well, this is a late entry into the discussion- just saw it.
I think everyone is falling into the trap of just blindly labelling politicians corrupt, selfserving, etc. etc.
Uma Bharati (sports minister) of India put forth valid reasons for the action of the Indian govt. It looks like most columnists who write about this havent seen ANY statements from the government at all. I don't think that's very smart.
If you jog your memory a little bit, you would remember terms like 'cricket diplomacy' from the Pak govt side. The moment one of the goverments put cricket in that sort of a stature (and this happened decades ago), it becomes more than 'just a game' and has ALREADY been mixed with politics!
Uma Bharati's comments suggested that the goverment didnt take lightly quotes from Pakistan govt in international summits to the effect "see we are even playing cricket. there is no problem of cross border terrorism". Like a couple of posters here have been kind enough to suggest, it is not correct to trivialise the situation at the LoC (line of control).
I will paste a few quotes here for your perusal. Maybe this could add another dimension to the current discussion which largely talks about two things- sport and politics shouldnt be mixed, and emotions.
Q: You have been increasingly taking an activist stance in cricket affairs, is this the prelude to a government take over of the game?
"No," the minister said, with utmost emphasis. "We have absolutely no interest in taking over cricket, we are content to let the Board run the game. But I must add something -- the board has been getting all kinds of facilities and concessions from the government, like grounds at very low leases, tax benefits, things like that. The board is given these facilities because the government wants the board to use its grounds and its money to popularise cricket. It is a national obsession, a national religion.
"What we want is to see little children playing it in the villages -- and that is what the board is supposed to do. It cannot be a game for the cities, and a means for the board to make money, that is what I told Muthiah. If that happens, if we see that happening, then we will step in and rap them on the knuckles if we have to."
Q: The other question, the obvious one in fact, was this whole question of playing Pakistan. And again, Ms Bharti was very clear in her views.
"First, I have to point out that the ministry for sports is not the decision-maker in this issue. We get proposals from the BCCI, and all we do is pass it on to the ministry for external affairs. It is the MEA that takes the final decision -- I as minister for sports do have my opinion, and I forward it to the MEA in the form of a note, but the final decision rests with Jaswant Singh and his ministry.
"But as a member of the Cabinet, I am naturally privy to our government's thinking on the issue. And in this capacity, there are a couple of points that need to be made. Cricket is identified with our country, it is a very emotive game for us. So playing cricket against someone with whom we are on terms of enmity has implications that are greater than playing hockey or football or some other game.
"Also, in the past, when we have played Pakistan, that country has used it for propaganda, even at the United Nations level. 'Where is there any problem between India and Pakistan, see, we are even playing cricket together,' they've argued from official platforms. So when it comes to cricket, the government is very careful about what it will permit and what it will not permit."
So you see, it is a little more complicated than evil, self serving politicians. The 'right thing' is not as clear as most writers tend to indicate.
My opinion: In the present situation (post Kargil) the Indian Govt.'s stand is totally acceptable. I back it.
I would enjoy seeing India playing Pakistan. Like I said in sports.com earlier, one of the most memorable days in Chennai for me was that match with Pak. I was amongst those that stood up and gave Pakistan a standing ovation when they beat us by a margin of 12 runs. Everything about that match is imprinted in memory. I havent ever seen a video of that either. MANY people have such memories of cricket between two countries. But you see, when things go beyond cricket, we have to think twice. One country cannot continue to use cricket in diplomacy and other continue to ignore it. Similarly, if cricket is used in propaganda after a fresh spate of body bags, to suggest all's well, that is most distastefull to me.
So will people stop suggesting: look at their players- they are so similar to us, they speak in Hindi in interviews, play attacking cricket like us (there is a lot of similarity here, and a LOT that we have in common in terms of intent, is at odds with teams like England, NZ, SA, Zim)? I dont think so (the debate on idealism/realism?). Considering this, I must say that the media can go hang. They have failed, to date, to see the six points of view: the govts, boards, players of both nations and come up with a balanced judgement. This is especially true for international media, that seldom bothers to research when they write about the subcontinent.
