Keeping politics and sport separate is easier said than done. In the Indian sub-continent especially, sport is heavily coloured by nationalism: for large sections of a game’s fans, every win on the field is an occasion for display of national pride, and every loss a cause for national despair. Cricket matches between India and Pakistan have more to do with jingoism and less to do with sport as suspense-filled drama and spectacle. Some of the flag-waving and chest-thumping patriotic fervour on show is inevitable as long as sport at the highest level is played in national colours. As George Orwell wrote, “even a leisurely game like cricket, demanding grace rather than strength, can cause much ill-will” between the competing nations. In such a context, the calling off of a cricket series between India and Pakistan is best seen as a disappointment for genuine cricket fans and not as a setback to bilateral relations. But between two nations which otherwise find it difficult to engage with each other in normal, structured dialogue, regular sporting relations — not just a rare, one-off cricket series — can do a lot of good. Sport would then stop being a war by non-violent means.
However, there are factors other than the politics surrounding India-Pakistan relations at play in a cricket series involving the two countries. There has >not been a full bilateral series since the terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008 — although Pakistan did visit India for a >short, limited-over series between December 2012 and January 2013. But the decision to revive cricket ties had little to do with fostering better relations or satisfying fans by promoting a marquee rivalry. Pakistan last year agreed to the International Cricket Council’s revamp, which increased the powers of the Indian, English and Australian boards, on the condition that it would be part of bilateral series with all the full members. Key to its change in stance was the promise of financially lucrative cricket with India: the then Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) chairman Najam Sethi had said, “It’s very important to play India because it generates a major chunk of money.” But the memorandum of understanding that the two boards had >reportedly signed to play six bilateral series between 2015 and 2023 faced hurdles much before those created by the recent diplomatic tension. The host broadcaster for the proposed series in December 2015 was TEN Sports, which has a deal with the PCB for home series. However, reports of the network having ties with the Essel Group, which not only has an adversarial relationship with the BCCI but has also threatened to form a breakaway international league, >created issues. Ultimately, what would weigh with the BCCI and the PCB is not the interest of jingoists or fans, but the power play within the ICC, and the irresistible draw of commercial sponsorship.
