily routed through the Home Ministry, the putative custodian of internal security. To be fair, it is not that cynical political leaders manufactured all this belated concern over the players' security — it has been known for some years that Sachin Tendulkar and Ganguly are on the Lashker-e-Taiba's hit list. And who can guarantee the players' security when attempts have been made on even General Musharraf's life? Islamabad can give all the reassuring commitments to providing foolproof security for the Indian cricket team, but does the Pakistani Government's writ run all over Pakistan? Any jihadi group would be tempted take a pot-shot at an Indian cricketer, just for the heck of making a statement, be it against Gen. Musharraf or against India. All these were, and remain, valid questions. On the other hand, the Vajpayee Government had to reckon with the powerful counter-pull of the "international sponsors" who have already bought into the India-Pakistan cricket series. The cricket administrators, headed by Jagmohan Dalmiya, can neither easily ignore this big money nor the discipline of the international cricket regime. Cricket, like any other international game, can no longer be entirely controlled by national governments. But it is just as well that the Vajpayee Government also happens to be friendly with the man with the chequebook, be he a corporate donor or a cricket sponsor. The cricket tour to Pakistan willy-nilly became a matter of negotiation between those who (the diplomat and the advertiser) wanted it to go ahead and those who felt uncomfortable about unpredictable political ramifications. The security agencies have been pressed to tailor their