The Kiwi won't fly

Prem Panicker

Someone once said the job of a journalist is to "comfort the afflicted, and to afflict the comfortable."

Is it time for a few comfortable minds, in the International Cricket Council and elsewhere, to get a little dose of affliction? It is? Right -- open wide, say aaaah... and taste some medicine.

Item: India, for a while, has been cancelling cricket tours to Pakistan citing, among other things, security concerns.

Item: The ICC has been straddling the question, a foot on the Pakistan stool when it said that it would consider banning India if it didn't fulfill its obligations (strangely, no such threat was ever held out when Australia and the West Indies backed out of its obligations in re scheduled fixtures of the 1996 World Cup in Sri Lanka) and the other on the Indian stool when it said that it was not particularly concerned about non-ICC tours and schedules, and would intervene only if its Test calendar, bearing the imprimatur of all Test-playing nations, was interfered with.

Item: New Zealand has just pulled out of an ICC-scheduled tour of Pakistan. And while announcing the pullout, the Kiwi manager has some interesting things to say. Read his lips: "Pakistan will be naturally very disappointed but if I am honest their reaction isn't of major concern to me. Pakistan is not in a position to guarantee the security of our players, it's a world-wide concern."

It is hugely tempting to say 'I told you so'... but let's leave the words unsaid. And, instead, ask one: When terrorism targets Kashmir, in the middle of Indian soil, questions are asked about India's decision to cancel a tour of Pakistan. When terrorism -- with no clear connection to Pakistan, mind you -- strikes the World Trade Centre in New York, New Zealand pulls out of a tour of Pakistan, and no questions are asked, no outcry is raised, it is not suggested that politics and sports should be separate, no Imran Khan steps forward to suggest that the Kiwis are merely scared of being beaten by Pakistan, no Rameez Raja suggests that the decision is immature...

Strange?

But never mind that. Let's get back to itemising things.

Item: US President George W Bush declares global war on terrorism. Firstly on the perpetrators of the atrocities on the WTC and the Pentagon, and then on terrorism per se, wherever in the world it may be found.

Item: The US Administration first requests, then demands that Pakistan cooperates in imminent operations against Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Item: Pakistan first refuses, then vacillates, and finally agrees to allow its airpsace to be used by US fighter planes.

Item: The Taliban, within hours of the announcement of Pakistan's decision, responds with a message of its own: To wit, "any neighbour" -- read Pakistan -- who provides assistance to the US will be "attacked" by the mujahedeen.

Put those items together, and you get a very clear, and disturbing, picture: Strikes against terrorists, and retaliatory counter-strikes by the terrorists themselves, will rock various parts of the world, most notably the sub-continent, for the foreseeable future. And Pakistan will find itself in the epicentre.

Meanwhile, the ICC's World Test Championship will roll on. As per its format, India will tour Pakistan in April 2003 -- and it needs mentioning that the Union government has earlier informed ICC chairman Malcolm Gray that unless an actual state of war exists, India will honour all ICC commitments.

But coming up next, in February 2002, Pakistan is slated to host the West Indies. Later the same year, it will then play host to Australia.

And if you go by precedent of 1996 vintage, both those countries have quick trigger-fingers when it comes to shooting down tours they are not fully convinced of.

If, between now and February of 2002, the issues emerging out of the terrorist strikes on US soil are resolved, great. We can all get down to business as usual, in all walks of life including the cricket field.

But if these issues are not resolved in time -- and given the magnitude of the terrorist problem, it is likely that it will not be -- then what?

What happens to Pakistan cricket if no one will tour?

What happens to the ICC's World Test Championship?

Are neutral venues an answer?

The questions proliferate. Typically, if you ask them now, you'll get "We will evaluate the situation at the time and then decide" -- the stock answer of establishments everywhere that operate on the premise that if they refuse to believe that tomorrow could bring a problem with it, then perhaps it won't.

Is that enough? Or does the cricket establishment need to start thinking now -- of the problem, its dimensions, and possible solutions?

Read also: Why India refuses to play in Pakistan

The Rediff Diary -- the complete archives           

Email : Prem Panicker                                                                         Illustration: Uttam Ghosh