14 August, 2000

Hi, there, greetings on Monday.

I've just got through reading the strangest news story -- apparently, General Tauqir Zia, head of the Pakistan Cricket Board, has condemned the interference of the Indian government in cricketing affairs.

So that makes it pretty unanimous -- Imran Khan, Javed Miandad, now Tauqir Zia.

If we wished to win cheap debating points, this would be the time to point out that a country that has in the last two years changed coaches, captains and personnel time and again, mostly at the behest of the government, is in no position to recommend laissez faire to the Indians. I mean, Zia was himself appointed by the government -- so where does he get off talking against government interference in sport?

Again, for Zia, who comes from a country that has time and again jettisoned democratic norms, to suggest that the Indian government should have taken public opinion into account is a bit rich.

But such debate is pointless, as is an endless attempt to score points off one another. What concerns me here is a larger question.

What surprised me were statements such as these: "It's a wrong impression that Pakistan is involved in the killings."

Would it have been similarly wrong for us, a year ago, to have assumed that Pakistan was behind the Kargil misadventure? We know what happened then -- even as a full-fledged war was being fought in the Dras sector, Pakistan kept claiming that it was the handiwork of terrorists, that the regular army was not involved.

Only to hastily backtrack, when the dead were identified as army soldiers. Given that background, it would take naivete of a very high degree to now accept this statement, which absolves the neighbouring country of any role in the ongoing -- in fact, escalating -- murders in Kashmir.

But leave aside even the question of who is responsible. In Imran Khan, Javed Miandad and Tauqir Zia, we have three men of stature and standing. All three have been quick to condemn the Indian withdrawal from Toronto. All three have been free and easy with criticism of the Indian government.

But nowhere do I find one single sentence, expressing sympathy for the dead, condemning the ongoing killings. And in the absence of such a statement, such a sentiment, I find it hard to take their criticisms seriously. Had they, in their public pronouncements, said, "We condemn the killings in Kashmir, we appeal to whoever is responsible to put an end to the senseless violence immediately, we further appeal to the Indian government to permit sporting contact between the two countries to go ahead as, in times like these, every bridge we build will help both countries on the path to normalcy", I would have applauded.

But no, I suppose condemning the ongoing violence wouldn't make either Imran, Javed or General Zia too popular in their own country, would it?

General Zia also said, "How can you develop the game in Asia when two out of four countries do not play each other?"

Very true -- but we might as well turn around and ask, how will the region develop if one of the four countries is intent on killing as many citizens of the other as possible?

I'm afraid that for now, much though I love the game, I don't see any way of backing cricketing normalcy. Not at a time, and on a day, when I see before me the country 'celebrating' its Independence Day almost as though it were going to war -- shoot at sight orders, jet fighters on red alert over our airspace, citizens moving around as though through a war zone...

Meanwhile, on Rediff's cricket and sports section, the usual parade of stories and features -- led by Harsha Bhogle's weekly column. Don't forget to check them out. We take a day's break tomorrow, so see you again on Wednesday. Until when, adios all.

Mail Cricket Editor