Make cricket, not war?

Indian Express, February 2004

For some years now, the absence of India-Pakistan cricket has been the hole in the heart of the world game. It deprives cricket-livers of an attractive, exciting fixture and it undermines the sub-continent’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 always unwise to expect too much from sport. Take US-Soviet encounters in athletics, boxing, ice hockey or basketball during the 45 years of the Cold War. Despite tit-for-tat Olympic boycotts in the 1980s, for the most part the two countries were positively eager to play each other. Although these contests would sometimes come adorned with politicians’ platitudes about peaceful co-existence, their impact on the public in both countries was to re-enforce super-power rivalry and aggressive national chauvinism. Commentators routinely attributed their own side’s victories to the superiority of its social system. Sport provided a dramatic proxy for the US-Soviet struggle – a relatively harmless accoutrement to the brutal proxy wars being fought by the super-powers 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 series 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 here as well as 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 is at odds with the spirit of compromise and humility that is necessary to move the Indo-Pak 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 because 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”.

Inevitably, the cricket will function as a symbol of both the fragile peace process and the long-standing conflict. In this context, people have to take responsibility for constructing the contest’s popular meaning. It’s not something that can safely be left to market forces or vested interests.

For broadcasters, sponsors, advertisers, the public relations industry and the media in general, the Indo-Pak series promises to be a huge money-spinner. They will all seek to maximise the return on their investment in the cricket. The easiest way to do that is to increase the emotional temperature around the matches, to supplement the cricket with extraneous significance, to highlight the nationalist and communal connotations (remember how Star/ESPN promoted the India-Pak match-up in Australia a few years back as ‘qayamat’?) In a globalised economic order, national identity is a valuable and malleable commodity. Unless pressure is brought to bear from the public, that commodity may be exploited irresponsibly and destructively.

The media on both sides of the border 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 unwarranted sensationalism found in some of the reporting on Wasim Akram’s coaching Irfan Pathan has to be avoided and, when it occurs, condemned. (No one ever raised questions of national loyalty in regard to Dennis Lillee’s work with Indian fast bowlers).

The pressure on the Indian cricketers is bound to be excessive. It would be for the good of all concerned – not least spectators who want to see players on both sides at their best – to ease up on this. Failure against Pakistan seems always to carry a heavier stigma than failure against other countries. But the nature of the game, the role of luck and form, means that some very good and even great players will probably fail in Pakistan. The unpredictability of cricket is its great charm, but unpredictability seems to be something that India’s ardent cricket nationalists find difficult to accept.

Let’s remember that this is not the world championship of cricket. Let’s remember how defeat in last year’s World Cup final made the celebrations of India’s earlier victory over Pakistan seem both premature and inordinate.

People on both sides also 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 ancient and 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 to 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. There are forces who will use the coming series to foment division and strife. 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.