A political stance

Following the Government of India's refusal to permit the national cricket team's participation in the Sharjah's tri-nation series, the Pakistani Cricket Board has reacted with anger, asserting its intention not to play India ever again. Whatever.

It matters very little what the Pakistanis do in response to our positions, as it remains fairly well understood throughout cricketing circles that theirs is a reactive stance, and not a pro-active one. It is understandable that they would feel frustrated by having their schedules muzzled by the Indian side, but that is their worry.

For India, a separate consideration looms. The International Cricket Council has called for a definitive foreign policy on cricket from the Indians, which would permit a revision of the International Test Championships and other scheduled matches involving Pakistan. We have until April 30 to profer some indication of our likely response. It is time to clear this minefield of uncertainty.

Many have argued, on these pages and elsewhere, that abstaining from sporting encounters with Pakistan is a flawed approach. We do engage them in other arenas, even sporting ones, and singling out cricket is mostly intended to capitalize on its great visibility in the country. Also, at the political level, the stated goal of all Indian governments has been to engage the opposition, even to the degree that we have made unilateral concessions along the war-front. Clearly, an obdurate stance on cricketing encounters is inconsistent with these other positions.

Nonetheless, there are many others who believe a measure of withdrawal to be warranted, arguing further that if we find other engagements to be inconsistent with severing cricketing relations, the answer lies is cutting those other ties as well.

The relative wisdom of the two approaches can be argued days upon end, and it is to be hoped that such discussions will continue, both in the press and in government. But while we await a resolution, a clarification of our position is needed. The continuous dependance of others' engagements on our political whims will earn few friends, whereas a clearly stated intention can do wonders, even among those who may disagree with it.

Clear-headed foreign policy on this matter, designed to both enhance India's international image, and to permit our cricketers the greatest opportunities for showcasing their talents, is not impossible. The only missing component is the addition of smarts to the public positions we already take; once this is added we can debate its merits among ourselves as the games proceed. The quickest way to arrive at such an end is to outline a policy that combines gentleman-like adherence to scheduled commitments with the determined insistence on well-mannered democracy.

Heady from our victories over the great Australian visiting side, we have arrived with the promise of a Pandava prince upon the battlefield, and wonder now if conquest is to be the truest measure of ourselves. The answer lies in embracing what is required of us.

-- Let there be no engagement of Pakistan in direct competition, i.e., no head-to-head games.

-- In multi-national competition involving Pakistan, we must continue to engage other opponents, forsaking along the way every match against this particular team only. Any encounter with Pakistan shall be forfeited, no matter the consequences to the team in the tournament.

These two approaches together will serve our foreign-policy objectives well, and will do Indian cricket much good. First, it will lift the cloud of uncertainty that now associates itself to every fixture involving potential competition between India and Pakistan. Second, it will make Indian cricket less susceptible to continuing vagaries of the foreign affairs groupies. And most importantly, it offers a position of moral rectitude, perceived or real, as our response to ongoing Pakistani terrorism.

This last bit should be alluring to the government, for it is a complete no-lose position. Merely withdrawing from competition in multi-nation tournaments does little to enhance our positions, for absent Indian teams are quickly replaced by others. A more visible statement of our political position will derive from travelling to Sharjah to play Sri Lanka, but not Pakistan. A savvy cricket board can work with such an approach, for example by asking for schedules to be drawn up with India and Pakistan in separate halves of tournaments, minimizing the opportunity for the sides to meet.

In smaller tournaments, such as the upcoming tri-nation series, we can demand that more rounds of pre-final competition be scheduled. Imagine beating Sri Lanka thrice in the qualifiers, forfeiting games against Pakistan, and then walking away from the final! Unlike actual sporting encounters, politics only demands the appearance of victory, we don't need to actually win to be perceived as the winners.

As the largest market for cricket, India commands an enormous advantage, which is evident from the mere fact of singling out this sport for particular foreign policy objectives. The imposition of this strength on others, however, will do little to enhance our political ends. Instead, a strategy designed to extract the maximum in India's favour internationally must be shrewd enough to recognize the strength that lies in accepting defeat rather than tainted victories.

Let honouring our commitments be the norm, allowing our sportsmen to do battle at every engagement that we make. It is time to send a clear signal to other cricketing boards that we will keep the appointments we make, and arrive in full strength at every scheduled one. The foreign-policy objective will be well-served by simply declining to play individual games in such multinational tournaments, and accepting losses from those missed games.

The road to defeating terrorism at our borders runs through Islamabad, and this we cannot ignore. What is required of cricket, however, is only solidarity with our political positions, nothing more. A simple willingness to honour other commitments is perfectly compatible with such a political stance. Indeed, if there is to be any intention to remember our fallen soldiers at all, it must come from the appearance of our own sacrifices. If Sharjah tournaments get called off or rescheduled without Indian sides, there is nothing to be gained from that for us. An Indian side that forfeits crucial games in Sharjah in solidarity with the nation, however, gives pause for thought.

Yes, this will mean a few games lost, a few tournaments, even. The posturing, however, is premised on the notion that political victories are more meaningful, and embracing sporting defeat is entirely consistent with that. It is said in The Gita that there is no greater glory to the warrior than a battle ordained by duty. In the battle for international public-opinion amidst the quest for peace, we will do well to remember that sporting victory is transient, but the promise we make each day at Amar Jawan Jyoti is not.

Mail Ashwin Mahesh