Make cricket, not war

It8217;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 8217;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 side8217;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 that8217;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 cricketers8217; 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 8220;shining India8221; 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 8220;war against terror8221;.

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 contest8217;s popular meaning. It8217;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 series promises to be a huge money-spinner. They will all seek to maximise the return on their investment. 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 8212; remember how Star/ESPN promoted the India-Pak match-up in Australia a few years back as 8220;qayamat8221;? 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 should take a conscious decision to swear off the war and battle metaphors. They have to remind themselves and the public that cricket8217;s delight, its redemptive essence, lies in its triviality. The kind of sensationalism found in some reporting on Wasim Akram8217;s coaching Irfan Pathan has to be avoided and, when it occurs, condemned.

The pressure on Indian cricketers could be excessive. It would be for the good of all concerned 8212; not least spectators who want to see players on both sides at their best 8212; to ease up on this. Failure against Pakistan seems to carry a heavier stigma than failure against other countries. But the nature of the game, the role of luck and form, means some players could fail in Pakistan. Cricket8217;s unpredictability is its great charm, but unpredictability seems to be something India8217;s ardent cricket nationalists find difficult to accept.

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. Let8217;s take care to respect one of cricket8217;s most civilised traditions 8212; 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? That8217;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 India8217;s tour of Pakistan throughout the global cricket community. We8217;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 we8217;ll be able to enjoy it more. That8217;s something to think about.

The writer is based in London and has authored several books on popular culture, including 8216;War Minus the Shooting8217;