Rediff Logo
Line
Channels: Astrology | Broadband | Chat | Contests | E-cards | Movies | Romance | Money | Travel | Weather | Wedding | Women
Partner Channels: Auctions | Auto | Education | Jobs | TechJobs | Technology
Line
Home > Cricket > Newsletter Diary > The Newsletter
Feedback  
  sections

 -  News
 -  Betting Scandal
 -  Schedule
 -  Database
 -  Statistics
 -  Interview
 -  Conversations
 -  Columns
 -  Gallery
 -  Broadband
 -  Match Reports
 -  Archives

 Search Cricket
 

  send this story to a friend


09 August, 2000

This morning, Harsha and I were engaged in the 'Conversation' that is a new Rediff feature. And the subject for debate was whether or no India should go to Toronto, to play Pakistan. You will, while on the subject, find the full transcript of the chat we had, up on the Rediff cricket section, later this evening.

Meanwhile -- in that conversation, we touched on a specific instance. To wit, Toronto, in light of the recent misadventures in Kargil. And that put me in mind of a thought, a kind of supplementary to the conversation we had.

Every time such subjects crop up, the knee-jerk reaction is, don't let us mix politics with sports.

I have a problem with that mindset. Sports for me is the ultimate turn-on -- yet, seen in the light of reason, sports is merely an extension, another facet if you will, of our social interaction.

Sports is NOT a standalone, independent of all else. It is merely part of the larger matrix called life, it is merely one more level of interaction between peoples.

When someone tells me, therefore, not to mix up politics and sports, my response is -- I don't have to, the two are inextricably mixed together anyway, without any help from me.

I could remind you of the Russian and American boycotts of the Olympics. Of the entire cricketing world boycotting South Africa. And many other instances wherein sports and politics were connected together by an unbreakable umbilical cord.

But why venture so far afield? India had one chance -- just one -- to make tennis history, when it reached the final of the Davis Cup. And what did we do? We abdicated. We refused to play South Africa, and thus, we conceeded the tie, and the title.

Now then, apartheid in South Africa did not directly affect us. It was not as if Indians were being killed there, or some such. When we boycotted the final, a sizeable section within this country didn't even know why. It was government policy to have no relations whatever with South Africa -- period.

That is all the precedent I need, to recommend with all the emphasis at my command that politics and sports CAN and, indeed, SHOULD, be linked.

Having said that, I agree with Harsha when he says that it is now up to the government to tell us what its stance on Pakistan is. Does the government of India consider the neighbouring country inimical? If yes, it has a responsibility to say so. If no, it has an equal responsibility to tell us that, and explain to us why.

Once that is done, once the government spells out its official stance on Pakistan, the rest automatically follows, sans debate and discussion. I mean, suppose the GoI avers that there is a state of war, albeit covert, between the two countries, the question of whether India and Pakistan should be playing each other, at Toronto or elsewhere, doesn't even arise.

This, then, is one instance where I think the Board is at the receiving end of flak for no fault of its own. It is for the government to dictate foreign policy. And it is time this government spelt out its stand on the issue.

Having said that, here's a thought -- what if the government decides that there should be no sporting contact with Pakistan. And the two teams find themselves drawn to play each other, on the hockey field, in Sydney?

Would you recommend we play, as we played Pakistan in the tri-nation cricket tournament in Australia last year after refusing to play in Toronto?

I think that would be foolish -- a political principle is a political principle, and should be upheld irrespective. It is like this -- if the GoI says no sporting ties, what is it actually saying? It is saying that it holds Pakistan responsible for the killings in Kashmir, that it has had enough, that its sympathies are with those who died, and the survivors.

You can't say that we sympathise enough with those slain to not play in Toronto, but we don't sympathise enough to boycott an Olympics meeting.

It has to be all. Or nothing.

Hopefully, the government will tell us, and that right soon, which way it is going to go.

Meanwhile, on Rediff cricket, there is, as I told you earlier, the chat transcript. And the usual gamut of news stories from across the cricketing world.

The URL is http://cricket.rediff.com

Happy reading, guys....

Mail Cricket Editor

Back to top
©AFP 2000 All rights reserved. This material should not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. All reproduction or redistribution is expressly forbidden without the prior written agreement of AFP.