The general’s bouncer

It always takes cricket -- even if it be a match that doesn't materialise. After all, Pakistan's Chief Executive Pervez Musharraf has been...

It always takes cricket — even if it be a match that doesn’t materialise. After all, Pakistan’s Chief Executive Pervez Musharraf has been suspected of far more sinister machinations to disrupt life in this country, but it took the prospect of an Indian no-show in a Test series to provoke him into wagging his finger at New Delhi most forcefully. Will the powers that be in Lutyens’ Delhi ever be able to shake off the ignominy of being called “unsporting” by the general! Nitpicking aside, there can be no better barometer to measure the depths to which Indo-Pakistan relations have plummeted than the funny old game. When the ministry of external affairs expressed its reservations on the Indian contingent trekking across the border next year, it did more than point to the icy vibes between the two neighbours. It, in effect, highlighted a dramatic reversal of roles. Whenever discussing Indo-Pak engagement, Islamabad traditionally argued, first let’s discuss Kashmir, then we will move on to other areas ofcooperation. New Delhi, in turn, demanded to the contrary. Now, it is India which is insisting that cross-border terrorism (in a sense, a euphemism for Kashmir) be addressed before other sectors of engagement are pursued. Shall the twain ever meet?

The Indian decision to call off the Pakistan tour has also effectively closed a chapter that began in early 1999 when Pakistan’s long tour of India promised to herald a new phase in subcontinental bonhomie. First, however, a couple of questions. Is it right to mix diplomacy with sport? In the world’s two most cricket-crazy nations, can there be any defence for not allowing millions to thrill in a traditional rivalry, a rivalry that often propels the two teams to rare passion and performance? These queries, it may be recalled, were raised last year too when efforts were made by some groups to jeopardise the tour by vandalising pitches and threatening violence. It was argued in these columns at the time that this disruption was intolerable. It is a belief that this newspaper would reiterate yet again if a scheduled match was sought to be sullied by unruly elements.

But another analogy to early 1999 is in order to determine the wisdom of not permitting the BCCI to keep its date with the Pakistan Cricket Board. For all those who carp about mixing politics with sport, specifically cricket, miss the point that the deadly mixture was brewed long back. In fact, before and during the Pakistan tour (indeed, all the way till the Kargil incursions were discovered), an underlying assumption, often stated but always implied, was that civilian contact via cricket would give a fillip to Indo-Pak friendship. It, of course, never happened. If anything, the two countries’ foreign offices were inducted in maintaining vigils to prevent any ugly incidents in cricket stadia from spilling over and sparking off diplomatic incidents. Given the hostility between the two countries at the moment, any cause for provocation is perhaps well avoided. And yet, to deprive cricket lovers of a proper Indo-Pak encounter would be cruel. The suddenly enraged general in Islamabad should realise that it’s nottoo late for him to rescue the tour by addressing New Delhi’s concerns.